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
LN is good forever!!
reply
LN is the way ahead. It is working for me. Why do I need to look beyond?
reply
LN works fine as a mixer
reply
Nice try, fed
reply
reply
reply
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
He refuses to understand that without coinjoins and other onchain privacy techniques you may often leak information when opening LN channels.
reply
Please show me that "leaked" information that provide my true identity.
reply
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
reply
1 ^ 2 = 1 :)
Use the 3 levels stash and all will be fine. Think like a bank, not just be like a bank...
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
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
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.
reply
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
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
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
Don't put all your security eggs in one basket...
reply
watch me, using the 3 levels stash
reply
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
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
That's fair enough; I was using "coordinator" very loosely in that sentence.
reply
Joinstr actually works and has no directory nodes like joinmarket or fidelity bonds requirement.
Wasabi is the worst possible way to do coinjoin.
reply
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
There are no hardcoded relays used for bootstrapping.
reply
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
That's a cop out. You've just made it annoying to use without changing the underlying model.
reply
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
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
aut-ct is a form of fidelity bond. A rather weak form...
reply
Yes - I do! I think ecash could be a nice way to leverage more privacy as well??
reply
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
i do not support a tool that wastes my time and money.
reply
Will it really work? If does then it would be good to go
reply
When we gambling for win everiday
reply
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.