ㅤ

[Kruw]

Kruw keeps yapping about open-source and bashing mixers while completely ignoring the fact that open-source doesn't help users a single bit if they are in bed with blockchain analysis companies. All that matters is that the UTXO's that participate in coinjoin's should remain private. Clearly we have no proof of that.

The open source nature of Wasabi allows you to prove to yourself that your UTXOs that participate in coinjoins remain private, so I don't know what you mean by "clearly we have no proof of that" 

[1714624091]

1714624091

[1714624091]

1714624091

[1714624091]

1714624091

[BoXXoB]

Kruw keeps yapping about open-source and bashing mixers while completely ignoring the fact that open-source doesn't help users a single bit if they are in bed with blockchain analysis companies. All that matters is that the UTXO's that participate in coinjoin's should remain private. Clearly we have no proof of that.

The open source nature of Wasabi allows you to prove to yourself that your UTXOs that participate in coinjoins remain private, so I don't know what you mean by "clearly we have no proof of that" 

Open-source only means that we know what code the coordinator could be running. We have absolutely no way to know what code it's actually running. Combined with the fact that there's reason to suspect some form of cooperation with blockchain analysis companies and funding them, it does not look good.

[arabspaceship123]

Kruw you've taken it on yourself defending Wasabi Wallet. You're answering questions about zkSNACKS so are you in their official team or forum rep.?

The open source nature of Wasabi allows you to prove to yourself that your UTXOs that participate in coinjoins remain private, so I don't know what you mean by "clearly we have no proof of that" 

[BoXXoB]

Kruw you've taken it on yourself defending Wasabi Wallet. You're answering questions about zkSNACKS so are you in their official team or forum rep.?

He is dedicated I'll give him that. Unfortunately just ignoring all of the concerns that matter.

[Kruw]

Open-source only means that we know what code the coordinator could be running. We have absolutely no way to know what code it's actually running. Combined with the fact that there's reason to suspect some form of cooperation with blockchain analysis companies and funding them, it does not look good.

You are still confused:  Open source means you know exactly what code you are running.  Your privacy is guaranteed by your Wasabi client, there is no trust in the coordinator required regardless of what code the coordinator is running.

He is dedicated I'll give him that. Unfortunately just ignoring all of the concerns that matter.

I have completely solved your concern, what do you mean?  You said "All that matters is that the UTXO's that participate in coinjoin's should remain private."

All that matters is that the UTXO's that participate in coinjoin's should remain private.

Since this is exactly what Wasabi does, why are you acting upset?

[BoXXoB]

~snip~

I have to agree that regarding the protocol, it does not seem that as far as privacy goes, there does not seem to be any trust in the coordinator. That is, unless there's flaws in the implementation and it does not work as the documentation says.

How do you respond to the allegations that, quite clearly, zkSNACKs is in one way or another funding and cooperating with blockchain analysis company/companies? This is what you seem to be avoiding while addressing other questions.

It does not support what Wasabi Wallet is supposed to stand for. To me, as a former Wasabi user, it seems like if there is some loophole/flaw in the protocol, then that means that the users of the wallet are screwed if you're already dealing with analysis companies that stand for anything but privacy.

[Kruw]

How do you respond to the allegations that, quite clearly, zkSNACKs is in one way or another funding and cooperating with blockchain analysis company/companies? This is what you seem to be avoiding while addressing other questions.

zkSNACKs queries a data aggregation company to attempt to avoid accepting stolen funds for their coinjoin service. I don't know how effective or ineffective this precaution is in regards to false positives or false negatives.

[nopara73]

Some individuals prefer to forgo privacy entirely rather than make any compromises. This is evident in the case of Seth and his company, Foundation Devices. They were second in line in canceling zkSNACKs. However, when confronted with the legal implications surrounding the Tornado Cash case, they opted to retract their coinjoin implementation plans altogether.

It's easy to be brave from a distance. I'd urge everyone to try to think further ahead, because what we're doing here is no joke. We're leading a revolution that is going to make significant geopolitical impact and going head first into the wall is a nonsense strategy.

[Synchronice]

How do you respond to the allegations that, quite clearly, zkSNACKs is in one way or another funding and cooperating with blockchain analysis company/companies? This is what you seem to be avoiding while addressing other questions.

zkSNACKs queries a data aggregation company to attempt to avoid accepting stolen funds for their coinjoin service. I don't know how effective or ineffective this precaution is in regards to false positives or false negatives.

By the way, I wonder how will you deal with this problem, keep in mind that this is only example and far from reality:
Let's say I am a thief/hacker who stole lots of bitcoins. I know honest users who value their privacy and use Wasabi wallet. Now, let's say Wasabi's BA partner tagged my wallet and now I want to ruin the party for everyone. I send coins from my stolen wallet to honest people who just use Wasabi for privacy purposes. Keep in mind that bitcoin blockchain is public. Your BA partner will automatically blacklist that wallet that received stolen funds, right? But truth is, that user has nothing to do with me, I just ruined his wallet's reputation because I intentionally sent him funds from my blacklisted wallet. How do you plan to deal with cases like this?
Just wondering, why doesn't your BA partner releases list of bitcoin addresses that are blacklisted? Why is that a secret?

[o_e_l_e_o]

Some individuals prefer to forgo privacy entirely rather than make any compromises.

Lol. Still bleating on with this nonsense soundbite? Because Wasabi is the only solution for privacy, and if we don't use Wasabi we forgo privacy entirely? Please.

We're leading a revolution that is going to make significant geopolitical impact and going head first into the wall is a nonsense strategy.

The only thing you are leading is the funding of blockchain analysis.

[Kruw]

By the way, I wonder how will you deal with this problem, keep in mind that this is only example and far from reality:
Let's say I am a thief/hacker who stole lots of bitcoins. I know honest users who value their privacy and use Wasabi wallet. Now, let's say Wasabi's BA partner tagged my wallet and now I want to ruin the party for everyone. I send coins from my stolen wallet to honest people who just use Wasabi for privacy purposes. Keep in mind that bitcoin blockchain is public. Your BA partner will automatically blacklist that wallet that received stolen funds, right? But truth is, that user has nothing to do with me, I just ruined his wallet's reputation because I intentionally sent him funds from my blacklisted wallet. How do you plan to deal with cases like this?

This sort of intentional spreading occurred where users would send coins from the sanctioned Tornado Cash Ethereum contract to targets, but this was only effective because Ethereum has a single account instead of a new address for every UTXO like Bitcoin does.

Just wondering, why doesn't your BA partner releases list of bitcoin addresses that are blacklisted? Why is that a secret?

If a blockchain analysis company gave away their product for free, then they wouldn't be very successful selling subscriptions to their services.

[BoXXoB]

I think this is largely problematic. As far as I can see, users of Wasabi do not lose privacy for two reasons: coinjoins are very public on the blockchain so handing coinjoin input transaction id to an analysis company does not make much of a change as far as privacy goes and secondly, the way that Wasabi protocol works does not make it possible to compromise privacy of coinjoin outputs.

In my opinion it's problematic because by not allowing certain UTXOs, it makes a distinction between "clean" and "dirty" bitcoin. Ideally we want all bitcoins to be equal. On the other hand, if criminals steal bitcoin, do they have the right to clean them using Wasabi and capitalize on their crimes? It may not be something for zkSNACKs to decide but it may also be something that allows them to stay in business. If Wasabi becomes a laundromat for all illegal bitcoins, it may be a business risk for zkSNACKs. While people here may disagree with that, from a business perspective, who can blame them? Everyone has the right to stop using them if they wish.

This seems to be more of a matter of principle to stop using Wasabi because of this instead of saying Wasabi does not work as intended. I have personally chosen not to use Wasabi but I don't see this as a simple matter.

[nopara73]

Lol. Still bleating on with this nonsense soundbite? Because Wasabi is the only solution for privacy, and if we don't use Wasabi we forgo privacy entirely? Please.

That's bold, coming from someone advertising a traditional Bitcoin mixer in his signature that, unlike Wasabi, can steal its users' money and deanonymize them: https://nopara73.medium.com/traditional-bitcoin-mixers-6a092e59d8c2

[Synchronice]

Just wondering, why doesn't your BA partner releases list of bitcoin addresses that are blacklisted? Why is that a secret?

If a blockchain analysis company gave away their product for free, then they wouldn't be very successful selling subscriptions to their services.

That's where I go, blockchain analyzes companies don't really care about money laundering and illegal activities, if they were about to care, then this list would be free and whole world will know the list of blacklisted addresses, so, in case someone tries to exchange bitcoins, people wouldn't accept their coins. But no, they prefer to sell it and companies prefer to buy it in the name of doing it for the better while the real truth is that blockchain analyses companies are scam because they can't 100% determine which addresses are actually used in illegal activities and which addresses - not and the companies use their service to look like an organization that values privacy and fights against criminals at the same time. But you can't change the fact that instability of BA companies absolutely ruins this process and they are a legal scam.

[ABCbits]

Some individuals prefer to forgo privacy entirely rather than make any compromises. This is evident in the case of Seth and his company, Foundation Devices. They were second in line in canceling zkSNACKs. However, when confronted with the legal implications surrounding the Tornado Cash case, they opted to retract their coinjoin implementation plans altogether.

It's easy to be brave from a distance. I'd urge everyone to try to think further ahead, because what we're doing here is no joke. We're leading a revolution that is going to make significant geopolitical impact and going head first into the wall is a nonsense strategy.

Few thoughts,
1. I don't own Foundation device, so can someone provide link relevant news or article? I did quick google search, but didn't find any relevant result.
2. In context of coordinator run by zkSNACKs, aren't there any better or less controversial option for compromise? For example,

• Shut down mainnet coordinator and list community coordinator on Wasabi wallet instead.
• Doesn't take any money from running mainnet coordinator in order to  get extra legal protection as non-profit.
• Switch to non-interactive CoinJoin instead which doesn't require any coordinator or server.

[NotATether]

2. In context of coordinator run by zkSNACKs, aren't there any better or less controversial option for compromise? For example,

• Shut down mainnet coordinator and list community coordinator on Wasabi wallet instead.
• Doesn't take any money from running mainnet coordinator in order to  get extra legal protection as non-profit.
• Switch to non-interactive CoinJoin instead which doesn't require any coordinator or server.

As far as I know, zksnacks is the only company actually known to be funding the development of Wasabi wallet, so don't expect Kruw or anyone working on the wallet to agree on shutting it down or stopping the commissions.

Although non-interactive coinjoins sound cool but I don't know how that would work.

[Kruw]

If they are unable to run a censorship-free coordinator, then the correct thing to do would be to shut down their centralized coordinator

Shut down mainnet coordinator and list community coordinator on Wasabi wallet instead.

^ As you can see, the very existence of coinjoin coordinators providing non custodial privacy reveals that these users are trying to scam people out of their data and coins with their "mixing sites".  Since zkSNACKs proved that anyone can provide privacy without taking custody by running a coinjoin coordinator, this eliminates any doubt that the mixing sites are purposely designed as trust holes.  This is why these scammers are insisting that noncustodial privacy services no longer be offered to anyone so their scamming sites can gain plausible deniability as potentially legitimate services.

As far as I know, zksnacks is the only company actually known to be funding the development of Wasabi wallet, so don't expect Kruw or anyone working on the wallet to agree on shutting it down or stopping the commissions.

Explain to me how zkSNACKs shutting down their coordinator is a good thing for anyone other than the mixing sites that are stealing Bitcoins from people.

[cygan]

here is a comparison of the last two versions of the Wasabi wallet. very clearly you can see how the update to 2.0.4 has increased coinjoin efficiency. there are lower fees for users and over 40% better anon sets for coinjoin outputs.
the whole thing can of course be verified by yourself using the tool WabiSabiAnalyzer


https://twitter.com/wasabiwallet/status/1708048142480941257

[Medusah]

Explain to me how zkSNACKs shutting down their coordinator is a good thing for anyone other than the mixing sites that are stealing Bitcoins from people.

It would be bad for the chain analysis company you are funding.  That is generally accepted as a positive in the privacy community, because these are the companies that spread the notion that Bitcoin is not fungible.

Explain to me how zkSNACKs funding chain analysis company is a good thing for anyone other than the chain analysis company itself.

[arabspaceship123]

I've looked at the post but benefits of efficiency can't be better to privacy concerns. If they're giving 40% better anon sets for coinjoin outputs it's impressive. What's worrying ppl is their spying with blockchain analysis companies.

When zkSNACKs rejects coinjoins's it's taking away Bitcoin's creative foundation from fungible origins. zkSNACKs can't say they believe in privacy if they're spying on you at the same time. If Wasabi wallet's got other benefits it doesn't help ppl against their blockchain analysis policy.

here is a comparison of the last two versions of the Wasabi wallet. very clearly you can see how the update to 2.0.4 has increased coinjoin efficiency. there are lower fees for users and over 40% better anon sets for coinjoin outputs.
the whole thing can of course be verified by yourself using the tool WabiSabiAnalyzer

https://twitter.com/wasabiwallet/status/1708048142480941257