What do you think of the dust problem in Whirlpool that wastes money for even smaller outputs?   have already received your reply. Users are free to mess with their privacy and money. The client should not recommend them to do so, but if they nonetheless want to create dust outputs, they are free to do so. In the given transaction, it is clear that this was a conscious choice made by the user. They don't want to create change outputs though because the change addresses in Whirlpool are completely traceable: change can't be spent without linking your transactions together.  These 305 sat and 933 sat Whirlpool outputs are in addresses 100% deterministically linked to the original owner, whereas the 5000 and 6561 sat outputs from WabiSabi are spendable because they are completely anonymous. Spending received coins and Whirlpool change together links those two transactions together.  This isn't a feature, it's an unavoidable privacy leak. So you think the Whirlpool user should consolidate their postmix outputs within a WabiSabi coinjoin to add mix partners?  Makes sense. If a user chooses to reuse a receive address for multiple payments, that's a conscious choice, not a problem with the software. For example, this Whirlpool user combined his traceable premix change output with his postmix outputs that were sent to a reused address: Whirlpool premix transaction: Whirlpool traceable change address: Whirlpool postmix outputs in reused address merged with traceable change:
What do you think of the dust problem in Whirlpool that wastes money for even smaller outputs?   have already received your reply. Users are free to mess with their privacy and money. The client should not recommend them to do so, but if they nonetheless want to create dust outputs, they are free to do so. In the given transaction, it is clear that this was a conscious choice made by the user. They don't want to create change outputs though because the change addresses in Whirlpool are completely traceable: change can't be spent without linking your transactions together.  These 305 sat and 933 sat Whirlpool outputs are in addresses 100% deterministically linked to the original owner, whereas the 5000 and 6561 sat outputs from WabiSabi are spendable because they are completely anonymous. Spending received coins and Whirlpool change together links those two transactions together.  This isn't a feature, it's an unavoidable privacy leak. So you think the Whirlpool user should consolidate their postmix outputs within a WabiSabi coinjoin to add mix partners?  Makes sense. If a user chooses to reuse a receive address for multiple payments, that's a conscious choice, not a problem with the software. For example, this Whirlpool user combined his traceable premix change output with his postmix outputs that were sent to a reused address: Whirlpool premix transaction: Whirlpool traceable change address: Whirlpool postmix outputs in reused address merged with traceable change:

What do you think of the dust problem in Whirlpool that wastes money for even smaller outputs?   have already received your reply. Users are free to mess with their privacy and money. The client should not recommend them to do so, but if they nonetheless want to create dust outputs, they are free to do so. In the given transaction, it is clear that this was a conscious choice made by the user. They don't want to create change outputs though because the change addresses in Whirlpool are completely traceable: change can't be spent without linking your transactions together.  These 305 sat and 933 sat Whirlpool outputs are in addresses 100% deterministically linked to the original owner, whereas the 5000 and 6561 sat outputs from WabiSabi are spendable because they are completely anonymous. Spending received coins and Whirlpool change together links those two transactions together.  This isn't a feature, it's an unavoidable privacy leak. So you think the Whirlpool user should consolidate their postmix outputs within a WabiSabi coinjoin to add mix partners?  Makes sense. If a user chooses to reuse a receive address for multiple payments, that's a conscious choice, not a problem with the software. For example, this Whirlpool user combined his traceable premix change output with his postmix outputs that were sent to a reused address: Whirlpool premix transaction: Whirlpool traceable change address: Whirlpool postmix outputs in reused address merged with traceable change:

What do you think of the dust problem in Whirlpool that wastes money for even smaller outputs?   have already received your reply. Users are free to mess with their privacy and money. The client should not recommend them to do so, but if they nonetheless want to create dust outputs, they are free to do so. In the given transaction, it is clear that this was a conscious choice made by the user. They don't want to create change outputs though because the change addresses in Whirlpool are completely traceable: change can't be spent without linking your transactions together.  These 305 sat and 933 sat Whirlpool outputs are in addresses 100% deterministically linked to the original owner, whereas the 5000 and 6561 sat outputs from WabiSabi are spendable because they are completely anonymous. Spending received coins and Whirlpool change together links those two transactions together.  This isn't a feature, it's an unavoidable privacy leak. So you think the Whirlpool user should consolidate their postmix outputs within a WabiSabi coinjoin to add mix partners?  Makes sense. If a user chooses to reuse a receive address for multiple payments, that's a conscious choice, not a problem with the software. For example, this Whirlpool user combined his traceable premix change output with his postmix outputs that were sent to a reused address: Whirlpool premix transaction: Whirlpool traceable change address: Whirlpool postmix outputs in reused address merged with traceable change: