Coinswap - trustless, self-custodial atomic swap protocol

[cygan]

today i came across this Coinswap app, which i’d like to share with you here
as i couldn’t find a suitable thread using the search function, i've gone ahead and started this one.
the app currently offers the following features:

• customize your swap as per need
• [shred old transaction history. advanced utxo sanitization
• [swap payments. decoupling sender and receiver history.

https://github.com/citadel-tech/coinswap/releases/tag/v0.2.1
https://citadel-tech.github.io/website

[ABCbits]

It looks amazing, but also difficult to understand how it exactly works. Anyway, i notice they have really unique licensing option on their source code.

This software is licensed under [Apache 2.0](LICENSE-APACHE) or
[MIT](LICENSE-MIT), at your option.

Some files retain their own copyright notice, however, for full authorship
information, see version control history.

Except as otherwise noted in individual files, all files in this repository are
licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 <LICENSE-APACHE or
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT license <LICENSE-MIT or
http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, at your option.

You may not use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
sell copies of this software or any files in this repository except in
accordance with one or both of these licenses.

I've seen some project let you choose between open source license or propriety license (with paid support or feature), but this one is entirely different.

[Yamane_Keto]

It's a new concept, a cycle of Hashlock, Timelock, and MuSig2 contracts where the hop doesn't communicate directly but rather via Taker > Maker0 > Maker1 > Taker.

The main limitation of this service is that you need a Bitcoin full node to become a Maker or Taker, something I don't think most traders can provide.

[MarryWithBTC]

I have gone through the github link and also read some of the use cases/promised use cases. At a glance everything feel fine and privacy focused. But a deep scrutiny might leave us with some questions.

• About shredding old transaction history; To me, this sounds more of a marketing language. for instance, on the bitcoin blockchain, the transaction history is not actually erased. The best that can be done is to obfuscate it or make it harder to trace.
• The idea of decoupling sender and receiver history is very possible is they introduce the eCash interoperability. The only concern will be the trust in the mint and ofchain transactions.

It looks amazing, but also difficult to understand how it exactly works. Anyway, i notice they have really unique licensing option on their source code.

Maybe the combination of many privacy tools and systems make it more complex. Sometimes, a well understood single mechanism could be more effective that complex systems that are difficult to understand and use.

[satscraper]

It looks amazing, but also difficult to understand how it exactly works. Anyway, i notice they have really unique licensing option on their source code.

Nothing new. Citadel has just implemented Gregory Maxwell’s original idea ^{first expressed on forum in 2013} using Taproot contract. It appears that their associated tools (Taker app and Maker server) are built specifically to run on Mutinynet, so performing swaps with these tools is intended solely for testing their Taproot‑based protocol rather than for real‑world use.

Protocol Flow:

[(BTC)]

The main limitation of this service is that you need a Bitcoin full node to become a Maker or Taker, something I don't think most traders can provide.

This sounds like an incentive to increase the amount of total nodes instead of a limitation, but I get your point. People are either technically limited or lazy.

today i came across this Coinswap app, which i’d like to share with you here
as i couldn’t find a suitable thread using the search function, i've gone ahead and started this one.
the app currently offers the following features:

• customize your swap as per need
• [shred old transaction history. advanced utxo sanitization
• [swap payments. decoupling sender and receiver history.

https://github.com/citadel-tech/coinswap/releases/tag/v0.2.1
https://citadel-tech.github.io/website

Thank you for sharing. The privacy movement in the next cycle is going to be massive. Will check it out. +1

[ABCbits]

The main limitation of this service is that you need a Bitcoin full node to become a Maker or Taker, something I don't think most traders can provide.

At this stage, i believe the bigger issue you need terminal to install and configure the application.

It looks amazing, but also difficult to understand how it exactly works. Anyway, i notice they have really unique licensing option on their source code.

Nothing new. Citadel has just implemented Gregory Maxwell’s original idea ^{first expressed on forum in 2013} using Taproot contract.
--snip--

I have some understanding of that part, but if you read the docs it's more complex due to other reason such as
1. Since it support multi-chain, what would happen if the other doesn't have Taproot or it's equivalent? Would it fallback into V1 protocol or mix V1/V2 protocol?
2. How well the fidelity bonds works to reduce sybil attack? From what i understand so far, it works by giving incentive with exponential scaling. But attacker who aim to deanonymize other people/coin wouldn't care so much about the incentive.

[satscraper]

1. Since it support multi-chain, what would happen if the other doesn't have Taproot or it's equivalent? Would it fallback into V1 protocol or mix V1/V2 protocol?

Probably you meant multisig rather than multi‑chain?

Regarding your question, if the other party doesn’t support Taproot  their protocol would simply fail during negotiation or contract construction ^{in my view it’s as simple as that}. Anyway, I don’t want to dig deep into Citadel’s chainswap protocol until it becomes mainstream, ^{if it ever happens}  .

[ABCbits]

1. Since it support multi-chain, what would happen if the other doesn't have Taproot or it's equivalent? Would it fallback into V1 protocol or mix V1/V2 protocol?

Probably you meant multisig rather than multi‑chain?

No, although their homepage use term cross-chain rather than multi-chain.

Regarding your question, if the other party doesn’t support Taproot  their protocol would simply fail during negotiation or contract construction ^{in my view it’s as simple as that}. Anyway, I don’t want to dig deep into Citadel’s chainswap protocol until it becomes mainstream, ^{if it ever happens}  .

I would agree with you if their application only support protocol V2. But just like you, i don't plan to dig that deep either.

[1440000bytes]

• The idea of decoupling sender and receiver history is very possible is they introduce the eCash interoperability. The only concern will be the trust in the mint and ofchain transactions.

Ecash interoperability sounds complete nonsense. Why would a trustless and self custodial swap protocol need to be interoperable with a custodial solution?

[MarryWithBTC]

• The idea of decoupling sender and receiver history is very possible if they introduce the eCash interoperability. The only concern will be the trust in the mint and ofchain transactions.

Ecash interoperability sounds complete nonsense. Why would a trustless and self custodial swap protocol need to be interoperable with a custodial solution?

Maybe to achieve better privacy. I am really not bothered, if they have found a means to handle the trust from their own end, it's fine.
That's virtually what mixers do with CEXs.

[NotATether]

I've seen some project let you choose between open source license or propriety license (with paid support or feature), but this one is entirely different.

In my opinion, if it's just between the Apache 2.0 license and the MIT license, it is much more simple for people and companies to deal with legally. Just follow the Apache license since abiding by it basically covers everything in the MIT license.

No issue if everything you do is open-source, though