Topic: 🔥 GingerWallet.io - Desktop, Non-custodial, Open source | #CoinJoin - page 3. (Read 2478 times)

📢 Ginger Wallet is attending HCPP 2024! 🎉
Join us at the Hacker Congress Paralelní Polis in Prague, October 4-6, for an exciting weekend filled with discussions on privacy and tech innovation. Don’t miss the chance to connect with us.
More info: https://hardcore.hcpp.cz (https://hardcore.hcpp.cz/)

Dear Jolly, We appreciate the recognition. The changes mentioned in the previous post have been implemented in the new version.

Congratulations, it seems as though significant effort was applied in order for the new release of Ginger Wallet to be considered a very good update and upgrade from the previous version.

Does the new release facilitate the changing of the default coordinator? That will always be the main question/concern from users that are looking at this from the perspective of saving coinjoin fees.
 

🚀 Ginger Wallet v2.0.12 is now live! It includes label recovery during wallet restoration, a client-side remix check for enhanced security, and various bug fixes. Plus, Bitcoin HWI has been updated to version 3.1.0, now supporting Trezor Safe 5 and Coldcard Q.
Download now: https://gingerwallet.io (https://gingerwallet.io/)

Dear JollyGood,

We are happy to answer any new questions you may have, but we believe you will find the answer to your previous question if you read through carefully. If anything was unclear, feel free to join us on Telegram, where you can get answers to even more of your questions.

All the best!

A reply to my post would have been helpful to those thinking about using Ginger Wallet instead of Wasabi Wallet. If you make it clear what the benefits are gained by users for paying that 0.3% fee than for example use Wasabi Wallet with a free coordinator, maybe you will start making an impression with those that are potentially contemplating which wallet to use. Hopefully you will answer the question in your next post.

Exciting news!
Ginger Wallet is proud to be a partner at the Hackers Congress (HCPP). Come find us if you have any questions or just want to connect! https://hardcore.hcpp.cz (https://hardcore.hcpp.cz/)
Come hang out with us on Telegram: https://t.me/GingerWallet
Or check us out at gingerwallet.io! 🌐

When you look at Wasabi Wallet along with their option of using any coordinator that the user wants to use (including free fees and free re-mixes) and compare that against Ginger Wallet with a default 0.3% charging coordinator, what are the main elements that you would advise and encourage users to choose Ginger Wallet over another?

What will a user gain by paying 0.3% fees via Ginger Wallet instead of using Wasabi Wallet and a different free/paid coordinator?

Reminder: Free remix available only until Wasabi version 2.0.8.1. We recommend using Ginger Wallet (any version) instead!
Come hang out with us on Telegram: https://t.me/GingerWallet
Or check us out at gingerwallet.io! 🌐

Yes, even the free element is not 100% free but that is more down to the manner in which the change structure part of the coinjoin works. Before your post I did not know about any Kruw related podcast though I think there was some mention of an interview maybe in another thread but not sure will check it out. Having said that, it sounds as though it is the same as Ginger Wallet stated in an earlier response:

No, we would like to ask the users to use the Ginger Wallet instead of the Wasabi Wallet if they want to use the Ginger coordinator.

You seem to have the assumption that the two coordinator is totally compatible with both wallet clients, but that's not true.

Short history from the recent releases.
- With the release of Wasabi Wallet v2.0.8.1 (2024-06-08), the maximum coinjoin coordination fee was introduced.
The default was set that all non-free coordinators stopped to work, even if the current one was a non-free one. Also, unfortunately the users didn't understand the error messages and what needs to be done.
- With the release of Wasabi Wallet v2.1.0.0 (2024-07-10), the following changes applied:
The coordinator minimum input count must be at least 21. At that time the malicious coordinator ran with 1 or 2 minimum inputs; all other, but Kruw's coordinator ran with 20 minimum inputs.
All, but Kruw's coordinators instantly failed after a client update (free and non-free).
The maximum fee was set to 0.5% (this might hit the wasabist.io's random fee system, I don't remember). Note, that there was a plan to set it to 0.01%, that's literally generating dust.
Not mentioned downgrade: the fee exemption check was removed, so the Wasabi client asked LESS amount for their input even if they got exemption from the coordinator due to remix.
After this release all other fee based coordinator died as they weren't able to manage the changes on the coordinator side.
- With the release of Wasabi Wallet v2.2.0.0 (2024-09-19), our coordinator is effectively banned by the Wasabi client.

The Ginger coordinator worked with the Wasabi clients till now, because of constant code and setup updates.
On the other hand, you have to understand the Wasabi developers and their goal:

They have limited time to make the Wasabi project "truly" open source.
That means heavy simplification, removing the less used and not needed features (of course they won't advertise it in the release notes, but who would?).
They could have fix the remix issue, but there is no incentive to do so (as they won't get any money from it) and increases the complexity, instead they removed the whole fee concept.
For the same reason they removed the AML system, increases the complexity and it's not their risk to run the coordinator anymore (also there would be no fund to use it anyway due to the above line).

The execution wasn't necessarily nice, but their goal is quite understandable.
They were fair, and told their plan in advance (even if there were some timeline change from 6 months to 3.5 months), so we knew from the beginning that a fork is needed.

Thank you for your understanding.

It's not exactly and 100% free. Kruw explained in the Bitcoin Takeover podcast that aired a few days ago that he takes a few sats here and there. Since his coordinator has a lot of traffic, this isn't that small of a number. He can comment on that himself if he wants to, although this isn't the best place to do it.

There are several ways Ginger Wallet cannot compete with some coordinators but considering Ginger Wallet is effectively a business and they make their income from selling coinjoin services, it stands to reason they would want to stop/block people from using their star product with third party coordinators (and in the process effectively cutting them out of their 0.3% fee).

If there are some exceptional technical advances in their next release, it might appease some of the negative sentiments surrounding their wallet.

That is interesting to read, thank you for clarifying. You do realise you would like Wasabi Wallet users to change their coordinator to Ginger Wallet therefore why do you not want to reciprocate the same for Ginger Wallet users?

Wasabi was originally advertised as trustless, but it weren't really tested before as there was only one server (the backend and the coordinator weren't separated at that time) and that got the trust from the users.
After the removing of the original coordinator and making an easy way to create new ones, it revealed that this is not the case (in the past lots of the development went to defend the coordinator and not to the client for obvious reasons).
One of the mentioned issue is the free remix. The server sends whether a coin has exemption from fee, but the client does not check it. To be fair the protocol doesn't even provide a way to tell/advertise that there is a fee, but the remix is free, the server simply works that way by default.
To increase the trust, Ginger Wallet will check the remix in the upcoming release (in 1-2 weeks) and leave the coinjoin if it doesn't get it.
The 1-hop still won't be checked as that will need more development (still, the remix covers 99% of the case).

Ginger Wallet comes as a package, it's really up to you whether you use it or the Wasabi Wallet.
- The coinjoin uses AML, it's the user's preference whether they consider this as an advantage or disadvantage there is no point arguing about it here. To be honest the average user won't see any difference.
- 2FA protocol, the wallet can be stored encrypted so even if your computer and/or wallet data will be stolen and had a keylogger, your money is still most likely safe.
Of course, we plan to add more features over time.

It seems that it was a mistake on our side and previously only the backend was fixed to our servers. We never intended to allow other coordinators than the Ginger one from the beginning. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

The Wasabi coordinator is an open-source software, but you can't verify what's running in somebody else's computer. This is why the client needs to be configured to background check a host variety of things. This is where "trustless" originates.

It is true, however, that if a coordinator has more liquidity than Ginger, and is completely free, then I don't see how Ginger competes.

Whichever way you look this, it is true and cannot be denied. The fact of the matter is that the moment any coordinator has access to the funds (either directly or indirectly) the element of misuse of funds and/or misappropriation is a possibility if a malicious actor decides to use a coordinator for nefarious purposes. Whether anything related to theft will happen or not is different to whether it is a possibility.

Anyway, if there are open source coordinators with zero fees users would have to find something exceptional in Ginger Wallet for them to pay for coinjoins.

Sorry, I misread that.

He didn't say that making a service free makes it trusted. The idea is that if a coordinator charges a fee, you have to trust it to not be malicious, be fair, and not drain your wallet. We have already had some incidents with coordinators acting malicious in the past. I don't remember which service, though. And don't use your old "everything is open-source, there is no need to trust anyone" argument as you have done hundreds of times already. You have already stated that you have no coding skills yourselves and neither do the majority of people. Therefore, trust is part of the game to a certain degree.