John darksends 2 coins from A to C, gets 8 back as change on address X
Joe darksends 3 coins from E to G, gets 7 back as change on address W
Suzie darksends 3 coins from K to Q, gets 7 back as change on address S
Now, we make a pool with X+X1+W+W1+S+S1.
Pool total output == 30DRK
X+X1 = 10DRK
W+W1 = 10DRK
S+S1 = 10DRK
X will always be less than 10DRK, there for we need another input to bring it to 10DRK total. This way no one can tell who is receiving which inputs, thus cleaning them in the inverse way DarkSend works.
Make sense?
I'm not sure I understand.
John darksends 2 coins from A to C, gets 8 back as change on address X.
He then contributes 2 additional coins from another address in his wallet, address X1?
If that's how it works I'm not sure I get how this helps. It just exposes the holder of address X1 as the person who darksent 2 coins to C.
I am probably misunderstanding where X1 S1 and W1 are coming from.
X1 wouldn't be linked to C because it'd be a CoinJoin transaction. If 1000 change addresses are input, who owned what? You wouldn't be exposed, as far as I can tell. With I2P only the master node would know.