ㅤ

[Wind_FURY]

OK, if you say so. But I personally don't want to be responsible if newbies' coins are withheld by an exchange just because I told them "there is no danger". Especially newbies who are Coinbase users.

Does everyone see the contradiction in the bold highlighted part?
Wind_FURY; you care about your friends' funds, yet allow them to use a centralized exchange? How does that make any sense?

You're nitpicking ser. You know what the real practical situation is among users, old and new. If you disagree, or believe that I am wrong in my personal opinions in this matter, that's not a problem ser. You do you.

OK, if you say so. But I personally don't want to be responsible if newbies' coins are withheld by an exchange just because I told them "there is no danger". Especially newbies who are Coinbase users.

If the user is already neck deep in fully-KYCed zero-privacy zero-sovereignty bottom-of-the-barrel centralized exchanges like Coinbase, then I can completely understand where you are coming from. But as n0nce has correctly pointed out, the enemy here isn't the privacy protecting techniques and services; it is the centralized exchanges which are fighting against your basic rights.

If a grocery store said "You can't shop with us unless you provide us a copy of your bank statement", then no one would say "You better make sure you use a bank which provides PDF statements", but rather everyone would say "Don't use that store".
If an employer said "You can't work with us unless you provide us a copy of your entire internet browsing history", then no one would say "Make sure you never use incognito mode", but rather everyone would say "Don't work for that employer".
If a bank said "You can't open an account with us unless we can see all your online chat history", then no would say "Make sure you use insecure and unencrypted messaging apps", but rather everyone would say "Don't use that bank".

If an exchange says "You can't use us unless you provide a copy of all your documents and let us monitor all your financial dealings and transactions", then why do people say "Make sure you comply and don't use any privacy protecting techniques" rather than "Don't use that exchange"?

Ser, no need for an exaggerated reaction with this situation. Relax, it's merely an opinion. If you don't share it, then let's agree to disagree. I'm simply starting to believe that Bitcoin shouldn't be "black" or "white".

[nopara73]

And you don't see the problem of a so called "privacy service" employing people who think that censoring users isn't going far enough? Wow.

I have a deep understanding of the problems with censorship and if you look back on our recent encounters in this forum; I have never made the argument that it's something desirable. In fact, voiced my dissatisfaction with it multiple times.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Ser, no need for an exaggerated reaction with this situation. Relax, it's merely an opinion. If you don't share it, then let's agree to disagree. I'm simply starting to believe that Bitcoin shouldn't be "black" or "white".

We can agree to disagree, sure, but that doesn't stop me from arguing my point. I also don't see it as an exaggeration at all. In no other walk of life would we tolerate the crazy amounts of privacy invasion and censorship being forced on us by centralized exchanges, services, and some wallets. But for some reason when it comes to bitcoin, trying to protect even a shred of your privacy becomes taboo and the default option seems to be to open your entire life up to scrutiny by a bunch of complete strangers, which is the exact opposite of the ethos behind bitcoin.

In fact, voiced my dissatisfaction with it multiple times.

You can post a thousand times saying you don't agree with censorship if you want; that doesn't change the fact that you are censoring people.

[Pmalek]

I have never made the argument that it's something desirable. In fact, voiced my dissatisfaction with it multiple times.

So what if you did? Will the censoring stop now after you have shown your satisfaction or will the idea move forward?
 
It's like saying I am against racism of any kind but blacks and Asians will never work in my company. However, I still condemn racism in the workplace.
I am against gun violence, but I have just shot my neighbor for entering my property drunk. I have voiced my dissatisfaction against gun laws, but I will continue to use mine.   

[Wind_FURY]

Ser, no need for an exaggerated reaction with this situation. Relax, it's merely an opinion. If you don't share it, then let's agree to disagree. I'm simply starting to believe that Bitcoin shouldn't be "black" or "white".

We can agree to disagree, sure, but that doesn't stop me from arguing my point. I also don't see it as an exaggeration at all. In no other walk of life would we tolerate the crazy amounts of privacy invasion and censorship being forced on us by centralized exchanges, services, and some wallets. But for some reason when it comes to bitcoin, trying to protect even a shred of your privacy becomes taboo and the default option seems to be to open your entire life up to scrutiny by a bunch of complete strangers, which is the exact opposite of the ethos behind bitcoin.

I don't debate your viewpoint, in fact, I agree with it. But please get the context, I am merely talking about something else entirely. That I simply don't want to be personally responsible if someone else's savings in Bitcoin can't be converted back to fiat because his coins were tainted. I will teach what I know, but it's up to him/her to do the act.

[nopara73]

You can post a thousand times saying you don't agree with censorship if you want; that doesn't change the fact that you are censoring people.

It was never supposed to. You claimed that I "don't see the problem with it" so I pointed out that I am well aware of the problems with it.

It's like saying I am against racism of any kind but blacks and Asians will never work in my company. However, I still condemn racism in the workplace.

That assumes you are free to choose.

[BlackHatCoiner]

That assumes you are free to choose.

An adjective you wouldn't use to describe yourself in this blacklisting nonsense, right? You must have been under the gun, sellout.

[n0nce]

I don't debate your viewpoint, in fact, I agree with it. But please get the context, I am merely talking about something else entirely. That I simply don't want to be personally responsible if someone else's savings in Bitcoin can't be converted back to fiat because his coins were tainted. I will teach what I know, but it's up to him/her to do the act.

If you're afraid of responsibility, don't let your friends and family use centralized exchanges and chainalysis / censorship-cooperating software like Wasabi in the first place. That's where the real risk lies. As long as they buy P2P, hold in self-custody and trade / sell P2P in the future, they have nothing to fear.
Don't forget all the cases of exchange 'hacks', frozen funds etc. that are only possible because people started introducing centralized parties into this space and allowed them to have a say. If you deny them that position, by just not using them, you enjoy all the benefits of the original idea of decentralized, open currency and none of the risks that are only introduced by using services which go against the core principles of this whole thing.

[Wind_FURY]

I know it's counterintuitive, but for newbies/ordinary, non-hardcore users it's better to use a mixer, or a CoinJoin application that filters out hacked/stolen coins if because they merely want privacy and untraceability. Would you say it's "OK" for them to use some mixer that could taint their coins if all they want is mere privacy? What would you say to them if they're coins are withheld by an exchange because of taint?

It's simply a trade-off.

[BlackHatCoiner]

What would you say to them if they're coins are withheld by an exchange because of taint?

You would have warned them about the possible blackmailing a centralized exchange is about to do, that's what he's telling you. The centralized exchange wants all of your info, so simple. You can't choose to mix, because that's against their rules.

Show them what's a P2P exchange, they're gonna love the idea if they're interested in this field. Those who don't care about handing out their custody will neither care about their privacy, the censoring, the blackmailing, the dictating attitude, the arbitrary fee rate etc.

[Pmalek]

How far does this taint usually go when it comes to centralized exchanges? Is there any documentation or research done on this field. If I deposit coins into a casino to gamble, and then I withdraw and send Bitcoin from my casino account to a CEX such as Coinbase, those coins will be tainted. What about if I send them to my private wallet first and then to Coinbase? Still tainted? Or I make multiple withdrawals from the casino to different addresses, send them around a bit in my own wallets, consolidate the UTXOs, and finally move them to Coinbase. How many hoops does one have to jump through to get rid of this bullshit taint tag?   

[BlackHatCoiner]

Is there any documentation or research done on this field.

From a quick search, there is:

• https://pure.hw.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/24387537/Conf_paper.pdf
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348225844_Analysis_of_Tainted_Transactions_in_the_Bitcoin_Blockchain_Transaction_Network
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.01538.pdf

Or I make multiple withdrawals from the casino to different addresses, send them around a bit in my own wallets, consolidate the UTXOs, and finally move them to Coinbase.

You won't obviously get an answer to this from Coinbase, for if you did, you could avoid their method and convert your "tainted" coins to "clean" in an different way. It's basically whatever they want. I'm sure that once you deposit your coins, they'll start sharing your chain's info (and not only) with the lords of "chain scouting"; chainalysis, elliptic, etc.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I know it's counterintuitive, but for newbies/ordinary, non-hardcore users it's better to use a mixer, or a CoinJoin application that filters out hacked/stolen coins if because they merely want privacy and untraceability.

For a wallet to censor some inputs as Wasabi is doing, then they must first choose which inputs to censor. They can only do this if they spy on every input, trace where it is coming from, who owns it, etc., in order to choose which ones they decide aren't good enough for them. If privacy is your goal, I would stay well clear of Wasabi, since they are now using your fees to pay blockchain analysis companies to spy on you.

What would you say to them if they're coins are withheld by an exchange because of taint?

I would reiterate that they shouldn't be using services which will confiscate their coins.

How far does this taint usually go when it comes to centralized exchanges?

Anybody's guess. Every exchange has their own set of secret algorithms that decide what is tainted and what isn't. It is completely arbitrary. Pretty much every bitcoin in active circulation could be tainted if you look back far enough. What I consolidate 49 clean inputs with 1 tainted input, and spit out 50 new outputs. Are all of them tainted? Perhaps they are all 2% tainted? What if my tainted UTXO moves 5 times? 100 times? 10,000 times? Is it still tainted? What if Coinbase accept a coin which Binance thinks is tainted and sweeps it in to their hot wallet. Does that make every withdrawal from Coinbase tainted? Completely arbitrary and completely meaningless.

[Pmalek]

Completely arbitrary and completely meaningless.

I understand what you are saying. I will try to do some research when it comes to taint and centralized exchanges when I have some more time for that. It's scary when you think about it. You can get into trouble for owning certain coins that someone else has branded as tainted and suspicious. The solution seems so simple. Just avoid these horrible services that do that. In reality, it's much more difficult than that. They market themselves really good, and you won't come across decentralized solutions until you get deeper into the problem. They are simpler, user-friendly, and more attractive. There is no need to repeat where the majority of users will rather go when given a choice between using something that's easy but less secure and difficult but with increased security.     

[n0nce]

Would you say it's "OK" for them to use some mixer that could taint their coins if all they want is mere privacy?

Well, first of all, the anonymity set of 'all UTXOs' is much larger than 'only the clean ones', so by definition, not caring about taint gives you more privacy. Do note that not all 'tainters' have the same definition; which means to be 'really on the safe side', you need to take the intersection of all 'clean pools' and try to get a UTXO out of there. I believe it will prove pretty difficult. I mean, what's the utility if you get a 'clean coinbase utxo' which you can only send back to Coinbase, because other exchanges have a different definition and according to them, it is tainted?

What would you say to them if they're coins are withheld by an exchange because of taint?

You just told me your friends care about privacy, but then you are telling me they use a centralized exchange. This doesn't add up. If they care about privacy, they are using a decentralized exchange which doesn't care about some arbitrary party's definition of taint.

What would you say to them if they're coins are withheld by an exchange because of taint?

I would reiterate that they shouldn't be using services which will confiscate their coins.

Exactly. I don't know why he keeps asking; I told him repeatedly as well, that the solution to 'taint problems' is to simply avoid services that can out of the blue say 'oh these coins are tainted, we froze them'. Like, this is horrifying. What if I win a contest like Bitcointalk 2021 or someone donates me money, I need cash and send it to an exchange, only to find out they are allegedly 'tainted' and got frozen? This is not an argument against mixing, it's an argument against centralized exchanges / tainters.

How far does this taint usually go when it comes to centralized exchanges?

Anybody's guess. Every exchange has their own set of secret algorithms that decide what is tainted and what isn't. It is completely arbitrary. Pretty much every bitcoin in active circulation could be tainted if you look back far enough.

I believe there was a report about something like 99% of $500 bills having measurable traces of cocaine on them or something like that.. Similar story here, probably. Imagine a store would start scanning every bill and if there's a sign of cocaine on it, not only refuses to accept the bill, but confiscates it. People would outrage!
But Bitcoin investors who have understood nothing about the technology and core principles, just accept such a procedure and get themselves a cash-scanning machine to make sure their paper bills have no such traces. Insanity!

What I consolidate 49 clean inputs with 1 tainted input, and spit out 50 new outputs. Are all of them tainted? Perhaps they are all 2% tainted? What if my tainted UTXO moves 5 times? 100 times? 10,000 times? Is it still tainted? What if Coinbase accept a coin which Binance thinks is tainted and sweeps it in to their hot wallet. Does that make every withdrawal from Coinbase tainted? Completely arbitrary and completely meaningless.

Exactly. I want people to understand that actually, there is no taint. It's an arbitrary tag that anyone can put on anything, yet in the blockchain world they take any random company's word as the universal truth and just accept their subjective opinions. This is so bizarre since Bitcoin is so based on freedom and independence.

They are simpler, user-friendly, and more attractive. There is no need to repeat where the majority of users will rather go when given a choice between using something that's easy but less secure and difficult but with increased security.     

I agree, but I don't think there is an easy solution. For instance, while so far it seems like the best architecture for a crypto exchange, you can't build a decentralized p2p tor exchange without a company behind it into an iPhone app, that at the same time has an email login and a customer support in case you forget your password. It's a bit like PGP: it's really good, but really non-user friendly. I believe to make things 'user friendly' by today's definition, you have to dumb them down so much that it's almost impossible to still keep them as secure, decentralized, ... as possible.

[Pmalek]

I believe to make things 'user friendly' by today's definition, you have to dumb them down so much that it's almost impossible to still keep them as secure, decentralized, ... as possible.

You bring up a good point with this part of your post that I quoted. But if Bitcoin is ever going to reach the masses, it will have to be in a way that is easily understood by the dumbest of the dumb. If they don't get it and can't use it because it's too complicated, it won't reach global adoption. Maybe it was never meant to do that, but I think it would be a shame if it doesn't.

[n0nce]

I believe to make things 'user friendly' by today's definition, you have to dumb them down so much that it's almost impossible to still keep them as secure, decentralized, ... as possible.

You bring up a good point with this part of your post that I quoted. But if Bitcoin is ever going to reach the masses, it will have to be in a way that is easily understood by the dumbest of the dumb. If they don't get it and can't use it because it's too complicated, it won't reach global adoption. Maybe it was never meant to do that, but I think it would be a shame if it doesn't.

I'm really not sure if it's possible without sacrificing privacy or security. For instance, PGP isn't used en-masse either. We do see (alleged) e2e encryption in most messengers though; but it's definitely less secure and private than PGP, because often they can't be audited, don't have verifiable builds and there is no key exchange through a manual web of trust. If the 'mass Bitcoin adoption' is happening, it might unfortunately be a bit like the 'mass adoption of encryption' in messengers. Sacrificing some aspects for the benefit of convenience.

[dkbit98]

I'm really not sure if it's possible without sacrificing privacy or security. For instance, PGP isn't used en-masse either. We do see (alleged) e2e encryption in most messengers though; but it's definitely less secure and private than PGP, because often they can't be audited, don't have verifiable builds and there is no key exchange through a manual web of trust.

What do you think about OMEMO encryption used by XMPP protocol?
It is using open standard based on the Double Ratchet Algorithm, and it is said to have better encryption compared with OpenPGP or OTR and it's much easier to setup.
I am not trusting any obscure encryption that is offered with telegram secret chat or with viber.

[n0nce]

I'm really not sure if it's possible without sacrificing privacy or security. For instance, PGP isn't used en-masse either. We do see (alleged) e2e encryption in most messengers though; but it's definitely less secure and private than PGP, because often they can't be audited, don't have verifiable builds and there is no key exchange through a manual web of trust.

What do you think about OMEMO encryption used by XMPP protocol?
It is using open standard based on the Double Ratchet Algorithm, and it is said to have better encryption compared OpenPGP or OTR and it's much easier to setup.
I am not trusting any obscure encryption that is offered with telegram secret chat or with viber.

I was first confused, but XMPP = Jabber, I forgot about the name change! Honestly, I really like these types of protocols in general, that use federation, be it SMTP, Jabber or Mastodon; but I've not looked into OMEMO yet myself.
The sad truth is that they always have a hard time gaining traction since they don't have billions for advertisement and the majority of people doesn't want to set up servers themselves.

As I mentioned in the past though, I have a little spark of hope that with increasing power, efficiency and storage of common devices like smartphones and tablets, they could in the future allow application developers to bundle e.g. a Jabber server into the client application itself, as well as Bitcoin or full LN nodes (the latter already happens with Breez) within the apps, so users actually start to run nodes and host their own data by default without setup and without even noticing.

[OROBTC]

I wonder who was "the guy manning the booth." The mask wearing anarchist or the suit wearing business man. Depending on who you met, you will get different answers to your questions, as their personality is the exact opposite. zkSNACKs is a company with over 30+ people already and opinions on blacklisting varies to a great degree from "this should'd been done long time ago" to "we must start working on decentralized coordination protocols." My take is that I'd not like to discriminate between users at all, but it had to be done, and I can only hope it wasn't already too late. At least Bitcoin privacy can flourish.

I'm sorry it has taken me a while to respond, I have been out of town since the conference.  I did not ask the man for his name, but he definitely was not wearing a mask (medical nor anarchist), and I believe he was not wearing a suit either, could be wrong as I was very busy for my overly brief 5 hours or so there.

I can certainly imagine that in a company of 30+ employees that opinions on a topic like this would be all over the map.

Privacy and trust-in-privacy are extremely important to guys like me.  It pains me that there are so few tools that beginners, and, well, everyone can easily use to keep their financial activities private.  It looks like most of us do not want anything like what you are considering as it seems arbitrary.  Also, why did it have to be done (my emphasis in your reply)?