CoinJoin: Bitcoin privacy for the real world

[hv_]

Wouldn't you guys not just create a 'dark' pool here where only dark / gray coins are getting mixxed with each other and no reasonable one will use that  for anything good after ?

Privacy and/or anonymity work both ways round.

• People use privacy to do bad things because good people are stopping them otherwise
• People use privacy to do good things because bad people are stopping them otherwise

In (coming?) the world wide adoption path all other Banks (except Carlton) will prefere the more transparent blockchains - so all tainted and on purpose more ano chains will be dismissed from that path. 

[1714005047]

1714005047

[1714005047]

1714005047

[1714005047]

1714005047

[1714005047]

1714005047

[BurtW]

In (coming?) the world wide adoption path all other Banks (except Carlton) will prefere the more transparent blockchains - so all tainted and on purpose more ano chains will be dismissed from that path. 

You obviously do not know your audience.

[TheNewAnon135246]

In (coming?) the world wide adoption path all other Banks (except Carlton) will prefere the more transparent blockchains - so all tainted and on purpose more ano chains will be dismissed from that path. 

You obviously do not know your audience.

No need to reply to his post. He's a BSV shill.

[Wind_FURY]

I believe hv_ has a point. A user must still be careful, and manage his UTXOs well to maintain its privacy after CoinJoin.

Would it create a "dark pool"? I do not know, maybe, but consolidating your coinjoined coins with non-coinjoined coins might remove the privacy gained.

[garlonicon]

What do you think about BIG CoinJoin transactions? For example as big as adding one more input or output would exceed the maximum block size, so the newly mined block will finally contain nothing more than one huge CoinJoin transaction.

[garlonicon]

deanonymization could be easier

I didn't think mainly about deanonymization, rather I thought about confirming more transactions per block without increasing the maximum block size. It could be especially useful when we have something like this in mempool:

A -> B -> C -> D -> E -> F -> G

Then, the miner could create a "CoinJoin proposal" like this:

A -> G

And if A will sign it, the miner will save some space. If not, the miner could propose something else, for example:

A -> B -> G

Of course, when we have N transactions in mempool, there are 2^N-(N+1) possible combinations of such "CoinJoin proposals". To avoid spam, we can add some nonce and difficulty to them (since such proposals are "not-yet-signed-by-all-participants" transactions). And if the miner won't collect all needed signatures, it can still use the original non-CoinJoin transactions.

[gmaxwell]

deanonymization could be easier

I didn't think mainly about deanonymization, rather I thought about confirming more transactions per block without increasing the maximum block size. It could be especially useful when we have something like this in mempool:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=281848.0

[morninguser]

Anyone knows how to contact someone's at Bob Wallet?  https://bobwallet.github.io/ 

It was a candidate for the bounty, and I used the service recently but it seams that it won't work and will be nice if I can talk to someone to recover the coins.

Thanks

[morninguser]

I followed your advises, and we'll see if someone will reply in some way.

Thanks

[Karartma1]

I followed your advises, and we'll see if someone will reply in some way.

Thanks

If you get no reply in a reasonable amount of time I would go as far as opening a thread in the Scam Accusation board. Better be safe than sorry.