pull down to refresh
32 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 14 Apr 2022 \ on: Do we need protocol level Coinjoin? bitcoin
We don't need it certainly. It might be nice to have, but coinjoins as an optional higher layer protocol are good enough imo. Besides, keeping the base layer simple and transparent is a worthy tradeoff especially if it allows - as Bitcoin does - for privacy to be built in higher layers. We are early, coinjoin tools are improving, and coinjoin markets are becoming more liquid.
What would you be willing to give up for the base layer to have coinjoin on it? Everything has tradeoffs.
I'd argue that bigger coinjoins transactions are simpler and more elegant for a base layer?
What would be the tradeoff?
reply
I don't know the tradeoffs but I'm also not advocating for a hard fork. Other than requiring consensus changes (which is a massive downside on its own), there are undoubtably huge tradeoffs - in UX, security, etc. e.g. Mimble Wimble Coin had a huge DoS vulnerability in its implementation.
reply
Which transactions get into which blocks when doesn't require a hard fork. Coinjoins are already a thing on Bitcoin.
Actually there already is a precedent for this: Miners include transactions with the highest fee before they include the oldest transactions.
reply