09:09:50 <anarkiocrypto[m]> Maybe Rucknium would know more about churning. I churn since 2016 and it seems to work for me but sadly I don't know any statistics or analysis about the effectiveness.
09:14:41 <harulenwizard[m]> <anarkiocrypto[m]> "Maybe Rucknium would know more..." <- what are the arguments people are making against churning?
09:29:01 <moneromooo> It spams the chain. I will leave the statistical arguments to someone better clued in about it that I though.
09:47:21 <anarkiocrypto[m]> Maybe automatic churns would spam the chain, but 3-5 churns some hours/days apart between receiving Monero (e.g. from a job, fundraiser or exchange) and sending Monero (e.g. spending it in a marketplace, making a donation or withdrawing to fiat) can be a valid use case for safety.
09:49:01 <anarkiocrypto[m]> 1/16 plausible deniability may not be enough for sensitive use cases (or less, if unlikely decoys can be discounted). If churning is effecive, even 2-3 churns significantly increases plausible deniability and therefore safety.
09:55:33 <anarkiocrypto[m]> s/effecive/effective/
11:47:32 <detherminal> Hello
14:12:36 <cockliuser[m]> <anarkiocrypto[m]> "1/16 plausible deniability may..." <- Is churning really effective though?
14:33:52 <ofrnxmr[m]> If done correctly 
14:34:24 <ofrnxmr[m]> If done incorrectly (acvidently consolidating outputs), no lol
15:07:10 <Rucknium[m]> anarkiocrypto: Like ofrnxmr said, the main concern about churning is users doing it "wrong". And we don't know exactly what is the "right" way to do it. Sarang discusses churning in https://www.monerooutreach.org/breaking-monero/poisoned-outputs.html
15:08:57 <Rucknium[m]> I think both Surae and knacc started research on churning, but they both abandoned it. Surae tried to develop a grand theory of churning. That may have been too ambitious.
15:09:56 <moneromooo> Made their stomachs... ch... nevermind
16:00:35 <nell2[m]> https://matrix.to/#/#general:breach.co