Thanks, I believe I need to get more into the nitty gritty. But the point remains. No one can merely start a coordinator and expect it to automatically have the reputation needed for users to start sending their outputs to it.
You don't need any reputation because coordinators are not trusted.
BitcoinTalk users could start one as a community, but the ban on mixers makes the idea impossible to promote in the forum.
"Mixers" are scams that steal from you and track all of your transaction history. This is the opposite of a coinjoin, which is trustless.
I'm also asking about the outputs in the pool. If most of it is from the owner of the coordinator then he/she could trace those outputs upon exit from the pool, just like a honeypot. Or am I wrong?
Any entity with enough capital can perform a Sybil attack, this isn't a privilege of the coordinator.
The same argument. If a coordinator doesn't have the reputation to attract enough users to put enough volume/liquidity into the coordinator then it can be sybil attacked by bad actors, and essentially make it function like their own honeypot. It's not a flaw in the coordinator, I'm merely saying that low liquidity = less effective CoinJoins.