Eh, you can call me a bit of a pessimist. 

That's not what I meant. My point was that if it takes $1k to make just one (~150 vb) transaction, then you wouldn't pay that fee, unless you owned 1000x that amount. We surely can't expect from the middle class to open lightning channels in that case.

Well... If block size limit remains at 4 MW, then to retain at least half of the current reward, transactions should be paying about 100 sat/vb each on average. This would ensure roughly 4 BTC block reward. Both an opening and closing transaction weight about 330 vb in total. That comes at 33,000 sat per lightning channel on average. That amount might seem low in terms of the current exchange rate (~13$), but it can be pretty horrifying if we ever exceed 5 or even 6 digits.

Judging by the previous discussions of ours, you must have comprehended my spirit on that topic already. My opinion on what is a micro-transaction is irrelevant. But, if you really care about my opinion, here's how I see it: A micro-transaction is any transaction which can happen on a second layer and come less expensive than on-chain.

- A transaction that transfers 1000 sat is cheaper in the lightning network.
- A transaction that transfers 1 BTC is cheaper on-chain.

Lots of things can influence the final fee (many inputs on-chain, high charges off-chain etc), but I'd say that about $50 to $100 is what draws the line between off and on-chain currently.

Whereas in your model everyone will be punished for spending too often! Great!

This changes the entire model, and as already said requires a softfork at least. Needless to say that we shouldn't punish people who spend money at times disapproved by franky1, the sole arbitrator of rightness.

The forum doesn't have an AI-specific rule, but it does say that zero-value posts are prohibited, which is enough IMO. That's probably why you're getting these posts deleted in the AI thread. The fact that you can distinguish an AI post tells a lot about the post itself; it is a shitpost. The user fed the model the OP's message and requested a response. That can rarely generate human-looking text; especially newbie-looking text.

In general, micro-transactions shouldn't happen on-chain for the single reason that they are impractical, at least under this block size. Ideally, micro-transactions should happen off-chain, not because I say it, but because it is not sustainable; people would rather not pay more than their coffee for a transaction fee.

If fees reach $1k, then nobody apart from millionaires will open lightning channels.

Avoiding my point, as usual.

Completely irrelevant and debunked already: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5471645.msg63120005#msg63120005.

Because it makes a splash. Whirlpool has maximized the entropy, whereas in Wasabi there is address reuse, possible input and output collaborators, merges-- all of which would reduce the overall entropy.

---

At this point, I'm putting you back on ignore, because we're going on cycles, and you simply want to just say the last word. There is nothing constructive that I can make out of you.

So, to sum up. A user is not warned from reusing an address in both inputs and outputs of their coinjoin, despite being a complete waste of both money and privacy, because the coordinator does not want to be "malicious" and prevent potentially malicious activity. Makes sense.

I don't work at Samourai, so this is a disclaimer that I have not studied Boltzmann analysis to feel competence and confidence, but it is an attempt to resist against merged input heuristic and to identification of linking between coinjoin inputs and outputs; attacks made by blockchain analysis that you're proudly funding, and which can de-anonymize Wasabi coinjoins as they say. Description of these metrics can be found in Samourai's repo.

Repeated soundbite. I ignore.

You do not consolidate your private coins in the the coinjoin, but after it, using a mix partner.

Yes, it does. Alice can normally register her bc1qalice input, and the coordinator will refuse to create a bc1qalice output. The attacker can be ignored.

I said:

That does not mean I can de-anonymize the outputs with certainty, as I can with a 20 inputs 1 output transaction. I can only say for sure that there is information which can reduce the uncertainty, and which does not appear in Whirlpool. See yourself: https://kycp.org/#/323df21f0b0756f98336437aa3d2fb87e02b59f1946b714a7b09df04d429dec2.

Probably because Samourai's implementation of Boltzmann score's computation is not optimized; I just cloned their repo, entered a Wasabi transaction, and it's still loading. WabiSabis are very big in size, not even oxt.me has worked it out (TX ENTROPY is N/A in summary). Maybe I optimize it once I find the time.

If absolutely nobody must be trusted to know your amount, then mixers are not an option, unless you're willing to trust them this information (and the custody of your coins).

The following two would be my best takes:

- Exchanging BTC for XMR using a decentralized, anonymous exchange like Bisq (or a centralized, but non-KYC like eXch). You could then sell the XMR, and that would reveal absolutely nothing about your bitcoin.
- Mixing using Whirlpool coinjoin. That means, you'll have to install Sparrow wallet (which is a good practice regardless). Check out this: https://sparrowwallet.com/docs/mixing-whirlpool.html.

Personally, I combine toxic change with other toxic change where lack of privacy is minimum. I don't use it that much anymore though, because Monero is simply superior than both of you. There is an entire article on what to do with toxic changes, though: https://bitcoiner.guide/doxxic/.

It has been said multiple times already that it allows you to consolidate them with a mix partner. At this point, you're just repeating the same soundbites. WabiSabi != Whirlpool, so yeah, it doesn't allow you to consolidate just as WabiSabi does.

No. The coordinator would simply refuse to work on a coinjoin where outputs contain addresses from inputs, just as you've programmed it to refuse "naughty" coins.

Nothing is provably revealed, in the sense that I can be 100% sure to ownership identification, just as if I send all of my coins to a single address, you can't tell if it was self-transfer or I spent them to a merchant. But, privacy is about possibilities, and input / output collaborations and merges only worsen uncertainty. There is an entire analysis technique called Boltzmann score that computes resistance to this potential linking. WabiSabi coinjoin is worse in that matter, as it appears in kycp.org.

Unless the user approves linking the outputs together. Sure, generally speaking it is a bad practice, because you reveal common ownership, but if you mix regularly and receive coins from a specific source, then consolidating toxic change with other toxic change might be acceptable by the user.

The user chose to consolidate a dozen private coins into one. I agree it was a very bad practice, but it is not Whirlpool's fault.

Yes, do not allow the coordinator to accept creating outputs with the same addresses as the inputs.

Why would Bob pay another input of the coinjoin?

WabiSabi coinjoins literally have identifiable input and output merges, which I agree that they happen on multiple coinjoins that obscure the ownership, but reveal quite a lot of information. See kycp.org/#about on input / output collaborations and merges.

And it is the user's fault to consolidate badbank change with private coins. Change should be spent with other change, and not with private coins, which is the reason why Sparrow doesn't even allow you to mess that up, unless you deliberately combine them in a separate transaction.

It is very avoidable. You simply choose to never combine change and private coins in one transaction.

The Whirlpool user can gather change, and once the amount is sufficient, send them over to Whirlpool.

Good, so we agree. The problem with Wasabi 1.0 was that it reused addresses in both sides, which is 100% a software problem. The problem with WabiSabi coinjoins is the same as with consolidating Whirlpool private coins without a mix partner; input / output merges, which possibly belong to the same wallet. WabiSabi coinjoins contain lots of them. Have you checked the kycp.org link?

You have already received your reply. Users are free to mess with their privacy and money. The client should not recommend them to do so, but if they nonetheless want to create dust outputs, they are free to do so. In the given transaction, it is clear that this was a conscious choice made by the user.

... yes? That's because spending your received coins and change together is generally considered a feature?

You showed proof of a Whirlpool user consolidating the many post-mix outputs into one, which agrees with my initial statement that the user is free to mess up with their privacy. If you use Whirlpool in Sparrow wallet, trying to consolidating all these will warn you that it will appear as a self-transfer, and instead will suggest you into adding a mix partner.

I don't think there's a problem with the user consciously deciding to harm their privacy and pocket. I think the problem lies with software that harms the user's privacy without them knowing.

A segwitv0 output is 31 vbytes, but a witness input is around 68. That's 99 vb, multiplied by 37.5 = 3712.5. Yes, it is less than I wrongly calculated, but it is still waste of money for such a small output.

I'm good at quoting old posts as well:

B-b-but, I thought this ethos was unacceptable.  


I know, I know... Just another confusion in the name of privacy!  

Come on, kayirigi. Get over it, it's clearly the user's fault!  

What's dust? Gimme my 5000 sat that costed more than double that amount to be created!

Oh! It's supposed to confuse the observers of the coinjoin, that explains everything! Let's start reusing addresses in both inputs and outputs then, as in Wasabi 1.0. That will definitely help, because we will confuse chain analysis even more. Why kind of a clown service reuses addresses in both sides in the first place? That will leave them so speechless that they will give up!

It's like Ordinals but tokenized. What's the big deal? Nobody buys that stuff unless they want to make profit from the next fool who will buy them. No essence to talk about, just as with NFTs.

I'm starting to believe that implementing their idea in the wrong way is what this is all about. Injecting arbitrary data is what we all talk about a year now. Their public condemnation is how they advertise themselves.

It will result in a small difference. If you have a storage problem, reindexing for the sake of restructuring your chainstate is definitely not a recommended option.

Due to heuristics, two LevelDB databases may have the same content, but it is not guaranteed that they are byte-to-byte identical, with the exact same size. Nodes running for different durations exhibit different write patterns. For instance, a node running for years may have more frequent but smaller writes, whereas a node completing the IBD may have fewer but larger writes.

Maybe a Bitcoin Core developer can provide us a better insight.

Equally bad, in my opinion. Privacy enhancing services are reputation-based. If you have a bad reputation, I won't trust you. Judging by the (not so recent anymore) events in Wasabi, I would put it in the same rack with centralized exchanges. Honestly, even if the former is a mixing service, I cannot trust it my privacy in the slightest; if used, Ι'd consider it invaded, just as with centralized exchanges.

Very well said, PrivacyG. Let me quote a favorite author of mine.

It is part of our survival to invent purpose, hope. Literally, hope dies last. During our insignificant stay, we can try to make a sense out of this world and feed our curiosity, while we enjoy the journey. We can try to do our research and understand what's going on, and once we do, help others do too. Leo, no matter how average he thinks he was, I say he had had a charisma on pointing the factual. A bright torch in the dark realm of the unknown. Guiding hand for the lots of us.

I do not doubt in the slightest that his work and fight may have not worth it. He influenced a lot, and has left good legacy to be remembered for a very long time.

Doesn't seem that wild to me. If you still believe Wasabi is a good option after the numerous lies, the incidents where their software was caught to be flawed, the blacklisting update and their cooperation with mass surveillance firm, then you're naive to think it's superior solution. If you are tricked into believing that funding blockchain analysis for the sake of your coinjoins is a clever choice, then you surely can be tricked into believing some sort of other nonsense for the sybil attack as well.

If chain analysis in a privacy-protecting software doesn't ring a bell to you, then I'm pretty confident that a silent sybil attack will neither.

hosseinimr93's explanation was excellent. If you have questions regarding the network in general, I suggest you visit learnmeabitcoin.com and bitcoin.it.

There is a frequent confusion between confirmation and validation. While they are synonyms in the English language, they have a completely different meaning in Bitcoin.

• Confirmation of a transaction: the act of including the transaction in a block, and mining on top of it. If the most recent block contains your transaction, it has 1 confirmation. If somebody mined a block on top of that, it now has 2 confirmations.
• Validation of a transaction: the act of verifying if a transaction complies with the consensus rules.

A transaction can be validated even if not confirmed yet. This happens right before the node accepts it in its memory pool (or mempool for short). However, it cannot be confirmed if it is not validated. An invalid transaction in a block makes the entire block invalid.

Even though I completely disagree with the ATT admin and consider him incompetent for running a big forum under that attitude, that was a pretty good marketing right there, and I give it to him. It was the best chance to attract campaign managers and a few honorable users as well.

No, I meant crypto. I do not believe we'll witness a significant period of time without cash. Black market cannot cease to operate overnight. If Bitcoin and Monero are not the universally accepted cash, then I believe people will still use fiat cash, even if they are not recognizable by the states.