69 and 96 please! 

Thanks! Hopefully I'll win one before the 50th time! 

It doesn't secure anything. Not even an illusion of security. Testnet wallets are separate files. Someone who compromises your machine and gets access, can compromise both your mainnet and testnet wallets. They might be disappointed that the testnet wallets are worthless, but they will provide absolutely no security nonetheless.

Just really secure your wallets and don't depend on security through obscurity which is evidently not wise.

Fact: Bitcoin is fungible if you practice self-custody and trade decentralized. If you're using a third party, then you're obliged to accept their terms of use, some of which might interpret Bitcoin as non-fungible. Various exchanges which cooperate with chain analysis companies might have blacklists of coins that are perceived as "bad". This defeats the property of each unit being interchangeable with every other, hereby fungible.

But, hear me out. Third parties defeat every property of Bitcoin, not just fungibility. Pseudo-privacy, transparency, self-custody, being permissionless, everything. So, just don't use third parties, and you can thank me later.

Okay, so you're going to deliberately ignore your own post. Got it.  

I think my conclusions are rather valid, and you're just trying to move the goalposts.

• If the client displays an anonymity score of 1, then it means the coinjoined coins are not private for anyone with blockchain access.
• If the client can work out the anonymity score, it means it knows the history of the inputs.
• If it knows the history of the inputs, then it's the client's fault to waste block space for creating four 171 BTC outputs that are provably owned by one user.
• If it doesn't know the history of the inputs, then you're lying and the anonymity score displayed is not 1.

That's not how it's supposed to work, then. You don't want anonymity score based on your knowledge. Obviously, no matter how many coinjoins, of what size, the anonymity score would always be 1 for you, because you know what you own. The anonymity score that is displayed (if any) should pinpoint the knowledge of other people based on the transaction and blockchain history. You don't want to hide from yourself, you want to hide from other people.

Which is simply not true. Everyone with access to the blockchain can tell that the real anonymity score is 1. It is 4 if you didn't have knowledge prior the coinjoin.

It just doesn't make sense. It is argued that when the user joins their 200/200/200/249 inputs, they do not get the impression that their 171 outputs are private. This means that the Wasabi client can tell that there is no privacy improvement (e.g., will display anonymity score 1). On the other hand, I'm getting told that the client cannot or should not know the history of the coins before the user sent them to the client.

I don't have a Wasabi wallet, my conclusions are drawn by forum discussions only. Please someone tell me how it's possible for the client to have no idea about the history of the coins (which reveals that these inputs belong to the same user) and simultaneously display an anonymity score of 1 (such that it wouldn't give the user the impression that the 171 outputs are private).

Υπάρχουν πολλά αστεία βίντεο που ξεχνάω να τα αποθηκεύω, γι' αυτό αφιερώνω αυτό το νήμα σαν bookmark για όλα. 

---

https://youtu.be/coHC_9ApBdg

Μ' αρέσει να βλέπω debates με gold bugs τόσο πολύ. 

I have no clue what
a haiku is but man wait
I just googled and saw

Japan short poem
with all the respect but how
the f does that rhyme?

There is no second best crypto asset.

First ever haiku
already feels the vibe
need more coins to hive
Three point one two five

Same soundbites. Continuously engaging in strawman arguments. Over, and over, and over again, 'til the end of time. Deliberately ignoring my points. You yourself have said that it's possible for a careful observer to tell that the 200/200/200/249 inputs are certainly connected with the 171 outputs.

If the coordinator does not have this information, then you either lied about the input output connection (which you didn't as anyone can verify with basic blockchain heuristics), or the coordinator is not configured to be a careful observer. Or, you know, the client software is problematic and chooses to waste block space because it can't tell before joining, that the 171 outputs are seemed as provably owned by one entity.  

Πάντως το ότι ο Szabo μάλλον είναι ο Satoshi είναι το τελευταίο στοιχείο που θα λάμβανα υπόψιν για να επιβεβαιώσω πως ο Craig δεν είναι ο Satoshi. Δηλαδή, και ψυχολογικά και μόνο να το πάρεις, δε μπορεί ο Satoshi να είναι ένας τέτοιος νάρκισσος που απαιτεί να του δώσουμε εκατομμύρια coins χωρίς τις κατάλληλες υπογραφές. Χωρίς καν να ελέγξεις τις αμέτρητες φορές που έχει παρουσιάσει πλαστογραφημένα έγγραφα ή ότι δεν ξέρει προγραμματισμό για αρχάριους, φαίνεται από τις προθέσεις του κι από αυτά που λέει ότι δεν είναι αυτός.

Κι εγώ σ' αυτό βασίζομαι κυρίως.

Κάποιος μπορεί να ξανακάνει την έρευνα με νέα inputs (emails με τον Sirius). Δε θέλω να συμμετάσχω σε αυτό, αλλά φαντάζομαι όλο και κάποιος θα το ξαναφέρει στην επιφάνεια, και θα (ξανα)επιβεβαιώσει πως είναι αυτός.

Peak whataboutism. The coordinator can check if the inputs and outputs are owned by the same entity, and is simply not configured to save the wasted space. You can choose to blame the user all you like, but that's the fact. 

---

In other news, Wasabi's default coordinator refuses to mix a "clean" coinbase tx0, because it flags their chain analysis filters. 


(from: https://t.me/SamouraiWallet, in March 25)

Passport. The thing I don't like about Coldcard is that it is not open-source, whereas they've used Trezor's source code (which is open-source), along with a number of other open-source libraries. No one is allowed to use their code in other products, which provides less incentive for people to examine it. That's bad for the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Also, Coldcard allowed using a single dice result as entropy for a seed, which immediately resulted in loss of funds: https://www.reddit.com/r/coldcard/comments/17epqk8/040_bitcoin_taken_instantly_from_my_coldcard/.

Αν κάποιος ενδιαφέρεται, πουλάω τα παρακάτω σαν πακέτο.

- Mastering Bitcoin: Programming the Open Blockchain 3rd Edition.
- Mastering the Lightning Network: A Second Layer Blockchain Protocol for Instant Bitcoin Payments 1st Edition.
- Mastering Monero: The future of private transactions Paperback.

Και τα τρία τα έχω διαβάσει και θα έλεγα πως είναι απ' τα πιο κατανοητά βιβλία για όποιον θέλει να ασχοληθεί με τα τεχνικά του Bitcoin (του Monero κάνει λιγότερη εμβάθυνση, αλλά στοχευμένη). Όλα έχουν ανέβει και δωρεάν απ' τους ίδιους τους συγγραφείς, είτε σε pdf είτε στο github. Εγώ απλά είμαι παραδοσιακός. 

Τιμή: 150,000 sat ή το αντίστοιχο ποσό σε XMR.
Αποστολή με BoxNow.

Τι είναι αυτό που σε κάνει τόσο σίγουρο πως ήταν ο Len; Και για ποιον Satoshi μιλάμε; Αυτόν στα email, στο forum, στον κώδικα; Γιατί αν ήταν ο Len, βγάζει νόημα μόνο αν ο Satoshi ήταν πολλά άτομα.

Για μένα ο Satoshi είναι ο Nick Szabo. Τι να πρωτοπεί κανείς; Ότι το Bitcoin ήταν το έργο της ζωής του; Ότι με ανάλυση κειμένου βγαίνει ο πιο ύποπτος (με πιθανότητα ~99.9% κυριολεκτικά παρακαλώ); Ότι ο Satoshi μίλησε με Hal Finney, Adam Back, Wei Dai κι άφησε τον πιο σημαίνον απ' έξω; Ότι ο Nick δε μίλησε για την υλοποίηση του έργου της ζωής του μέχρι να εξαφανιστεί ο Satoshi (Bitcoin whitepaper το 2008, ο Nick γράφει άρθρο για το Bitcoin Μάιο του 2011); Ότι και ο Satoshi και ο Nick έβλεπαν το Bitcoin σαν χρυσό; Ότι ο Szabo είναι ο πατέρας των smart contracts;

Φυσικά θα μπορούσε να είναι κι ένας άσχετος, που απλά είδε κάτι που δεν είδαμε οι υπόλοιποι, και ίδρωσε να το δει να δουλεύει όπως το φαντάστηκε. Ακόμα κι αν δεν είναι ο Nick ο Satoshi, για μένα τα πιο πολλά απ' τα credits πάνε σ' αυτόν, γιατί δεν πιστεύω πως ο Satoshi δεν είχε ιδέα για τη δουλειά του Szabo.

Edit: Και για να τιμάμε και το Greek board: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1062370.0. 

His system provides the same security with a 2-of-2 multi-sig, but it adds extra complexity. In his system, he needs both the GPG private key and the encrypted data to spend coins, just as you need two seed phrases to spend from a 2-of-2 multi-sig. The difference is that two seed phrases are much more flexible and easier to store than the other. He can only store his data digitally, where you can store a 2-of-2 multi-sig practically everywhere.

He wouldn't write down GPG key and base64 encrypted data on paper or print them, would he? That'd be less secure for a number of reasons.

Ποια η διαφορά με το να πουλάς bitcoin ενάντι fiat στην χρεωστική σου / Revolut; Το ίδιο πράγμα δεν είναι;