The unique Twitter dialogue was about disallowing same-address inputs in a coinjoin.

Quoting Max Hillebrand’s tweet:

There is no such thing as a privateness draw back of permitting it, there are solely usability
downsides and blockspace waste.

Handle reuse doesn’t trigger much less or extra blockspace for use. What Max most likely meant is that underneath this rule, any consumer wishing to coinjoin a number of outputs from the identical tackle would wish to consolidate them first, which is an pointless additional step that does not enhance anybody’s privateness in any manner and requires an additional on-chain transaction.

Peter Todd’s tweet:

Stopping tackle reuse within the inputs/outputs of the conjoin itself
would not cease folks from reusing inputs/outputs one step eliminated,
making it pointless.

So, he is not precisely saying that it is okay to reuse addresses on both facet of the coinjoin, simply that disallowing this follow can be pointless. There are authentic causes to reuse addresses on the enter (e.g. in the event you obtain a number of donations to a single tackle since you can’t simply generate new addresses), and whereas I do not see why anybody would wish to reuse addresses on the output, if anybody wished to do it, they might simply do it one step after the coinjoin, once more including an additional on-chain transaction.

What’s the easiest way to do coinjoin if a consumer has acquired a number of
donations utilizing a bitcoin tackle?

The injury has already been achieved. Wise coinjoin software program will hopefully know to deal with the outputs on this tackle as a single output (from a privateness standpoint), and coinjoin them as in the event that they had been every other output.