ㅤ

[PrivacyG]

I am disputing your claim that Bitcoin cannot function anymore:

If Bitcoin can not FUNCTION any more due to an issue that NEEDS to be addressed.  The issue will be addressed.  The 184 Billion Bitcoin bug should tell you something.

You are lying.  I never claimed Bitcoin can not function any more.  Why would a Privacy oriented software contributor lie?

I did not ask you a question.  I made a statement.  Questions end with this symbol: ?

My bad.  Looks like we are both in for a new English lesson today.  According to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/if,

'if' is also synonym for

c: on the assumption that

I have glasses and I just woke up, tell me how you make the coinjoin transaction valid without censoring the anti-SBF vigilantes.

Probably did not get enough sleep or wrong prescription then.  The amount of effort put into dodging so many questions like some epic Matrix scene must have taken a toll on your level of tiredness.

[1714605298]

1714605298

[1714605298]

1714605298

[1714605298]

1714605298

[1714605298]

1714605298

[Kruw]

You are lying.  I never claimed Bitcoin can not function any more.  Why would a Privacy oriented software contributor lie?

I am telling the truth.  Here is your quote as proof:

If Bitcoin can not FUNCTION any more due to an issue that NEEDS to be addressed.  The issue will be addressed.  The 184 Billion Bitcoin bug should tell you something.

I did not ask you a question.  I made a statement.  Questions end with this symbol: ?

My bad.  Looks like we are both in for a new English lesson today.  According to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/if,

'if' is also synonym for

c: on the assumption that

I did not use the word "if".  I made a statement.

Probably did not get enough sleep or wrong prescription then.  The amount of effort put into dodging so many questions like some epic Matrix scene must have taken a toll on your level of tiredness.

I genuinely want to know how you create a valid coinjoin transaction if you don't have signatures from all the inputs.  You said it was obvious, stop having a meltdown and just say how you can coordinate coinjoins without banning anyone.

[PrivacyG]

I am telling the truth.  Here is your quote as proof:

If Bitcoin can not FUNCTION any more due to an issue that NEEDS to be addressed.  The issue will be addressed.  The 184 Billion Bitcoin bug should tell you something.

'if' is also synonym for

c: on the assumption that

I did not use the word "if".  I made a statement.

You are now getting me concerned by making me think you actually do need better glasses or more sleep.

I genuinely want to know how you create a valid coinjoin transaction if you don't have signatures from all the inputs.  You said it was obvious, stop having a meltdown and just say how you can coordinate coinjoins without banning anyone.

Read again.  I wanted to know your answers to my questions too.  But I guess answering your curiosity lacks as much sense as answering my questions does.

[Kruw]

You are now getting me concerned by making me think you actually do need better glasses or more sleep.

Look at my statement with your own glasses, there is no ? symbol or the word "if":

Your questions are based on the false premise that a coinjoin coordinator can exclude someone from the blockchain, so they don't make any sense.

Your question is based on the false premise that I am running a Coin Join coordinator, so it does not make any sense.  Also.  Your previous question is based on the false premise that I was saying Bitcoin is not functioning well.  Does not make any sense to even bother answering properly any of your previous questions so far.

I genuinely want to know how you create a valid coinjoin transaction if you don't have signatures from all the inputs.  You said it was obvious, stop having a meltdown and just say how you can coordinate coinjoins without banning anyone.

Read again.

Read what again?  You never provided a solution to censorship free coinjoin coordination, you just said "obviously what you will need to do is make it possible to function again":

If no more valid transactions will ever be possibly constructed with the 'vigilantes deciding to take justice into their own hands'.  Then obviously what you will need to do is make it possible to function again.

So tell me just once:  What is the "obvious" thing that should be done to make it possible for the coinjoin to function again?

[PrivacyG]

I genuinely want to know how you create a valid coinjoin transaction if you don't have signatures from all the inputs.

I forgot to answer this curiosity too.  I do currently have signatures from all the inputs, so what are you talking about?

Look at my statement with your own glasses, there is no ? symbol or the word "if":

I looked at your replies.  With a pair of glasses of my own!  Here is what I found, I found that you lied again and it was in fact a question ending with a '?' and not a statement,

Yes, I am interested in this philosophical aspect as well: If you knew that a famous thief such as Sam Bankman-Fried was registering his coins to your coinjoin coordinator, would you choose to help him hide his stolen funds from being traced?  Or would you decline to help him?

If you knew that a famous thief such as Sam Bankman-Fried was moving Bitcoin through Wallets of his and we knew which Wallets he owns, would you choose to help him hide his stolen funds from being traced?  Or would you agree with and support the application of censoring methods to keep him off the Blockchain?
-rest of questions-

Also.  I am very curious to know the answers to the few questions I asked,

Your questions are based on the false premise that a coinjoin coordinator can exclude someone from the blockchain, so they don't make any sense.

Your question is based on the false premise that I am running a Coin Join coordinator, so it does not make any sense.  Also.  Your previous question is based on the false premise that I was saying Bitcoin is not functioning well.  Does not make any sense to even bother answering properly any of your previous questions so far.

I did not ask you a question.  I made a statement.  Questions end with this symbol: ?

[Kruw]

I do currently have signatures from all the inputs, so what are you talking about?

The scenario I am talking about is when the coordinator does not have all the signatures from the inputs because anti-SBF vigilantes decided to take justice into their own hands:

What happens when the other participants using o_e_l_e_o's coinjoin coordinator take justice into their own hands and refuse to sign SBF's coinjoin transaction?  Now o_e_l_e_o must ban these non signer vigilantes on behalf of SBF.

Why should o_e_l_e_o BAN these 'vigilantes'?  Why do your solutions always imply censorship, Kruw?

As I explained before, the coinjoin transaction is not valid since the vigilantes did not sign it:

If o_e_l_e_o doesn't ban them, then a valid transaction will never be constructed.  The coinjoin will remain unsigned forever.

You responded by saying "obviously what you will need to do is make it possible to function again":

If no more valid transactions will ever be possibly constructed with the 'vigilantes deciding to take justice into their own hands'.  Then obviously what you will need to do is make it possible to function again.

So I am asking for your solution:  What obvious thing must be done to make it possible for the coinjoin to function again?

I looked at your replies.  With a pair of glasses of my own!  Here is what I found, I found that you lied again and it was in fact a question ending with a '?' and not a statement,

This quote is a statement, it does not end with ?

Your questions are based on the false premise that a coinjoin coordinator can exclude someone from the blockchain, so they don't make any sense.

I can't believe you are going through so much effort to deceive everyone into thinking my quoted statement is actually a question.  Clearly, it is a statement, which everyone can verify for themselves due to the presence of the "." mark at the end of the quote.

[PrivacyG]

This was a fun ride.  You are such a clown.  I only gave you a taste of your own medicine.  I will stop now for the respect of the rest of this community.

It is funny how when I am using 'if' you take it as a CLAIM and not an assumption,

IF Bitcoin can not FUNCTION any more due to an issue that NEEDS to be addressed.  The issue will be addressed.  The 184 Billion Bitcoin bug should tell you something.

Bitcoin is functioning just fine, what are you talking about?

Then you use the same 'if' and expect me to read it as a scenario,

I genuinely want to know how you create a valid coinjoin transaction IF you don't have signatures from all the inputs.

I do currently have signatures from all the inputs, so what are you talking about?

The scenario I am talking about is when the coordinator does not have all the signatures from the inputs because anti-SBF vigilantes decided to take justice into their own hands:

-----

You intentionally ask questions maliciously so no matter the answer you will still find a way for that person to look bad,

If you knew that a famous thief such as Sam Bankman-Fried was registering his coins to your coinjoin coordinator, would you choose to help him hide his stolen funds from being traced?  Or would you decline to help him?

But then refuse to answer the same kind of question when asked back,

If you knew that a famous thief such as Sam Bankman-Fried was moving Bitcoin through Wallets of his and we knew which Wallets he owns, would you choose to help him hide his stolen funds from being traced?  Or would you agree with and support the application of censoring methods to keep him off the Blockchain?
-rest of questions-

Your questions are based on the false premise that a coinjoin coordinator can exclude someone from the blockchain, so they don't make any sense.

-----

I can't believe you are going through so much effort to deceive everyone into thinking my quoted statement is actually a question.  Clearly, it is a statement.

Finally.  You found a mirror!  Every body told you it looks bad and you never believed any of us.  Proud to see you waking up for once.

[Kruw]

You intentionally ask questions maliciously so no matter the answer you will still find a way for that person to look bad

"What obvious thing must be done to make it possible for the coinjoin to function again?" is not a malicious question, I'm asking you to provide the solution for a claim you made:  

If no more valid transactions will ever be possibly constructed with the 'vigilantes deciding to take justice into their own hands'.  Then obviously what you will need to do is make it possible to function again.

If your answer makes you "look bad", that's your fault, not mine.

[o_e_l_e_o]

This was a fun ride.  You are such a clown.  I only gave you a taste of your own medicine.  I will stop now for the respect of the rest of this community.

I'd admire your persistence, but you might as well be trying to convince a BSV cult member that CSW is not Satoshi. No amount of evidence or logic, however obvious it is to the rest of us, will convince Kruw otherwise.

His point regarding SBF's coins is a fallacy of presumption. No one is specifically "allowing" SBF's coins, because no one (expect Wasabi, of course) is spying on inputs and paying blockchain analysis for information on those inputs. He cannot understand that because his default position is "spy on every input", and cannot understand people like us who think privacy should be universal and not granted by some faceless third party. It is clear his analogy is bullshit in reality since neither of the two main coinjoin implementations - JoinMarket or Whirlpool - implement any kind of censorship like Wasabi does, and neither of them have any problems whatsoever with Kruw's made up "vigilantes" policing the system for reasons unknown. All UTXOs are treated equally, which is exactly how bitcoin was designed and how it functioned before malicious entities like blockchain analysis and Wasabi came along and started treating some coins as "tainted" based on made up heuristics which we've recently seen in court have absolutely zero evidence base behind them.

We've been going round in circles with him for months. He is shown evidence, he ignores it, he claims no evidence was ever presented, and then he copies and pastes the same pages and pages of nonsense which have been thoroughly debunked already. He argues about semantics, appeals to authority, argues over tone, all while ignoring all questions he can't answer and evidence he doesn't like. Like everything to do with Wasabi, it's a complete clown show.

[Kruw]

no one (expect Wasabi, of course) is spying on inputs and paying blockchain analysis for information on those inputs. He cannot understand that because his default position is "spy on every input", and cannot understand people like us who think privacy should be universal and not granted by some faceless third party.

You're lying.  No one can spy on your inputs when you use Wasabi because your xpub address is completely protected by client side block filters and your IP address is completely protected by Tor:

-You can learn how block filters work so you never share your inputs with any third parties here:  https://bips.xyz/157 | https://bips.xyz/158
-You can learn how Tor works so you never share your IP address with any third parties here: https://blog.wasabiwallet.io/explaining-wasabi-wallets-tor-implementation/

With Wasabi, privacy is universal because both privacy features are enabled by default.

[Pmalek]

If you knew that a famous thief such as Sam Bankman-Fried was registering his coins to your coinjoin coordinator, would you choose to help him hide his stolen funds from being traced?

Oh, so that's what you are doing. Very nice. Since you are so confident that blockchain analysis is precise in finding the crypto Sam Bankman-Fried stole or any other criminal individual or criminal nation-state without affecting other people, tell us how you know that? Someone that is so much pro open-source as you and and the Wasabi team have certainly asked to see the code and algorithms that blockchain analysis uses to come to their conclusions. So, what can you tell us?

[Kruw]

If you knew that a famous thief such as Sam Bankman-Fried was registering his coins to your coinjoin coordinator, would you choose to help him hide his stolen funds from being traced?

Oh, so that's what you are doing. Very nice. Since you are so confident that blockchain analysis is precise in finding the crypto Sam Bankman-Fried stole or any other criminal individual or criminal nation-state without affecting other people, tell us how you know that? Someone that is so much pro open-source as you and and the Wasabi team have certainly asked to see the code and algorithms that blockchain analysis uses to come to their conclusions. So, what can you tell us?

I never expressed confidence in blockchain analysis precision.  I created a philosophical example for BlackHatCoiner where he knows SBF is registering his stolen coins to his coordinator to ask how he would react in such a situation:

As a coinjoin coordinator, would you deny service to Sam Bankman Fried if he wanted to coinjoin stolen FTX funds?

The answer is no regardless the client.

As a coinjoin coordinator, would you deny service to Sam Bankman Fried if he wanted to coinjoin stolen FTX funds?  Or would you make his stolen coins private instead?

Hell, why stop there? If your blockchain analysis buddies don't want to provide services to SBF, then why not petition miners to blacklist his transactions altogether? There has been more than one mining pool in the past which has selectively censored transactions based on a blockchain analysis blacklist, OFAC blacklist, or other such bullshit. Only approved people should be allowed to use bitcoin at all! Congrats, you've just invented a CBDC.

After all, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear, right? Everyone who doesn't comply is a target.

You can fuck right off with your malignant permissioned privacy bullshit.

Of course, it's not exactly surprising to hear a pro-SBF responses from BlackHatCoiner and o_e_l_e_o since they both partner with custodians that steal their money from their users, so they would never deny coinjoin services to their hero and role model Sam Bankman-Fried.

[Medusah]

Sam Bankman-Fried is a criminal and deserves to go to prison.  That does not mean it sucks morally to use his money, just as it does not suck to use cash which directly come from cocaine and heroin sales.  You have probably used money coming from that too, unless you do not use cash.

BTW, this whole philosophical discussion has no meaning, because chain analysis is totally flawed and cannot determine shit.  Relying on them for your coinjoins is the dumbest idea known to Bitcoin's privacy history which is what we are all trying to tell you 50 pages now.

[Pmalek]

I never expressed confidence in blockchain analysis precision.

But zkSNACKs did/does, otherwise why rely on it to provide you with inputs about who can coinjoin and who not? Why use a method to determine non-existent taint using imprecise data and algorithms? How do you not see that you are defending and justifying something flawed you yourself don't believe in?

Of course, it's not exactly surprising to hear a pro-SBF responses from BlackHatCoiner and o_e_l_e_o since they both partner with custodians that steal their money from their users, so they would never deny coinjoin services to their hero and role model Sam Bankman-Fried.

That's just stupid, and no one with half a brain between their ears will believe that. You don't believe it either, so drop the act.
What's being defended here is the fungibility and non-censorship nature of Bitcoin, not someone like SBF.

If someone sends donations in BTC to Ukraine to defend against Russia it proves that Bitcoin works.
If someone else sends BTC to Russia to attack Ukraine, guess what, BTC works again.
If you send your coins to Palestine to defend against Israel, Bitcoin worked.
And finally, if you donate to the Israelis for their war on Palestine, the network again works as it should.

None of what I wrote is politics nor support for one side against the other. Bitcoin isn't supposed to have sides or a party capable of deciding what it can and can't be used for. 

[PrivacyG]

Of course, it's not exactly surprising to hear a pro-SBF responses from BlackHatCoiner and o_e_l_e_o since they both partner with custodians that steal their money from their users, so they would never deny coinjoin services to their hero and role model Sam Bankman-Fried.

Why are you so frustrated?

Yes Kruw.  You just unveiled the mystery.  o_e_l_e_o is a slave of SBF.  We are all here to protect him and you are the Bitcoin Talk version of a Marvel superhero coming to save the world.  Wasabi has already fixed issues of Bitcoin.  It has solved fungibility.  Privacy.  You are very close to claiming that you even invented Bitcoin,

You misunderstand how Bitcoin works: A coinjoin coordinator .....

Wasabi is the solution of it all.  A billion in one solution to every thing around.  Hey everyone, how about we insert a more advanced Neuralink up every bodys brain once Elon finds a way for it to read thoughts pretty precisely too.

Come on guys.  Would you seriously choose to help SBF hide his stolen funds from being traced when we can have a data base of all his thoughts instead?  Think of all the crime we would solve just in time!  Kruw is just a genius.  All this time I hated censorship, he found the solution.  Surveillance State!  Communism!  With every step toward it, we are only solving more tough problems of society.

-----

You have probably used money coming from that too, unless you do not use cash.

But even money that is not Cash is money that has also gone through crime.  Sure.  The bank will not transfer serial numbers from SBF to your Bank Account.  But they will transfer funds from him to you.  A lot of dirty illegal money moves through banks.  We are talking bankers and banks.  Not angels.

Look up how billionaires and millionaires use their Switzerland bank accounts.  They are doing no good to humanity.  They are no heroes to any of us.  Every day criminals are scamming and stealing less than politicians and bankers laundering billions and billions every year.  Taking bribes, stealing, scamming and every other thing that is considered a crime.

-----

If someone sends donations in BTC to Ukraine to defend against Russia it proves that Bitcoin works.
If someone else sends BTC to Russia to attack Ukraine, guess what, BTC works again.
If you send your coins to Palestine to defend against Israel, Bitcoin worked.
And finally, if you donate to the Israelis for their war on Palestine, the network again works as it should.

None of what I wrote is politics nor support for one side against the other. Bitcoin isn't supposed to have sides or a party capable of deciding what it can and can't be used for.  

Who are you to talk about what Bitcoin is or is not supposed to do, arguing against Wasabi who solved every  Bitcoin problem?

Seriously now.  But if you send Bitcoin from Russia to attack Ukraine, you are bad.  And the press now has something new to cover.  And a new reason to spit on Bitcoin.  Does not matter if a Russian dies from a bullet purchased with Bitcoin.  It matters if an Ukrainian does.  Only then is Bitcoin bad.

-----

Edit.  Finding about banks running TONS of bad money like a marathon is just one search away it seems.  From legitimate sources too.  Kruw, I think it is time to call your Blockchain Analysis friends.  They might have more saucy information to unveil by researching angelic banks than desperately following the route of my last chicken strips that I paid for in Bitcoin.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bank-scandal-2020-2-trillion-transaction-suspected-illegal-activity-money-laundering/

-----

Sent from an iPad while licking the last bit of SBFs boots.  o_e_l_e_o and BlackHatCoiner can confirm as partners of SBF boot licking.

[Pmalek]

Seriously now.  But if you send Bitcoin from Russia to attack Ukraine, you are bad.  And the press now has something new to cover.  And a new reason to spit on Bitcoin.  Does not matter if a Russian dies from a bullet purchased with Bitcoin.  It matters if an Ukrainian does.  Only then is Bitcoin bad.

Irrelevant. The network doesn't care. Custody of the coins moves from one party to the other regardless of who the parties are or where they are. Here, we have a 3rd-party that's against Bitcoin and the privacy that Wasabi claims its protecting. That 3rd-party provides guesses and estimations that aren't precise and accurate, but are still being accepted by zkSNACKs to judge someone's eligibility for coinjoining. And when you tell Kruw that, he has a series of prepared answers.

1. Run your own coordinator.
2. We are open-source and verifiable.
3. You are a thief who has stolen money with 'insert mixer name here'.
4. And the most recent gem, you support scammers like SBF.

[Kruw]

Sam Bankman-Fried is a criminal and deserves to go to prison.  That does not mean it sucks morally to use his money, just as it does not suck to use cash which directly come from cocaine and heroin sales.

No one ever claimed that "it sucks morally to use SBF's money" - The scenario at hand is whether or not you would allow SBF to use your coinjoin coordinator to turn his stolen money into private stolen money.

But zkSNACKs did/does, otherwise why rely on it to provide you with inputs about who can coinjoin and who not? Why use a method to determine non-existent taint using imprecise data and algorithms? How do you not see that you are defending and justifying something flawed you yourself don't believe in?

It's harmless to rely on these reports even if they are inaccurate because there's no consequences for users who are mistakenly identified as "tainted".

[PrivacyG]

No one ever claimed that "it sucks morally to use SBF's money"[/i]

So you think it is morally correct to use money coming from crime?

It's harmless to rely on these reports even if they are inaccurate because there's no consequences for users who are mistakenly identified as "tainted".

Will they be able to enjoy private money?

[o_e_l_e_o]

It's harmless to rely on these reports even if they are inaccurate because there's no consequences for users who are mistakenly identified as "tainted".

"Censorship is harmless".

There you have it folks. The mindset of Wasabi. Unbelievable.

[Wind_FURY]

In your post, you're describing a false positive, and I already said before that there should be a way for users to refute the evaluation of blockchain analysis companies, or else we would merely be believing in whatever they say.

There is a very simple solution to this problem: Stop using services like Wasabi which utilize and fund blockchain analysis, and turn to one of the many much better alternatives which are not anti-privacy and pro-censorship.

If that's your solution, OK I respect that. But if you ask me, because centralized Bitcoin services will continue to be built with the use of blockchain analysis companies' services as part of their operations, then to be fair for all users, there should be a way to refute their "analysis".

I believe in the future, we'll also see mixers/tumblers start using their services too. I'm not saying there's something wrong with that because as centralized service, that's their choice. But if that's where everything is going, then we need refutability.