ㅤ

[PrivacyG]

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.

I have the same feeling about the future.  I am right between the two of you to be honest.  I stopped using any of the services asking for Know Your Customer and the ones funding Blockchain Analysis.  It is of course their choice as Centralized services whether to work with BA or not.  But if every service is afraid of being pressured by Governments to start obeying their non sense rules and using Blockchain Analysis for their clients then there is no positive ending.  Only worse and worse future.  We will probably still have alternatives like Join Market still, but the more services hold on to their beliefs the better the future looks.

People who hold on to what they think and want are rarities though.  No body would risk their freedom and life for some body elses butt and well being.

The future does not look too good.  I imagine in the scenario you presented there will be services selling B S 'clean' Bitcoin at a premium you could buy to use with Centralized Exchanges and Mixers without the ban.  Such as Wasabi.  They would definitely love to earn a premium out of fools purchasing Blockchain Analysis investigated Coins.

Sad to see us having fewer and fewer alternatives to work with.  But this is what we get for not licking the boots of what seems to be a very disturbing state of Surveillance.

[1714619937]

1714619937

[1714619937]

1714619937

[Pmalek]

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".

The consequence is that they can't use the software they downloaded and installed for the purpose they intended. The software that is free and open-source.

You can't possibly know what other consequences there could be. Blockchain analysis now has those coins on their radar, and will surely follow the money to try and identify the users. This creates a problem not only for the person that got banned from coinjoining, but anyone else who might purchase those coins in the future. Those "tainted" coins could be bought by someone who later deposits them on a KYCed exchange or similar service and bam, they will get frozen and maybe confiscated. Then it's up to that innocent individual to prove his innocence. 

[Kruw]

Blockchain analysis now has those coins on their radar, and will surely follow the money to try and identify the users.

No, blockchain analysis has *always* had those coins "on their radar", getting rejected from a coinjoin does nothing to change that. It is the radar that caused the rejection in the first place, the rejection does not cause the radar.

[Pmalek]

No, blockchain analysis has *always* had those coins "on their radar", getting rejected from a coinjoin does nothing to change that. It is the radar that caused the rejection in the first place, the rejection does not cause the radar.

OK, fair enough. That makes sense, but that's not what I was getting at. It's obvious to me that blockchain analysis considers there is something wrong with those UTXOs, hence their assessment and recommendation to zkSNACKs, don't allow this. But now the money is on the move. The owner of the "dirty" bitcoin is trying to "clean" them through Wasabi. Blockchain analysis noticed it, so they can employ more resources to follow the trail and identify the "culprits". 

[PrivacyG]

You called me out in the petition topic for only responding with sarcasm and by not contributing to the topic.  This is the second time I am asking you the same serious questions your glasses were probably too foggy to see.  Maybe now you finally notice them.

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?

-----

No, blockchain analysis has *always* had those coins "on their radar", getting rejected from a coinjoin does nothing to change that. It is the radar that caused the rejection in the first place, the rejection does not cause the radar.

The rejection would not happen at all had Wasabi not partnered with them.  Then although existent, their radar would be useless.  There would be no companies doing Blockchain Analysis if there was no funding for it.  They did not pop up and survive out of thin air.  You are one of the reasons they still exist.

Weapons would be useless in a war if there were no soldiers to use them.

[Kruw]

OK, fair enough. That makes sense, but that's not what I was getting at. It's obvious to me that blockchain analysis considers there is something wrong with those UTXOs, hence their assessment and recommendation to zkSNACKs, don't allow this. But now the money is on the move. The owner of the "dirty" bitcoin is trying to "clean" them through Wasabi. Blockchain analysis noticed it, so they can employ more resources to follow the trail and identify the "culprits". 

Blockchain analysis is going to notice what the owner does with the Bitcoin no matter what.  If anything, getting banned by zkSNACKs is an otherwise unknowable advantage for the blacklisted user because now they are notified that at least one party has claimed their coins are involved in suspicious activity.

Yes, I'm aware the blacklisted user would prefer to have their UTXO actually coinjoined as opposed to just being notified it's been accused, but it's at least there's no downsides.

[o_e_l_e_o]

If anything, getting banned by zkSNACKs is an otherwise unknowable advantage for the blacklisted user because now they are notified that at least one party has claimed their coins are involved in suspicious activity.

Ooft. That didn't take long to go from "censorship is harmless" to now "censorship is good".

What a clown show.

[twitter.com]

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.

Ironic that SBF keeps being used as an example when it is alleged that either he or an accomplice used Wasabi to clean some of their funds.

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2023/11/11/tDoCc.png

[Pmalek]

Blockchain analysis is going to notice what the owner does with the Bitcoin no matter what.  If anything, getting banned by zkSNACKs is an otherwise unknowable advantage for the blacklisted user because now they are notified that at least one party has claimed their coins are involved in suspicious activity.

I guess we should thank you for your service and sacrifice and give you a medal or something. So having a suspicion is enough. One would think that there should be more to it than just suspicion. When zkSNACKs receives a negative evaluation for certain coins by their blockchain analysis partners, do they care about the reasons? For instance, does blockchain analysis present solid evidence, suspicion, or at least a gut feeling that something is not right?   

[Kruw]

If anything, getting banned by zkSNACKs is an otherwise unknowable advantage for the blacklisted user because now they are notified that at least one party has claimed their coins are involved in suspicious activity.

Ooft. That didn't take long to go from "censorship is harmless" to now "censorship is good".

What a clown show.

I used the word "harmless", but where did I use the word "good"? 

I guess we should thank you for your service and sacrifice and give you a medal or something.

I'm sensing more sarcasm.  Sarcasm confirms I must have made an excellent point.

So having a suspicion is enough. One would think that there should be more to it than just suspicion. When zkSNACKs receives a negative evaluation for certain coins by their blockchain analysis partners, do they care about the reasons? For instance, does blockchain analysis present solid evidence, suspicion, or at least a gut feeling that something is not right?    

I don't know.

[Pmalek]

Here you go @Kruw https://twitter.com/WimTweets/status/1723178230474052041

This is the future that governments are longing for and slowly building. If you think that your, at first sight, government-friendly bitcoins are safe, think again. Everything in connection with privacy protocols/services is a threat to them. These are the people what Wasabi and zkSNACKs is trying to make happy by relying on blockchain analysis to point out the "bad guys". But the real bad guys wear suits and fight battles against privacy in general. Anyone who wants privacy is their enemy.

[Kruw]

But the real bad guys wear suits and fight battles against privacy in general. Anyone who wants privacy is their enemy.

Someone should build a fully open source and fully private wallet to stop the bad guys.

Oh wait, Wasabi already did

[PrivacyG]

Sometimes silence speaks louder than words.  No wonder Kruw is intentionally avoiding simple questions.  Kruw knows answering these basic questions would ultimately affect Wasabis image so he resorts to avoidance.

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]

This is the future that governments are longing for and slowly building. If you think that your, at first sight, government-friendly bitcoins are safe, think again.

What an absolutely damning indictment of Wasabi. So even though they pro-actively started censoring people of their own volition, and not because of any regulations at the time, when said regulations do start to take hold the centralized exchanges discriminate against Wasabi all the same. So Wasabi's direct funding of blockchain analysis and their direct censorship of Wasabi users has achieved absolutely nothing for them. It would make you laugh if it wasn't so tragic. And terrible behavior from Swan as well. This new FinCEN proposal is just that - still a proposal. They are also trying to comply with regulations which don't exist yet, and are selling out their users as they do so.

This preemptive complicitness from the likes of Wasabi and Swan is disgusting. It empowers the government to push ahead with such regulations, and indeed, to go even further in the future.

Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked.

[Wind_FURY]

But the real bad guys wear suits and fight battles against privacy in general. Anyone who wants privacy is their enemy.

Someone should build a fully open source and fully private wallet to stop the bad guys.

Oh wait, Wasabi already did

What you did is very commendable, except that you decided to work with a blockchain analysis company which make your centralized coordinator actually working for the REAL bad guys. You encouraged them, and you're encouraging them to want more.

Will the wallet app itself start implementing some warning/alert option to inform the receiver that the coins are "tainted"?

[Kruw]

Will the wallet app itself start implementing some warning/alert option to inform the receiver that the coins are "tainted"?

If a UTXO is banned from coinjoin participation (whether it is due to DoS protection or from blacklisting), the user is showed a message that says "Some Funds Are Rejected From Coinjoining" and a /!\ symbol is displayed next to the UTXO in the coin list which can be hovered over to show the unban time.

[Pmalek]

If a UTXO is banned from coinjoin participation (whether it is due to DoS protection or from blacklisting), the user is showed a message that says "Some Funds Are Rejected From Coinjoining" and a /!\ symbol is displayed next to the UTXO in the coin list which can be hovered over to show the unban time.

You should start thinking about introducing one more message that will be a bit longer. It could say something like this: We thought that working with blockchain analysis would give us a free pass in the eyes of world governments. We expected they wouldn't take any action against Wasabi and perhaps whitelist us. Unfortunately, we have failed. Any bitcoin you run through our protocol will be considered dirty and tainted. Thanks for supporting open-source software and the premier privacy tool in the world.

[Medusah]

No, blockchain analysis has *always* had those coins "on their radar", getting rejected from a coinjoin does nothing to change that.

Strawman.  Funding chain surveillance does help them continue their operations.  For every unsuccessful coinjoin, they have a set of non-private UTXO.  For every successfuly coinjoin, they get funded by Wasabi.  Win-win.

Blockchain analysis is going to notice what the owner does with the Bitcoin no matter what.

Unless of course you had not given them the permission to reject certain UTXO from registering to the default coordinator.  Now blockchain analysis can effectively intervene in the coinjoin. 

So having a suspicion is enough. One would think that there should be more to it than just suspicion. When zkSNACKs receives a negative evaluation for certain coins by their blockchain analysis partners, do they care about the reasons? For instance, does blockchain analysis present solid evidence, suspicion, or at least a gut feeling that something is not right?    

I don't know.

Wasabi knows nothing about blockchain analysis apart from how to buying their product. 

[PrivacyG]

Here you go @Kruw https://twitter.com/WimTweets/status/1723178230474052041

This is the future that governments are longing for and slowly building. If you think that your, at first sight, government-friendly bitcoins are safe, think again. Everything in connection with privacy protocols/services is a threat to them. These are the people what Wasabi and zkSNACKs is trying to make happy by relying on blockchain analysis to point out the "bad guys". But the real bad guys wear suits and fight battles against privacy in general. Anyone who wants privacy is their enemy.

So Kruw says I should avoid Join Market and any Mixing or Tumbling service and pay Wasabi instead to work with Blockchain Analysis and tell me which of my Coins are bad so I can go through the perfectly clean Wasabi Coin Joins which will then become banned anyway.  Where is the logic?

UNLESS.  The speculation of Bitcoin Talk members from a while ago is in fact true.  If Wasabi Coin Joins are banned anyway and Wasabi is working with some body who tells them who not to allow to pass the Great Gates of Wasabi Coin Joins, then it sounds even more fishy.  This means the reality is the opposite of what Kruw has been telling us.  You are NOT getting 'clean' Coins which do not even exist anyway.  All they did is add a gate of Censorship.

If Wasabi Coin Joins were now 'clean'.  Then their name should not have been on the Screenshot you gave us.  This gives me a hint that Blockchain Analysis will only CENSOR Addresses and is NOT efficient enough to separate 'clean' from 'tainted' Addresses, what ever that even means.  Why are Wasabi Coin Joins banned if there is this definition of 'clean' Coins?

-----

Kruw.  Do think it is morally correct to use money coming from crime?

[o_e_l_e_o]

Another example of a Wasabi coinjoin completely failing: https://nitter.cz/ErgoBTC/status/1723700744576971012#m

25 stolen BTC were coinjoined in Wasabi (wait, I thought their blacklisting was supposed to prevent that? ), and has been easily traced to a variety of exchanges. Oh, and some of the stolen coins were split off as "toxic change" and combined with presumably KYCed coins from a Binance account: https://nitter.cz/coinableS/status/1723806321441710412#m. You know, the same thing Kruw has been telling us is impossible with Wasabi.

I'm sure we'll be treated to the usual litany of excuses, but the bottom line is that Wasabi does not work.