> There is no coin control in Wasabi Wallet 2.
This is correct, but in and of itself can be misleading for those who know
that privacy in Bitcoin is near impossible without coin control, because
the conclusion would be then that Wasabi 2.0 ruined privacy for no reason,
which is obviously not the
The first Wasabi Wallet 2.0 testnet coinjoin with real users:
https://blockstream.info/testnet/tx/68849dc71e6eb860b4b8aa3f57b9bc8178a002b54f85a46305bfaaad28b40444
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 11:27 PM Max Hillebrand via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> tl;dr
ACK adding Kalle
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 5:51 PM Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi Luke,
>
> For the records and the subscribers of this list not following
> #bitcoin-core-dev, this mail follows a discussion which did happen during
> yesterday irc
Wouldn't this enable a passive adversary listening the mempool to associate
unrelated TXO clusters to the same user?
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 15:38 David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 05:51:39PM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrot
Thank you all for your replies, I think everyone agrees here how it "should
be" and indeed I risked my post and my used terminology to further
legitimize the thinking of adversaries.
I'd have one clarification to my original post. It may not be clear why I
put PJ/CS to the same box. One way of thin
The problem with CoinJoins is that desire for privacy is explicitly
signalled by them, so adversaries can consider them "suspicious." PayJoin
and CoinSwap solve this problem, because they are unnoticeable. I think
this logic doesn't stand for scrutiny.
>From here on let's use the terminology of a
Just a tip: if you'd like to get feedback on your work, then share your
work as well, since not many people are willing to commit to helping unless
they know how large the work is.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:51 PM Shiva Jairam via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi a
BIP157 defines a section called "Filter Types" (
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0157.mediawiki#filter-types
)
> For the sake of future extensibility and reducing filter sizes, there
are multiple *filter types* that determine which data is included in a
block filter as well as th
> It seems to me that most users will not have nearly the same output of
"around 1 BTC"
While that would be true out of context, it depends on how you interpret it
and they interpret it really broadly: " One input might be 0.03771049 BCH;
the next might be 0.24881232 BCH, etc. "
> anyway if you
The CashFusion research came out of the Bitcoin Cash camp, thus this
probably went under the radar of many of you. I would like to ask your
opinions on the research's claim that, if non-equal value coinjoins can be
really relied on for privacy or not.
(Btw, there were also similar ideas in the Kna
Please also take a look at "Applying Private Information Retrieval to
Lightweight Bitcoin Clients" Scaling Bitcoin talk. The academics were not
aware of BIP158 at all, yet came up with a similar scheme independently.
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 11:40 PM Tamas Blummer via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@list
11 matches
Mail list logo
