# Objective-Dandelion **URL:** \ **Category:** Research\ **Created:** [March 30, 2019, 12:50am UTC](https://forum.grin.mw/t/objective-dandelion/4678 "2019-03-30T00:50:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 17
**Author:** ![david](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/forum.grin.mw/david/32/660_2.png) [@david](https://forum.grin.mw/u/david)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2019, 2:59pm UTC](https://forum.grin.mw/t/objective-dandelion/4678/17 "2019-09-25T14:59:18Z")
He and I did discuss this a bit when I proposed using ip address a few months ago. See here: > [@Yo Dawg, I heard you like CoinJoins](https://forum.grin.mw/t/yo-dawg-i-heard-you-like-coinjoins/5296/17): > > No worries! I surely could have done a better job explaining it. That’s a good idea. Two peers behind NAT or on the same box would get the same ID, but that’s probably not enough of an issue to introduce a separate node ID. That seems reasonable, as long as a single block time gives adequate opportunities to aggregate transactions. An alternative might be to immediately fluff a transaction if you are stemmed it twice. I.e. on first receipt of a stem transaction you stem it, but if you rece… --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.grin.mw/t/objective-dandelion/4678)._