JoinMarket Unmix

[graphite]

Made a post about this on Bitcoin Discussion but was deleted for some reason so ill post it here. I've been reading about JoinMarket and noticed this post on this forum about it. url: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1609980.0

It describes a potential way to unmix JoinMarket by exploiting its maker taker system. To simplify it says that all outputs of a mix are either maker or taker but it is trivial to determine which outputs are makers as they will continue on to participate in more mixes while the taker order will not therefore it can be unmixed.

Is this still an issue for JoinMarket or have they found a way around it?

[1715291451]

1715291451

[1715291451]

1715291451

[1715291451]

1715291451

[1715291451]

1715291451

[1715291451]

1715291451

[1715291451]

1715291451

[hugeblack]

I did not understand what you mean?   Do you mean the possibility of identifying it as a CoinJoin transaction? If so, the CoinJoin structure leads to equal-output CoinJoin transactions, which are easy to identify. If you want to enhance your privacy, you can use PayJoin (P2EP), where two parties can pay to each other, making it more difficult to detect that it is a CoinJoin transaction.


If that's what you mean, you can use Wasabi Wallet because it has cutting-edge Opt-in PayJoin feature.

[NotATether]

JoinMarket has not really changed much since its original release so chances are its still vulnerable to this.

[Kruw]

It describes a potential way to unmix JoinMarket by exploiting its maker taker system. To simplify it says that all outputs of a mix are either maker or taker but it is trivial to determine which outputs are makers as they will continue on to participate in more mixes while the taker order will not therefore it can be unmixed.

Is this still an issue for JoinMarket or have they found a way around it?

This is solved by using your existing maker funds as inputs for spending as a taker:

I do sendpayment single coinjoins for the above reasons; but note that because I use the same wallet as a Maker too, there may be some actual confusion about which outputs are of "Taker" type, even in the case of these single isolated joins.