ㅤ

[Pmalek]

"Taint" doesn't exist in the blockchain.

I didn't say that taint existed. On the other hand, blockchain analysis companies and centralized exchanges believe it exists. Better yet, they want the users to believe it exists, as an excuse to gather more information on them that they can then sell and share with their partners in government agencies and elsewhere.   

Plus from everyone's personal experience, when have users truly had a problem with "taint" regularly? The forum should be full of threads complaining about it by now.

I don't think that's good enough. I don't want to have that problem even once. Especially if everything worked flawlessly until it suddenly didn't, and my coins got taken by someone who gave themselves the right to do so based on the "proof" they received by a surveillance agency whose standards and methods are unknown. The solution is to abandon centralized exchanges, but not that many people will want to hear that message. 

[1714656806]

1714656806

[1714656806]

1714656806

[BlackHatCoiner]

You should know what when most people say "Wasabi is not privacy-friendly", they are actually referring to its coordinator zksnacks.

When I say that, I mean the entire project-- not just the default behavior of the wallet software. First of all, even that is questionable due to the reasons outlined in Twitter threads, o_e_l_e_o has posted. Account wasabistats from Twitter specifically does expose their flaws. A simple example is address - bc1qjqg7znvswmgkuwpjfp0dfw57twqfkazjk3vuup - that was reused twice using Wasabi 2.0, as described in here.

Maybe our fellow contributor can help us out and explain why there's a Twitter account out there outright lying? That's zkSNACKs' job in the end.  

[Kruw]

Software doesn't run on intentions

Coordinators apparently do. I don't question Wasabi wallet for being bad software per se (although I do have concerns as mentioned repeatedly about address reuse etc.), I question the intentions of the developers who run the coordinator, which I must comply with if I need to use it.

So use a different coordinator or run your own:

I've read most of the posts/replies towards Kruw, and I think that everyone is making too much commotion over nothing but a trade-off taken by a group of developers, who, believes that the best path forward for Wasabi Wallet is to make the centralized coordinator block outputs from nefarious sources. The solution, in my personal opinion is, fork the coordinator and have it accept all outputs from all sources.

Yep.  Anyone who feels brave enough to copy and paste the coordinator code can do so.  Others have already because they actually care about what they are saying: https://t.me/WasabiWallet/70611

You make it sound as everything is transparent, while that's false. I have absolutely no manner to verify which outputs you consider inappropriate, and according to which standard.

Why does it matter if you can't verify the registration standards of the coordinator?  As a maker in Joinmarket, you can't verify the standards of the coordinator either. The only thing that can happen to you if your input is considered inappropriate is it stays in the same address it started in without being linked to any of your other addresses.  

Since Wasabi is a non custodial wallet, there is no way to prevent users from sending to an address twice.

But Wasabi picks addresses automatically. Is this correct?

Each client does, yes. This will obviously cause address generation collision if the same seed is used on two clients asynchronously, since the clients are not aware of the automatic activities performed by each other.  This is why all critics of address reuse in Wasabi can only ever show evidence of a transaction that took place, not evidence of a bug that exists in the open source code.  I happily encourage anyone to review and scrutinize the code to verify that Wasabi will not automatically reuse an address: https://github.com/zkSNACKs/WalletWasabi

Now that you have confirmed the answer to your question was "No", answer my original question:

Not yet. I haven't done my analysis to this. I generally don't spend hours on verifying every privacy-preserving software. I just stick with tested, peer-reviewed software, running in a decentralized fashion, and avoid pro-censorship and anti-fungibility software which is subjected to arbitrary ethic rules, and whose developers outright lie in front of me. It's a good life choice, and it has worked so far without issues.

Stop stalling.  Just give me the tx id of your most private Joinmarket coinjoin.

The reason why more coordinators are not popping up, I have already asked that question here (somewhere). Apparently, you need so much initial capital to start with - for example, the ~6000 seized Chipmixer bitcoins would be enough - and most people who want to run a coordinator just don't have that kind of money.

You don't need any capital to start a coordinator, liquidity comes from the users.  50 inputs is an estimated lower bound for a WabiSabi coinjoin to provide a consistent amount of matching outputs.

Plus from everyone's personal experience, when have users truly had a problem with "taint" regularly? The forum should be full of threads complaining about it by now.

I don't think that's good enough. I don't want to have that problem even once. Especially if everything worked flawlessly until it suddenly didn't, and my coins got taken by someone who gave themselves the right to do so based on the "proof" they received by a surveillance agency whose standards and methods are unknown. The solution is to abandon centralized exchanges, but not that many people will want to hear that message.  

This is completely wrong, your coins can't get "taken by someone who gave themselves the right to do so" since Coinjoins are completely non custodial.

You should know what when most people say "Wasabi is not privacy-friendly", they are actually referring to its coordinator zksnacks.

When I say that, I mean the entire project-- not just the default behavior of the wallet software. First of all, even that is questionable due to the reasons outlined in Twitter threads, o_e_l_e_o has posted.A simple example is address - bc1qjqg7znvswmgkuwpjfp0dfw57twqfkazjk3vuup - that was reused twice using Wasabi 2.0, as described in here.

What's your point?  In this example, it's even more obvious the seed was cloned to multiple devices since it participated in a Wasabi 1.0 and Wasabi 2.0 coinjoin within the same week.

Account wasabistats from Twitter specifically does expose their flaws. Maybe our fellow contributor can help us out and explain why there's a Twitter account out there outright lying?

Probably for the same exact reason that there's Bitcointalk accounts like you and o_e_l_e_o on here outright lying:  WabiSabi coinjoins are completely private and completely non custodial, which makes non private coinjoins like Whirlpool and custodial mixers that have been completely compromised (like the ones advertised in your signatures) strictly inferior.  These services simply can't compete under the standard of honesty since WabiSabi coinjoins solve all the problems their services create: https://twitter.com/Kruwed/status/1642612625883164672

[NotATether]

The reason why more coordinators are not popping up, I have already asked that question here (somewhere). Apparently, you need so much initial capital to start with - for example, the ~6000 seized Chipmixer bitcoins would be enough - and most people who want to run a coordinator just don't have that kind of money.

You don't need any capital to start a coordinator, liquidity comes from the users.  50 inputs is an estimated lower bound for a WabiSabi coinjoin to provide a consistent amount of matching outputs.

That is 50 inputs of reasonably large vales - obviously I can't just load 50 0.01BTC inputs and expect user with 1BTC to get their input properly anonymized.

The reason I said lots of capital (we are talking at least $1,000,000 if you want several 0.1BTC inputs) is necessary in the first place is because you can technically feed users coins without having any of your own, however, those coins will not be mixed. You'll just get them back like a ping-pong. (https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/206.pdf, change outputs). One would have to have a couple of 0.01BTC, 0.1BTC, 1BTC inputs and so on, because the protocol relies on randomly returning an input from the anonymity set for he coinjoin process to truly give you privacy.

Even this amount will probably not stand up to chain analysis attacks that can map 50 data points on a grid and trace every output that is mapped to an input like an old Enigma cipher machine. I'd say multiply it by a factor of 10.

[Kruw]

You don't need any capital to start a coordinator, liquidity comes from the users.  50 inputs is an estimated lower bound for a WabiSabi coinjoin to provide a consistent amount of matching outputs.

That is 50 inputs of reasonably large vales - obviously I can't just load 50 0.01BTC inputs and expect user with 1BTC to get their input properly anonymized.

You are correct, a larger value cannot be hidden inside a smaller value no matter what coinjoin protocol you use because it would require a negative value for the change.  It is literally mathematically impossible.

[Pmalek]

This is completely wrong, your coins can't get "taken by someone who gave themselves the right to do so" since Coinjoins are completely non custodial.

You misunderstood. The quoted part doesn't refer to coinjoins and Wasabi. It goes back to this post where I explained that just because blockchain analysis gives the green light that certain coins meet the requirements to participate in your coinjoins, it doesn't mean that other services (like exchanges) will agree. It's exchanges and centralized services doing the coin confiscation because they don't like the history of your coins or the lack of one.   

[Kruw]

This is completely wrong, your coins can't get "taken by someone who gave themselves the right to do so" since Coinjoins are completely non custodial.

You misunderstood. The quoted part doesn't refer to coinjoins and Wasabi. It goes back to this post where I explained that just because blockchain analysis gives the green light that certain coins meet the requirements to participate in your coinjoins, it doesn't mean that other services (like exchanges) will agree. It's exchanges and centralized services doing the coin confiscation because they don't like the history of your coins or the lack of one.   

Ah.  Yeah, centralized exchanges will lose the ability to make this decision once they upgrade to Lightning:

Did you mean "doesn't this prevent already surveilled users from having their privacy established?"

Could be, but not necessarily. We frequently notice centralized exchanges (which have partnerships with chain analysis companies) to simply deny coins coming from mixers.

I think that's why Lightning is so important:  Exchanges will be forced to adopt privacy friendly deposits and withdrawals because they can't afford to transact on the nonprivate base layer forever.

[BlackHatCoiner]

So use a different coordinator or run your own

Or just not use their software altogether as an indication of disrespect for their dishonesty towards me, and for being so arrogant to think they are ethically superior.

As a maker in Joinmarket, you can't verify the standards of the coordinator either.

With the exception that JoinMarket is a coordinator market, and if one decides to enforce arbitrary nonsense they'll overtime stopped being selected? And you probably meant a taker, not a maker. Makers are the coordinators.

Each client does, yes. This will obviously cause address generation collision if the same seed is used on two clients asynchronously, since the clients are not aware of the automatic activities performed by each other.

So what you're arguing is that wasabistats is a liar, who wants to destroy your reputation. And that every address he has been posting is deliberately used in multiple devices to pretend Wasabi is flawed software. Correct?

[Kruw]

So use a different coordinator or run your own

Or just not use their software altogether as an indication of disrespect for their dishonesty towards me, and for being so arrogant to think they are ethically superior.

What point do think you prove by purposely sacrificing your privacy by not using the most private transaction type that has been discovered so far, which is WabiSabi?  You can be censored by Joinmarket coordinators who are using chain analysis companies and there's no way you could even detect it, so why are you using Joinmarket?

As a maker in Joinmarket, you can't verify the standards of the coordinator either.

With the exception that JoinMarket is a coordinator market, and if one decides to enforce arbitrary nonsense they'll overtime stopped being selected? And you probably meant a taker, not a maker. Makers are the coordinators.

I guess you just simply have no idea how Joinmarket works either.  The taker is the coordinator of the coinjoin, not the maker:  https://github.com/openoms/bitcoin-tutorials/blob/master/joinmarket/joinmarket_private_flow.md#the-taker-role

Each client does, yes. This will obviously cause address generation collision if the same seed is used on two clients asynchronously, since the clients are not aware of the automatic activities performed by each other.

So what you're arguing is that wasabistats is a liar, who wants to destroy your reputation.

Yes, I proved that wasabistats is a liar who wants to destroy the reputation of privacy software: https://twitter.com/Kruwed/status/1642612625883164672

And that every address he has been posting is deliberately used in multiple devices to pretend Wasabi is flawed software. Correct?

Obviously, since there were no address reuse bugs found in the open source code: https://github.com/zkSnacks/WalletWasabi

[o_e_l_e_o]

You can be censored by Joinmarket coordinators who are using chain analysis companies and there's no way you could even detect it, so why are you using Joinmarket?
...
The taker is the coordinator of the coinjoin, not the maker

So as the taker I am the coordinator, but also the coordinator could censor me? Care to explain how you propose I should censor myself? Do I need to report myself to a blockchain analysis firm first? Lmfao. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, I proved that wasabistats is a liar who wants to destroy the reputation of privacy software: https://twitter.com/Kruwed/status/1642612625883164672

All you proved there is that Wasabi coinjoin outputs have a very high rate of remixing with other Wasabi coinjoin outputs. Continually remixing the same coins together over and over is not desirable.

Obviously, since there were no address reuse bugs found in the open source code: https://github.com/zkSnacks/WalletWasabi

If there were no address reuse bugs found, why has Max Hillebrand been busy deploying bug fixes for address reuse? https://nitter.it/HillebrandMax/status/1586249382097088512#m

[BlackHatCoiner]

What point do think you prove by purposely sacrificing your privacy by not using the most private transaction type that has been discovered so far, which is WabiSabi?

The most private transaction type for ethically approved individuals you mean? My point is due to disrespect. Someone else's point who's being denied to mix is... pretty much that, denial of service.

The taker is the coordinator of the coinjoin, not the maker

My bad. Takers are the analogy to Wasabi coordinators.

Yes, I proved that wasabistats is a liar who wants to destroy the reputation of privacy software

Ok. So, could you explain me what happened in this address - bc1qft2uze947wtdvvhdqtx00c8el954y6ekxjk73h - and it got used multiple times for coinjoin? I presume these are WabiSabi coinjoins, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Kruw]

You can be censored by Joinmarket coordinators who are using chain analysis companies and there's no way you could even detect it, so why are you using Joinmarket?
...
The taker is the coordinator of the coinjoin, not the maker

So as the taker I am the coordinator, but also the coordinator could censor me? Care to explain how you propose I should censor myself? Do I need to report myself to a blockchain analysis firm first? Lmfao. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm pointing out how the exact same solution for being censored in Joinmarket coinjoins is the same solution to being censored with WabiSabi coinjoins:  Run your own coordinator.

Yes, I proved that wasabistats is a liar who wants to destroy the reputation of privacy software: https://twitter.com/Kruwed/status/1642612625883164672

All you proved there is that Wasabi coinjoin outputs have a very high rate of remixing with other Wasabi coinjoin outputs. Continually remixing the same coins together over and over is not desirable.

Lol, what?  Why is remixing coins not desirable?  If your coinjoin round contains inputs from previous rounds and has outputs spent into future rounds, that MASSIVELY increases the amount of anonymity you get compared to if all the inputs and outputs were from payments:

https://mempool.space/tx/0d832b9db303d4f5934c52a061af9c3c378f0243f8cbb8783d14a1d52e8cbdbb

138/145 unique input addresses were from outputs getting remixed from 68 previous coinjoin rounds
150/166 outputs became inputs for 60 future coinjoin rounds

An observer of an output in this coinjoin would have a choice of 13,615 inputs within two hops.
An observer of an input in this coinjoin would have a choice of 14,528 outputs within two hops.

Obviously, since there were no address reuse bugs found in the open source code: https://github.com/zkSnacks/WalletWasabi

If there were no address reuse bugs found, why has Max Hillebrand been busy deploying bug fixes for address reuse? https://nitter.it/HillebrandMax/status/1586249382097088512#m

I don't know, it seems like this is another case of multiple clients using the same seed causing address collision:  https://twitter.com/yahiheb_/status/1587161913531797504

What point do think you prove by purposely sacrificing your privacy by not using the most private transaction type that has been discovered so far, which is WabiSabi?

The most private transaction type for ethically approved individuals you mean? My point is due to disrespect. Someone else's point who's being denied to mix is... pretty much that, denial of service.

...Which can happen to you in Joinmarket as well.  You can get censored by the coordinator and you can't even detect they are doing this.

Yes, I proved that wasabistats is a liar who wants to destroy the reputation of privacy software

Ok. So, could you explain me what happened in this address - bc1qft2uze947wtdvvhdqtx00c8el954y6ekxjk73h - and it got used multiple times for coinjoin? I presume these are WabiSabi coinjoins, correct me if I'm wrong.

Once again, no, those are not WabiSabi coinjoins.

Why are both of you wasting my time by looking at addresses that have received coins twice instead of actually trying to explain how a WabiSabi coinjoin isn't completely private?  o_e_l_e_o got humiliated when I deanonymized his Whirlpool coinjoin transaction, so BlackHatCoiner is scared to post his JoinMarket coinjoin transaction  

[o_e_l_e_o]

I'm pointing out how the exact same solution for being censored in Joinmarket coinjoins is the same solution to being censored with WabiSabi coinjoins:  Run your own coordinator.

You fundamentally do not understand how JoinMarket works. As the taker, I coordinate the coinjoin by selecting a variety of makers. If a maker wants to censor me, then my software will automatically pick another maker and I won't even realize it happened. If Wasabi wants to censor me, there is nothing I can do unless I want to spend days to weeks setting up and running my own coordinator and trying to entice a few hundred users across to it.

Why is remixing coins not desirable?

I never said remixing is not desirable. I said remixing the same coins over and over with themselves is not desirable.

I don't know, it seems like this is another case of multiple clients using the same seed causing address collision:  https://twitter.com/yahiheb_/status/1587161913531797504

So many people running two instances of Wasabi with the same seed! Still, makes for convenient excuse for literally every problem.

...Which can happen to you in Joinmarket as well.  You can get censored by the coordinator and you can't even detect they are doing this.

No, you can't. Makers can choose not to join your coinjoin, and so you can pick different makers instantly. They absolutely cannot ban you from coinjoining altogether like Wasabi can do. (I know you are going to repeat your nonsense soundbite about "run your own coordinator" here, but as I explained above, that simply is not an option for 99.9% of users).

Once again, no, those are not WabiSabi coinjoins.

Excuse after excuse. It's multiple clients, it was Wasabi not WabiSabi, it was Version 1 not Version 2, it was "acceptable" address reuse, it was a "whale", on and on and on. Maybe once try accepting ownership and say "Yeah, that's a bug, here's how we are going to address it"?

[Kruw]

I'm pointing out how the exact same solution for being censored in Joinmarket coinjoins is the same solution to being censored with WabiSabi coinjoins:  Run your own coordinator.

You fundamentally do not understand how JoinMarket works. As the taker, I coordinate the coinjoin by selecting a variety of makers. If a maker wants to censor me, then my software will automatically pick another maker and I won't even realize it happened. If Wasabi wants to censor me, there is nothing I can do unless I want to spend days to weeks setting up and running my own coordinator and trying to entice a few hundreds users across to it.

No, I understand it perfectly:  The way to prevent being censored as a maker in Joinmarket is to coordinate the transaction yourself (become a taker).  This is exactly the same way to prevent being censored as a maker in WabiSabi - You coordinate the transaction yourself.

Why is remixing coins not desirable?

I never said remixing is not desirable. I said remixing the same coins over and over with themselves is not desirable.

This concept does not apply to WabiSabi coinjoins.  The outputs merged into the next coinjoin can be owned by multiple participants or even entirely new participants who did not own an input from the original round at all.

I don't know, it seems like this is another case of multiple clients using the same seed causing address collision:  https://twitter.com/yahiheb_/status/1587161913531797504

So many people running two instances of Wasabi with the same seed! Still, makes for convenient excuse for literally every problem.

It's an obvious explanation for a single problem, which is address reuse.  You can't seem to understand this is a property of hierarchical deterministic address generation (https://bips.xyz/32) despite having already been shown multiple examples of address reuse in Samourai wallet:

Because Wasabi wallet automatically picks addresses?

If a JoinMarket user picks a reused address to send a coinjoin output to, that's their fault.
If a Wasabi client automatically picks a reused address to send a coinjoin output to with zero input or even awareness from the user, that's Wasabi's fault.

And what exactly do you think happens when you use the same seed on multiple clients?  Here's your answer:

https://medium.com/@thepiratewhocantbenamed/samourai-wallet-address-reuse-bug-1d64d311983d
https://twitter.com/SamouraiWallet/status/1283145015124996098
https://twitter.com/brian_trollz/status/1559018534675644418

...Which can happen to you in Joinmarket as well.  You can get censored by the coordinator and you can't even detect they are doing this.

No, you can't. Makers can choose not to join your coinjoin, and so you can pick different makers instantly. They absolutely cannot ban you from coinjoining altogether like Wasabi can do. (I know you are going to repeat your nonsense soundbite about "run your own coordinator" here, but as I explained above, that simply is not an option for 99.9% of users).

Makers can get censored by coordinators and you can't even detect they are censoring you.  The coordinator, which is the taker, can ban you from their round.

Once again, no, those are not WabiSabi coinjoins.

Excuse after excuse. It's multiple clients, it was Wasabi not WabiSabi, it was Version 1 not Version 2, it was "acceptable" address reuse, it was a "whale", on and on and on. Maybe once try accepting ownership and say "Yeah, that's a bug, here's how we are going to address it"?

Where's the bug?  Please show me in the code so we can fix it.

[BlackHatCoiner]

...Which can happen to you in Joinmarket as well.  You can get censored by the coordinator and you can't even detect they are doing this.

With the following exceptions:

• You will not be using a coordinator which clarifies it will censor you if you happen to not fulfill one of their arbitrary and unknown criteria.
• You will not be using a software whose developers are provably outright liars when it comes to privacy and fungibility.
• You will not be paying for the "privilege" of having your coins ethically approved by some strangers.

Did I mention that the developers lie?

[o_e_l_e_o]

The way to prevent being censored as a maker in Joinmarket is to coordinate the transaction yourself (become a taker).

No, it isn't. The way to prevent being censored as a maker in JoinMarket is to do nothing. If one taker wants to support mass surveillance and attempt to censor you it literally doesn't matter; there are thousands more who don't.

When Wasabi censors you, then tough shit.

[Kruw]

...Which can happen to you in Joinmarket as well.  You can get censored by the coordinator and you can't even detect they are doing this.

You will not be using a coordinator which clarifies it will censor you if you happen to not fulfill one of their arbitrary and unknown criteria.

How do you know the coordinator is not censoring you and checking to see if you fulfill their arbitrary and unknown criteria?  You don't choose the coordinator as the maker, the coordinator chooses you: zkSNACKs, the very same default coordinator as Wasabi Wallet, can be the coordinator of your JoinMarket transaction and you would have no idea.

You will not be paying for the "privilege" of having your coins ethically approved by some strangers.

Makers don't pay coordinators at all in JoinMarket.  Coordinators pay makers.

You will not be using a software whose developers are provably outright liars when it comes to privacy and fungibility.

What "provably outright lie"?

The way to prevent being censored as a maker in Joinmarket is to coordinate the transaction yourself (become a taker).

No, it isn't. The way to prevent being censored as a maker in JoinMarket is to do nothing.

"Doing nothing" is the result of being censored as a maker in JoinMarket.  Your coins just sit there instead of being coordinated.

If one taker wants to support mass surveillance and attempt to censor you it literally doesn't matter; there are thousands more who don't.

When Wasabi censors you, then tough shit.

What do you mean "then tough shit"?  I've told you multiple times that you can use a different coordinator for WabiSabi coinjoins or run your own:

I've read most of the posts/replies towards Kruw, and I think that everyone is making too much commotion over nothing but a trade-off taken by a group of developers, who, believes that the best path forward for Wasabi Wallet is to make the centralized coordinator block outputs from nefarious sources. The solution, in my personal opinion is, fork the coordinator and have it accept all outputs from all sources.

Yep.  Anyone who feels brave enough to copy and paste the coordinator code can do so.  Others have already because they actually care about what they are saying: https://t.me/WasabiWallet/70611

[BlackHatCoiner]

How do you know the coordinator is not censoring you and checking to see if you fulfill their arbitrary and unknown criteria?

The default position is that people who say they don't censor, don't censor. But if one taker appears to be censoring after all, then the software will simply pick me another taker (or I will do it individually). Don't make me say the same differences between Wasabi and JoinMarket again. No sane person, unless cooperating with chain analysis firms, wants to do that in a decentralized, privacy-preserving marketplace due to competition first and foremost.

Makers don't pay coordinators at all in JoinMarket.  Coordinators pay makers.

And I never said you need to be a maker.

What "provably outright lie"?

That's the question. What "provably outright lying"?  

Here, here, and here.

Sweet fucking lord. I must have made it up.

[o_e_l_e_o]

How do you know the coordinator is not censoring you and checking to see if you fulfill their arbitrary and unknown criteria?  You don't choose the coordinator as the maker, the coordinator chooses you: zkSNACKs, the very same default coordinator as Wasabi Wallet, can be the coordinator of your JoinMarket transaction and you would have no idea.

Because in JoinMarket it does not matter. If a taker wants to show up and start enforcing their own arbitrary rules, then all they achieve is limiting their own liquidity pool, and then getting their UTXOs banned for aborting too many transactions. As a maker it does not affect me in the slightest, and I'll continue to coinjoin with every other taker normally.

In Wasabi if the coordinator censors me, then my only realistic option for a coinjoin is to go and use JoinMarket or Whirlpool instead.

"Doing nothing" is the result of being censored as a maker in JoinMarket.  Your coins just sit there instead of being coordinated.

Wrong again. As above, if one taker decides to enforce their own rules, it does not affect makers in the slightest. They can all take absolutely no action and their coins will continue to be coinjoined with regular takers.

What do you mean "then tough shit"?  I've told you multiple times that you can use a different coordinator for WabiSabi coinjoins or run your own

Running your own coordinator is outside the skill set of 99.9% of users and you know it, so maybe ease off on repeating that stupid soundbite.

In terms of third party coordinators - how much volume do they have?

[Wind_FURY]

"Taint" doesn't exist in the blockchain.

I didn't say that taint existed. On the other hand, blockchain analysis companies and centralized exchanges believe it exists. Better yet, they want the users to believe it exists, as an excuse to gather more information on them that they can then sell and share with their partners in government agencies and elsewhere.  

Plus from everyone's personal experience, when have users truly had a problem with "taint" regularly? The forum should be full of threads complaining about it by now.

I don't think that's good enough. I don't want to have that problem even once. Especially if everything worked flawlessly until it suddenly didn't, and my coins got taken by someone who gave themselves the right to do so based on the "proof" they received by a surveillance agency whose standards and methods are unknown. The solution is to abandon centralized exchanges, but not that many people will want to hear that message.  

Are you then saying we should still mix/tumble the outputs? Isn't the original problem, "what if a user mixes his/her coins through WasabiWallet's CoinJoin, and the exchange still freezes his/her account because of the mere fact that he/she used a mixer"?

A normal Bitcoin user who simply wants to sell a small amount of coins in an exchange would probably not need a mixer.