Why didn't you respond to anything I said in my post? Your generic response suggests you didn't read anything that I said

I can't recommend one now, but there are protocols that ensure that even the coordinator of the coinjoin doesn't know which inputs and outputs you registered. So basically, as long as you use Tor correctly and your client checks everything very *very* thoroughly (especially the blinded signatures), you should be fine wrote a nice piece on this here: https://petertodd.org/2025/coinjoin-comparison . I don't recall him making a specific recommendation though. Personally, having listened to a few coinjoin updates on Bitcoin Optech, I'm a bit nervous about current implementations I understand enough cryptography, mostly coming from Chaumian Ecash (Cashu), to see how an excellent protocol could be made, with excellent software. But I feel like coinjoins need more attention. I hope someday we have a very good standardized protocol, and a single very-high-library library which is used by all wallets. So that a typical Bitcoin block is mostly just one big coinjoin For example, I'd love to see all the Lightning (and Ark?) implementations doing their funding transactions and cooperative exits via coinjoins.

One problem is that people like don't understand that open source software always leads to *apparent* centralization made a pull request to Bitcoin Core just in January, to fix some issues with 29.x https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34370 Thanks Luke! The point I'm making is that these are not distinct groups of engineers, working separately on isolated independent codebases, with no permission to contribute across projects. The reality is very different Stop thinking of this like it's Apple-vs-Microsoft or Android-vs-iOS. In open source, the barriers to switching to the better repository are much lower than you think If Core v30 was controversial among the devs that aren't already working on Knots, any one of them could trivially have forked it to have whatever change they wanted When anybody makes a pull request to one project that improves it, they can easily make the same PR to multiple projects, or a third party can copy and paste the change We have lots of great code, and lots of great engineers, now supercharged by AI. Once one repository earns the track record of accepting the best PRs, it naturally becomes the center of attention. It *appears* centralized, but it can trivially move to another repository if the other repository is better

Ah! It worked on my fourth attempt

I tried to zap you, Aaron

I made this chart on why BIP110 is anti-bitcoin. "Spam" was never the debate The rest of us care about scaling bitcoin, and we are very successful at ensuring that the UTXO set is kept small, and ensuring big miners don't benefit from out-of-band systems Knots/BIP110 is an attack on Bitcoin. But it's also now a boring distraction, and therefore we'll see more blocks signal for BIP54-Consensus-Cleanup than we do for BIP-110 satsandsports.github.io/BIP110/

Indeed Does anyone remember that Maduro is still kidnapped in the US somewhere? I wonder what they'll come up with next? Kidnap the Canadian or Danish prime ministers?

But if I use the same address on many sites, then they can be linked to each other And it would be easy to link to a Nostr identity Bolt12 is better. I can easily generate many Bolt12 offers from my node, and they'll be different from each other and can't be linked

Looks like fun. Thanks to whoever made it! A suggestion: it shouldn't require a Lightning address to play. It would be nice to have more privacy-focused approach, like Bolt12

LLMs duplicate code too much. I got it to reorganize a bunch of code for the client-side of my system (the cashu channels). It liked and understood the changes I made, both for security reasons and maintainability. I immediately asked it to apply the same thing to the server side. It immediately understood and saw the great similarities between the client side and server side It did it, but didn't realize it has duplicated lots of code until I asked it to check. This isn't really a complaint. I'm actually glad that it (Opus 4.6) makes this mistakes as it means I'm still relevant as the architect and designer 😀

Very interesting! Danke