Such an amazing feature. Now way easier to use! View quoted note →

When I heard this word “ wasabi” I remembered that green sauce , kind sauce that make your tongue burn and your nose felt hot .. cause spicy but it left you wanting more if you dip In with the sushi 🍣

how can I measure the entropy of a CJ before doing it?

You can't. Wabisabi coinjoin are too large to calculate (or even estimate) entropy. You'd create a black hole before the calculation completes.

well that's a problem isn't it

Why?

well hang on do you mean "the entropy is guaranteed to be so vast as to be incalculable" and if so, can we verify that guarantee?

Yes. Did you ever try opening a wabisabi round with a Boltzman tool? It either says "N/A" or it just crashes.

Entropy is never guaranteed

i mean a tool crashing isnt precisely a guarentee 😂 my point is just that end users should be able to verify their privacy gains before using whatever tool

idk, how could the end user verify the quality of RSA 512 bit keys?

Entropy is the average uncertainty and we can trust averages to be average

idk, try and factor them? so it IS "trust me bro" in that same way. in that the end user relies in the implementation and theory and can't independently verify. it does seem like a problem to me in the case of smaller projects.

tldr, what you think is a bug, is actually a feature. Here the long answer: View article →

Security relies on min-entropy, not Shannon entropy. Min-entropy bounds the worst case: the probability of the *most likely* interpretation, not the average. Since H_min ≤ H_Shannon, proving high Shannon entropy guarantees even the adversary's best guess has astronomically low probability. We're not trusting averages, we're using the average as an upper bound on the maximum.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I was just addressing the obvious misunderstanding of what entropy is.

excited to read it 🙏

oh I see now why you're making the point about minimum entropy this totally answers my question. feature not a bug, as you say 🙏

If you need specific software to make it private, it is not private.

lol

Not much of an argument to prove your point, or prove me wrong. But, I would expect nothing more from people promoting this blatant lie. Many make the claim, none have ever backed it up. And LOL sure as fuck proves nothing. Yes bitcoin can made private. But bitcoin itself is not private. To legitimately make that claim, it must be private with ZERO additional step. But, you wanna lie to people, have at it. Not my problem.

Did you read my article above even? It makes the point thoroughly clear. How would you even use bitcoin without "additional software"? Make better arguments and you might deserve better responses.

So you are saying every single wallet, and every KYC platform, is private? Bitcoin in and of itself is the farthest thing from private, esp considering the blockchain is very public. Im not saying true privacy cannot be acheived, it certainly can and a couple people were made examples of and are going to prison for helping others with that, but were btc private as is, there would have never been a need for what #freesamaurai were doing. If its not default privacy across the board, its not private. And to promote otherwise is is just a lie. A lie many told me over many years while trying to learn / understand btc. Im saying anything against bitcoin. My issue is the intentional lies about btc privacy. But, I guess all that matters is what can be done by those with the know how, and who cares about anyone else who may be interested but have little to zero tech skills. You're good to go, that Im sure of. But fuck everyone else right? They can HFSP.