Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 08:48:30 AM

Quote from: pooya87 on Today at 04:56:31 AM

This is only a small mitigation in my opinion because we will face the same conundrum as we face in something like Electrum (although Electrum isn't privacy oriented).

So what's the solution here? Every user running their own coordinator, all of which communicate with everyone else's coordinator in a decentralized manner, much like the bitcoin network itself?

Alternatively, use protocol where interaction between user isn't needed. If you're looking for example, check SNICKER[1-2] or Mimblewimble protocol.

Quote from: n0nce on Today at 11:23:50 AM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 08:48:30 AM

Quote from: https://samouraiwallet.com/dojo

Samourai Wallet is already unrivaled in transaction privacy, but the default configuration is still subject to network level privacy loss. Hosting your own Dojo allows you to simply bypass our default servers and circumvent these concerns.

So yeah, perhaps this information should be more visible, but they are not actively hiding it.

Honestly, it shouldn't even be an option not to run your own node if this software is supposed to be privacy-first. Their 'default nodes' shouldn't even exist, they should all be taken offline if they're serious about privacy. I have a gut feeling we'll end up with a 'Wasabi situation' sooner or later.

Alternatively, they should implement BIP 157/158 if they wish to support user with very limited resource (mainly internet bandwidth). But currently they don't support it[3].

[1] https://joinmarket.me/blog/blog/snicker/
[2] https://gist.github.com/AdamISZ/2c13fb5819bd469ca318156e2cf25d79
[3] https://www.samouraiwallet.com/bips