For a specifc fungible token, like a stablecoin, I think

it is possible to create a tumbler just like Cashfusion.

What do you guys think?

Not sure if it wouldn't be easier just to modify CashFusion for this purpose? Creating a centralized mixer might be very easy, but is it worth the effort?

Also CF is already audited. The risk of making critical mistakes should be lower.

its possible but currently not enough liquidity. also i think cashfusion is too centralized, we should keep thinking of alternative coinjoins like using nostr relays or something

You will never get enough liquidity for effective fusion without a single point of convergence. Multiple fusion pools split the liquidity into parts, which makes mixing ineffective. Also CF is a more powerful, next generation CoinJoin algorithm.

Maybe if somebody could make multiple CF servers talk to each other and exchange client data so they can essentially work as a big single server, that would improve it.

hah, that is basically what I suggested a year ago to do, it is the simple solution.

This will work for some time, maybe 6 months to 2 years, until some bored script kiddie starts rolling cheater servers. Then some anti-grifter code will need to be introduced, like there is in BitTorrent and Bitcoin

You can replace the server with clients talking to each other dht style, like with libp2p, though last time I looked the python implementation of libp2p was alpha version

Decentralization is a super-hard problem. This is why we needed Satoshi and a blockchain to solve it. I am pretty much 98,9% certain that your proposed scheme will not work. But I could be wrong.

It's not decentralized consensus, it's just decentralized communication. It's done basically everywhere, with the most familiar example of AtomicDex orderbook. People do it this way.

That's the thing: You cannot communicate in a decentralized way and establish consensus, because there will be trolls, saboteurs, clowns and CIA agents running the clients. This is why Proof Of Work is needed and what is it for: to achieve consensus in a decentralized way. But I am having an idea...

-.- you don't know how cash fusion works, do yoy

How about we mint "Fusion Consensus CashToken" using another PoW algorithm to achieve consensus in fusion? That would be very cheap to do. Consensus could potentially be achieved through incentives (value inputted) this way.

It's not so simple. First of all, the information hiding wouldn't be equivalent in the blame phase, but more importantly: how do Alice and Bob find each other if neither wants their IP address to be public?

oh, right. dht but over tor. Open bazaar was doing it, wasn't it?

I didn't think of the blame phase. So the server can mess with it?

Good point. So, decentralized protocols like that would make you ditch part of your privacy. Having a centralized server over TOR solves the issue

Still, even over TOR, the people who have public IPs (no NAT) would have to display their IPs. That would disincentivize anybody with a public IP to use it. And you cannot connect 2 peers which are both behind NAT to each other directly. Not a simple problem at all, is it?

Unless we are talking everybody setting up a TOR hidden service, but this is another layer of complication, much harder than just using TOR to connect to others (Peer -> Onion Hidden service).

1) people displaying their IPs over tor? What are you talking about? 2) nat traversal is a thing and I think several methods are there in the libp2p

1) Duh, exit node? Peer -> Tor Relay -> Tor Exit Node -> Clearnet? 2) There is no NAT traversal if you disable UPnP, which I do, always, on all my routers. I expect many other people do too, I consider it a security nightmare

Tor to tor doesn't go through exit

1a) 2 Peers cannot just connect directly each other through TOR. Are you sure you know how TOR works exactly? On TOR, First Peer -> Relay -> Relay -> Relay -> Last Peer connection is not possible. Unless second Peer is a TOR Hidden Onion service

TOR does not do a magical NAT traversal, how did you think TOR works?

no , the server hides information from the players , and the players hide information from the server. the information is effectively sharded so no one has complete information about which components belong to players in the case of blame. if you don't have a server, you would necessarily accept that the blame phase would involve sharing some of this information between the players.

so a compromised server is dangerous

...which is why there is only 1 server now

I thought it's about the liquidity

that too

not really

So if the server revealing it's knowledge is safe, then I still have to learn more about the blame procedure

Стикер

This sounds extremely clever. But wake me up when it gets integrated directly over TOR so it works Out Of The Box.

Hey, check DM plz, Thanks