Poll: Do you support a decentralized Bitcoin Mixer?
1358 sats \ 42 comments \ @Rsync25 10 Jul bitcoin
With recent highlights with Wasabi #603025 and new initiatives with Joinstr, Payjoin and others.
We need a decentralized Bitcoin Mixer with no central coordinator, as well as avoiding Chainalysis with UTXOs.
Yes71.9%
No3.1%
I prefer Lightning Network21.9%
None of the above3.1%
32 votes \ poll ended
write
preview
related posts
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinAbhi 11 Jul
LN is good forever!!
reply
23 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 10 Jul
LN is the way ahead. It is working for me. Why do I need to look beyond?
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @JuanMiguel 10 Jul
LN works fine as a mixer
reply
113 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 10 Jul
Nice try, fed
reply
67 sats \ 0 replies \ @TNStacker 10 Jul
💯
reply
134 sats \ 19 replies \ @DarthCoin 10 Jul
https://i.postimg.cc/Jh0KZxJs/mixers-monkey-fight.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/dt9z9W76/coinjoiners.jpg
reply
38 sats \ 18 replies \ @tomlaies 10 Jul
I don't understand why you see Lightning privacy and coinjoins as a dichotomy.
They don't contradict each other at all. You can be confident in good privacy in Lightning AND support better coinjoin infrastructure/innovation.
reply
13 sats \ 12 replies \ @kristapsk 10 Jul
He refuses to understand that without coinjoins and other onchain privacy techniques you may often leak information when opening LN channels.
reply
13 sats \ 10 replies \ @DarthCoin 10 Jul
Please show me that "leaked" information that provide my true identity.
reply
188 sats \ 9 replies \ @kristapsk 10 Jul
me ... my
You are too egocentric.
Imagine I might have received onchain payment for some work done from somebody, who knows my identity. Then I use that UTXO to open new LN channel from my node, without using coinjoin. At that moment person / company who paid me with 50/50 probability knows pubkey of my home LN node that otherwise runs over Tor and are anonymous.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 10 Jul
+1^2
reply
13 sats \ 1 reply \ @kristapsk 10 Jul
1 ^ 2 = 1 :)
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 10 Jul
1^3 cheers!
reply on another page
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 10 Jul
Use the 3 levels stash and all will be fine. Think like a bank, not just be like a bank... https://m.stacker.news/39059
And there's no need to open a LN channel directly with the received onchain sats. You can also buy a channel from a LSP and not reveal that UTXO. Are many ways to hide your channels...
reply
13 sats \ 4 replies \ @kristapsk 10 Jul
Doing coinjoins in step 2 is simpler and more private. When you do onchain vs LN swap, swap provider can correlate onchain TXO with LN node pubkey. Which means you need to do more than one LN wallet, adding extra hops there, where, again, coinjoin is simpler. Basically, you are trying to avoid coinjoins at all costs, even if it means spending more time and effort. That doesn't seem rational to me, but your choice!
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 10 Jul
I am not against coinjoins. I use them in the past. Only that now with LN I find them just as another way for "cash-grab" from fools. So I do not use coinjoins anymore. And I know very well how to use LN with many nodes and wallets.
view replies
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 10 Jul
+1
reply
13 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 10 Jul
Coinjoin was used in a pre-LN era and was good for those times. Now is kind of obsolete and like a honeypot trap and a tool for "cash-grabbers" fooling noobs. If you still don't know how to "lose trace" using LN, it means you still have a lot to learn about LN.
reply
13 sats \ 3 replies \ @petertodd 10 Jul
Lightning and coinjoin are two different ways to achieve privacy, with different trade-offs. They complement each other. Which is why I use both. In particular, I often protect coins with Wasabi, and then use those protected coins to open Lightning channels to get the funds back into Lightning.
reply
13 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 10 Jul
I used Wasabi and Whirlpool in the past, in the pre-LN era. I don't use them anymore. Not useful for me. LN is enough for what I do with BTC.
reply
34 sats \ 1 reply \ @petertodd 10 Jul
Don't put all your security eggs in one basket...
reply
13 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 10 Jul
watch me, using the 3 levels stash https://m.stacker.news/39041
reply
13 sats \ 10 replies \ @petertodd 10 Jul
Yes... if it actually works. Unfortunately that's not a trivial problem.
Joinmarket has a decentralized way to basically pick coordinators. But there are pluses and minuses to it vs Wasabi.
reply
43 sats \ 1 reply \ @kristapsk 10 Jul
Joinmarket has a decentralized way to basically pick coordinators. But there are pluses and minuses to it vs Wasabi.
I would disagree with this description. Every person who initiates coinjoin and acts as a taker is coordinator and just picks other participants (makers) who provide liquidity, but coordinator is a taker side.
reply
34 sats \ 0 replies \ @petertodd 10 Jul
That's fair enough; I was using "coordinator" very loosely in that sentence.
reply
1 sat \ 7 replies \ @1440000bytes 10 Jul
Joinstr actually works and has no directory nodes like joinmarket or fidelity bonds requirement.
Wasabi is the worst possible way to do coinjoin.
reply
103 sats \ 3 replies \ @kristapsk 10 Jul
How is Nostr relay requirement different from JoinMarket directory node requirement? It's just a different protocol to pass messages. And Nostr could be used as messaging channel for JoinMarket too, if somebody implements it. But I don't see much advantages there over JM onion messaging channels. And directory nodes isn't strict requirement, IRC messaging is still supported too.
Fidelity bonds isn't strict requirement too, you can still do coinjoins without them, it's just a measure to prevent sibyl attacks. Basically, if you run maker without a FB, you will just have coinjoins happening less frequently.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @1440000bytes 10 Jul
There are no hardcoded relays used for bootstrapping.
reply
23 sats \ 0 replies \ @kristapsk 10 Jul
There is a idea to add some gossip protocol to JoinMarket, so that configured directory nodes are used just for bootstrapping. https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket-clientserver/issues/1445
reply
13 sats \ 0 replies \ @petertodd 10 Jul
That's a cop out. You've just made it annoying to use without changing the underlying model.
reply
13 sats \ 2 replies \ @petertodd 10 Jul
Nostr relays are equivalent to directory nodes, as Nostr itself is centralized. And getting rid of fidelity bonds just means you've gotten rid of an important safety mechanism that makes Sybil attacks harder. Joinstr hasn't replaced that with another mechanism, making it less secure than Joinmarket.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @1440000bytes 10 Jul
Joinstr will use aut-ct for sybil resistance. Recently waxwing fixed some things to make python bindings possible and will be added in next release of electrum plugin.
reply
13 sats \ 0 replies \ @petertodd 10 Jul
aut-ct is a form of fidelity bond. A rather weak form...
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatsMate 11 Jul
Yes - I do! I think ecash could be a nice way to leverage more privacy as well??
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @16d86e9daa 10 Jul
I support bitcoin mixer given the fact that these platforms utilize a technology that intertwines all transaction addresses with one another, which are then recorded in the fully accessible blockchain
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @zapsammy 10 Jul
i do not support a tool that wastes my time and money.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @karanjajes 10 Jul
Will it really work? If does then it would be good to go
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Gendon 10 Jul
When we gambling for win everiday
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @NaOD 10 Jul outlawed
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.