I guess I didn't catch your point, can you refer to your quote and indicate what is lacking a response?  I'm still waiting for you to respond to my points above: Personally, I combine toxic change with other toxic change where lack of privacy is minimum. Why not use WabiSabi instead of Whirlpool so you don't have toxic change and have no lack of privacy at all? You do not consolidate your private coins in the the coinjoin, but after it, using a mix partner. If you are using a second coinjoin to solve the privacy flaw of the initial Whirlpool coinjoin, then why not just perform a single coinjoin that doesn't have the initial privacy flaw so you can cut through these two transactions? 2 - Tx0 clearly pays the coordinator, and this output is easily identified. The privacy of Whirlpool coinjoins does not depend on this fee payment being secret. It does not matter if you and I both pay to the same coordinator address - there is zero loss of privacy.
I guess I didn't catch your point, can you refer to your quote and indicate what is lacking a response?  I'm still waiting for you to respond to my points above: Personally, I combine toxic change with other toxic change where lack of privacy is minimum. Why not use WabiSabi instead of Whirlpool so you don't have toxic change and have no lack of privacy at all? You do not consolidate your private coins in the the coinjoin, but after it, using a mix partner. If you are using a second coinjoin to solve the privacy flaw of the initial Whirlpool coinjoin, then why not just perform a single coinjoin that doesn't have the initial privacy flaw so you can cut through these two transactions? 2 - Tx0 clearly pays the coordinator, and this output is easily identified. The privacy of Whirlpool coinjoins does not depend on this fee payment being secret. It does not matter if you and I both pay to the same coordinator address - there is zero loss of privacy.

I guess I didn't catch your point, can you refer to your quote and indicate what is lacking a response?  I'm still waiting for you to respond to my points above: Personally, I combine toxic change with other toxic change where lack of privacy is minimum. Why not use WabiSabi instead of Whirlpool so you don't have toxic change and have no lack of privacy at all? You do not consolidate your private coins in the the coinjoin, but after it, using a mix partner. If you are using a second coinjoin to solve the privacy flaw of the initial Whirlpool coinjoin, then why not just perform a single coinjoin that doesn't have the initial privacy flaw so you can cut through these two transactions? 2 - Tx0 clearly pays the coordinator, and this output is easily identified. The privacy of Whirlpool coinjoins does not depend on this fee payment being secret. It does not matter if you and I both pay to the same coordinator address - there is zero loss of privacy.

I guess I didn't catch your point, can you refer to your quote and indicate what is lacking a response?  I'm still waiting for you to respond to my points above: Personally, I combine toxic change with other toxic change where lack of privacy is minimum. Why not use WabiSabi instead of Whirlpool so you don't have toxic change and have no lack of privacy at all? You do not consolidate your private coins in the the coinjoin, but after it, using a mix partner. If you are using a second coinjoin to solve the privacy flaw of the initial Whirlpool coinjoin, then why not just perform a single coinjoin that doesn't have the initial privacy flaw so you can cut through these two transactions? 2 - Tx0 clearly pays the coordinator, and this output is easily identified. The privacy of Whirlpool coinjoins does not depend on this fee payment being secret. It does not matter if you and I both pay to the same coordinator address - there is zero loss of privacy.