Pages:
Author

Topic: Migrate UTXOs from one wallet to another (Read 417 times)

member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
November 30, 2023, 06:17:56 PM
#42
I do not get the privacy benefit of WabiSabi here.

  • WabiSabi:  The observer sees my input entering a WabiSabi coinjoin => coin is concealed
  • Whirlpool:  The observer sees my (premix) input entering 70 coinjoins => coin is concealed

See my previous example of how I unconcealed a Whirlpool user due to them splitting their coins into many rounds:

The first is the fee to Whirlpool itself, which is a flat fee depending on the pool you are joining.

The flat pool entry fee structure is designed to incentivize worst privacy practices.  Since fees are not collected directly based on volume, it is cheaper to participate in a smaller pool and create more outputs than participate in a larger pool and create less outputs. Additionally, it incentivizes revealing common inputs ownership of premix UTXOs since it is cheaper to consolidate them to enter the pool once than to enter the pool with each UTXO individually.  Samourai has never explained why they purposely chose a fee structure that heavily penalizes the most private usage of their protocol.

Because of this backwards design, you can easily link premix inputs to postmix outputs in many cases.  Notice how this Whirlpool tx0 premix creates 70 outputs for 0.05 BTC - https://mempool.space/tx/63679c9ec82f246811acbab0c04cc0fc77ba050e1b6c23661d78afcfc13cf8aa

Notice how every single input of this Whirlpool exit transaction is a direct descendant of rounds created by the aforementioned premix transaction: https://mempool.space/tx/ce2f84f7c5ff74fb1da103acb7b279bd34f02f5e9e3a2e1b6417ce8b9b7392db

When many inputs used in the postmix exit transaction are created directly from a round that the premix transaction entered, it makes it trivial to trace the user through Whirlpool.  Fortunately, the user abandoned Whirlpool and upgraded to using the WabiSabi coinjoin protocol instead, which made him completely untraceable: https://mempool.space/address/bc1qjjw5gaglkycu2lm5fskl7qhktk0hec4a5me3da

sr. member
Activity: 267
Merit: 268
November 30, 2023, 06:07:19 PM
#41
^The difference with WabiSabi is there is no tx0 premix transaction, so an observer tracking your input can only watch it go directly into a single WabiSabi coinjoin, whereas an observer tracking a Whirlpool input can watch it enter up to 70 Whirlpool coinjoins from the tx0 premix (or even more than 70 if the user links toxic change from multiple tx0s together).

I do not get the privacy benefit of WabiSabi here.

  • WabiSabi:  The observer sees my input entering a WabiSabi coinjoin => coin is concealed
  • Whirlpool:  The observer sees my (premix) input entering 70 coinjoins => coin is concealed
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 1298
Cashback 15%
November 30, 2023, 03:41:29 AM
#40

I highly recommend NOT to consolidate the inputs. Use whatever tool you wish, but I would also recommend what o_e_l_e_o said. Just send every UTXO in various time intervals and you will be more than ok. Keep it simple. That's my opinion, but I must say I am biased because I don't trust Wasabi at all.

It all depends on your habits on how to spend UTXO.

If you tend to spend the large amounts  that require a large number of small UTXOs consolidating them during an empty mempool can lead to cost savings.

On the contrary, if you only require a single UTXO for a payment, there might be a different outcome.
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
November 29, 2023, 07:14:41 PM
#39
So when a user wants to consolidate his many mixed inputs into an output, does he spend them in a WabiSabi coinjoin where other users can consolidate and coinjoin simultaneously?

If a user is going to consolidate anyway (regardless of whether their inputs are already mixed or not), then doing so in a WabiSabi coinjoin is strictly a privacy benefit.  I'm not sure what nuance you are trying to discover here, so I'll provide more context:

- Consolidation within a WabiSabi coinjoin by whales is inherently limited by the number of UTXOs or size of their UTXOs. Different clients that implement the WabiSabi protocol have different limits on the number of UTXOs you can consolidate in a single round.  With Wasabi, it's 10, with Trezor, it's 20, and with BTCPay Server, you can register up to 30 inputs using "Coinsolidation mode".
- Consolidating mixed WabiSabi outputs is generally not harmful to your privacy even outside of a coinjoin transaction, a whale consolidated 207 inputs in this extreme case (about 205 of these inputs are WabiSabi coinjoin outputs, I saw 2 inputs that weren't coinjoined just by glancing), but there's no link established as to which inputs originally created these mixed outputs that were consolidated.
- Consolidating mixed Whirlpool inputs without sufficient remixing is different and does hurt your privacy because the tx0 premix transaction shows all of the coinjoin rounds you entered initially.  When a user consolidates many outputs from all these linked coinjoin rounds, it provides little obfuscation as to which premix transaction led to that postmix payment:

The first is the fee to Whirlpool itself, which is a flat fee depending on the pool you are joining.

The flat pool entry fee structure is designed to incentivize worst privacy practices.  Since fees are not collected directly based on volume, it is cheaper to participate in a smaller pool and create more outputs than participate in a larger pool and create less outputs. Additionally, it incentivizes revealing common inputs ownership of premix UTXOs since it is cheaper to consolidate them to enter the pool once than to enter the pool with each UTXO individually.  Samourai has never explained why they purposely chose a fee structure that heavily penalizes the most private usage of their protocol.

Because of this backwards design, you can easily link premix inputs to postmix outputs in many cases.  Notice how this Whirlpool tx0 premix creates 70 outputs for 0.05 BTC - https://mempool.space/tx/63679c9ec82f246811acbab0c04cc0fc77ba050e1b6c23661d78afcfc13cf8aa

Notice how every single input of this Whirlpool exit transaction is a direct descendant of rounds created by the aforementioned premix transaction: https://mempool.space/tx/ce2f84f7c5ff74fb1da103acb7b279bd34f02f5e9e3a2e1b6417ce8b9b7392db

When many inputs used in the postmix exit transaction are created directly from a round that the premix transaction entered, it makes it trivial to trace the user through Whirlpool.  Fortunately, the user abandoned Whirlpool and upgraded to using the WabiSabi coinjoin protocol instead, which made him completely untraceable: https://mempool.space/address/bc1qjjw5gaglkycu2lm5fskl7qhktk0hec4a5me3da

^The difference with WabiSabi is there is no tx0 premix transaction, so an observer tracking your input can only watch it go directly into a single WabiSabi coinjoin, whereas an observer tracking a Whirlpool input can watch it enter up to 70 Whirlpool coinjoins from the tx0 premix (or even more than 70 if the user links toxic change from multiple tx0s together).
sr. member
Activity: 267
Merit: 268
November 29, 2023, 05:21:43 PM
#38
If this were a normal transaction, you would assume all 237 inputs were owned by the same user.  But, since it's a WabiSabi coinjoin, you can't determine how many users are participating, or which inputs belong to each user.

So when a user wants to consolidate his many mixed inputs into an output, does he spend them in a WabiSabi coinjoin where other users can consolidate and coinjoin simultaneously?
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
November 29, 2023, 10:53:27 AM
#37
Can you give me an example of private consolidation with wasabi?  I do not understand.  You mean after the coinjoin or during coinjoin?

During coinjoin.  You can see how 12 UTXOs were consolidated in this coinjoin transaction:

Take this WabiSabi coinjoin that confirmed in the last block for example:

https://mempool.space/tx/921ad5bfd23403e04682222387608b6231ef715cc4ce079ffd1644f2480dab37

There's 237 inputs and 225 outputs in this coinjoin (net consolidation of 12 UTXOs). If OP consolidates his 20 inputs within this transaction, how would anyone be able to determine that those 20 inputs belong to him?  You can't tell how many users are involved in the coinjoin, or which inputs are commonly owned by each user.

If this were a normal transaction, you would assume all 237 inputs were owned by the same user.  But, since it's a WabiSabi coinjoin, you can't determine how many users are participating, or which inputs belong to each user.
sr. member
Activity: 267
Merit: 268
November 29, 2023, 10:36:48 AM
#36
Not if he consolidates them in a WabiSabi coinjoin, observers would have no idea if those inputs are owned by 1 person or 20 people.

If you consolidate 20 inputs into 1 output then, unless taproot or multi-sig as destination is used, all inputs are probably owned by one person.

Can you give me an example of private consolidation with wasabi?  I do not understand.  You mean after the coinjoin or during coinjoin?
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
November 29, 2023, 09:55:36 AM
#35
No, but if OP consolidates 20 inputs then it is clear these were owned by the same person.

Not if he consolidates them in a WabiSabi coinjoin, observers would have no idea if those inputs are owned by 1 person or 20 people.
sr. member
Activity: 267
Merit: 268
November 29, 2023, 09:50:19 AM
#34
If OP consolidates his 20 inputs within this transaction, how would anyone be able to determine that those 20 inputs belong to him?  You can't tell how many users are involved in the coinjoin, or which inputs are commonly owned by each user.

No, but if OP consolidates 20 inputs then it is clear these were owned by the same person.

OP's concern is about his privacy from his Whirlpool coinjoin being ruined from consolidation

Consolidating all your whirlpooled outputs alone is impossible without noticing the warnings.  In sparrow when spending a mixed output you are told to use Stonewall by default.
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
November 29, 2023, 07:30:13 AM
#33
I love coinjoins! Not WabiSabi coinjoins though.

In general I love pluralism, so I am not using only one product or tool. That's why I sincerely doubt your motives. You always suggest wabisabi like it is the only tool that exists.

I tried not to criticise the tool because I respect everyone's opinion, but using ONLY one tool, for me is bad, no matter what the tool is. So I will put a full stop here, because I think OP has taken all the opinions he wanted. Lets allow him to decide anything he wants, there is no reason to argue once again. Have a nice day

WabiSabi coinjoins are the most private coinjoins, and it is the perfect solution for OP's privacy concerns.  Take this WabiSabi coinjoin that confirmed in the last block for example:

https://mempool.space/tx/921ad5bfd23403e04682222387608b6231ef715cc4ce079ffd1644f2480dab37

There's 237 inputs and 225 outputs in this coinjoin (net consolidation of 12 UTXOs). If OP consolidates his 20 inputs within this transaction, how would anyone be able to determine that those 20 inputs belong to him?  You can't tell how many users are involved in the coinjoin, or which inputs are commonly owned by each user.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 896
November 29, 2023, 07:20:12 AM
#32

Why don't you like coinjoins?

I love coinjoins! Not WabiSabi conjoins though.

In general I love pluralism, so I am not using only one product or tool. That's why I sincerely doubt your motives. You always suggest wabisabi like it is the only tool that exists.

 I tried not to criticise the tool because I respect everyone's opinion, but using ONLY one tool, for me is bad, no matter what the tool is. So I will put a full stop here, because I think OP has taken all the opinions he wanted. Lets allow him to decide anything he wants, there is no reason to argue once again. Have a nice day
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
November 29, 2023, 07:13:56 AM
#31
Because multiple UTXOs can be beneficial in the future where OP may need to spend an entire UTXO without creating change.

Creating multiple UTXOs in the present doesn't provide a benefit compared to creating multiple UTXOs in the future, you're still creating them no matter what.  Besides, what are the chances the UTXO sizes he picks today will match the exact value he needs for a purchase made in the future?

Also for privacy reasons, because consolidating them is not a good choice. Don't give me the Wasabi consolidation argument once more. I understand you like it but I don't like it so it's not worth trying to convince me. There is also no need to suggest Wasabi every single time. There are multiple tools for multiple use cases. Using only wasabi products for everything is not a good choice any way you decide to see it.

Why don't you like coinjoins?
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 896
November 29, 2023, 07:07:18 AM
#30

Why would you highly recommend not to consolidate the inputs?...


Because multiple UTXOs can be beneficial in the future where OP may need to spend an entire UTXO without creating change.

Also for privacy reasons, because consolidating them is not a good choice. Don't give me the Wasabi consolidation argument once more. I understand you like it but I don't like it so it's not worth trying to convince me. There is also no need to suggest Wasabi every single time. There are multiple tools for multiple use cases. Using only wasabi products for everything is not a good choice any way you decide to see it.
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
November 29, 2023, 07:02:11 AM
#29
I highly recommend NOT to consolidate the inputs. Use whatever tool you wish, but I would also recommend what o_e_l_e_o said. Just send every UTXO in various time intervals and you will be more than ok. Keep it simple. That's my opinion, but I must say I am biased because I don't trust Wasabi at all.

Why would you highly recommend not to consolidate the inputs?...

That's my opinion, but I must say I am biased because I don't trust Wasabi at all.

You don't have to trust Wasabi, it's completely open source.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 896
November 29, 2023, 07:00:21 AM
#28

OP's concern is about his privacy from his Whirlpool coinjoin being ruined from consolidation:

If they're all consolidated, you've just undone all the mixing previously.

With a WabiSabi coinjoin, he can privately consolidate his 20 UTXOs into one UTXO if he wants to (depending on their value), or he can split it into multiple coinjoin outputs in case he wants UTXOs of specific sizes.

I highly recommend NOT to consolidate the inputs. Use whatever tool you wish, but I would also recommend what o_e_l_e_o said. Just send every UTXO in various time intervals and you will be more than ok. Keep it simple. That's my opinion, but I must say I am biased because I don't trust Wasabi at all.
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
November 29, 2023, 06:55:28 AM
#27
Consolidation is a process where you get multiple inputs and produce one output. Are you sure this is what OP needs? Because I think he wants to maintain multiple UTXOs. Which is btw the best thing to do.

OP's concern is about his privacy from his Whirlpool coinjoin being ruined from consolidation:

If they're all consolidated, you've just undone all the mixing previously.

With a WabiSabi coinjoin, he can privately consolidate his 20 UTXOs into one UTXO if he wants to (depending on their value), or he can split it into multiple coinjoin outputs in case he wants UTXOs of specific sizes.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 896
November 29, 2023, 06:47:05 AM
#26
Why do you always suggest WabiSabi? OP clearly doesn't want to consolidate the inputs. I don't know how this wabisabi works but I think it is not what op wants

WabiSabi coinjoins allow you to consolidate inputs without revealing they are owned by the same person.  It's exactly what OP needs.

Consolidation is a process where you get multiple inputs and produce one output. Are you sure this is what OP needs? Because I think he wants to maintain multiple UTXOs. Which is btw the best thing to do.
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
November 29, 2023, 06:43:52 AM
#25
Why do you always suggest WabiSabi? OP clearly doesn't want to consolidate the inputs. I don't know how this wabisabi works but I think it is not what op wants

WabiSabi coinjoins allow you to consolidate inputs without revealing they are owned by the same person.  It's exactly what OP needs.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 896
November 29, 2023, 06:42:23 AM
#24
Thanks for all the feedback. I think sending UTXOs one by one is the best option and swallow the fees.

Why don't you save fees by privately consolidating your UTXOs in a WabiSabi coinjoin instead?

Why do you always suggest WabiSabi? OP clearly doesn't want to consolidate the inputs. I don't know how this wabisabi works but I think it is not what op wants
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
November 29, 2023, 06:36:17 AM
#23
Thanks for all the feedback. I think sending UTXOs one by one is the best option and swallow the fees.

Why don't you save fees by privately consolidating your UTXOs in a WabiSabi coinjoin instead?
Pages:
Jump to: