It's being negative that is not useful, you can simply use the services you like without criticizing the newness or be constructive without playing on every word you can read.

Saying that we use CoinJoin adapted to our own methods is not contradicting ourselves at all. As I said, just not explained enough in the first post.

"-Our mixing protocol is not a simple CoinJoin" is a proof we doesn't use it?
It's the proof we use the CoinJoin with our own methods that's all.

And again, no, the CoinJoin is not users sending the same amount at the same time as you said before, it's easy to guess that it's just not feasible. Everything happens once the different amounts are received.
 
The image you have shown is a CoinJoin that separates exact amounts but does not receive them at the same time nor at the same amount by the users, among the images you have seen on Google you have seen that the principle you state is far from being the only possibility.

The image you select shows how a CoinJoin works once the different amounts have been received, in fact it separates them into exact amounts, a good method but not the only one, the important principle is a mixture of the different amounts before sending them back. Making exact divisions will not change anything, it is just often the case because an exact division is easier to implement, we even use it at one of the transaction stages, but as already explained we mix it with other methods.

But in this case all mixers are wrong if we follow your reasoning.

This will be our last answer to your comments, we are not here for a knowledge war, we know what our service is worth. We prefer to focus on the constructive comm

Good evening to you!