Quote from: Kruw on February 01, 2024, 03:38:59 PM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on February 01, 2024, 03:03:28 PM

Personally, I combine toxic change with other toxic change where lack of privacy is minimum.

Why not use WabiSabi instead of Whirlpool so you don't have toxic change and have no lack of privacy at all?

Quote from: Kruw on February 01, 2024, 05:02:33 PM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on February 01, 2024, 04:21:05 PM

You do not consolidate your private coins in the the coinjoin, but after it, using a mix partner.

If you are using a second coinjoin to solve the privacy flaw of the initial Whirlpool coinjoin, then why not just perform a single coinjoin that doesn't have the initial privacy flaw so you can cut through these two transactions?

Quote from: Kruw on February 01, 2024, 06:57:29 PM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on February 01, 2024, 06:45:47 PM

Completely irrelevant and debunked already: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5471645.msg63120005#msg63120005.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on November 07, 2023, 03:39:52 PM

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 this privacy loss in Whirlpool to a WabiSabi coinjoin where the coordinator fee adds to the anonymity set: Which output is the coordinator fee??? https://mempool.space/tx/74254011886f8bcbc19269030a07d3e63cee242492f7a32818152e51995e6d31

Still waiting for the answers to all of these questions.