No, this is Nostr, so I don't have to shut up about you being wrong. Payjoins are larger than normal transactions, get over it.

I just explained how your design lets a payjoin sender could drain the receiver's wallet. Do some research before spreading misinformation: "In exchange for the privacy benefit, the sender has to pay more fees than a normal transaction. It is a con for the sender, but a pro for the receiver, since the receiver does not have to consolidate its coin later." - (coinventor of payjoin) https://nopara73.medium.com/pay-to-endpoint-56eb05d3cac6

You are wrong. If what you claim were actually implemented, it would create an attack vector where the sender creates a payjoin transaction at a high fee rate and burns the receiver's input.

Yes, so the incentive is to "never payjoin" as the sender and "always payjoin" as the receiver.

A payjoin always has at least 2 inputs, and it always consumes more data than a normal transaction.

Payjoin isn't a fork. Stop spreading blatant misinformation.

2 sat/vbyte seems a little high.

Why did you censor the abbreviation for national socialism?

Incentive imbalance: Payjoin senders pay mining fees for the receiver.

498 inputs: https://mempool.space/tx/278126c43dc16ec2f05ed2eff4c77d8871e502d5f61affcfea296312b4ce36a7 652 outputs: https://mempool.space/tx/c559ee0e19aa8ce15ee1191b611daf409e90ddb6eca1d887590806e04d4ebbe3

Someone paid 483k sats in mining fees for a 31k sat output at 6 sat/vbyte 😓 https://mempool.space/tx/9f3ab719ce9e82acd1b3e2470e85960f29cd2f4c967ce450ef0c76c9c28e338b