Is this accurate? Doesn't sound like a bug, but choice of allowed spec.
nostr:nevent1qqszgydvmq3wthvsyaluhgyr7xk8dndvpt2vkpv0wzqhj4hucsaa4xgpvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c33wehx66ryxgurwurk0puxkdth89kkx7trvcerxctkxg6xuumrwa4nqerpxae8yenpvy6hwuf5dsuxsum9dpenjvrxw3k8v0mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2q3qsan22nhe59ct8pstcehav4dtkf94lkn46ltl7d30g3zzl00tg7usxpqqqqqqzhcawz9
It's a bug if they expected it to work under the 40 byte spec.
If they knowingly exceeded it... Then what are they complaining for? That's on them
40 byte was before taproot?
Out of curiosity, how does JoinMarket fare in these comparative discussions over OP_RETURN?
JoinMarket coinjoins work just fine in either setting or are they in same boat as Samurai here?
If JM is unaffected. Then does Samurai's different "setup" make these txns stick out like a sore thumb?
(Apologies for my non-techy understanding)
As far as I know, this is a Samourai only issue.
It doesn't make sense for coinjoins to dox themselves like this in the first place.
Sure one can identify a coinjoin tx onchain but it doesn’t dox anything other than being a coinjoin tx. One cannot tell which input/output belongs to who.