I ALREADY PROVED YOUR CLAIM THAT THIS SORT OF LINKING IS POSSIBLE TO BE A LIE:
So you are just going to stick to the "Here is one good example, please don't look at the blockchain evidence of all the flawed ones" approach? All caps doesn't make it any less of a stupid argument, you know.
I already proved you are lying when you said WabiSabi coinjoins were critically flawed, remember? You never provided any examples of any flaws whatsoever in the WabiSabi coinjoin protocol:
For you then to provide a single example which works well does absolutely nothing to address the fact in many cases Wasabi coinjoins are critically flawed. As per my previous analogy, a car manufacturer showing a new model which works well does not excuse previous models which have randomly burst in to flames. This is an incredibly simple concept, so I can only assume you are trolling by continuing to deliberately misunderstand it.
Go on, tell me how Wasabi coinjoins are "critically flawed". Don't hold back, I want to know what's wrong with them.
Again, I'm going to remind everyone that this is a malicious lie: You cannot surveil Wasabi Wallet users, they are made completely private due to Tor and client side block filters.
Again, I'm going to remind everyone that if you use Wasabi, you are literally paying for the privilege of having a blockchain analysis company stick their noses in to your UTXOs.
UTXOs created by
ANY wallet are publicly visible to anyone with a copy of the blockchain,
any blockchain analysis company can see a UTXO exists and view its history no matter what wallet you use.What identifiable outputs?
The ones that have been mentioned tediously many times.
What do you mean "the ones that have been mentioned tediously many times"? There's no way to identify a WabiSabi output unless they are the whale.
You must be confused since the coinjoin tediously mentioned many times in this thread that has identifiable outputs is called a
WHIRLPOOL coinjoin which is used by Samourai Wallet and Sparrow Wallet:
Okay, here's all the payments that can be tracked from the two new participants of the Whirlpool coinjoin transaction:
Entrant 1: bc1q03c0443ausjjdxl2h6ud5m8c0dux0zyg3dqdj7 created 0.00170417 BTC in unmixed change sent to bc1q3fduld0l3r8nclyt5p3r7ak675tekurstn55tl. Since this UTXO is not private, the sats were marked as unspendable and have not been recovered by the wallet owner
Entrant 2: bc1qzc8zku26ej337huw5dlt390cy2r9kgnq7dhtys created 0.00191247 BTC in unmixed change sent to bc1qjlltxr443uy236wl4xhpxlr6dgsu0zltlv3m44. This UTXO was used in a second tx0 transaction, creating a huge trail of transactions that could be traced to each other
The 2nd tx0 transaction created 0.00076348 BTC unmixed change which was sent to bc1qehd7gy8rza9mnzm9wnfjhgw82rp47wmqt7vpgy
Since this unmixed change is below the .001 pool minimum, it was consolidated in a 3rd tx0 with 3 other addresses owned by the same wallet:31x8GPqrhzdaxiBJa9N5UisuoxbX1rAnHa
16Gw5WKjbxZmg1zhZQs19Sf61fbV2xGujx
3LZtsJfUjiV5EZkkG1fwGEpTe2QEa7CNeY
The 3rd tx0 transaction created .00200317 in unmixed change which was sent to bc1q2p7gdtyahct8rdjs2khwf0sffl64qe896ya2y5
This was spent in a 0.00190000 payment to 3B8cRYc3W5jHeS3pkepwDePUmePBoEwyp1 (a reused address)
That payment left .00008553 in change that was tracked to 3Dh7R7xoKMVfLCcAtVDyhJ66se82twyZSn and consolidated with two other inputs in a 4th tx0 transaction:
bc1qeuh6sds8exm54yscrupdk03jxphw8qwzdtxgde
3ByChGBFshzGUE5oip8YYVEZDaCP2bcBmZ
This 4th tx0 created .00533406 in unmixed change which was sent to bc1qzh699s75smwukg9jcanwnlkmkn38r79ataagd9 which was consolidated with 3 more addresses into a 5th tx0:
3F2qiWQJKQjF7XFjEo8FUYP3AU5AC6RqX8
3HAYYVKUpYbr2ARMdZJr9yVu8xi8UcxtPz
3GQtwwRK31wwCc22q6WS5sCgixUHsG5KaT
The 5th tx0 created 0.00058494 BTC in unmixed change that was sent to bc1qvh2zjcwwkj9y70xulla2semvlav3lty0p3l3w3
This was spent in a .00047290 payment to bc1qvzg8jq6wqtr5navn4e3ps4qrkk9r6n4h98gjck
That payment left .00008411 in change that was tracked to bc1qg6j0f0wfhpktt2l8uzdn48ct3um2xyur40eyzd and consolidated with another input into a 6th tx0 transaction:
31iZLXWfoywhuMZTPGxTkpzphzh2NXshpP
The 6th tx0 created .00753775 in unmixed change that was tracked to bc1qgfll2apc27yct6h2c8r8wq4kqhxjsfrudhhn5q
This was spent in a .00737000 payment to bc1q5emzer2t0sq5dez0zsrqgh6scvwn0n24xsladp (a reused address)
This payment left 0.00010896 BTC in change which has not been spent yet, but the payment only took place 11 days ago, so I assume it will eventually be spent, allowing the Whirlpool user to be tracked even further.
If you say "Pay me 1 BTC" and I send you 100,000 UTXOs for 0.00001000 BTC each, would you consider those UTXOs I sent equal to a single 1 BTC UTXO payment?
Yes. If I ask you to send me 1 BTC, and you send me 1 BTC, then I'm fine whether you remove 1, or a thousand outputs from the UTXO set. I don't care if you killed someone before, or sold cocaine, or mixed them. I only want the bitcoin.
If you mean to send me 1,000 satoshis a hundred thousand times, creating 100,000 outputs, then no. I'll ask you to consolidate them into one ideally, because I'll have to pay lots in fees. I don't see how is that relevant; I still don't care about the origins of the coins.
It's relevant because you said the coins contained in the UTXOs is the only thing that matters about them. I'm proving to you that there are other properties of UTXOs that affect their value.
Like I said, the claim that coinjoin participants don't know each other is false.
No, it's true. Coinjoin participants should not know each other, because only a fool uses a privacy-enhancing tool with the precondition that they will have to expose who they are with the rest. What you seem to argue is that coinjoin participants don't necessarily feel confident
not knowing who the rest are.
Have fun using Monero then since all coinjoin transactions on Bitcoin require a signature from all participants. Thanks for the discussion.
Where did I claim fungibility is my goal?
Your goal is irrelevant. You mean zkSNACKs who run the project?
Here,
here, and
here.
Oh, so then I didn't actually make a false claim like you said I did then. Thanks for clearing that up.
