ㅤ

[nopara73]

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

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

[1715133968]

1715133968

[1715133968]

1715133968

[1715133968]

1715133968

[1715133968]

1715133968

[1715133968]

1715133968

[PrivacyG]

The coordinator only knows of the UTXOs to take part in coinjoins - so does the public - and that's not a privacy leak.

Correct me if I am wrong.  But as a now ex Wasabi user, I am concerned about this particular one.  Let me explain why.

I am using Wasabi to be and remain private.  I am particularly using it to stay as far away from Blockchain Analysis as I can.  If my non Coin Joined UTXO will be analyzed before taking part in a Coin Join by Wasabi itself then where is the privacy I am looking for?  Furthermore.  If all coins I own have been Coin Joined.  Why would I continue taking part in Coin Joins when I know this means going through filters.

You say the coordinator can not be a breach of user privacy because the information is already out there.  Blockchain analysis IS a breach of privacy and all of us know it.  I post here and it is public information.  But if you are using my posts to create a psychological profile of me and start digging up and doxxing me using publicly available information.  That is a breach of privacy and the public or private status of the information you used can not be used as an excuse.

What happens if each and every single UTXO willing to participate in a particular Coin Join comes from Coin Join outputs.  How do you decide which is 'illegal' and which is not?  Because as far as I know, coins coming from Chip Mixer and Coin Joins are flagged suspicious by Centralized Exchanges.  In theory, this sounds like from now on you filter out the bad stuff and keep only the good stuff.  But if I have Coin Joined outputs from one year ago, are they now 'illegal' because you are not able to verify their legitimacy?

The worst part here is.  When you start censoring transactions, it happens on a subjective basis.  It is not like an illicit transaction screams ILLEGAL through a megaphone when being broadcasted.  Censoring UTXO's is subjective.

Let me give you another outlook.

If I was a journalist and a particular government was full on against me and I have always been careless about my behavior by using Bitcoin without Tor and sending Block Explorer queries to verify my addresses.  Now I find out this government turned against me so I wanted to hide my holdings and go private.  Wasabi is supposed to do just that.

But now the government says I am bad and you listen.  They know the addresses I likely own based on my Internet history from the ISP.  They know my IP's.  Now that you listen, you are going to ban my UTXO's which is against the purpose Wasabi existed for.  You are blocking an innocent man from having privacy because someone put a red flag on my head.

To me, this is just sad.

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

We didn't explain, because it's trivial. By architecture, the Wasabi coordinator cannot breach the privacy of its users. It does not mean the coordinator chooses to not collect data, but it means it couldn't collect even if it wanted to.

So long story short.  What you just said is zkSNACKs Ltd is not going to blacklist by collecting and monitoring user data.  It is going to blacklist by collecting and processing publicly available data about the users.  A.k.a. it is going to blacklist by collecting and processing user data.  Exactly the same thing dkbit98 said, if you ask me.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[witcher_sense]

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

You are saying it is trivial but still don't give an answer to a simple question: how are you going to decide which UTXOs are worthy to be a part of a CoinJoun transaction and which are not? This has nothing to do with privacy leaks or publicly available information. It is about censorship of bitcoin transactions and attacks on its fungibility. Everyone knows chain surveillance companies always try to make bitcoin less fungible, but they can't censor it, except through companies like zkSNACKS that voluntarily decide to help censor bitcoin. You also said that the "coordinator can't collect anything" and that it "only knows of the UTXOs to take part in coinjoins - so does the public." Both these statements aren't true because the coordinator knows all the UTXOs willing to participate in a CoinJoin while ordinary users only know which UTXOs are theirs. Only after a CoinJoin transaction has taken place, can ordinary users learn which UTXOs were allowed for participation. Therefore, they can't censor transactions, they can't chain surveil blacklisted users, they can't know who was rejected and why. A coordinator, on the other hand, knows everything and can collect information about all unsuccessful attempts of registering illegal UTXOs and particular points in time of these attempts. For example, after a certain period of inactivity hacker wants to cover the trace of stolen funds and registers "tainted" UTXOs in Wasabi CoinJoin. A coordinator immediately notices that, rejects those UTXOs, and informes law enforcement agencies that a hacker was active and wanted to mix his coins. Will this help to catch him? Maybe not. But the fact that a privacy-oriented wallet tried to invade the privacy of one of its users, albeit a criminal, will scare those who are honest.

[Wind_FURY]

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

You are saying it is trivial but still don't give an answer to a simple question: how are you going to decide which UTXOs are worthy to be a part of a CoinJoun transaction and which are not? This has nothing to do with privacy leaks or publicly available information. It is about censorship of bitcoin transactions and attacks on its fungibility. Everyone knows chain surveillance companies always try to make bitcoin less fungible, but they can't censor it, except through companies like zkSNACKS that voluntarily decide to help censor bitcoin.

You also said that the "coordinator can't collect anything" and that it "only knows of the UTXOs to take part in coinjoins - so does the public." Both these statements aren't true because the coordinator knows all the UTXOs willing to participate in a CoinJoin while ordinary users only know which UTXOs are theirs. Only after a CoinJoin transaction has taken place, can ordinary users learn which UTXOs were allowed for participation. Therefore, they can't censor transactions, they can't chain surveil blacklisted users, they can't know who was rejected and why.

A coordinator, on the other hand, knows everything and can collect information about all unsuccessful attempts of registering illegal UTXOs and particular points in time of these attempts. For example, after a certain period of inactivity hacker wants to cover the trace of stolen funds and registers "tainted" UTXOs in Wasabi CoinJoin. A coordinator immediately notices that, rejects those UTXOs, and informes law enforcement agencies that a hacker was active and wanted to mix his coins. Will this help to catch him? Maybe not. But the fact that a privacy-oriented wallet tried to invade the privacy of one of its users, albeit a criminal, will scare those who are honest.

The only positive thing that we, as mere plebs who have nothing to hide but also want a private cold-storage, can get from this is there's some assurance that if you want a CoinJoin without the risk of "taint", Wasabi can be the tool for you. North Korean hackers or Mr. Heroine Dealer should find another tool.

[n0nce]

The only positive thing that we, as mere plebs who have nothing to hide but also want a private cold-storage, can get from this is there's some assurance that if you want a CoinJoin without the risk of "taint", Wasabi can be the tool for you. North Korean hackers or Mr. Heroine Dealer should find another tool.

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

As always, in Bitcoin the power is in the users' and community's hands. If we don't give in, reject the idea of fungible coins, don't chain-analyze received payments, don't use privacy-invading services like Wasabi, don't use centralized exchanges and run our own nodes, then we can ensure Bitcoin remains the great system it is today. If we start giving in, little-by-little, we can destroy it.

[Wind_FURY]

The only positive thing that we, as mere plebs who have nothing to hide but also want a private cold-storage, can get from this is there's some assurance that if you want a CoinJoin without the risk of "taint", Wasabi can be the tool for you. North Korean hackers or Mr. Heroine Dealer should find another tool.

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

It was just practically speaking ser. If you read my posts, I have always debated that "taint" doesn't exist in the blockchain. But because some exchanges refuse to accept your deposits because of "taint", I believe for plebs like us, it's better to avoid further problems regarding "taint".

[nopara73]

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

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

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

[o_e_l_e_o]

What you're suggesting is a social consensus on "let's close our eyes and consider every two UTXOs fungible" which I am all for.

I find it pretty comical that you say you are in support of fungibility and and not supporting nonsensical and arbitrary "taint", while at the same time implementing a change in your wallet which does the exact opposite of this and blacklists coins based on completely arbitrary "taint" fed to you by blockchain analysis firms.

Unfortunately, we are a minority who understand the value of fungibility and even a smaller minority who are willing to act based on this social consensus.

Except you aren't acting on this, are you? You are doing the exact opposite with these new pro-censorship, pro-taint, and anti-fungible measures you are implementing to the Wasabi coordinator.

[n0nce]

The only positive thing that we, as mere plebs who have nothing to hide but also want a private cold-storage, can get from this is there's some assurance that if you want a CoinJoin without the risk of "taint", Wasabi can be the tool for you. North Korean hackers or Mr. Heroine Dealer should find another tool.

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

It was just practically speaking ser. If you read my posts, I have always debated that "taint" doesn't exist in the blockchain. But because some exchanges refuse to accept your deposits because of "taint", I believe for plebs like us, it's better to avoid further problems regarding "taint".

If your exchange won't accept your 'tainted deposit', don't use that exchange. Simple as that.
I generally don't recommend centralized exchanges; if you use Bisq, there will be no 'taint issues'. If you do want to use a centralized one however, recently Kraken started accepting LN deposits and withdrawals. Lightning very effectively hides the origin / history of UTXOs, so I'm very happy to see this happen.

They even link to open-source software like BTCPayServer and recommend Breez, Phoenix and Muun; the two former being my favourite mobile wallets - both open source and non-custodial.

In fact, even if there's willingness, the real world may force you to not do that anyway, just like in our case, so we must have technical solutions instead.

First of all, it's easily possible to un-taint coins by using them to open LN channels, for instance. That's just one way. Furthermore, is it really the case that the 'real world forces you'? I've never had that issue in the real world. It seems like what you guys are doing might (if at all) make sense in a world where 'tainted coins' aren't accepted anywhere anymore by anyone. But you seem to make this move preemptively, way before anyone really 'asked for it'. It's also not a technical solution (highlight by me), because it's just 'complying with the authorities' instead of anything a little more sophisticated, something smarter. It's really the 'easy, cheap way out'.

By blacklisting / whitelisting, you're actually becoming the very entity putting a taint on coins.

[nopara73]

What you're suggesting is a social consensus on "let's close our eyes and consider every two UTXOs fungible" which I am all for.

I find it pretty comical that you say you are in support of fungibility and and not supporting nonsensical and arbitrary "taint", while at the same time implementing a change in your wallet which does the exact opposite of this and blacklists coins based on completely arbitrary "taint" fed to you by blockchain analysis firms.

Unfortunately, we are a minority who understand the value of fungibility and even a smaller minority who are willing to act based on this social consensus.

Except you aren't acting on this, are you? You are doing the exact opposite with these new pro-censorship, pro-taint, and anti-fungible measures you are implementing to the Wasabi coordinator.

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


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

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

[n0nce]

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

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

So the recent decision come after being personally threatened by three-letter agencies, but zkSNACKS hasn't mentioned this once so far?

[dkbit98]

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

I wouldn't say explanation is trivial, especially for most newbies that blindly used and trusted your wallet without deep understanding how it works, and without code verification.
If you took time to write special blog post than you should consider that most of your customers are not developers or experts in understanding how everything works.

It was just practically speaking ser. If you read my posts, I have always debated that "taint" doesn't exist in the blockchain. But because some exchanges refuse to accept your deposits because of "taint", I believe for plebs like us, it's better to avoid further problems regarding "taint".

Let's first try to avoid using tainted dollars and other fiat currencies for every day purchases... that is mission impossible, but nobody cares about that.
I don't know why people keep thinking that Bitcoin has some special kind of taintness, and everything else is so clean and pure.

Lightning very effectively hides the origin / history of UTXOs, so I'm very happy to see this happen.

I am happy to see Lightning Network growing and I think it's good alternative solution for better Bitcoin privacy, but let's not forget that LN is also monitored by Chanalysis and other government agencies.
It's better to think that it is already compromised, and people should in the same time work on other privacy solutions, maybe some new wallet, second layer solution or sidechain.

[n0nce]

Lightning very effectively hides the origin / history of UTXOs, so I'm very happy to see this happen.

I am happy to see Lightning Network growing and I think it's good alternative solution for better Bitcoin privacy, but let's not forget that LN is also monitored by Chanalysis and other government agencies.
It's better to think that it is already compromised, and people should in the same time work on other privacy solutions, maybe some new wallet, second layer solution or sidechain.

Sure, they will try to monitor anything; with Blockchain, it's easy. Lightning, not so much. They will have to run lots of nodes and convince people to open channels with them. They will also need to lock up a large amount of BTC in the process. We can circumvent / fight against this by spinning up more nodes and making it harder for them to keep control of large parts of the network.

I do believe that off-chain stuff is easier and faster to implement than changing the Bitcoin protocol. I have a feeling that commitments and exchange of UTXOs, P2P, without touching the blockchain will play a big role. Excited to see what the future holds for us!

[witcher_sense]

Tainting is the consequence of lack of fungibility. Fungibility is only achieved for coins those come out of Wasabi coinjoins.

UTXOs being called tainted is not the consequence of a lack of fungibility,  but the consequence of the presence of transparency and openness of the Bitcoin blockchain. If it weren't transparent and accessible to everyone, including centralized services and blockchain surveillance firms, it wouldn't be possible to apply taintness, or it wouldn't make sense to do so. Everyone is free to join, observe the current state of the blockchain, do some research and come to certain conclusions based on subjective values and arbitrary interpretations of reality. The problem is that my subjective interpretation won't make someone else's coins illegal, nor will it make them less valuable or non-fungible. Your subjective interpretation will because you're running a centralized service that decides who can enter the system.

Fungibility: indistinguishability is achieved on coinjoin outputs, as receivers of coinjoined coins cannot make meaningful differentiation between any two coinjoined coins.

Conjoin makes outputs indistinguishable from one another, but it doesn't make them fungible because you can still differentiate between non-coinjoin and coinjoin transactions. What if "they" call all coinjoin transactions tainted? What will zkSNACKS do in such an unfortunate case?

[o_e_l_e_o]

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

Except you weren't actually forced and you instead chose to do this freely, and the only "solution" you have proposed is censorship, which is contributing to and compounding the problem rather than solving it.

I don't know why people keep thinking that Bitcoin has some special kind of taintness, and everything else is so clean and pure.

Because centralized exchanges as well as some entities which should really know better (e.g. Wasabi) are complicit in supporting this nonsense that some bitcoin are tainted and therefore should be censored.

[Wind_FURY]

The only positive thing that we, as mere plebs who have nothing to hide but also want a private cold-storage, can get from this is there's some assurance that if you want a CoinJoin without the risk of "taint", Wasabi can be the tool for you. North Korean hackers or Mr. Heroine Dealer should find another tool.

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

It was just practically speaking ser. If you read my posts, I have always debated that "taint" doesn't exist in the blockchain. But because some exchanges refuse to accept your deposits because of "taint", I believe for plebs like us, it's better to avoid further problems regarding "taint".

If your exchange won't accept your 'tainted deposit', don't use that exchange. Simple as that.
I generally don't recommend centralized exchanges; if you use Bisq, there will be no 'taint issues'. If you do want to use a centralized one however, recently Kraken started accepting LN deposits and withdrawals. Lightning very effectively hides the origin / history of UTXOs, so I'm very happy to see this happen.

They even link to open-source software like BTCPayServer and recommend Breez, Phoenix and Muun; the two former being my favourite mobile wallets - both open source and non-custodial.

I agree with everything in your post, and we are in the same side. But for the plebs' sake, especially for someone very new to Bitcoin, I won't recommend them to risk tainting their coins if they merely want privacy for the sake of privacy. That's just practically speaking ser.

I'm also for Lightning as a privacy application, which I believe could help increase its adoption futher than just for faster/cheaper transactions. I believe that pivot to a "privacy layer for Bitcoin" narrative will be a necessity.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I agree with everything in your post, and we are in the same side. But for the plebs' sake, especially for someone very new to Bitcoin, I won't recommend them to risk tainting their coins if they merely want privacy for the sake of privacy. That's just practically speaking ser.

Here's the problem with that, though: The more people who buy in to this "taint" nonsense, then the more powerful it becomes.

Taint doesn't actually exist. Governments and centralized exchanges have come up with this notion to try to gain some control over bitcoin, because they can't possible accept a permissionless currency which they don't control. There is no definition of what is tainted and what isn't. What one exchange deems tainted another exchange might deem clean, and vice versa. It is completely arbitrary. The whole functioning of taint as a concept depends on the mass delusion of the community that the need to keep their coins "clean". If every user of bitcoin stopped using exchanges which enforce this made up nonsense, then taint would disappear overnight. If every user of bitcoin mixed or coinjoined every coin they ever touched, then taint would disappear overnight.

So if we tell every newcomer to bitcoin to make sure to only trade on fully KYCed accounts on centralized exchanges and never mix their coins for fear of some faceless third party deeming their coins tainted, then all we do is lend credence to the concept of taint and make centralized control over bitcoin stronger.

[Wind_FURY]

I agree with everything in your post, and we are in the same side. But for the plebs' sake, especially for someone very new to Bitcoin, I won't recommend them to risk tainting their coins if they merely want privacy for the sake of privacy. That's just practically speaking ser.

Here's the problem with that, though: The more people who buy in to this "taint" nonsense, then the more powerful it becomes.

For that we have technologies available to keep Bitcoin fungible. We already have mixing/tumbling services and CoinJoin applications, which are undervalued by the community. We have Lightning/off-chain network technology, which can be utilized as privacy preservation networks. I truly believe Lightning should be more than a protocol for faster/cheaper Bitcoin payments.

[n0nce]

I agree with everything in your post, and we are in the same side. But for the plebs' sake, especially for someone very new to Bitcoin, I won't recommend them to risk tainting their coins if they merely want privacy for the sake of privacy. That's just practically speaking ser.

Here's the problem with that, though: The more people who buy in to this "taint" nonsense, then the more powerful it becomes.

For that we have technologies available to keep Bitcoin fungible.

No no, now you're again trying to 'exchange tainted coins for untainted ones' using technology. I use mixing and LN to cut ties in payment links, but be assured that in the future, the most 'tainted' UTXOs will be those coming out of mixing services.
The whole 'taint community' (governments and their friends) will tell you those, as well as Lightning funds, are all tainted, because it's not sure that they come from a 'good, non-criminal origin'. Their goal is not fighting criminality. If you compare the amount of crime conducted through BTC vs what is done through fiat, it's laughable. It's all about control. The authoritarians' preferred way for you to use Bitcoin is buying it in a KYC exchange, leaving it there and selling it later. At most, they want you to transfer it to a wallet and back into the exchange; they are trying to undermine its usage as a payment system entirely; especially if you introduce something that makes tracing harder.

That's why Wasabi changed course after being pressured by 3-letter agencies and now only mixes your inputs if they are 'untainted' (probably in the future only the case if coming directly from a centralized exchange). They will also surely give in to those agencies again if pressured and log mappings between inputs and outputs and provide them in case there was potential 'illicit activity' detected.

There is no technical solution to this purely political problem. We have - as o_e_l_e_o said - to stop buying in to this "taint" nonsense.

[PrivacyG]

The whole 'taint community' (governments and their friends) will tell you those, as well as Lightning funds, are all tainted, because it's not sure that they come from a 'good, non-criminal origin'.

They are already doing it.  They have been doing it for a LONG time.  Deposit a mixed UTXO on any Centralized Exchange and they will question you and ask for documents.  Same with Coin Join UTXO's.  Or at least they did, until Wasabi started their censorship campaign.

They are already putting red flags on mixed coins and they're trying to scare people away from mixing.  They want us to understand there is this difference between the good and the bad coins and they are differentiated by their history.  Interestingly, they want the typical division you to see in politics.

And we will see more and more of this division and more of these bans until they get what they want.  They are going to put so much pressure on all there is to enhance privacy right now until they will get everyone kneeling the same way Wasabi did.  It is creepy.  We are using mixers to preserve privacy and cut blockchain history off our coins and the outside world sees it as a way to exchange tainted for untainted.

This is a LONG battle we have to survive until, if ever, most will change their perception.  But long as there is an authority condemning mixers, there will be sheep that will listen and do as they say.  And changing their perception will only get harder the more manipulation there is that mixing equals illicit origin.  Wasabi just helped them by making the average user believe there is a significant correlation between Coin Join and crime.  They made the average user reading their texts believe that the correlation was so significant they had to start censoring.  Good luck changing this when even 'hard core privacy advocates' are trying to manipulate it all just the way governments love it.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG