I have a deep understanding of the problems with censorship and if you look back on our recent encounters in this forum; I have never made the argument that it's something desirable. In fact, voiced my dissatisfaction with it multiple times.

> Will 2.0 also censor users? If so, then you can't honestly claim to be decades ahead of anything.

You're conflating Wasabi Wallet, the open source software with zkSNACKs, the company that's running a Wasabi coordinator.

> In what way? Because they known your xpub if you don't run Dojo, the same as any other SPV wallet? Bit of a stretch to call that a scam.

SPV wallets don't send xpubs to servers, but I'll assume you wanted to say "most light wallets" which would make it true. Yes, you have zero privacy with most light wallets. The difference with Samourai is they don't advertise themselves as a privacy wallet.  
Don't take it as an offense, but the fact that you brought up running Dojo as the solution to this shows that you've just been scammed by them. We know that the default user sends their xpubs to Samourai, therefore these users gain zero privacy against their server even if they mix. Even if you use a full node to mix (dojo) you'll be still deanonymized by exclusion. Anonymity likes company. You cannot be anonymous by yourself.  

The fact that they don't provide any privacy is just my first problem. I have a much longer list of problems with them and I can go on and on. But since you seem to be liking JoinMarket, you may want to ask some JoinMarket contributors in private what their feelings are about Samourai. Spoiler alert: Many Bitcoin developers are afraid to publicly speak out about them due to their constant astroturfing and harassment of anyone who would like to look into what they are doing and how: https://nopara73.medium.com/samouraileaks-part-2-harassment-of-bitcoin-developers-fae3019abd2f

I wonder who was "the guy manning the booth." The mask wearing anarchist or the suit wearing business man. Depending on who you met, you will get different answers to your questions, as their personality is the exact opposite. zkSNACKs is a company with over 30+ people already and opinions on blacklisting varies to a great degree from "this should'd been done long time ago" to "we must start working on decentralized coordination protocols." My take is that I'd not like to discriminate between users at all, but it had to be done, and I can only hope it wasn't already too late. At least Bitcoin privacy can flourish.

Wasabi Wallet 2.0 is decades ahead of other privacy solutions in Bitcoin. There's Samourai that's a scam and so aggressive they scare away every newcomer who would like to develop for Bitcoin privacy. That leaves JoinMarket that's coming along nicely, however as a project without funding, its development is much slower.

This is a fact, not an opinion: https://github.com/nopara73/Dumplings

Anyhow, I agree with you and that's what we're doing: https://blog.wasabiwallet.io/zksnacks-blacklisting-update/
It's just legislation isn't the only way criminal organizations like governments are going after you. Not even the primary one.

My reply you were quoting from already highlighted, acknowledged and addressed your point: "In fact, even if there's willingness, the real world may force you to not do that anyway, just like in our case, so we must have technical solutions instead."

---

>  Furthermore, is it really the case that the 'real world forces you'? I've never had that issue in the real world.

It's easier to not get into impossible situations when you aren't operating the most popular Bitcoin privacy solution that's being targeted by multiple government agencies at all times

Wasabi did not turn bad. It's not like anyone is happy with what happened, but the fact is, Wasabi is the most popular privacy solution on Bitcoin, which makes it the most endangered Bitcoin project in existence.

Since UTXOs are public on the blockchain, they are analyzed regardless if zkSNACKs is using the analysis' data or not. This is not an information that the user confidentially shares with anyone. This is public information.

> We should use, accept and spend 'tainted coins', because Bitcoin being fungible is one of its most important properties. If you start trying to get 'coins without risk of taint', you're starting to play after someone's arbitrarily set rules and not after Bitcoin's rules.

Tainting is the consequence of lack of fungibility. Fungibility is only achieved for coins those come out of Wasabi coinjoins. Fungibility: indistinguishability is achieved on coinjoin outputs, as receivers of coinjoined coins cannot make meaningful differentiation between any two coinjoined coins. What you're suggesting is a social consensus on "let's close our eyes and consider every two UTXOs fungible" which I am all for. Unfortunately, we are a minority who understand the value of fungibility and even a smaller minority who are willing to act based on this social consensus. In fact, even if there's willingness, the real world may force you to not do that anyway, just like in our case, so we must have technical solutions instead.

> They still didn't explain how exactly is zkSNACKs Ltd going to blacklist certain unspent transaction outputs if they are not monitoring and collecting user data

We didn't explain, because it's trivial. By architecture, the Wasabi coordinator cannot breach the privacy of its users. It does not mean the coordinator chooses to not collect data, but it means it couldn't collect even if it wanted to. The coordinator only knows of the UTXOs to take part in coinjoins - so does the public - and that's not a privacy leak.

That is correct and we still didn't have a single applicant, so just want to take the opportunity to encourage the readers to apply if they feel capable

It does not matter what code the coordinator runs, because the client ensures it doesn't expose information.

Here's a brief explanation by gmaxwell:

> Using chaum blind signatures: The users connect and provide inputs (and change addresses) and a cryptographically-blinded version of the address they want their private coins to go to; the server signs the tokens and returns them. The users anonymously reconnect, unblind their output addresses, and return them to the server. The server can see that all the outputs were signed by it and so all the outputs had to come from valid participants. Later people reconnect and sign. - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0

Also it may be interesting to note that we'll move away from blind signatures in the future. You may have noticed that this scheme is quite limiting, so we're in the middle of researching a new protocol that isn't: https://github.com/zkSNACKs/WabiSabi/

This. In a nutshell.

But I can elaborate though: There was some miscommunication internally. Journalists were asking for comments, but releasing articles before we get to respond, so I told the guys that next time try to respond in a more timely manner.
Then someone who's still new thought my intention with that comment was to try to get more media attention out of it as soon as possible, so he wrote and published the article, and by the time I woke up... well, you know the rest.

>  All I have is a private key to the bitcoin address where I sent you the coins.

That is all you need. Sweep that private key with Electrum: https://bitcoinelectrum.com/importing-your-private-keys-into-electrum/

Google ad for searching "wasabi wallet" is titled "Wasabi Wallet" but takes you to "sudokuwallet.io" unlike what the title suggest. It wants to create the impression to the user that this is Wasabi Wallet while in reality it's probably just taking the users' bitcoins.

This is a scam: https://imgur.com/a/ADxTw5B

I'm in this 2 day cycle for a month already:

Day 1: Google "wasabi wallet", notice and report fake ad (https://support.google.com/google-ads/troubleshooter/4578507)
Day 2: Google "wasabi wallet" and  acknowledge the fake ad is removed.
Day 3: Rinse and repeat.

FTR this is the PR that implements compatibility with the new Trezor firmware, so in case someone is interested in the progress: https://github.com/zkSNACKs/WalletWasabi/pull/3793

There was only a brief period when the software started operating, maybe a month in 2018 when it was 0.01.

There's the P2EP line of research: https://medium.com/@nopara73/pay-to-endpoint-56eb05d3cac6

IMO we need to not disrupt UX for that, which ultimately comes down to waiting for Taproot: https://gist.github.com/NicholasTailor/b075ac92c22923c33eddfa38488719d6

Nevertheless we're also implementing it to Wasabi to be compatible with BTCPay, but I doubt its current state would see significant usage, if any at all: https://github.com/zkSNACKs/WalletWasabi/pull/3256

> OK, but will that improvement hide the fact, or the "actuality" that the user has CoinJoined his/her coins in Wasabi?

No, it won't.