Re: Can Coinjoin transactions be traced? Busting Bitcoin privacy myths!
A segwitv0 output is 31 vbytes, but a witness input is around 68. That's 99 vb, multiplied by 37.5 = 3712.5. Yes, it is less than I wrongly calculated, but it is still waste of money for such a small output.
What do you think of the dust problem in Whirlpool?
Tell me why anyone would ever lose their sats deliberately by creating these traceable Whirlpool dust outputs:
https://mempool.space/address/bc1qp25y8kfywz88myuh7ed3dmx3vv2z2dwuxhjnlv
Value of output: 305 sats
Mining fee paid to create output: 369 sats
Mining fee paid to spend input: 1,776 sats
Net loss from dust bug: 1,840 sats
New transactions clustered: 5 txs
https://mempool.space/address/bc1q83sfgfefwupz8w3faawxjr5v8uf03ttjclrkda
Value of output: 933 sats
Mining fee paid to create output: 1,234 sats
Mining fee paid to spend input: 4,333 sats
Net loss from dust bug: 4,634 sats
New transactions clustered: 12 txs
https://mempool.space/address/bc1qp25y8kfywz88myuh7ed3dmx3vv2z2dwuxhjnlv
Value of output: 305 sats
Mining fee paid to create output: 369 sats
Mining fee paid to spend input: 1,776 sats
Net loss from dust bug: 1,840 sats
New transactions clustered: 5 txs
https://mempool.space/address/bc1q83sfgfefwupz8w3faawxjr5v8uf03ttjclrkda
Value of output: 933 sats
Mining fee paid to create output: 1,234 sats
Mining fee paid to spend input: 4,333 sats
Net loss from dust bug: 4,634 sats
New transactions clustered: 12 txs
I'm good at quoting old posts as well:
Using a different derivation path didn't stop these Whirlpool addresses from being linked together.
Furthermore, I showed the proof of how I linked postmix Whirlpool outputs to the premix transaction that generated it, which no one ever addressed at all:
Okay, since you seem to think there's a problem, what is the solution to the problem you are describing? How should the coinjoin protocol be changed?
As has been explained to Kruw dozens of times, the change output from Tx0s are sent to a separate account and deliberately segregated from your other UTXOs. There is no way to accidentally include them in a transaction. Any user consolidating their change output as has been done in the transaction he has linked to above is doing so deliberately. I understand that Kruw gets angry when people spend their bitcoin in ways that he personally doesn't approve of, but there is no bug here, just Kruw either being deliberately misleading or simply not understanding what is happening.
Using a different derivation path didn't stop these Whirlpool addresses from being linked together.
Furthermore, I showed the proof of how I linked postmix Whirlpool outputs to the premix transaction that generated it, which no one ever addressed at all:
As I demonstrated, I was clearly able to identify the inputs owned by the user who merged their outputs in Whirlpool:
Whirlpool exit: https://mempool.space/tx/ce2f84f7c5ff74fb1da103acb7b279bd34f02f5e9e3a2e1b6417ce8b9b7392db
Whirlpool entrance: https://mempool.space/tx/63679c9ec82f246811acbab0c04cc0fc77ba050e1b6c23661d78afcfc13cf8aa
Only WabiSabi preserved privacy in this case, while Whirlpool leaked the origin of the funds.
Whirlpool exit: https://mempool.space/tx/ce2f84f7c5ff74fb1da103acb7b279bd34f02f5e9e3a2e1b6417ce8b9b7392db
Whirlpool entrance: https://mempool.space/tx/63679c9ec82f246811acbab0c04cc0fc77ba050e1b6c23661d78afcfc13cf8aa
Only WabiSabi preserved privacy in this case, while Whirlpool leaked the origin of the funds.
B-b-but, I thought this ethos was unacceptable. 
I know, I know... Just another confusion in the name of privacy!
I guess I can't argue against someone who takes the stance "Wasting your Bitcoin and ruining your privacy should be allowed."
I know, I know... Just another confusion in the name of privacy!
Okay, since you seem to think there's a problem, what is the solution to the problem you are describing? How should the coinjoin protocol be changed?