Hi

Before all, thanks for the wiki page tracking the payjoin adoption, it is a good idea.

-----

Even when there is a reasonable economical incentive to use segwit transactions to save fees a big percentage of the transactions are not using segwit yet. In the case of payjoins the economic incentives are not so big while the privacy benefits are not so clear for the payer as they are for the global transactions graph as a whole. This means that payjoins requires some level of altruist attitude from the payers. The payjoins UX is also not good because I think most users are not familiar with bip21 uris (users still request support because they pay a bech32 address in an exchange and the exchange tells them that's not a valid bitcoin address). All this is relative and subjective but in general terms I would say it is more or less true for many people.

Anyway, imagine wallets' developers agree on making payjoins payment by default because it is the right thing to do (fight against surveillance to spy on bitcoin users and improve bitcoin's fungibility). In that case it should be completely transparent to the users and at not cost, it shouldn't require the user to do anything different, it shouldn't be noticeable slower, etc. In fact, users should have to know they are payjoining at all.

The only way I see to achieve something like that is by moving to schemes where wallets can communicate and interact. I should be able to know something about you that allows me to select your name from my contact list and select "Pay to Chris" and if my wallet knows how to find yours then it can request a new address and pays, or generate a new one for you (probably using a output descriptor you created to share with me).

Sorry for the long semi-random rant.

El vie, 15 ene 2021 a las 21:07, Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev (<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>) escribió:
PayJoin is an exciting bitcoin privacy technology which has the
potential to damage the ability of blockchain surveillance to spy on
bitcoin users and destroy bitcoin's fungibility. A protocol standard has
already been defined and implemented by a couple of projects such as
BTCPayServer, Wasabi Wallet, JoinMarket and BlueWallet.

I've made a wiki page tracking adoption:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/PayJoin_adoption

It is similar to the Bech32 adoption page.


Recently a UK bitcoin exchange shut down due to new regulations, with
the owner writing a very interesting and relevant blog post that I'll
quote here:

> you’re considered suspicious if you used a marketplace and not an
exchange. Coinjoin counts as high risk. Gambling is high risk. As you
use entities that are paranoid about keeping their coins clean and
adhering to all the regulations, your risk scores will continue to
increase and without you even knowing why, your deposits will become
rejected, you may be asked to supply documents or lose the coins, your
account may become suspended without you having any clue what you did
wrong. And quite possibly you didn’t do anything wrong. But that won’t
matter.
>
> The goal post, the risk score threshold will keep moving along this
trend until the point where you will be afraid of using your personal
wallet, donating to someone online, receiving bitcoins from anywhere
except for regulated exchanges. At that point, crypto will be akin to a
regular bank account. You won’t have a bitcoin wallet, you will have
accounts to websites.

https://blog.bitbargain.com/post/638504004285054976/goodbye

If we want bitcoin to fulfill its dream of a permissionless money for
the internet then we'll have to work on this. What can we do to increase
adoption of PayJoin?
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev