Trezor CoinJoin RIP

[Sarah Azhari]

Has anyone know where that coin join can be implemented?, on Suite or can use it electrum and wasabi?

And, what is the minimum transfer we can use, and how much fee? if the same as wasabi, (0.1) and the cost is too high, of course, people will be more inclined to choose a mixer, which has a 0.001 minimum, and 0.7% fee. I wish Trezor were more pay attention to this, if friendly and got more benefits, many people turn to them because of cold wallets.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Cool, so I can get blockchain analysis entities to specifically monitor the outputs in my hardware wallet now. Just what I've always wanted!

Plus Trezor being completely silent on the topic of Wasabi's blockchain analysis despite multiple questions about it on Twitter is not exactly good optics. Trying to take the Wasabi route of pretending the issue doesn't exist?

[Pmalek]

Plus Trezor being completely silent on the topic of Wasabi's blockchain analysis despite multiple questions about it on Twitter is not exactly good optics. Trying to take the Wasabi route of pretending the issue doesn't exist?

I don't know why, but that post of yours reminded me of this gem from the Hitman video game:



It will be interesting to see what the service fees will be like when doing coinjoins directly with your Trezor, compared to what Wasabi users pay. I would expect Trezor to take a cut, which would increase the overall price a user has to pay. 

[o_e_l_e_o]

I would expect Trezor to take a cut, which would increase the overall price a user has to pay.

Seems like the fee is the same:

A 0.3% coordinator fee will be taken from fresh coins greater than 1,000,000 sats (0.01 BTC). There is no such fee for UTXOs below this amount.

I'd also be concerned about the fact you have to leave your Trezor plugged in and authorize it to automatically sign transactions which are passed to it. I'm sure that they've tested to make sure it only signs coinjoin transactions, but automatic signing still presents a whole new attack surface which does not exist on any existing hardware wallet as far as I am aware.

[Husna QA]

Testing the Coinjoin feature in Trezor Suite 23.4.1-beta

https://github.com/trezor/trezor-suite/releases/tag/v23.4.1
This feature is available for Trezor Model T.

Please refer to the following link for the official guide on using Coinjoin on the Trezor suite:
https://trezor.io/learn/a/coinjoin-in-trezor-suite

I'm just sharing my experience with using Bitcoin Testnet.
The ideal amount recommended to use the Coinjoin feature is 0.01 BTC / 0.01 TEST or more.







I think the zkSNACKs coordinator terms will be a warning to some people who don't like it.







I think waiting for the collecting input process is pretty long, even up to 4 hours in the process I tried this time.
I don't know whether the time taken is reasonable or not. Maybe later, when the process is complete, I will try to update again.

[PawGo]

I think waiting for the collecting input process is pretty long, even up to 4 hours in the process I tried this time.
I don't know whether the time taken is reasonable or not. Maybe later, when the process is complete, I will try to update again.

Does it mean you have waited 4hours with your HW plugged in etc? That's pretty long I would say (of course with real coins it might be less), I wonder if there could be other way of doing that (like session saved/assigned to HW ID).

[Husna QA]

Does it mean you have waited 4hours with your HW plugged in etc? That's pretty long I would say (of course with real coins it might be less), I wonder if there could be other way of doing that (like session saved/assigned to HW ID).

Yes, it does. The Trezor T hardware wallet must remain connected to the Trezor Suite during the Coinjoin process, as shown in the screenshot above, both on the Trezor Suite and the Trezor T.

Yesterday's update even took more than 7 hours, as shown in the clock on the Coinjoin transaction below:



Unfortunately, although the Coinjoin ended, I could not complete the process. It was advised to run another Coinjoin, as shown below, and I have not tried another Coinjoin using Bitcoin or Bitcoin Testnet.

[mailsats]

I don't know enough about Coinjoin to give a proper opinion on this...

All I know is that this guy is now deadset against Trezor after they implemented this feature...

perhaps some of you more technically proficient Bitcoiners can watch this video, and weigh in on this ( honestly I am not sure how worried I should be )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp012aP0ZFA&t=10s

[o_e_l_e_o]

perhaps some of you more technically proficient Bitcoiners can watch this video, and weigh in on this ( honestly I am not sure how worried I should be )

Everything he has said is accurate, and I completely agree with all of his conclusions. I regret ever suggesting that anyone should buy a Trezor, and I will never do so again. They have shown themselves to be anti-privacy and anti-fungibility, and are therefore not just selling out their users but are actively working against bitcoin itself, in order to line their own pockets.

As he says, however, if you already have a Trezor device (and no other hardware wallet you can swap to or can afford), you are probably safe to keep using it provided you don't go anywhere near the coinjoin feature. I also don't have a single shred of trust left for Trezor, though, so I would make sure you are using it through something like Electrum or Sparrow pointed at your own node and absolutely not relying on Trezor's servers. And when it comes to the time to upgrade or replace your hardware wallet, obviously do not buy another Trezor.

[Pmalek]

The regular Trezor Suite update for August now introduces the coinjoin feature for the Trezor One. Previously, only Model T users could participate in coinjoins.
The latest software release has also slightly simplified the firmware upgrade process for the Model T. Trezor has gotten rid of the step that involved disconnecting and reconnecting the device. 

https://twitter.com/Trezor/status/1691812317741117552

[dkbit98]

The regular Trezor Suite update for August now introduces the coinjoin feature for the Trezor One. Previously, only Model T users could participate in coinjoins.
The latest software release has also slightly simplified the firmware upgrade process for the Model T. Trezor has gotten rid of the step that involved disconnecting and reconnecting the device. 

I know this coinjoin implementation is controversial, but It's amazing to see what Trezor has been able to do with this ancient old device 
This is first ever hardware wallet in the world and it's still kicking in 2023, almost ten years old.

[Hispo]

The regular Trezor Suite update for August now introduces the coinjoin feature for the Trezor One. Previously, only Model T users could participate in coinjoins.
The latest software release has also slightly simplified the firmware upgrade process for the Model T. Trezor has gotten rid of the step that involved disconnecting and reconnecting the device. 

I know this coinjoin implementation is controversial, but It's amazing to see what Trezor has been able to do with this ancient old device 
This is first ever hardware wallet in the world and it's still kicking in 2023, almost ten years old.

Yeah, it is something one would have not expected from a company which is all in for the profit, at least they are still aware that "the original hardware wallet" slogan is still helpful for them to continue to sell products, so it makes some sense they have not abandoned the One model yet.

I wish they did not go for the such controversial version or coinjoin, though.
I still speculate they did not want to but received some visits from government (European Union) workers and explained to them that their business could get in legal trouble, etc.

Pretty much men in black stuff. 

[dkbit98]

It's official now, Trezor is dropping support for Coinjoin on June 1st, and that was expected move from them after their partner Wasabi wallet has done the same thing.
I would say that Coinjoin project is basically dead now, unless some major change happens in next few weeks, and I am not expecting that to happen.
Everyone is getting arrested and it would not surprise me if they start to question Gregory Maxwell developer who came up with this idea back in 2013.

Coinjoin in Trezor will be shut down by 1st June 2024.

We deeply value the privacy of our users, and it is with great regret that we must announce the discontinuation of the Coinjoin feature for Trezor Suite by 1st June latest, as our partner will no longer provide this service.

All funds in users' Coinjoin accounts will remain accessible even after this transition.

Stay tuned for further updates as we provide more information.

https://twitter.com/Trezor/status/1786126207924252979

[SFR10]

It's official now, Trezor is dropping support for Coinjoin on June 1st, and that was expected move from them after their partner Wasabi wallet has done the same thing.

The above news came as a surprise to me ^{[Wasabi part]}... I was under the impression that the zkSNACKs coordinator's behavior towards certain UTXOs would be enough to separate them from the rest, but I was wrong.

[satscraper]

It's official now, Trezor is dropping support for Coinjoin on June 1st, and that was expected move from them after their partner Wasabi wallet has done the same thing.

The above news came as a surprise to me ^{[Wasabi part]}... I was under the impression that the zkSNACKs coordinator's behavior towards certain UTXOs would be enough to separate them from the rest, but I was wrong.

On the other hand zkSNACKs  movement shows that feds intention to fight with illicit money is very serious rather then one step action on shutting down a few services. Thus, feds just ordered their dependent to stop CoinJoin business and  there was nothing else to do for zkSNACKs but to agree. Trezor has followed.

I wonder whether JoinMarket has the enough power to survive the current "tsunami".

[Yamane_Keto]

The above news came as a surprise to me ^{[Wasabi part]}... I was under the impression that the zkSNACKs coordinator's behavior towards certain UTXOs would be enough to separate them from the rest, but I was wrong.

I thought so, or at least they would let them work in exchange for providing some data on suspicious transactions, or at least submitting them to the courts. Everything they do will push towards a decentralized coinJoin or Monero.

I wonder whether JoinMarket has the enough power to survive the current "tsunami".

JoinMarket is decentralized but they will try to target market makers to reduce liquidity.

[logfiles]

I wonder whether JoinMarket has the enough power to survive the current "tsunami".

JoinMarket is decentralized but they will try to target market makers to reduce liquidity.

I kind of wonder why centralized services always take up the masses and become way more popular in a short time, while their decentralized counterpart may have even been around for some years, remain unpopular and with low liquidity. From exchange services, wallets to mixers, the pattern always seems the same.

Are some people just allergic to decentralized services, even when they know that such services respect their privacy as compared to centralized ones that just sell them off to  the regulators?

[satscraper]

I wonder whether JoinMarket has the enough power to survive the current "tsunami".

JoinMarket is decentralized but they will try to target market makers to reduce liquidity.

I kind of wonder why centralized services always take up the masses and become way more popular in a short time, while their decentralized counterpart may have even been around for some years, remain unpopular and with low liquidity. From exchange services, wallets to mixers, the pattern always seems the same.

Are some people just allergic to decentralized services, even when they know that such services respect their privacy as compared to centralized ones that just sell them off to  the regulators?

I think because most of those people are not technology savvy and even are not aware of JoinMarket existence. Besides for some of them the installation of relevant client on their machine could cause a problem/ Thus they just choose the simplest (as they think) solution - to use centralized services that take all burdens on their shoulders.

[Yamane_Keto]

Are some people just allergic to decentralized services, even when they know that such services respect their privacy as compared to centralized ones that just sell them off to  the regulators?

Although running a full node is the first step to privacy, for the average user it is a lot of complexity. Users are looking for an online service, send bitcoin, get mixed coins, so the use of mixer has been popular.
Decentralized services are slow and have limited liquidity, and the level of privacy that people are looking for is hiding transactions from friends, not the deep level of privacy.