Avoiding my point, as usual.
I guess I didn't catch your point, can you refer to your quote and indicate what is lacking a response?
2 - Tx0 clearly pays the coordinator, and this output is easily identified. The privacy of Whirlpool coinjoins does not depend on this fee payment being secret. It does not matter if you and I both pay to the same coordinator address - there is zero loss of privacy.
So the Whirlpool coordinator's output is
easily identified. That's unfortunate...
Let's compare the privacy to WabiSabi:
Which output in this WabiSabi coinjoin belongs to the coordinator??? https://mempool.space/tx/74254011886f8bcbc19269030a07d3e63cee242492f7a32818152e51995e6d31Because it makes a splash. Whirlpool has maximized the entropy, whereas in Wasabi there is address reuse, possible input and output collaborators, merges-- all of which would reduce the overall entropy.
At this point, I'm putting you back on ignore, because we're going on cycles, and you simply want to just say the last word. There is nothing constructive that I can make out of you.
You simply haven't looked into how coinjoins work at all since you are claiming WabiSabi is creating dust at negative cost when it's Whirlpool that's creating dust at negative cost, and claim WabiSabi's Boltzmann score is worse despite not having calculated the score at all.
Numbers don't lie, but you do.