ㅤ

[n0nce]

Can they stay in business with just institutional users? Like, if they have no userbase, no amount of investor money should be able to keep them afloat, since there won't be any 'returns' for these investments. Not to speak that as soon as the anonymity pool shrinks, traceability increases and the quality of the product plummets.

Isn't that kind of absurd?
~snip~

I do think so, yes. A privacy / mixing tool is nothing without a large user base. That's also why starting such a project is pretty difficult; because in the beginning, people get very little privacy benefit from using it. So in my opinion, no matter how many institutional investors they attract; the product will fail if it has no users.

[1713608178]

1713608178

[1713608178]

1713608178

[1713608178]

1713608178

[o_e_l_e_o]

Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I thought more people would drink their kool-aid. Especially on Twitter, where I see less technical competence than here; many people there use centralized exchanges and often don't run nodes, so I wasn't expecting them all to understand the issue with Chainalysis and blacklisting. So I'm pleasantly surprised. Really good to see.

I wouldn't hold your breath. The people being most vocal about this are obviously the people who are disgusted by it, and so those are the comments you are most likely to read. The people who shrug their shoulders and think "Meh, I don't care if Wasabi are spying on me" are unlikely to make a Twitter post saying "Meh, I don't care if Wasabi are spying on me".

So in my opinion, no matter how many institutional investors they attract; the product will fail if it has no users.

Here are some tinfoil hat thoughts: Maybe institutional clients who want to use Wasabi know they will get zero privacy in any true sense of the word, since Wasabi is working hand in hand with blockchain analysis companies to spy on their users. Maybe institutional clients don't care if blockchain analysis firms, the government, various three letter agencies, etc., can see everything they are doing. Maybe all they want is to be able to hide from the average user using a block explorer.

Look at institutions like Melvin Capital, Robinhood, or Tether. Maybe institutions don't want the average Joe to be able to identify their cold storage wallets and make a Reddit post pointing out that they are running a fractional reserve system. Maybe they don't want the average Joe to question why they just sent large amounts of bitcoin to some private wallets while freezing trading for regular users.

They don't care about actually privacy which requires a large user base and anonymity set; they just want to mix their funds with some other institutions just enough so the average user can't quite see all the shady things they are doing behind the scenes.

[n0nce]

Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I thought more people would drink their kool-aid. Especially on Twitter, where I see less technical competence than here; many people there use centralized exchanges and often don't run nodes, so I wasn't expecting them all to understand the issue with Chainalysis and blacklisting. So I'm pleasantly surprised. Really good to see.

I wouldn't hold your breath. The people being most vocal about this are obviously the people who are disgusted by it, and so those are the comments you are most likely to read. The people who shrug their shoulders and think "Meh, I don't care if Wasabi are spying on me" are unlikely to make a Twitter post saying "Meh, I don't care if Wasabi are spying on me".

True, but what about the plummeting download numbers?

So in my opinion, no matter how many institutional investors they attract; the product will fail if it has no users.

Here are some tinfoil hat thoughts: Maybe institutional clients who want to use Wasabi know they will get zero privacy in any true sense of the word, since Wasabi is working hand in hand with blockchain analysis companies to spy on their users. Maybe institutional clients don't care if blockchain analysis firms, the government, various three letter agencies, etc., can see everything they are doing. Maybe all they want is to be able to hide from the average user using a block explorer.

Honestly I don't think the 'institutional investors' category of people actually use the service; they just invest in it. Right? It was always talked about 'institutional investors', not 'institutional users' - or does 'investors' refer to 'investing in Bitcoin'? I may be completely wrong here.

Look at institutions like Melvin Capital, Robinhood, or Tether. Maybe institutions don't want the average Joe to be able to identify their cold storage wallets and make a Reddit post pointing out that they are running a fractional reserve system. Maybe they don't want the average Joe to question why they just sent large amounts of bitcoin to some private wallets while freezing trading for regular users.

They don't care about actually privacy which requires a large user base and anonymity set; they just want to mix their funds with some other institutions just enough so the average user can't quite see all the shady things they are doing behind the scenes.

But then why can't a Reddit user buy said data from Chainalysis and uncover this fractional reserve scam? That's the main point that came up against a mixing service that is tied with Chainalysis, in this thread.

[o_e_l_e_o]

True, but what about the plummeting download numbers?

It's too early to tell. Lots of people don't update to every new version, and of the ones who do lots more wait a few weeks to make sure there are no big bugs or vulnerabilities before they do.

It was always talked about 'institutional investors', not 'institutional users' - or does 'investors' refer to 'investing in Bitcoin'? I may be completely wrong here.

I was referring to institutional investors such as banks or hedge funds. They'll buy bitcoin and they'll use this new Wasabi set up, because like fiat banks they don't care that much about the government knowing what they are up to, but they definitely don't want all their individual customers to be able to see that they are fractional reserve with a tiny balance sheet or are paying off our politicians or other such things.

But then why can't a Reddit user buy said data from Chainalysis and uncover this fractional reserve scam? That's the main point that came up against a mixing service that is tied with Chainalysis, in this thread.

They could, but most wouldn't. Or maybe the blockchain analysis company that Wasabi is choosing to employ will enter a NDA or similar.

[PrivacyG]

Here are some tinfoil hat thoughts: Maybe institutional clients who want to use Wasabi know they will get zero privacy in any true sense of the word, since Wasabi is working hand in hand with blockchain analysis companies to spy on their users. Maybe institutional clients don't care if blockchain analysis firms, the government, various three letter agencies, etc., can see everything they are doing. Maybe all they want is to be able to hide from the average user using a block explorer.

So you are basically saying all these institutions acting legitimate are together in the same pot and they are trying to push us away from seeing their dirty activity?

I would not be surprised.  Chances are the biggest and most seemingly innocent institutions are doing the dirtiest things while pointing fingers around to switch focus.

But if only the institutional investors and clients stay, does that not mean there will be even more focus on joined outputs?  If we both know that all outputs are institutional, it becomes a bigger incentive to start looking at what is going on behind the curtains.  Would the institutional not be in more advantage if their coins are joined with those of regular users?

Here comes another con about the censorship.  A bank will be whitelisted by blockchain analysis companies just for being a bank and therefore automatically being considered legitimate.  Here is where through censorship we only allow the big names to continue doing dirty things and get away with it.  Now imagine what this can turn into when you think blockchain analysis companies may be even sponsored by banks, politicians and billionaires.  Some of them can be whitelisted just for the hefty amounts of dollars they give.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[o_e_l_e_o]

So you are basically saying all these institutions acting legitimate are together in the same pot and they are trying to push us away from seeing their dirty activity?

I'm not saying that is what is happening; all I'm saying is that given the recent grassroots led campaigns from regular folks talking on corporations such as Melvin Capital and Robinhood, then it is only logical that many financial institutions would be interested in trying to hide some of their activities from their customers, especially when such activity is documented on an open ledger such as with Bitcoin.

Would the institutional not be in more advantage if their coins are joined with those of regular users?

Sure they would, but since these institutions are the very ones which are pushing the whole "taint" nonsense, they don't want that. Which brings us back to the whole point of why Wasabi has sold out in the first place.

Here is where through censorship we only allow the big names to continue doing dirty things and get away with it.

This is undoubtedly already happening. As I flagged up in this post, a blockchain analysis tool identifies at least 25% of the coins in Binance's hot wallet as being on OFAC blacklists. The same results are found when checking addresses owned by other centralized exchanges.

[n0nce]

But if only the institutional investors and clients stay, does that not mean there will be even more focus on joined outputs?  If we both know that all outputs are institutional, it becomes a bigger incentive to start looking at what is going on behind the curtains. Would the institutional not be in more advantage if their coins are joined with those of regular users?

Yeah, that's a very interesting thing. The whole 'taint' nonsense; the Bitcoin userbase, the 99.9999%, we could turn it around. With this I mean with enough community interest and understanding, anything 'untainted' and 'clean' might eventually be considered as 'dirty, laundered, bank and politicians money'. We'd still accept those UTXOs since we have a collective acceptance that taint / non-fungibility doesn't exist, but it will make it easy to trace illegitimate money transfers done by the 'supposedly clean' institutions.

[PrivacyG]

Yeah, that's a very interesting thing. The whole 'taint' nonsense; the Bitcoin userbase, the 99.9999%, we could turn it around. With this I mean with enough community interest and understanding, anything 'untainted' and 'clean' might eventually be considered as 'dirty, laundered, bank and politicians money'. We'd still accept those UTXOs since we have a collective acceptance that taint / non-fungibility doesn't exist, but it will make it easy to trace illegitimate money transfers done by the 'supposedly clean' institutions.

How many would understand this is not an attack by the rebels against banks and governments but the truth though?  Banks still exist, even if there is clear evidence of enormous amounts of dirty Fiat moving through them.  It was only months ago if I remember correctly that some papers were leaked or released about trillions of laundered money getting willingly approved by banks throughout a certain period of time.  I can not generalize, but I know most of them are not sparkling clean.  I remember the Switzerland bank leak when all sorts of celebrities and politicians popped up on the Internet pretending to be surprised that big figures of dirty fiat is being held in Switzerland.  Nobody can ever tell me they never knew.  I knew this has been a thing for decades.

Insider traded, laundered and all other sorts of money they own that is anything but clean.  They want all of it to be labeled 'clean'.  We want our clean money not to be labeled in any way.  I did not even notice this is pretty much getting to a turnaround point as you say.  Very smart point to underline.

'Tainted' coins are blocked, right.  Tell me who decides if a politician's coins are 'tainted' or 'clean'.  Then think from a scale of 1 to 10 how easy it is as a powerful politician to bypass this decision.  It is like taxes.  They pay taxes, theoretically.  They do everything legally, theoretically.  But you and me both know they do not.  You and me hardly ever hear about their dirty wealth.  You and me know there is corruption worldwide and we both know you hardly level up in politics with no compromises and no dirt.  This gets worse the more corrupt the country.  And both of us have no other choice but to ignore these facts.

Now here comes Bitcoin into this whole situation.  Bitcoin is at the opposite extreme of everyone being monitored and audited before acceptance.  Bitcoin accepts everyone, so there is no way to 'evade' or bypass anything.  You are just Alice and I am just Bob.  To Bitcoin, there is no difference between us.  Damn, I can only remind myself every time I talk about this of how amazing Bitcoin is!

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[o_e_l_e_o]

Banks still exist, even if there is clear evidence of enormous amounts of dirty Fiat moving through them.

Working as intended. Let's keep focusing on dirty bitcoin worth a couple of million dollars a year, and ignore fiat banks facilitating the largest money laundering operations in history, worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Focus on bitcoin, contributing <0.1% of the total, and ignore the institutions contributing >99% of the total, because those institutions buy out our politicians. Exactly the same as we see with the whole climate change debate and oil companies. As I said, working as intended.

Then think from a scale of 1 to 10 how easy it is as a powerful politician to bypass this decision.

They probably won't even need to try. Some institution will approach them and offer to "clean" all their coins for them if they vote in a certain way. Easy.

Bitcoin is at the opposite extreme of everyone being monitored and audited before acceptance.  Bitcoin accepts everyone, so there is no way to 'evade' or bypass anything.

Unless you use Wasabi.

[jerry0]

So this is a wallet that allows privacy correct?  Recall i read someone mention an exchange i think gemini asked them about why they used wasabi to move coins to gemini or something like that and that person account had an issue?  So using wasabi can get your exchange account frozen or closed?

[BlackHatCoiner]

So this is a wallet that allows privacy correct?

It doesn't preserve you privacy, since your outputs have to be approved from chain analysis companies, which are the kind of people you're trying to get hidden from. So, yeah, you're just beating the air.

Recall i read someone mention an exchange i think gemini asked them about why they used wasabi to move coins to gemini or something like that and that person account had an issue?

Yes, that sounds like something Kraken would say. This can still happen if you use a centralized exchange, and perhaps even have your funds frozen and get asked for more info, to ensure you don't launder money they'll collect your valuable identity. 

So using wasabi can get your exchange account frozen or closed?

Using Wasabi doesn't preserve you privacy anymore and neither does using an exchange such as Kraken. So don't use both. You may get your account frozen/closed, yeah.

[Pmalek]

So this is a wallet that allows privacy correct?  Recall i read someone mention an exchange i think gemini asked them about why they used wasabi to move coins to gemini or something like that and that person account had an issue?  So using wasabi can get your exchange account frozen or closed?

It used to be a wallet that focused on privacy and users were able to use its services improve and strengthen the privacy and origin of their coins. But that's a thing of the past now. Now it's just a wallet that does business with chain analysis companies.

Gemini, Coinbase, Binance.US and certainly several other centralized exchanges don't like not knowing everything about your coins. So you are treated as a criminal if you mix them. If you mix them, you make it harder to follow the trail and they tag them as tainted or dirty. If your data can't be sold to third parties, you are no use to them.

[n0nce]

So this is a wallet that allows privacy correct?  Recall i read someone mention an exchange i think gemini asked them about why they used wasabi to move coins to gemini or something like that and that person account had an issue?  So using wasabi can get your exchange account frozen or closed?

If you want privacy, stop using exchanges that have accounts which can be closed (i.e. centralized exchanges). They may ask for personal information at any time, even if they don't require KYC for registration or deposits and there won't be anything you can do except lose the coins or provide that information.
There are alternatives.

[jerry0]

Then how exactly are you suppose to cashout your funds to your us bank account then such as with coinbase or gemini?

[n0nce]

Then how exactly are you suppose to cashout your funds to your us bank account then such as with coinbase or gemini?

Click the link above. I even colored, bolded and underlined it.
It's how Bitcoin was always meant to be: peer to peer and decentralized. You trade your BTC directly with another person through a decentralized exchange, which is just a piece of software running locally on your computer; no servers, companies or accounts involved. Funds are in multisig and released if the payment goes through cleanly. It all runs over Tor and there's no central authority to bribe, censor or shut down.

It's as close as you can get to a pure in-person P2P trade, when it comes to censorship resistance, privacy and anonymity, while still being online and convenient to use.

[jerry0]

you need to download the program though right?  So you are trading btc for physical cash in these situations or do people do bank transfers or wires?  So the dencentralized exchange needs to be downloaded as oppose to just visiting the site?  What rates ido they offer compared to say coinbase or gemini.  Got to assume you are paying more in fees for this?  i see payment methods in that picture include zelle and money order.  But who typically pays more?  The person selling or buying btc for zelle or money order?

[Pmalek]

you need to download the program though right?

Yes. 

So you are trading btc for physical cash in these situations or do people do bank transfers or wires?

Depends on the person and what payment methods they use. If you want to be paid via bank transfer, you find someone willing to send money to your bank in exchange for your Bitcoin. 

So the dencentralized exchange needs to be downloaded as oppose to just visiting the site?

You asked this in your first sentence. 

What rates ido they offer compared to say coinbase or gemini.

Check it yourself! Generally, Bisq offers less favorable exchange rates. But you remain anonymous and in full control of your money, which is not something Coinbase, Gemini or any other centralized exchange can offer you. As we speak, Coinbase might be considering blocking or limiting your exchange account for reason X or Z. Bisq can't do that because there is no traditional account to block. You create a non-custodial wallet and are given a seed to write down. You can import this wallet elsewhere if there is no Bisq tomorrow. 

Got to assume you are paying more in fees for this?

 You are charged trading fees. You can read about it here and come to your own conclusions.

i see payment methods in that picture include zelle and money order.  But who typically pays more?  The person selling or buying btc for zelle or money order?

Pays more in what? Are we talking about fees again? Check the FAQ section link above where you can read about everything you need to properly use Bisq.

[n0nce]

you need to download the program though right?  So you are trading btc for physical cash in these situations or do people do bank transfers or wires?  So the dencentralized exchange needs to be downloaded as oppose to just visiting the site?  What rates ido they offer compared to say coinbase or gemini.  Got to assume you are paying more in fees for this?  i see payment methods in that picture include zelle and money order.  But who typically pays more?  The person selling or buying btc for zelle or money order?

Yes, you download it. There are no servers; just your machine and the other people's machines and they communicate directly with each other through Tor.
The rates are whatever people put up as offers; there are 'market value' offers, fixed price offers and offers that are a certain percentage above or below market.

You can see all of that in the program or on a website they host: https://bisq.markets/

For payment methods, in Europe I see mostly orders with direct bank transfer, but also other popular options exist.
Who pays more depends; I can only speak for Bitcoin - in that case, small orders are more expensive than on exchanges (I guess it makes sense due to the work someone has to put in to set up 10 or 20 '$100BTC' offers).

But it can be cheaper when buying more; also do remember that there are no withdrawal fees. If you buy $100 of BTC and pay $20 in withdrawal fee, it's much more expensive than taking a '1% above market value' Bisq offer. Not to speak of the 'price for privacy' - an exchange will chew through your identity, get whatever they can and sell it to the highest bidder. And of course the cost of lost funds if for whatever reason an exchange decides you're a criminal. All these costs don't exist on Bisq.

[PrivacyG]

All I can say is.  This is disgusting.  Wasabi, may I ask how come you did not launch a Signature Campaign this BEFORE kneeling to and collaborating with anti Bitcoin institutions and corporations?  Is it that you are running low on clients after we all left due to the new surveillance features of the wallet or is it that your Blockchain Analysis collaborator needs more clients to spy on?  Or maybe both?  Have not seen this much interest from you before in promoting this, ehm..  now anti-privacy 'private' wallet.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[NotATether]

All I can say is.  This is disgusting.  Wasabi, may I ask how come you did not launch a Signature Campaign this BEFORE kneeling to and collaborating with anti Bitcoin institutions and corporations?  Is it that you are running low on clients after we all left due to the new surveillance features of the wallet or is it that your Blockchain Analysis collaborator needs more clients to spy on?  Or maybe both?  Have not seen this much interest from you before in promoting this, ehm..  now anti-privacy 'private' wallet.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

I'm almost definitely missing some background history here, but since when did they start doing these collaborations you're talking about? (and with whom?)