- Bitlaundry was centralized so you were relying on and trusting a third party with your transactions. Coinjoin is decentralized trustless p2p and requires multiple parties to jointly sign on an agreement to mix their coins when engaging in separate Bitcoin transactions.
- Failure retry risk is when a transaction fails because an input/output pair are invalid. It could fail due to several reasons such as an DDOS attack, inputs are not unspent, amounts don’t balance, and an invalid signature.
- You can increase the anonymity set simply by increasing participation.
- Coinjoin transactions do not require a modification to the bitcoin protocol.
1: BitLaudry involves using a third party for a transaction increasing the risk of of something going wrong.BitLaudry is centralized
2: The risk can be that one of the parties involved in the TRX can refuse to sign or becomes unavailable ncausing the TRX to fail
3:Many small TRX can be done because they are inexoensive
4:No soft fork needed in Coinjoin as opposed to ZeroCoin which would need one
What is the benefit of CoinJoin over BitLaundry, if any?
The way i see it, bitlaundry is a centralized service where i have to put blind trust into their service and its operations, where as coinJoin is just a few people getting together to make one big transaction by mixing their funds together and designating an output.
About halfway down, Maxwell writes: “failure (retry) risk mean that really huge joint transactions would not be wise.” Explain failure (retry) risk.
My understanding is that big amounts of coin-Joining are big blips in the system, how many people move so much $ at that time? Also the anonomisty set is probably small since only so many people can move such big amounts together. Factor that in with other potentially identifying factors.
How can anonymity set be increased while keeping small transaction sizes?
It seems like by doing more transactions in a group, the harder it gets to narrow down who’s is what.
What is the main benefit of CoinJoin over Zerocoin?
From what I can I see, zerocoin would require a soft fork of the network which needs consensus. Also at the time of the post, zerocoin is still to new and to many unknown factors and not enough people who understand the cutting edge technology involved, where as coinJoin has been able to be executed right from the start of bitcoin’s creation and doesn’t require any extra implementations in software or require any extra resources.
-
What is the benefit of CoinJoin over BitLaundry, if any?
A. Coin tx’s are mixed through a series of payments on fresh addresses with small tx fees. BitLaundry basically hides its tx’s. -
About halfway down, Maxwell writes: “failure (retry) risk mean that really huge joint transactions would not be wise.” Explain failure (retry) risk.
B. Persistent Dos attackers refuse to sign tx’s or spends tx’s before joint tx’s complete forces a person to leave the bad parties and try again. -
How can anonymity set be increased while keeping small transaction sizes?
C.Using a sequence of m*3 tx’s which form a three stage switching network. -
What is the main benefit of CoinJoin over Zerocoin?
D. Larger anonymity set. Less data storage is needed/used for hundreds of coinjoin tx’s vs. 1 zero Coin tx.
- What is the benefit of CoinJoin over BitLaundry, if any? BitLaundry is centralized. You have to trust them. BitJoin is decentralised.
- About halfway down, Maxwell writes: “failure (retry) risk mean that really huge joint transactions would not be wise.” Explain failure (retry) risk. The risk is of the transaction failing is because of a DOS attack or because a participant of the transaction doesn’t sign his part.
- How can anonymity set be increased while keeping small transaction sizes? By increasing the number of transactions.
- What is the main benefit of CoinJoin over Zerocoin? 1. Zerocoin needs a change in the bitcoin protocol. Coinjoin can be work today.
Coinjoin benefits requires multiple parties to jointly sign
Bitlaundry is hard to follow the transaction
failure “risk” a signature may not be had therefore you may have to try again.
Increasing the amounts of small transactions can help increase the anonimity set.
Coinjoin is trusted and combine multiple bitcoin payments less computing power needed and no soft forks needed
Zero Coin has scaling advantages but needs soft forks.
- BitLaundry was a centralized system whereas Coin Join is decentralized. So with CJ there is no need for a trusted third party.
- Failure or retry risk relates to the fact that first you have to organize all the transactions in the first step and then sign them in the second step. If someone wants to waste your time they could do step one and then fail to carry out step two. This would force you to retry, which could be inconvenient if you were making an expensive purchase with a large transaction.
- The anonymity set of CJ can be increased by using a cascade of transactions. Rather than 1 transaction with a thousand particpants you make two or three consecutive transactions each with thirty participants. Each of the thirty participant transactions is much smaller and cheaper than a single transaction with 1000 participants.
- CJ advantages were more clearly explained as the disadvantages of Zerocoin which was described as having highly complex cryptography which could make it more difficutly to ensure was free of bugs. ZC has large signatures that would eat up the allowable data size for each BTC block, has slow validation and reqires a trusted party and probably most difficult requires a soft fork to impliment. Perhaps the stated advantage of CJ is that it can be used today without any need to fork.
-
BitLaundry has that middleman that coordinates TXs. In CoinJoin people just have to agree on the number of inputs and outputs.
-
Failure Risk is when one party doesn’t want to sign a transaction as valid. Meaning the individual making the transaction would have to retry again
-
Its cheap, no limit to the number of TXs you can cascade.
-
You don’t have to soft-fork the bitcoin protocol as compared to the Zerocoin Protocol.
- What is the benefit of CoinJoin over BitLaundry, if any?
No central service needed. Only users who agree on inputs are in the middle.
- About halfway down, Maxwell writes: “failure (retry) risk mean that really huge joint transactions would not be wise.” Explain failure (retry) risk.
Because some users doesn’t sign their part.
- How can anonymity set be increased while keeping small transaction sizes?
by increasing the number of transactions.
- What is the main benefit of CoinJoin over Zerocoin?
Zerocoin needs a change in the bitcoin protocol. Coinjoin can be used today.
What is the benefit of CoinJoin over BitLaundry, if any?
no third party needed to be trusted
-
About halfway down, Maxwell writes: “failure (retry) risk mean that really huge joint transactions would not be wise.” Explain failure (retry) risk.
the possibility of DOS attack or of some participants not willing to sign. -
How can anonymity set be increased while keeping small transaction sizes?
by cascading transactions. -
What is the main benefit of CoinJoin over Zerocoin?
Zerocoin requires a soft-forking change to the Bitcoin protocol, where as CoinJoin is allready possible
- Coinjoin does not require a server but multiple parties to cooperate when creating a transaction.
- One party can refuse to sign a joint tx, basically resulting in a DOS.
- Multiple transactions can be cascaded.
- Can be used on Bitcoin now and does not require a softfork.
2 Likes
-
What is the benefit of CoinJoin over BitLaundry, if any?
Coinjoin does not require a trusted third party. Gotta remember the golden rule of crypto - not your keys, not your crypto!! -
About halfway down, Maxwell writes: “failure (retry) risk mean that really huge joint transactions would not be wise.” Explain failure (retry) risk.
If a bad actor spends their btc out from under the coinjoin tx before it is processed, then failure would occur or if someone fails to sign off on their end, the transaction would also fail. Both would require you to retry the tx (with other parties) and so holding up large amounts in big joint txs is not wise as you wouldn’t want to have to wait for your utxos to be freed up again. -
How can anonymity set be increased while keeping small transaction sizes?
You can cascade a large number of smaller txs which in turn increases the anonymity set, this is possible in a real world scenario as Coinjoin txs are very cost effective. -
What is the main benefit of CoinJoin over Zerocoin?
The main benefit of CoinJoin is that it is already possible to do these kinds of txs. Zerocoin requires a soft fork of the btc network and then would require mass adoption through nodes of the new protocols for it to take place.
-
What is the benefit of CoinJoin over BitLaundry, if any?
Coinjoin is decentralized BitLaundry is centralized -
About halfway down, Maxwell writes: “failure (retry) risk mean that really huge joint transactions would not be wise.” Explain failure (retry) risk.
is when the other party doesnt sign their half of the transaction -
How can anonymity set be increased while keeping small transaction sizes?
the more transactions the more anonymity will increase -
What is the main benefit of CoinJoin over Zerocoin?
zerocoin needs a soft-fork to change to the bitcoin protocol, Coinjoin doesnt
1 Like
- CoinJoin is decentralized, where as BitLaundry is centralized, requiring a trusted third party.
- DoS attack-one of the parties refuses to continue in the process, and the transaction is not executed properly.
- By increasing the number of small transactions.
- Zerocoin requires a softfork to the BitCoin protocol.
-
What is the benefit of CoinJoin over BitLaundry, if any?
Bitlaundry is a centralised third-party and you need to trust them. Using coinjoin you agree with the other part on a set of input and output to pay-> sign indivually and afterwards merge. -
About halfway down, Maxwell writes: “failure (retry) risk mean that really huge joint transactions would not be wise.” Explain failure (retry) risk.
If one or more members of the transaction is not able or willing to perform its part of TX. it would put the other parties at big risk. -
How can anonymity set be increased while keeping small transaction sizes?
increasae the number of tx. -
What is the main benefit of CoinJoin over Zerocoin?
zerocoin require soft fork change to the BTC protocol while Coinjoin works today
-
BitLaundry is centralized
CoinJoin is more “decentralized” as it requires a set of people to agree to mix their inputs (p2p) -
Failure risk is related to the risk that the CoinJoin transaction fails, When one party does not want to sign a transaction, when there is an attacker, etc that makes one input/output pair to fail. This puts all the other participants of the network at risk.
-
By increasing the number of cascading small transactions. More transactions = more anonymity
-
CoinJoin= no fork of BTC, Zerocoin does require a soft forking change to the protocol
- What is the benefit of CoinJoin over BitLaundry, if any? Both offer a level of anonymity and compile single tx inputs into larger “sets” of outputs. While Coinjoin is decentralized and may be subject to DOS attacks, BitLaundry requires users to trust a centralized party and has less control over tx’s with relatively high fees for usage.
- About halfway down, Maxwell writes: “failure (retry) risk mean that really huge joint transactions would not be wise.” Explain failure (retry) risk. In an automated process, any retries are invisible to the user, making one vulnerable to a persistent DOS attacker. So one could fail to sign a valid tx or spend their input out from under the joint tx before it completes.
- How can anonymity set be increased while keeping small transaction sizes? One could supplement anti-DOS mechanisms with proof-of-work, a fidelity bond or other scarce resource usage while adapting to attacks as they arise.
- What is the main benefit of CoinJoin over Zerocoin? Although not widely used, coinjoin has always worked and still works today with BTC tx’s. Zercoin has some significant technical issues such as large tx’s, slow validation, costly tx’s, requires a trusted 3rd party to initiate an accumulator which has no pruning ability which would necessitate periodically switching accumulators, again requiring another trusted party AND requires a soft-fork change to the BTC protocol.
- What is the benefit of CoinJoin over BitLaundry, if any?
- BitLaundry is a third party that is completely in control of the output from the user to the point where the sender is in the mercy of BitLaundry to send the funds to the intended recipient while CoinJoin is a co-operative solution that recognises that inputs and outputs don’t need to be owned by one account and takes advantage of this by creating a common ground where the sender and receiver can combine their inputs and send them to the intended outputs after they are both satisfied with the transaction and sign it.
- About halfway down, Maxwell writes: “failure (retry) risk mean that really huge joint transactions would not be wise.” Explain failure (retry) risk.
- Huge joint transactions means that there are many participants in the pool therefore the margin of error is increased for the transaction because every input has come in with its own intentions and might lead to a failed transaction overall due to failure to sign. A small pool of known participants is advised to keep the transaction under control.
- How can anonymity set be increased while keeping small transaction sizes?
- In the CoinJoin concept, the anonymity set input balance isn’t tied to the output balance because account holder choose to join their transactions and send them as one output therefore the anonymity set is increased drastically.
- What is the main benefit of CoinJoin over Zerocoin?
- CoinJoin blends into the inner workings of BTC UTXOs where multiple BTC inputs from different accounts are pooled to make a single output but ZeroCoin is an ecosystem on its own that exchanges Coins for a private key with a fixed ZeroCoin denomination.
-
CoinJoin is trustless and you need trust when you use the service of bitLoundry .
2.“However, if all the signatures don’t come in within some time limit, or a conflicting transaction is created, you can simply leave the bad parties and try again. With an automated process any retries would be invisible to the user. So the only real risk is a persistent DOS attacker.” - increasing the numbers of transactions.
4.You don´t need a soft-fork.
- BitJoin is decentralized
- TX could fail or get DOS attacked
- Increase amount of TX
- CoinJoin does not require a soft fork