ㅤ

[witcher_sense]

As the coinjoin coordinator, you are not the arbiter of whether or not SBF is allowed to use Bitcoin, you are the arbiter of whether or not you turn his stolen coins private.  I'm asking you why you would choose to help Sam hide the stolen money from his victims.

Why would you choose to help the opposition party in some dictatorship to spend their donated funds anonymously if you know that the dictator of this dictatorship considers their actions criminal? Are you against the law or what? Or do you just think you have a moral right to decide which criminals deserve punishment and which do not? Why do you even have to decide when the only right thing to do in this situation is just to be a provider of  CoinJoin services regardless of your personal feelings and moral principles? Of course, you want to be an arbiter because it helps protect your income, moral principles only get in the way of making nice buck.

[1714314003]

1714314003

[1714314003]

1714314003

[1714314003]

1714314003

[1714314003]

1714314003

[1714314003]

1714314003

[1714314003]

1714314003

[Kruw]

As the coinjoin coordinator, you are not the arbiter of whether or not SBF is allowed to use Bitcoin, you are the arbiter of whether or not you turn his stolen coins private.  I'm asking you why you would choose to help Sam hide the stolen money from his victims.

Why would you choose to help the opposition party in some dictatorship to spend their donated funds anonymously if you know that the dictator of this dictatorship considers their actions criminal? Are you against the law or what? Or do you just think you have a moral right to decide which criminals deserve punishment and which do not? Why do you even have to decide when the only right thing to do in this situation is just to be a provider of  CoinJoin services regardless of your personal feelings and moral principles? Of course, you want to be an arbiter because it helps protect your income, moral principles only get in the way of making nice buck.

This is completely contradictory: If the coordinator had no moral principles and just wanted to "make a nice buck", then they would collect a share of Sam's stolen funds and make his coins private despite any suffering that was inflicted on his victims.  Moral principles is exactly what prevents a coordinator from helping Sam.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Moral principles suggest you to remove that privacy is a fundamental human right and that it should be preserved at all times from your main page, because it's an outright lie if you deny preserving privacy once.

This is completely contradictory: If the coordinator had no moral principles and just wanted to "make a nice buck"

This is ridiculous, treating each of your clients equally isn't about making a buck, it's about ensuring censorship-resistance. Ethics are subjective. The protocol has no ethics. Transactions don't have a moral score to be valid, because they're resilient to any form of censorship. I'm very disappointed to read that the protocol should enforce someone's moral values, when that someone works on privacy and fungibility.

But really thank you for having the time to discuss with us. Now that I have talked with an individual responsible for Wasabi and have known their intentions in advance, I'll never use it.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I'm asking you why you would choose to help Sam hide the stolen money from his victims.

Same principles, same answer (although I appreciate having principles that you stick to seems to be a foreign concept to Wasabi devs). If I ran a coinjoin coordinator, I still would not see myself as a moral, ethical, legal, or any other type of authority to start passing judgement on users and enforcing my own personal biases or opinions on users. Furthermore, I would be completely unable to do so since I wouldn't be paying mass surveillance entities for the information necessary to make such judgements in the first place.

You say you don't want to serve SBF. What about the Canadian truckers? What about Russian citizens? What about whistleblowers? What about journalists? What about opposition political parties, or political dissidents? What about the Tor project? What about bitcoin which isn't fully KYCed? I can provide endless examples. All of these people/entities/things have been targeted by various laws and sanctions in various jurisdictions. Which laws are you going to follow? Where do you draw your completely arbitrary line? How much pressure is required for you to move that completely arbitrary line? I suspect not very much since you willingly started to censor people of your own volition.

And by your logic, then SBF shouldn't be allowed to communicate privately either, since allowing him to do so allows him to continue to hide stolen money. So Tor better start asking for KYC before you are allowed to use it. And we better get a government approved backdoor in to WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Briar, and every other end to end encrypted messaging service. Backdoors in to emails, too. Oh, and definitely ban PGP!

Permissioned privacy is no privacy at all.

[Wind_FURY]

Sorry, might be off-topic, but I'm curious, do you frequently use Sparrow Wallet? I have it downloaded, but have yet to install it, to try their implementation of BIP-47. I just want to ask about your personal experience in using the wallet, and in your opinion, if it's good to use for public donations to avoid the sanctions that happened to the Trucker's Protest wallet.

I wouldn't say frequently, but I certainly use it from time to time. It is great at just how easy it is to run from your own node. Unlike Electrum, you don't have to run an Electrum server on top your node. You can just point Sparrow directly at your node, and off it goes. have never used its BIP47/PayNym function.

In what way are you looking to avoid sanctions? If your addresses/UTXOs are already sanctioned, or the addresses you are sending to are sanctioned, then it does not matter what wallet you use to make the transaction. The obvious option is simply not to interact with any service which employs blockchain analysis, treats some UTXOs as tainted, and is anti-fungibility and pro-censorship. Unless you mean about using Whirlpool via Sparrow to remove any "taint" or other such nonsense from your UTXOs? It's certainly a very easy option. As I said, it is incredibly easy to run Sparrow from your own node and also incredibly easy to route any external traffic via Tor, which means you can use Whirlpool completely anonymously and completely trustlessly. And of course there is no risk of being censored with Whirlpool like there is with Wasabi.

If you want the best coinjoining method out there then JoinMarket is where you should go, but it remains harder to set up and use than Samourai/Sparrow.

It's not for me. It's about Canada's Trucker's Protest, which I consider both a success and a failure for Bitcoin. It's a success because Bitcoin was chosen as an alternative for centralized donations sites, but it's a failure at the same time because the government could sanction a public address, follow the coins, and make it harder to use those coins.

I believe BIP-47/Reusable Payment Codes might help gain anonymity and privacy back, which is implemented in Sparrow Wallet. But I haven't tried it for myself yet, that's why I'm asking you.

[Kruw]

Moral principles suggest you to remove that privacy is a fundamental human right and that it should be preserved at all times from your main page, because it's an outright lie if you deny preserving privacy once.

Property rights are also a fundamental human right as well.  If you violate the fundamental human rights of others, you lose access to your own human rights.

This is completely contradictory: If the coordinator had no moral principles and just wanted to "make a nice buck"

This is ridiculous, treating each of your clients equally isn't about making a buck, it's about ensuring censorship-resistance.

Clients are absolutely not equal:  As a coinjoin coordinator, would you refuse to coinjoin funds from an address known to belong to a chain surveillance company, knowing they are attacking your honest users?

Ethics are subjective.

Moral principles ("ethics") are objective.  They are not localized to a location or to a period of time.

The protocol has no ethics. Transactions don't have a moral score to be valid, because they're resilient to any form of censorship. I'm very disappointed to read that the protocol should enforce someone's moral values, when that someone works on privacy and fungibility.

Censorship resistance is a property of Bitcoin, censorship resistance is not a property of transaction coordination between multiple parties.

But really thank you for having the time to discuss with us. Now that I have talked with an individual responsible for Wasabi and have known their intentions in advance, I'll never use it.

I don't see how my support of property rights is considered some sort of sinister intention.

I'm asking you why you would choose to help Sam hide the stolen money from his victims.

Same principles, same answer (although I appreciate having principles that you stick to seems to be a foreign concept to Wasabi devs). If I ran a coinjoin coordinator, I still would not see myself as a moral, ethical, legal, or any other type of authority to start passing judgement on users and enforcing my own personal biases or opinions on users.

But you ARE the authority since you are the coordinator of the coinjoin:  You have to be the person to tell the victims that you decided to take the immoral action of hiding the money Sam stole from them, which he can then use to further bribe politicians and journalists with.

Furthermore, I would be completely unable to do so since I wouldn't be paying mass surveillance entities for the information necessary to make such judgements in the first place.

You would be completely able to do so, you must already have a ban system in place to prevent attackers from disrupting the coinjoin rounds you are coordinating.

You say you don't want to serve SBF. What about the Canadian truckers? What about Russian citizens? What about whistleblowers? What about journalists? What about opposition political parties, or political dissidents? What about the Tor project? What about bitcoin which isn't fully KYCed? I can provide endless examples. All of these people/entities/things have been targeted by various laws and sanctions in various jurisdictions. Which laws are you going to follow? Where do you draw your completely arbitrary line? How much pressure is required for you to move that completely arbitrary line? I suspect not very much since you willingly started to censor people of your own volition.

Where do you draw the line?  Would you allow Joseph Stalin to coinjoin his Bitcoin to disguise the shares of loot paid out to his underling politicians, cops, and soldiers?  Or would you perform the necessary step to hide these monsters in the shadows to allow them to blend in with their victims?

And by your logic, then SBF shouldn't be allowed to communicate privately either, since allowing him to do so allows him to continue to hide stolen money. So Tor better start asking for KYC before you are allowed to use it. And we better get a government approved backdoor in to WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Briar, and every other end to end encrypted messaging service. Backdoors in to emails, too. Oh, and definitely ban PGP!

Permissioned privacy is no privacy at all.

You're right: I don't think SBF should be allowed to do anything.  He should be chained to a boulder and left in a dungeon until his debts are paid off.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Property rights are also a fundamental human right as well.  If you violate the fundamental human rights of others, you lose access to your own human rights.

That's not your business. That's the police's business. You're not the police.

As a coinjoin coordinator, would you refuse to coinjoin funds from an address known to belong to a chain surveillance company, knowing they are attacking your honest users?

There is absolutely no manner for me to confirm this assertion, and thus, I'd allow every coin. Despite of it being owned from SBF, Joseph Stalin or Chainanalysis. My business isn't to analyze the chain, de-anonymize everyone trying to assist my few honest users. My job is to offer privacy, to everyone. That's all.

Moral principles ("ethics") are objective.  They are not localized to a location or to a period of time.

Moral principles are subjective. In some location, killing a woman after she is caught cheating on her husband is morally acceptable. In most countries of the west it isn't. In the ancient times, human sacrifices, slavery, gladiatorial games, pedophilia etc., were morally acceptable. There is no civilized country in the world right now that considers such traditions morally acceptable. Hell, even in this forum opinions differ. There are countless of users who think that mixers are morally incorrect services (e.g., msg61953351, msg61923514).

Censorship resistance is a property of Bitcoin, censorship resistance is not a property transaction coordination between multiple parties.

You have confused everyone. Would you deny Sam's transactions if you were a miner or no? If censorship resistance is a property of Bitcoin, then you shouldn't.

I don't see how my support of property rights is considered some sort of sinister intention.

You're lying, because you have stated that you would preserve privacy at all times, but you will not at some times. Lying shows me nothing but sinister intention. Especially when we're talking about the core idea of the project; which is to bring fungibility.

[Kruw]

Property rights are also a fundamental human right as well.  If you violate the fundamental human rights of others, you lose access to your own human rights.

That's not your business. That's the police's business. You're not the police.

Why is it not my business? Say you own a used car dealership, and a customer comes and offers to sell you a stolen car.

Most people would agree it is unethical for you to buy the stolen car.  Although this will likely not stop the customer from successfully selling the car he stole, it requires he accept a lower offer because legitimate business people do not want that criminal activity to perpetuate.

As a coinjoin coordinator, would you refuse to coinjoin funds from an address known to belong to a chain surveillance company, knowing they are attacking your honest users?

There is absolutely no manner for me to confirm this assertion, and thus, I'd allow every coin. Despite of it being owned from SBF, Joseph Stalin or Chainanalysis. My business isn't to analyze the chain, de-anonymize everyone trying to assist my few honest users. My job is to offer privacy, to everyone. That's all.

Have you considered that the honest users in the coinjoin transaction you coordinate don't want Stalin, SBF, or Chainanalysis to participate either?  What if honest users refuse to sign any coinjoin round containing Stalin's coins, will you ban the honest users from participating in order to ensure Stalin gets to hide his loot from slaughter and slavery?

Moral principles ("ethics") are objective.  They are not localized to a location or to a period of time.

Moral principles are subjective. In some location, killing a woman after she is caught cheated on her husband is morally acceptable. In most countries of the west it isn't. In the ancient times, human sacrifices, slavery, gladiatorial games, pedophilia etc., were morally acceptable. There is no civilized country in the world right now that considers such traditions morally acceptable. Hell, even in this forum opinions differ. There are countless of users who think that mixers are morally incorrect services (e.g., msg61953351, msg61923514).

All of these actions you listed are immoral regardless of where and when they occurred.  It is not morally acceptable to kill a woman for cheating on her husband no matter where this woman is located.  It is not morally acceptable to enslave or sacrifice people no matter what time it is.  If SBF were legally cleared by the politicians he bribed, that does not make his theft "morally acceptable" either, it just means he is successfully evading punishment.

Censorship resistance is a property of Bitcoin, censorship resistance is not a property transaction coordination between multiple parties.

You have confused everyone. Would you deny Sam's transactions if you were a miner or no? If censorship resistance is a property of Bitcoin, then you shouldn't.

Since Bitcoin is censorship resistant, if I were a miner, I would have no power to deny Sam's coinjoin transactions unless I controlled 51% of the hashpower.  Since transaction coordination is not censorship resistant, I could deny Sam's transactions singlehandedly.

I don't see how my support of property rights is considered some sort of sinister intention.

You're lying, because you have stated that you would preserve privacy at all times, but you will not at some times. Lying shows me nothing but sinister intention. Especially when we're talking about the core idea of the project; which is to bring fungibility.

So you'll shut up if the website is updated to say that "privacy should be preserved at all times unless you violate someone else's human rights"?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Most people would agree it is unethical for you to buy the stolen car.

But I'd have the freedom to choose. There would be no coordinator who would enforce this moral view upon me. And to be honest, I don't care about the history of the stuff I buy, just as I don't care about the history of the cash I hold, or the history of the components of everything I purchase.

Have you considered that the honest users in the coinjoin transaction you coordinate don't want Stalin, SBF, or Chainanalysis to participate either?

What a pity, but Bitcoin being fungible will be my response. However, I'll happily redirect them to Wasabi since they don't go well with fungibility. They just have to pay a few bucks to have themselves spied on by chain analysis, but it's worth it!

All of these actions you listed are immoral regardless of where and when they occurred

No, they are not. There are cultures which don't treat what I wrote as unethical, and in the past, most of what I said was acceptable. You yourself speculated above that most people would agree it's unethical to buy stolen stuff. Because ethics is purely subjective.

Since Bitcoin is censorship resistant, if I were a miner, I would have no power to deny Sam's coinjoin transactions unless I controlled 51% of the hashpower.

Yes, you would. You could just avoid including his transactions in the candidate block. The transactions would confirm at some point without doubt, but you could decide to not be the person who did it.

So you'll shut up if the website is updated to say that "privacy should be preserved at all times unless you violate someone else's human rights"?

No. You also need to clarify that you don't see yourselves as just a privacy tool, but as an Internet court, and will censor in certain cases. That covers it.

[Kruw]

Most people would agree it is unethical for you to buy the stolen car.

But I'd have the freedom to choose. There would be no coordinator who would enforce this moral view upon me.

You misunderstood the example.  The used car dealer is the coordinator in the metaphor.

And to be honest, I don't care about the history of the stuff I buy, just as I don't care about the history of the cash I hold, or the history of the components of everything I purchase.

Saying "I didn't care that the customer told me he stole it, I'm just trying to make money" probably won't satisfy the victims of the theft when they see you have their stolen car.

Have you considered that the honest users in the coinjoin transaction you coordinate don't want Stalin, SBF, or Chainanalysis to participate either?

What a pity, but Bitcoin being fungible will be my response. However, I'll happily redirect them to Wasabi since they don't go well with fungibility. They just have to pay a few bucks to have themselves spied on by chain analysis, but it's worth it!

My question wasn't rhetorical, it's an actual attack that coordinators have to defend against for a coinjoin to succeed. If honest users block Stalin from coinjoining by refusing to sign, the coordinator has to ban them in order for the coinjoin to proceed.  The coordinator has to choose between which of their users they have to censor:  Stalin, or Anti-Stalin vigilantes/Anti-Stalin victims.  The coordinator does not have the option to not censor anyone and still have the coinjoin complete.

All of these actions you listed are immoral regardless of where and when they occurred

No, they are not. There are cultures which don't treat what I wrote as unethical, and in the past, most of what I said was acceptable. You yourself speculated above that most people would agree it's unethical to buy stolen stuff. Because ethics is purely subjective.

Ethics is not subjective.  Ethics is objective.  It doesn't make a different what a local or historical culture does, because entire cultures can be immoral.

Since Bitcoin is censorship resistant, if I were a miner, I would have no power to deny Sam's coinjoin transactions unless I controlled 51% of the hashpower.

Yes, you would. You could just avoid including his transactions in the candidate block. The transactions would confirm at some point without doubt, but you could decide to not be the person who did it.

Exactly.  A miner cannot deny the coinjoin without 51% of the hashpower, he can only delay it.  Coordinators, however, can deny the input from being registered to their coinjoin at all.

So you'll shut up if the website is updated to say that "privacy should be preserved at all times unless you violate someone else's human rights"?

No. You also need to clarify that you don't see yourselves as just a privacy tool, but as an Internet court, and will censor in certain cases. That covers it.

The statement I wrote does clarify that.  So you're satisfied?

[NotATether]

Why would you choose to help the opposition party in some dictatorship to spend their donated funds anonymously if you know that the dictator of this dictatorship considers their actions criminal? Are you against the law or what? Or do you just think you have a moral right to decide which criminals deserve punishment and which do not?
~
Why do you even have to decide when the only right thing to do in this situation is just to be a provider of  CoinJoin services regardless of your personal feelings and moral principles?

I 100% agree with this part. Exchanges, mixers, chain analysis inspectors, other crypto services should not be writing the country law and declaring what is legal and illegal. That is governments' job only.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Saying "I didn't care that the customer told me he stole it, I'm just trying to make money" probably won't satisfy the victims of the theft when they see you have their stolen car.

Yes, but the part where this analogy is flawed is that cars are not fungible.

My question wasn't rhetorical, it's an actual attack that coordinators have to defend against for a coinjoin to succeed.

And the manner to decide which outputs belong to the same entity (which is what this attack is all about) is purely arbitrary. You have no means to figure out if someone's a chain analysis company which tries to de-anonymize your coinjoins or not. You can speculate, but there is no solid proof. Just as if Sam starts moving his coins across his wallets and then deposit them to Wasabi, you can't know if it's Sam with certainty, or someone else.

The coordinator does not have the option to not censor anyone and still have the coinjoin complete.

Yes, it can. It will just not have people who don't want Stalin's coins as clients. So, it will just have people who treat the currency as fungible.

Exactly.  A miner cannot deny the coinjoin without 51% of the hashpower, he can only delay it.

Again, they can deny doing it themselves. The confirmation is practically inevitable, but they can sleep easy knowing they aren't liable for that one confirmation. Just as a coordinator can deny Stalin's coins, knowing that Stalin will inevitably find another coordinator who treats the currency as fungible.

[Kruw]

Saying "I didn't care that the customer told me he stole it, I'm just trying to make money" probably won't satisfy the victims of the theft when they see you have their stolen car.

Yes, but the part where this analogy is flawed is that cars are not fungible.

Neither are Bitcoins; they are unique UTXOs, which each have a provable origin and destination that is publicly known even to the victims once the thief spends it.

My question wasn't rhetorical, it's an actual attack that coordinators have to defend against for a coinjoin to succeed.

And the manner to decide which outputs belong to the same entity (which is what this attack is all about) is purely arbitrary. You have no means to figure out if someone's a chain analysis company which tries to de-anonymize your coinjoins or not. You can speculate, but there is no solid proof. Just as if Sam starts moving his coins across his wallets and then deposit them to Wasabi, you can't know if it's Sam with certainty, or someone else.

Moving coins across different wallets wouldn't solve Sam's privacy problem, he has to participate in a real transaction with another user in order to cause any confusion over who the coins are owned by.

The coordinator does not have the option to not censor anyone and still have the coinjoin complete.

Yes, it can. It will just not have people who don't want Stalin's coins as clients. So, it will just have people who treat the currency as fungible.

The currency was never fungible, so the coinjoin will just have people who passively or directly support Stalin since the coordinator banned all of the participants who oppose Stalin.

Exactly.  A miner cannot deny the coinjoin without 51% of the hashpower, he can only delay it.

Again, they can deny doing it themselves. The confirmation is practically inevitable, but they can sleep easy knowing they aren't liable for that one confirmation. Just as a coordinator can deny Stalin's coins, knowing that Stalin will inevitably find another coordinator who treats the currency as fungible.

If you think that's where the coinjoin liquidity will inevitably end up, then you should go ahead and run a coordinator with this policy to hasten that outcome.

Crypto services should not be writing the country law and declaring what is legal and illegal. That is governments' job only.

I think the politicians should be fired from their "job" and people should think for themselves.

[Pmalek]

Where do you draw the line?  Would you allow Joseph Stalin to coinjoin his Bitcoin to disguise the shares of loot paid out to his underling politicians, cops, and soldiers?  Or would you perform the necessary step to hide these monsters in the shadows to allow them to blend in with their victims?

The protocol doesn't care and is not supposed to care who uses the coins, why, and when. That's the beauty of Bitcoin that you and your buddies are voluntarily limiting. Bitcoin works without the intervention from corrupt agencies who would like to control it and decide what is acceptable and what not according to their agendas. Anyone that works with them and helps in that control, stands on the wrong side. 

Have you considered that the honest users in the coinjoin transaction you coordinate don't want Stalin, SBF, or Chainanalysis to participate either?  What if honest users refuse to sign any coinjoin round containing Stalin's coins, will you ban the honest users from participating in order to ensure Stalin gets to hide his loot from slaughter and slavery?

They aren't supposed to know about each other and any other coinjoin participant. If Mark, Bob, Sara, and Tom don't want to participate in the same coinjoin because they know Stalin is there, or your analysis partners found or told them he is there, something is seriously wrong with your approach.

[o_e_l_e_o]

But you ARE the authority since you are the coordinator of the coinjoin:  You have to be the person to tell the victims that you decided to take the immoral action of hiding the money Sam stole from them, which he can then use to further bribe politicians and journalists with.

No, I don't, because I have no clue who is coinjoining their coins in the first place. You are starting from the position where you are already cooperating with blockchain analysis to learn as much as you can about every input which registers for coinjoin. As crazy as this might sound to you, blanket surveillance is not the default position.

I have no idea with whom I am coinjoining with when I use JoinMarket. I have no idea to whom I am providing liquidity. I neither care nor have any desire to find out. This seems to be a position you cannot understand.

Where do you draw the line?

I don't have a line to draw at all. Again, although you seem unable to grasp the concept, I'm not spying on anybody in the first place so I have no information to use to censor them.

You're right: I don't think SBF should be allowed to do anything.  He should be chained to a boulder and left in a dungeon until his debts are paid off.

Wow. Just wow. This should be eye opening for anybody even thinking of using Wasabi. If you do something that Wasabi devs disagree with, then they think you deserve no rights whatsoever. And these are the people we are supposed to trust to fight for our privacy and financial freedom? Absolutely laughable.

You sound like a mouthpiece of the government. Next you'll be telling us we have nothing to fear if we have nothing to hide.

[DaveF]

@Kruw do you have any relation with Wasabi?

You seem to really be supporting them, but came out of nowhere with you joining the forum 2 months ago and then starting to defend them.

-Dave

[BlackHatCoiner]

Neither are Bitcoins; they are unique UTXOs, which each have a provable origin and destination that is publicly known even to the victims once the thief spends it.

This is ridiculous. Banknotes also have unique codes, but are fungible.

The currency was never fungible, so the coinjoin will just have people who passively or directly support Stalin since the coordinator banned all of the participants who oppose Stalin.

This is so wrong. First of all, the currency is fungible-- and the more the privacy enhancing tools, the better the context to remain fungible. Secondly, coinjoin participants don't know each other. I don't know what you guys changed in the last patch, but last time I coinjoined, I didn't even check which are the other inputs. Thirdly, if you don't see the problem with coordinator promoting fungibility and discriminating certain inputs, dividing them in morally acceptable and unacceptable, then I really don't know what to say.

Let me clear this out for you: Fungibility means 1 BTC = 1 BTC. Ok? Not 1 BTC = 1 non-Stalin, ethically according to Wasabi earned BTC. Are we clear?

Like it or not, this is fungibility. If you don't like it, you can just deduct it from your page as, for yet again, is a property you're not in favor of.

If you think that's where the coinjoin liquidity will inevitably end up, then you should go ahead and run a coordinator with this policy to hasten that outcome.

There are better mixers than Wasabi. Cool it.

[Kruw]

Where do you draw the line?  Would you allow Joseph Stalin to coinjoin his Bitcoin to disguise the shares of loot paid out to his underling politicians, cops, and soldiers?  Or would you perform the necessary step to hide these monsters in the shadows to allow them to blend in with their victims?

The protocol doesn't care and is not supposed to care who uses the coins, why, and when. That's the beauty of Bitcoin that you and your buddies are voluntarily limiting. Bitcoin works without the intervention from corrupt agencies who would like to control it and decide what is acceptable and what not according to their agendas. Anyone that works with them and helps in that control, stands on the wrong side.  

We're talking about centrally coordinated coinjoin protocols, not the Bitcoin protocol itself:

Censorship resistance is a property of Bitcoin, censorship resistance is not a property of transaction coordination between multiple parties.

Have you considered that the honest users in the coinjoin transaction you coordinate don't want Stalin, SBF, or Chainanalysis to participate either?  What if honest users refuse to sign any coinjoin round containing Stalin's coins, will you ban the honest users from participating in order to ensure Stalin gets to hide his loot from slaughter and slavery?

They aren't supposed to know about each other and any other coinjoin participant. If Mark, Bob, Sara, and Tom don't want to participate in the same coinjoin because they know Stalin is there, or your analysis partners found or told them he is there, something is seriously wrong with your approach.

The only way to fix this "approach" is to introduce privacy on the base layer of Bitcoin.  Whether you like it or not, Mark, Bob, and Sara have the same ability to find out that Stalin's coins are in their coinjoin as a chainanalysis company has to find out that Stalin's coins are in their coinjoin.

You're right: I don't think SBF should be allowed to do anything.  He should be chained to a boulder and left in a dungeon until his debts are paid off.

Wow. Just wow. This should be eye opening for anybody even thinking of using Wasabi. If you do something that Wasabi devs disagree with, then they think you deserve no rights whatsoever. And these are the people we are supposed to trust to fight for our privacy and financial freedom? Absolutely laughable.

You sound like a mouthpiece of the government. Next you'll be telling us we have nothing to fear if we have nothing to hide.

You are lying.  Please quote me where I said SBF deserved to be chained to a rock because he did something the devs disagreed with.

@Kruw do you have any relation with Wasabi?

You seem to really be supporting them, but came out of nowhere with you joining the forum 2 months ago and then starting to defend them.

-Dave

I'm a contributor.

Neither are Bitcoins; they are unique UTXOs, which each have a provable origin and destination that is publicly known even to the victims once the thief spends it.

This is ridiculous. Banknotes also have unique codes, but are fungible.

That's because the unique codes on the banknotes are not stored forever on a worldwide database every time the banknote changes hands.  Bitcoin UTXOs are stored forever on a worldwide database every time that UTXO changes addresses.

The currency was never fungible, so the coinjoin will just have people who passively or directly support Stalin since the coordinator banned all of the participants who oppose Stalin.

This is so wrong. First of all, the currency is fungible-- and the more the privacy enhancing tools, the better the context to remain fungible. Secondly, coinjoin participants don't know each other. I don't know what you guys changed in the last patch, but last time I coinjoined, I didn't even check which are the other inputs. Thirdly, if you don't see the problem with coordinator promoting fungibility and discriminating certain inputs, dividing them in morally acceptable and unacceptable, then I really don't know what to say.

Each participant has to know the entire transaction in order to produce a valid signature...

Let me clear this out for you: Fungibility means 1 BTC = 1 BTC. Ok? Not 1 BTC = 1 non-Stalin, ethically according to Wasabi earned BTC. Are we clear? Like it or not, this is fungibility. If you don't like it, you can just deduct it from your page as, for yet again, is a property you're not in favor of.

You are very clear, I'm telling you that you are WRONG:  UTXOs have distinct origins on the blockchain.

If you think that's where the coinjoin liquidity will inevitably end up, then you should go ahead and run a coordinator with this policy to hasten that outcome.

There are better mixers than Wasabi. Cool it.

Such as what?  A WabiSabi coinjoin eliminates the common input ownership heuristic and also eliminates toxic change.  How could you construct a more private payment than that?

[DaveF]

@Kruw do you have any relation with Wasabi?

You seem to really be supporting them, but came out of nowhere with you joining the forum 2 months ago and then starting to defend them.

-Dave

I'm a contributor.

Would it have been hard to start with that? Since you are you obviously have a vested interest in them doing things the way they do you are going to presenting a certain view point that not many other people here share.

Since it's been proven that Chainanalysis is not accurate a lot of the time, in both directions, at the end of the day using it to do any form of censorship / blocking is pointless at best. As soon as it allows any 'tainted' (which is a BS thing anyway) coins through, even if it's a legitimate mistake, since there is no way to track them after that anything else coming though that coordinator is now 'tainted' since you can't know who got what.

-Dave

[Kruw]

I'm a contributor.

Would it have been hard to start with that? Since you are you obviously have a vested interest in them doing things the way they do you are going to presenting a certain view point that not many other people here share.

You have that backwards:  When someone contributes, that changes the way they do things.

I've mentioned it before but there's no reason I should have to start the conversation with that, the things I am saying are true regardless of whether or not I strive to make improvements to Wasabi:

I'm a contributor.

Since it's been proven that Chainanalysis is not accurate a lot of the time, in both directions, at the end of the day using it to do any form of censorship / blocking is pointless at best. As soon as it allows any 'tainted' (which is a BS thing anyway) coins through, even if it's a legitimate mistake, since there is no way to track them after that anything else coming though that coordinator is now 'tainted' since you can't know who got what.

-Dave

If that's the case, then a different WabiSabi coinjoin coordinator will end up with the liquidity that was marked as a false positive taint.  Why don't you run a coinjoin coordinator yourself to capture this market share that the default coordinator does not want to accept?