First we need to look at the existing fiat system we are hoping to ultimately replace, the privacy expectations of that fiat system, and how we can achieve a similar outcome when using the Bitcoin network.
Let's examine physical cash. You go to an ATM and withdraw cash from your bank account. Your bank knows you used an ATM, they know how much you took out, but that's where their vision ends.
Physical cash is fungible and private.
Likewise, even when spending non physical cash the merchant you are buying from cannot peer into your bank account. All they know is you have enough money to afford what you're buying. They have no other insight into your finances.
The fiat system has basic transactional privacy
The fiat system has various laws that enforce basic and fundamental privacy when using their money.
Relying on legislators to uphold your privacy is playing a dangerous game though, as we have seen with a weakening of fundamental rights and privacy over the years.
In the Bitcoin system we cannot and should not look to politicians and legislation to provide basic transactional privacy.
Fiat means 'by decree'. We do not want money by decree nor do we want privacy by decree. Instead we need to rely on code to enforce our rights to privacy.
Bitcoin is fundamentally a public and transparent system. Every single transaction is recorded in perpetuity on the blockchain.
As such, spending bitcoin in a basic private way - the same way you would spend in the fiat system - can be a challenge
Compounding on the privacy challenge is that the vast majority of bitcoin users are getting their coins through centralized bitcoin exchanges.
They provide the exchange their KYC information which is from that point then tied to their coins.
When you withdraw from your exchange it isn't like withdrawing physical cash from an ATM. The exchange is able to watch what you do with those coins going forward.
A good analogy would be if every bill you withdrew from an ATM had your name and account number printed on them.
Likewise, when spending to third parties you are opening the door to sharing information about past and future spending activity to that party.
Imagine if your church pastor was able to see your OnlyFans subscription when you place a dollar bill into the offering plate.
This is where CoinJoin comes in. A software solution to help solve the basic transactional privacy challenges in Bitcoin.
A good analogy is to think of your bitcoins as gold ingots and CoinJoin as a smelting process. Any markings on your ingots are gone when smelted and recast.
Performing a CoinJoin after buying on a centralized exchange with your KYC information can be seen as obtaining a similar level of privacy from your exchange as withdrawing cash from an ATM provides from your bank.
CoinJoin is not a silver bullet. There are still plenty of privacy challenges a new user will face, but it is the most important action one can take to reclaim privacy when transacting & we are doing all we can to lower the barrier to entry.
In Oct we asked our attorney @Deliver8tor to assemble an expert legal team to respond to FinCEN's proposed rules that would effectively ban bitcoin privacy best practices such as not reusing addresses, and coinjoin.
FinCEN should withdraw entirely the Mixing Transaction NPRM because if adopted, would be the first time FinCEN used its Section 311 powers against a class of transactions, but also the first time FinCEN has ever imposed Special Measure 1.
The Mixing Transaction NPRM proposes a rule that is an improper and overbroad application of Section 311 measures to achieve transaction surveillance and suppression that FinCEN does not otherwise have a lawful basis to undertake.
We can confirm that @ocean_mining has enacted a policy of censoring Whirlpool coinjoin transactions and BIP47 notification transactions as of Dec 6, 2023
This is a regrettable action by the operators @jack and @LukeDashjr and far surpasses any hostile action we have seen before
Luke is claiming that Whirlpool transactions are "bugged" and create non standard transactions due to a 46 byte OP_RETURN present in Whirlpool Tx0 transactions.
This is a lie. He knows it is a lie. The OP_RETURN limit has been 80 bytes since Bitcoin Core version 0.12
Luke runs a fork of Core called Knots, in his fork he has defined the OP_RETURN limit at 42 bytes. He is more than entitled to do this.
However to claim Whirlpool transactions are non standard because they do not conform to the values of his niche fork is totally wrong and a lie
With all the chatter about the latest statist overeach in the EU regarding bitcoin and 'unhosted wallets' I figured I would share some slides from my talk at @GunsnBitcoin 2022 in Miami
Let's start with Satoshi's white paper titled "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
The clue is in the title.
Take note of the following key words:
- Peer-to-Peer
- Electronic Cash.
We'll come back to that, but first to understand what Satoshi invented we need to understand physical (non digital) cash
Aristotle explored what makes good money in his Nicomachean Ethics. No doubt many of you have seen this before, usually when someone is trying to convince you to buy gold. But it just so happens that even physical fiat dollars tick these boxes too.
We're seeing a large number of coins leaving Wasabi into Whirlpool over the last few days. The market is speaking and loudly repelling censorship and surveillance.
If you're new, especially coming from Wasabi this thread will explain the key differences in Whirlpool
In Whirlpool the coordinator fee is a flat fee and is paid upfront. The flat fee makes it cheaper to coinjoin for users (instead of % of amt you mix) and makes it more costly for an attacker to disrupt the registration phase. We call this setup transaction the "Tx0"
In Whirlpool no address reuse or coins that have been 'seen' together in previous transactions are allowed into the mix transaction. Unlike Wasabi where up to seven outputs are controlled by one user, Whirlpool mixes only allow one output per user per mix transaction.
CoinJoin coordinators are simply message passers. This is true of Wasabi & Whirlpool. They are not money transmitters, they are not facilitators they simply pass data packets to connected clients. Clients never surrender custody to any 3rd party. Clients collaborate w/ each other
Your ISP is not responsible for the websites you visit, even though they serve you the data packets that made your visit possible.
Your VPN is not responsible for copyright infringement when you illegally download a torrent.
The ability to share data freely be it books, art, media, thoughts and ideas, or UTXO state is essential for free society and is fundamentally human.
The radical encroachment of the state into the lives of ordinary law abiding citizens is on an a concerning upward trajectory.
We're proud to release the Bitcoin Privacy Series on youtube today. The first 7 videos are all under 7 minutes long and will get you up to speed on the challenging concept that is bitcoin privacy.
Check out the playlist & like and sub for more videos
The first video introduces the concept of Unspent Transaction Outputs (UTXOs). This is a fundamental step in understanding bitcoin transaction privacy. In 2 minutes you will gain an understanding of UTXOs
The second video explains the change output. For a lot of bitcoin users the concept of a change output is either completely unknown or misunderstood. In 2 minutes you will understand change outputs and how bitcoin transactions are structured