Re: [bitcoin-dev] Wasabi Wallet 2.0 Testnet Release

2022-03-10 Thread nopara73 via bitcoin-dev
> There is no coin control in Wasabi Wallet 2. This is correct, but in and of itself can be misleading for those who know that privacy in Bitcoin is near impossible without coin control, because the conclusion would be then that Wasabi 2.0 ruined privacy for no reason, which is obviously not the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Wasabi Wallet 2.0 Testnet Release

2022-03-01 Thread nopara73 via bitcoin-dev
The first Wasabi Wallet 2.0 testnet coinjoin with real users: On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 11:27 PM Max Hillebrand via bitcoin-dev <> wrote: > Hello list, > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP editor: Kalle Alm

2021-04-24 Thread nopara73 via bitcoin-dev
ACK adding Kalle On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 5:51 PM Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev <> wrote: > Hi Luke, > > For the records and the subscribers of this list not following > #bitcoin-core-dev, this mail follows a discussion which did happen during > yesterday irc

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Replacement for RBF and CPFP: Non-Destructive TXID Dependencies for Fee Sponsoring

2020-09-19 Thread nopara73 via bitcoin-dev
Wouldn't this enable a passive adversary listening the mempool to associate unrelated TXO clusters to the same user? On Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 15:38 David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev <> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 05:51:39PM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Tainting, CoinJoin, PayJoin, CoinSwap

2020-06-11 Thread nopara73 via bitcoin-dev
Thank you all for your replies, I think everyone agrees here how it "should be" and indeed I risked my post and my used terminology to further legitimize the thinking of adversaries. I'd have one clarification to my original post. It may not be clear why I put PJ/CS to the same box. One way of

[bitcoin-dev] Tainting, CoinJoin, PayJoin, CoinSwap

2020-06-10 Thread nopara73 via bitcoin-dev
The problem with CoinJoins is that desire for privacy is explicitly signalled by them, so adversaries can consider them "suspicious." PayJoin and CoinSwap solve this problem, because they are unnoticeable. I think this logic doesn't stand for scrutiny. >From here on let's use the terminology of a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Academic research regarding BIP0002

2020-04-22 Thread nopara73 via bitcoin-dev
Just a tip: if you'd like to get feedback on your work, then share your work as well, since not many people are willing to commit to helping unless they know how large the work is. On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:51 PM Shiva Jairam via bitcoin-dev <> wrote: > Hi

[bitcoin-dev] [bitcin-dev] BIP157 Filter Type Extensibility Proposal for Combinations

2020-02-28 Thread nopara73 via bitcoin-dev
BIP157 defines a section called "Filter Types" ( ) > For the sake of future extensibility and reducing filter sizes, there are multiple *filter types* that determine which data is included in a block filter as well as

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Non-equal value CoinJoins. Opinions.

2020-02-22 Thread nopara73 via bitcoin-dev
> It seems to me that most users will not have nearly the same output of "around 1 BTC" While that would be true out of context, it depends on how you interpret it and they interpret it really broadly: " One input might be 0.03771049 BCH; the next might be 0.24881232 BCH, etc. " > anyway if you

[bitcoin-dev] Non-equal value CoinJoins. Opinions.

2019-12-27 Thread nopara73 via bitcoin-dev
The CashFusion research came out of the Bitcoin Cash camp, thus this probably went under the radar of many of you. I would like to ask your opinions on the research's claim that, if non-equal value coinjoins can be really relied on for privacy or not. (Btw, there were also similar ideas in the