waxwing on Nostr: So I searched 'joinmarket' on birdsite and found some interesting discussions. Super ...
So I searched 'joinmarket' on birdsite and found some interesting discussions.
Super Testnet (npub1yxp…399s) I want to take issue with something you wrote: "In contrast, the coordinators in samourai/wasabi/joinmarket interact with the other users, creating/sharing psbts, validating info, kicking trolls out, and taking fees".
Note that (and this is common to other of your posts there) you're referring to Joinmarket as a protocol with a coordinator, because the taker is the coordinator for each coinjoin that it wants to do; but please realize that almost every person reading this will not grok the subtlety. To them a coordinator is a static coordinator. Also you say at the end "taking fees" and this is *in no possible way* a correct description of Joinmarket, since even if you treat the taker as "one time coordinator" (correct), they pay fees, they do not take them. Considering the sensitivity of this issue I *really* don't think it's OK to write that, since it's not true.
The whole paragraph *strongly* suggests that Joinmarket uses the same model as the other two, whereas in fact it's almost purely p2p, especially in the recent structure where directory nodes act only as name servers essentially, and peers then negotiate coinjoins over their own ephemeral onion services.
(Taker/maker is not a static role and in fact it's good for people to switch between them).
Super Testnet (npub1yxp…399s) I want to take issue with something you wrote: "In contrast, the coordinators in samourai/wasabi/joinmarket interact with the other users, creating/sharing psbts, validating info, kicking trolls out, and taking fees".
Note that (and this is common to other of your posts there) you're referring to Joinmarket as a protocol with a coordinator, because the taker is the coordinator for each coinjoin that it wants to do; but please realize that almost every person reading this will not grok the subtlety. To them a coordinator is a static coordinator. Also you say at the end "taking fees" and this is *in no possible way* a correct description of Joinmarket, since even if you treat the taker as "one time coordinator" (correct), they pay fees, they do not take them. Considering the sensitivity of this issue I *really* don't think it's OK to write that, since it's not true.
The whole paragraph *strongly* suggests that Joinmarket uses the same model as the other two, whereas in fact it's almost purely p2p, especially in the recent structure where directory nodes act only as name servers essentially, and peers then negotiate coinjoins over their own ephemeral onion services.
(Taker/maker is not a static role and in fact it's good for people to switch between them).