ㅤ

[Kruw]

Don't take it personally. Kruw has been ignoring stuff he doesn't like or can't answer for the best part of a year now:

Step 1 - Get shown blockchain evidence of Wasabi address reuse
Step 2 - Ignore said evidence
Step 3 - Ask for the evidence you've just ignored
Step 4 - Go to Step 1

o_e_l_e_o, didn't you hear Peter Todd?  https://youtu.be/oPNFdhZUGmk?t=162

[1714620840]

1714620840

[1714620840]

1714620840

[1714620840]

1714620840

[1714620840]

1714620840

[1714620840]

1714620840

[Wind_FURY]

what if the most popular wallets also started implementing warnings and alerts that the inputs coming in their wallets are "possibly tainted"? How would that make the users feel and what would they do? Those coins would be sold right away, and if enough users are "warned/alerted" by their wallet app, it's probable that "tainted" Bitcoins would be valued less than "clean" Bitcoins.

It would be so weird and sense lacking.  Think banknotes but you get less purchasing power the more used they look.  Would mean we would have to play pretend every time.  I could trade my 1 Bitcoin for some body elses 1.05 Bitcoin that were stolen from a kid.  Then I would sell my 1.05 Bitcoin for 1.5 Bitcoin used in a hitman deal.  Makes ZERO sense!  But possible in todays world and not too far from where we are now.

I'm confused by your illustration, but to simplify, it's not really an issue today if we receive "tainted" Bitcoins because our wallet apps are not "warning" us or making us aware that they are "tainted". BUT that would change if all wallet apps started using the services of blockchain analysis companies and make it easy for users to detect "taint".

With a community-wide awareness of "taint", exchanges, merchants and services would start rejecting transactions containing "tainted" inputs, making it harder for the user to spend or sell those coins, and therefore have lower value than "untainted" UTXOs.

[Kruw]

High fees can't stop the coinjoin of the week!  There are 299 inputs in this transaction, switch to a privacy wallet today and make it 300 next time 

https://mempool.space/tx/c88b87d8ede8c8d16ceb0b38ad9867d5e9b9b88dac06e0379cd23df86f3b2378

Number of inputs: 299
Number of outputs: 251
Value: 23.9421712 BTC
Fee rate: 80.9 sats/vbyte
Input anonset: 6.36
Output anonset: 7.38

[Medusah]

With a community-wide awareness of "taint", exchanges, merchants and services would start rejecting transactions containing "tainted" inputs, making it harder for the user to spend or sell those coins, and therefore have lower value than "untainted" UTXOs.

"Tainted" coins are not harder to spend.  Just because someone tells you your coins are worth less does not mean they really do.  They worth exactly the same as long as you do not interact with folks who mistreat bitcoin.

[arabspaceship123]

If there's anything exploiting in Wasabi wallet you wouldn't expect them to announce it so they can be dismissed. I mean any dev who's examining the codes from github. If there's dangerous code published in open source releases from zkSNACKs it would've been scrutinised & published.

I've looked but haven't found any site claiming they've audited the code. It's open source so it should've been picked up by devs who studied it for weaknesses or faults. If it hasn't been audited it wouldn't have been downloaded as often. I'm guessing devs would've posted by now if Wasabi Wallet wasn't safe.

Whose devs? Wasabi's? If there was something in the code that shouldn't be there, you are not going to hear it from them. They would have put it there.

[Wind_FURY]

With a community-wide awareness of "taint", exchanges, merchants and services would start rejecting transactions containing "tainted" inputs, making it harder for the user to spend or sell those coins, and therefore have lower value than "untainted" UTXOs.

"Tainted" coins are not harder to spend.  Just because someone tells you your coins are worth less does not mean they really do.  They worth exactly the same as long as you do not interact with folks who mistreat bitcoin.

From the viewpoint of the network, I agree that "taint" doesn't exist in the blockhain. But in the real world, we have to deal with those exchanges that could lock our accounts, the government could order sanctions on public addresses that has been used in a way that they do not approve of - like the Trucker's Convoy donation address, and the merchants themselves wouldn't want to receive and hold "tainted" inputs. If Starbucks adopted Bitcoin, would it accept "tainted" Bitcoins if warned that those coins were tainted?

[Medusah]

From the viewpoint of the network, I agree that "taint" doesn't exist in the blockhain. But in the real world, we have to deal with those exchanges that could lock our accounts, the government could order sanctions on public addresses that has been used in a way that they do not approve of - like the Trucker's Convoy donation address, and the merchants themselves wouldn't want to receive and hold "tainted" inputs. If Starbucks adopted Bitcoin, would it accept "tainted" Bitcoins if warned that those coins were tainted?

The answer is to not transact with people who enforce that view.  If a stranger tells you that the money in your pocket cannot be accepted because he believes it was involved in criminal activity, would you try to prove to that random guy you are innocent or would you show him the finger?

[Wind_FURY]

From the viewpoint of the network, I agree that "taint" doesn't exist in the blockhain. But in the real world, we have to deal with those exchanges that could lock our accounts, the government could order sanctions on public addresses that has been used in a way that they do not approve of - like the Trucker's Convoy donation address, and the merchants themselves wouldn't want to receive and hold "tainted" inputs. If Starbucks adopted Bitcoin, would it accept "tainted" Bitcoins if warned that those coins were tainted?

The answer is to not transact with people who enforce that view. 

Theoretically, that's actually what's going to separate "untainted" Bitcoin, and "tainted" Bitcoin in a "taint-aware" world. Plus it's not because of choice, it will be because of no choice.

If a stranger tells you that the money in your pocket cannot be accepted because he believes it was involved in criminal activity, would you try to prove to that random guy you are innocent or would you show him the finger?

Ser, the paper money in your pocket doesn't have a transparent history for everyone to see through a transparent ledger. No one truly knows where each bill went from its "Genesis". In Bitcoin, each Satoshi has its own history, its own "story", everything is known.

[o_e_l_e_o]

In Bitcoin, each Satoshi has its own history, its own "story", everything is known.

This is not accurate, otherwise coinjoins wouldn't work at all. The concept of tracing specific sats through various transaction is entirely made up and does not even exist at a protocol level. Have a read of my previous posts below:

As I've said before, blockchain analysis is based on guesswork.

Bitcoin, by design, is fungible. As soon as a transaction has more than one output, it is impossible to say which bitcoin ended up where. It cannot be done. Everyone who claims to be able to do it is guessing, lying, or both. All blockchain analysis companies, all centralized exchanges, and now Wasabi too (which is particularly hilarious considering they base their whole existence on coinjoins). They have made up a system based on guesswork, and have successfully marketed it for their own profit to large parts of this space as some infallible law. It is not, and the only way to get rid of it is for the community to agree to shun companies and entities which support and enforce this made up nonsense.

As soon as a transaction has been made, it is impossible to say that those coins haven't changed hands. As soon as a transaction has more than out output, it is impossible to say which bitcoin ended up where (and indeed, "which" bitcoin doesn't even exist at a protocol level). It is trivially easily to fool many of the heuristics blockchain analysis uses, such as script type matching to identify the change output, or inputs being spent together to identify co-ownership. And not just to fool them as in "they can't draw any conclusions", but to fool them as in "they actively draw the incorrect conclusion". And of course one incorrect conclusion leads them to build more and more incorrect conclusions on top, building an entire chain of nonsense which they then pass off as irrefutable fact.

I've said for a long time that blockchain analysis is provable nonsense with no scientific basis. It seems even the directors of blockchain analysis companies agree with that. But of course they will continue to peddle their nonsense to centralized exchanges and governments alike because it pays handsomely to do so.


I did a small experiment some time ago regarding blockchain analysis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395035.msg59905002#msg59905002

One particular piece of blockchain analysis software put a significant amount of coins in the wallet of various centralized exchanges in one of the categories of scams, hacks, or blacklists. Obviously the blockchain analysis software being used by these exchanges did not classify these coins in this manner, otherwise they wouldn't have accepted those coins. The fact that two different pieces of software can come to completely different conclusions about the exact same coins should be more than enough to tell you that blockchain analysis is made up trash.

One of the core principles of any piece of science is that its results are repeatable and independently verifiable. If I come up with a process to say, isolate gold from an alloy, then I publish my methods and other people perform the same steps, end up with the same results, and verify my process works. If I come up with a process to say some coins are tainted, and other people do the same thing and end up with completely different results, then my process is bullshit.

[arabspaceship123]

Merchants don't want to be scared if they're using crypto which's categorised as tainted. They don't want to get linked to crimes or money laundering so they'll be rejecting funds.

It doesn't help merchants if they're carrying their daily business but worry because blockchain analysis looks at their transactions. They can't be promoting Bitcoin if it isn't fungible. The topic about tainted coins isn't going to be eased because investors & merchants are worried.

From the viewpoint of the network, I agree that "taint" doesn't exist in the blockhain. But in the real world, we have to deal with those exchanges that could lock our accounts, the government could order sanctions on public addresses that has been used in a way that they do not approve of - like the Trucker's Convoy donation address, and the merchants themselves wouldn't want to receive and hold "tainted" inputs. If Starbucks adopted Bitcoin, would it accept "tainted" Bitcoins if warned that those coins were tainted?

The answer is to not transact with people who enforce that view.  If a stranger tells you that the money in your pocket cannot be accepted because he believes it was involved in criminal activity, would you try to prove to that random guy you are innocent or would you show him the finger?

[Pmalek]

Ser, the paper money in your pocket doesn't have a transparent history for everyone to see through a transparent ledger. No one truly knows where each bill went from its "Genesis". In Bitcoin, each Satoshi has its own history, its own "story", everything is known.

That's not even possible in a perfect 1 input - 1 output transaction. You can follow the trail as the coins are moving from address 1 to address 2, but you don't know if it's the same person who moved the BTC from one of their addresses to a different one or if they changed hands. And as o_e_l_e_o mentioned, as soon as there are multiple outputs, blockchain analysis guesses what is change and what is the "real" transaction.

And governments won't even care if your coins are dirty according to their interpretation of taint. As soon as you transfer them to a mixer or partake in coinjoin, they will consider it suspicious activity worth questioning or confiscating.

[PrivacyG]

I'm confused by your illustration

It would be very weird and sense lacking because in this situation of separating Bitcoin into tainted and not tainted there will be some sort of 'infinite money glitch'.  Would easily work.  Particularly for certain groups of people and Institutions.

If Tainted Bitcoin is worth less than Clean Bitcoin then I could buy a Tainted Bitcoin for cheaper and try selling it to some body else as a Clean one.  That earns me a profit.  I could use that profit to fool more people and earn more Bitcoin.  Buy more Tainted, sell as Clean to people who can not tell.

Some Bitcoin Talk members could sell their Exchange withdrawals with a premium because they come from trusted sources.

Institutions could take Tainted Bitcoin plus some bribe from politicians and use their own institution as a washing machine.  Politicians insert Tainted Bitcoin and now the Banks only stick a 'CLEAN' sticker on their holdings.  What the hell!

It is only a mental separation anyway.  Very subjective and only inside our brains.  Bitcoin will always be fungible but they can fool us into BELIEVING it is not.

Pray we never EVER reach that boiling point!

[n0nce]

In Bitcoin, each Satoshi has its own history, its own "story", everything is known.

This is not accurate, otherwise coinjoins wouldn't work at all. The concept of tracing specific sats through various transaction is entirely made up and does not even exist at a protocol level.

Wow, I'm surprised people still try to argue on this topic, after revisiting it over 2 months later.
Is there anything new from Wasabi / zkSNACKs, any changes in the software or system architecture? Because in that case, I'd look into it to update my Wasabi blacklisting update - open letter / 24 questions discussion thread. Although I highly doubt that.

[Kruw]

Wow, I'm surprised people still try to argue on this topic, after revisiting it over 2 months later.
Is there anything new from Wasabi / zkSNACKs, any changes in the software or system architecture? Because in that case, I'd look into it to update my Wasabi blacklisting update - open letter / 24 questions discussion thread. Although I highly doubt that.

Yes, a new change in the software/system architecture is "Payments in coinjoin" now available through the RPC, which allows you to send private payments directly to your destination without having to coinjoin before and after, providing massive fee savings - https://github.com/zkSNACKs/WalletWasabi/pull/10580

[o_e_l_e_o]

Is there anything new from Wasabi / zkSNACKs, any changes in the software or system architecture?

Nothing that matters. They are still cooperating with blockchain analysis.

[Wind_FURY]

In Bitcoin, each Satoshi has its own history, its own "story", everything is known.

This is not accurate, otherwise coinjoins wouldn't work at all. The concept of tracing specific sats through various transaction is entirely made up and does not even exist at a protocol level. Have a read of my previous posts below:

OK, let me ask you something. Is there a way for blockchain analysis companies to know if a transaction went to, or came from a mixer/CoinJoin? They may never have the ability to connect our coins after mixing/CoinJoin, but because there's already some "information" that those UTXOs went through a mixer, then therefore they are "tainted".

I have nothing against Wasabi's when they made the decision to work with a blockchain analysis company, but they may have started to open a can of worms if other wallet apps build a feature that will warn their users that they're about to receive "tainted" outputs. If most Bitcoin users have this "awareness", then I believe those outputs will be less valued and will be sold as soon as possible.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Is there a way for blockchain analysis companies to know if a transaction went to, or came from a mixer/CoinJoin?

Yes. It is trivially easy to identify coinjoin transactions, regardless of which coinjoin implementation they use. The benefit of coinjoins does not come from obscuring the coinjoin transaction, but obscuring which coins are which.

They may never have the ability to connect our coins after mixing/CoinJoin, but because there's already some "information" that those UTXOs went through a mixer, then therefore they are "tainted".

"Tainted" according to their provably made up bullshit nonsense. As I've said before, I have never once had a problem with any of my well obfuscated coins being accepted anywhere, because I flat out refuse to interact with any person, service, business, or other entity which attacks bitcoin by buying in to the nonsense of "taint".

I have nothing against Wasabi's when they made the decision to work with a blockchain analysis company

I do. It's a direct attack on what makes bitcoin bitcoin, and paves the way for government take over.

[ABCbits]

Wow, I'm surprised people still try to argue on this topic, after revisiting it over 2 months later.

It's going in circles though, so there's no need to read all of it.

Is there anything new from Wasabi / zkSNACKs, any changes in the software or system architecture? Because in that case, I'd look into it to update my Wasabi blacklisting update - open letter / 24 questions discussion thread. Although I highly doubt that.

For software, you could check information (mainly "Release Summary") stated from Wasabi Wallet release page at https://github.com/zkSNACKs/WalletWasabi/releases. Their blog also has few interesting technical article such as https://blog.wasabiwallet.io/what-lightning-network-enabled-wabisabi-coinjoins-might-look-like/. But based on my memory, there's no announcement they remove blacklist on zkSNACKs coordinator/server.

[Wind_FURY]

Is there a way for blockchain analysis companies to know if a transaction went to, or came from a mixer/CoinJoin?

Yes. It is trivially easy to identify coinjoin transactions, regardless of which coinjoin implementation they use. The benefit of coinjoins does not come from obscuring the coinjoin transaction, but obscuring which coins are which.

They may never have the ability to connect our coins after mixing/CoinJoin, but because there's already some "information" that those UTXOs went through a mixer, then therefore they are "tainted".

"Tainted" according to their provably made up bullshit nonsense. As I've said before, I have never once had a problem with any of my well obfuscated coins being accepted anywhere, because I flat out refuse to interact with any person, service, business, or other entity which attacks bitcoin by buying in to the nonsense of "taint".

I have nothing against Wasabi's when they made the decision to work with a blockchain analysis company

I do. It's a direct attack on what makes bitcoin bitcoin, and paves the way for government take over.

But that's precisely my point. It could build a separation between "tainted" Bitcoin and "clean" Bitcoin, and that could make people value them dfferently. Currently we're not in a "taint-aware" world, but the shower-thought - "What if wallet software developers start implementing alerts that will warn users that they are about to receive "tainted" inputs"? I believe for users like us, we know it's absolutely BULLSHIT, but that won't be the situation for newbies and normies who merely want to use Bitcoin for "coffee transactions".

[o_e_l_e_o]

But that's precisely my point. It could build a separation between "tainted" Bitcoin and "clean" Bitcoin, and that could make people value them dfferently. Currently we're not in a "taint-aware" world, but the shower-thought - "What if wallet software developers start implementing alerts that will warn users that they are about to receive "tainted" inputs"? I believe for users like us, we know it's absolutely BULLSHIT, but that won't be the situation for newbies and normies who merely want to use Bitcoin for "coffee transactions".

Which is why we need to speak out strongly against any entity which promotes the use of taint, such as Wasabi, and warn everyone to stay well away from ever using their products. Taint only exists because of the likes of Wasabi. If everyone stopped using any entity which promotes the use of taint, then the entire concept ceases to exist.