ㅤ

[PrivacyG]

I am here (along with Theymos) to warn users NOT to use these centralized "mixers":

For everyone looking to improve their privacy, I highly recommend checking out Wasabi, especially over centralized "mixers".

You know what.  I did not follow this thread for a long time and am kind of behind with the discussion so I started reading the last pages and found this.  I think you are extremely unfair and misleading to use a theymos response from 2019 today.

Wasabi is not what it used to be.  They changed.  Is there a more recent opinion or advice from theymos?  Does he still think Wasabi is worth checking out is the question.  Wasabi used to work against Evil.  Like Google did a long time ago.  Back when they had a motto about it too.

But it is unfair and a little bit manipulative to use a statement about Google from back then in the context of the Google we have today.  They used to have a motto and specific beliefs.  They gave up on that motto for a reason.  Like you gave up your beliefs too.  Show me theymos supporting Wasabi over Mixers AFTER Wasabi started being hated on by its largest supporters.

[1714620943]

1714620943

[1714620943]

1714620943

[1714620943]

1714620943

[1714620943]

1714620943

[1714620943]

1714620943

[Kruw]

You know what.  I did not follow this thread for a long time and am kind of behind with the discussion so I started reading the last pages and found this.  I think you are extremely unfair and misleading to use a theymos response from 2019 today.

Wasabi is not what it used to be.  They changed.

I would love to hear a more recent response from theymos since the development of the new WabiSabi coinjoin protocol.  His major concern was that privacy was not default and that a fair amount of expertise was needed to maintain privacy. With Wasabi 2.0, privacy is default and no expertise is needed.

Further work is still necessary toward achieving default-fungibility, which is IMO the end goal. Even with Wasabi, you need a fair bit of expertise to maintain privacy, and the vast majority of people are using wallets that are terrible privacy-wise.

[Wind_FURY]

It's the question ppl can't answer because taint can't be boxed in one category. It's meaning isn't the same from one govt to another. Wouldn't it start a different trouble if taint free UTXO's were getting rejected for being naughty by zkSNACKs but a few govts declared them taint free.

They can't define taint so how's any one else going to understand it?

Then that's why, layer your mixing/tumbling with other centralized mixers, then the Lightning Network, then back to onchain, then make attempts to mix them further in Wasabi's CoinJoin/centralized coordinator in order to get that "clean, safe, government-approved" UTXOs that are free from "taint".

Except the fact that you aren't getting that. There is no standard to measure and determine made up taint. Governments don't like the pursuit of privacy, so you can't use government-approved and taint-free UTXOs in the same sentence as mixing or coinjoining. Additionally, coins from mixers and coinjoins may trigger alarms on some services and not on others, proving again that they are making up their definitions of taint as they go.  

For the context of what we are discussing and debating in the topic, "tainted" UTXOs are those that came from the Dark Markets, and those that have been marked by any government entity as "bad UTXOs" and UTXOs stored in sanctioned public addresses that merchants and services shouldn't accept.

In your post, you're describing a false positive, and I already said before that there should be a way for users to refute the evaluation of blockchain analysis companies, or else we would merely be believing in whatever they say.

[o_e_l_e_o]

In your post, you're describing a false positive, and I already said before that there should be a way for users to refute the evaluation of blockchain analysis companies, or else we would merely be believing in whatever they say.

There is a very simple solution to this problem: Stop using services like Wasabi which utilize and fund blockchain analysis, and turn to one of the many much better alternatives which are not anti-privacy and pro-censorship.

[Kruw]

There is a very simple solution to this problem: Stop using services like Wasabi which utilize and fund blockchain analysis, and turn to one of the many much better alternatives which are not anti-privacy and pro-censorship.

There aren't any better alternatives for privacy than Wasabi.

[Pmalek]

Further work is still necessary toward achieving default-fungibility, which is IMO the end goal. Even with Wasabi, you need a fair bit of expertise to maintain privacy, and the vast majority of people are using wallets that are terrible privacy-wise.

There you have it. Your partnership and consulting with a blockchain analysis company to check each coin's history shows bitcoin isn't fungible in their eyes, causing them not to be fungible in your eyes either. 1 bitcoin isn't the same as another bitcoin because you now believe in taint and creating differences where there shouldn't be any. 

There aren't any better alternatives for privacy than Wasabi.

It's so private that blockchain analysis gives it two thumbs up.

[PrivacyG]

a fair amount of expertise was needed to maintain privacy. With Wasabi 2.0, privacy is default and no expertise is needed.

Right.  With Wasabi 2.0, only the expertise of Blockchain Analysis is needed to maintain privacy.  They do the job for us.  So much more convenient for the users.

[Kruw]

It's so private that blockchain analysis gives it two thumbs up.

Right.  With Wasabi 2.0, only the expertise of Blockchain Analysis is needed to maintain privacy.  They do the job for us.  So much more convenient for the users.

I don't know what you are talking about.  When you use Wasabi 2.0, any attempted blockchain analysis is guaranteed to result in a dead end because each transaction you make is made fully private.

[PrivacyG]

I don't know what you are talking about.  When you use Wasabi 2.0, any attempted blockchain analysis is guaranteed to result in a dead end because each transaction you make is made fully private.

What is the point working with them then.  Or with a Third Party who works with Blockchain Analysis.  Same thing anyway.  You indirectly willingly collaborate with Blockchain Analysis tools.  If you say their attempted Blockchain Analysis is a guaranteed dead end then you either knowingly lie to them and are deceitful giving them only the impression they are doing something or you are lying to us by giving us only the impression the Transactions we make are fully Private.

[Kruw]

What is the point working with them then.  Or with a Third Party who works with Blockchain Analysis.  Same thing anyway.  You indirectly willingly collaborate with Blockchain Analysis tools.  If you say their attempted Blockchain Analysis is a guaranteed dead end then you either knowingly lie to them and are deceitful giving them only the impression they are doing something or you are lying to us by giving us only the impression the Transactions we make are fully Private.

Wasabi is not "working with chain analysis" or "willingly collaborating with blockchain analysis tools".  Your data is always completely protected from being leaked to any third parties the client, which is completely open source so you can verify this fact for yourself.  There's no information that blockchain analysis can gain when you use Wasabi, it provides total privacy  

[Pmalek]

Wasabi is not "working with chain analysis" or "willingly collaborating with blockchain analysis tools".

What exactly are you trying to convince the community of? Are you saying there is no partnership, working arrangement, cooperation, bitcoin UTXO checking by blockchain analysis (describe it in any words you want) at all or that there is but it yields to no results for the blockchain analysis company? I've never thought highly of such companies, but I will certainly not consider them to be stupid not to realize you are feeding them with useless data. If that's what you are doing. Or, since you said that there is no willing cooperation, has Wasabi and/or zkSNACKs been forced into this deal with blockchain analysis?

Finally, explain then how a person can be blocked from coinjoining based on the findings by blockchain analysis if the company doesn't receive or can find useful data on the history of the UTXOs? How can the blockchain analysis company recognize that certain coins stem from illegal activities and are "dirty" (in their own interpretation), if they can't use the data they get from you and compare it to whatever sources they have?

Gaining useful information isn't only discovering the name or location of the person wanting to coinjoin.   

[Kruw]

Are you saying there is no partnership, working arrangement, cooperation, bitcoin UTXO checking by blockchain analysis (describe it in any words you want) at all or that there is but it yields to no results for the blockchain analysis company? I've never thought highly of such companies, but I will certainly not consider them to be stupid not to realize you are feeding them with useless data. If that's what you are doing. Or, since you said that there is no willing cooperation, has Wasabi and/or zkSNACKs been forced into this deal with blockchain analysis?

There is no partnership, working arrangement, or cooperation. Coinjoin coordinators can't feed blockchain analysis companies any data at all because Wasabi clients do not give coinjoin coordinators any data at all.  It has always been this way.

However, blockchain analysis companies can feed coinjoin coordinators data.  Coordinators may purchase this data in order to exclude UTXOs from their coinjoins for ethical purposes because they want to avoid helping scammers hide the source of their funds, or they may use this for regulatory liability purposes because they want to avoid being punished by governments.

Finally, explain then how a person can be blocked from coinjoining based on the findings by blockchain analysis if the company doesn't receive or can find useful data on the history of the UTXOs?

If you receive coins from someone who isn't using Wasabi, then that UTXO has a history attached to it that blockchain analysis companies have tracked in the past.  Once you coinjoin that UTXO with Wasabi, there is no way for anyone to trace the funds, and blockchain analysis reaches a dead end.

[Volgastallion]

Back in the days i remember download the wassabi wallet, but when i see all of this manipulation of data , chainanalysis and feaures with coinjoin not so clear i delete the wallet, also because it was very slow when it charge.

Are you saying there is no partnership, working arrangement, cooperation, bitcoin UTXO checking by blockchain analysis (describe it in any words you want) at all or that there is but it yields to no results for the blockchain analysis company? I've never thought highly of such companies, but I will certainly not consider them to be stupid not to realize you are feeding them with useless data. If that's what you are doing. Or, since you said that there is no willing cooperation, has Wasabi and/or zkSNACKs been forced into this deal with blockchain analysis?

There is no partnership, working arrangement, or cooperation. Coinjoin coordinators can't feed blockchain analysis companies any data at all because Wasabi clients do not give coinjoin coordinators any data at all.  It has always been this way.

However, blockchain analysis companies can feed coinjoin coordinators data.  Coordinators may purchase this data in order to exclude UTXOs from their coinjoins for ethical purposes because they want to avoid helping scammers hide the source of their funds, or they may use this for legal liability purposes because they want to avoid being punished by governments.

Finally, explain then how a person can be blocked from coinjoining based on the findings by blockchain analysis if the company doesn't receive or can find useful data on the history of the UTXOs?

If you receive coins from someone who isn't using Wasabi, then that UTXO has a history attached to it that blockchain analysis companies have tracked in the past.  Once you coinjoin that UTXO with Wasabi, there is no way for anyone to trace the funds, and blockchain analysis reaches a dead end.

You make a very good answer, and thanks for clarify all this points, is good the explain and is a very good mode to work without altering so much the privacy of the people who use the wallet, but.....

We have TWO (at least) HUGE issues here, first of all, we have a philosopycal problem or ethical, WHO and WHY is coinjoin responsibile to say this UTXO is good and this is BAD?. You are in a forum where we are against censorship or atleast without a very good one explanation. And imagine if for us a explanation or a meddling for a external aprt, like the states, is bad can you imagine one made by a private company based on his subjetive analysis of UTXO?

Second one, imagine im a very common user and not a nerd one, and i have bitcoins on other wallet and i sent it to my wassabi wallet, for whatever reason Coinjoin and the analysis says, NO this comes from a blacklist bla bla, but i never know that, so i never receive the money..... Or my wassabi is gonna be out to trade with other persons who are blacklisted because one utxo with 0.0000001 btc comes from a suspected wallet?.

I know the point of being much more institutionalized and becomes a wallet for the future regulations, but it is what it is, and from this position we have to retaliate all of that in some point.

[Kruw]

We have TWO (at least) HUGE issues here, first of all, we have a philosopycal problem or ethical, WHO and WHY is coinjoin responsibile to say this UTXO is good and this is BAD?. You are in a forum where we are against censorship or atleast without a very good one explanation. And imagine if for us a explanation or a meddling for a external aprt, like the states, is bad can you imagine one made by a private company based on his subjetive analysis of UTXO?

Yes, I am interested in this philosophical aspect as well: If you knew that a famous thief such as Sam Bankman-Fried was registering his coins to your coinjoin coordinator, would you choose to help him hide his stolen funds from being traced?  Or would you decline to help him?

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

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.

o_e_l_e_o says he would choose to hide SBF's money so that SBF can send bribes to politicians completely undetected. But then o_e_l_e_o is faced with another choice: What happens when the other participants using o_e_l_e_o's coinjoin coordinator take justice into their own hands and refuse to sign SBF's coinjoin transaction?  Now o_e_l_e_o must ban these non signer vigilantes on behalf of SBF.

Second one, imagine im a very common user and not a nerd one, and i have bitcoins on other wallet and i sent it to my wassabi wallet, for whatever reason Coinjoin and the analysis says, NO this comes from a blacklist bla bla, but i never know that, so i never receive the money..... Or my wassabi is gonna be out to trade with other persons who are blacklisted because one utxo with 0.0000001 btc comes from a suspected wallet?.

You will never lose your money, Wasabi is completely non custodial.  Blacklisting only affects use of coinjoin services provided by a coinjoin coordinator, all they can do is simply refuse to include your input in their coinjoin transactions.

[PrivacyG]

Yes, I am interested in this philosophical aspect as well: If you knew that a famous thief such as Sam Bankman-Fried was registering his coins to your coinjoin coordinator, would you choose to help him hide his stolen funds from being traced?  Or would you decline to help him?

Excluding some body from the Blockchain is censorship.  This is all we need to know.  You are literally asking the question To censor or not to censor?  There is nothing philosophical in this situation.  You can not stand against censorship while censoring only Sam.  You either stand FOR censorship or AGAINST it.  Your messages clearly highlight your choice and it is not what Bitcoin stands for.  Let alone what Wasabi used to stand for.

If you knew that a famous thief such as Sam Bankman-Fried was moving Bitcoin through Wallets of his and we knew which Wallets he owns, would you choose to help him hide his stolen funds from being traced?  Or would you agree with and support the application of censoring methods to keep him off the Blockchain?

If you knew that a famous thief such as Sam Bankman-Fried stole a billion worth of Bitcoin, would you choose to help him keep his stolen Bitcoin?  Or would you support an initiative of rolling back Blocks to give BTC back to the victims?

If you knew that a famous thief such as Sam Bankman-Fried was using Monero to move illegal funds, would you choose to help him hide his stolen funds from being traced?  Or would you support an initiative of turning Monero to a public Blockchain so this never happens again?

If you knew that a famous thief such as Sam Bankman-Fried was using cash, would you choose to help him hide his stolen funds from being traced?  Or would you sign a petition to turn the Society cash less?

If you knew that a famous thief such as Sam Bankman-Fried was using Tor, would you choose to help him hide his stolen funds from being traced?  Or would you support banning Tor?

I could go on for pages with the same type of question.

See what you have done here?  Your question is not fair.  I can use the same wording to say about anything while holding you on the edge of a sharp blade.  Any of the questions above you will answer.  You are either pro censorship or you support crime.  You wrote that with this ill intent and you are just so cunning it is disgusting.

Standing against censorship and HELPING Sam are two different things.  I could use a bank note today and tomorrow it could be the payment of a drug deal.  If I follow your way of thinking then we should have no more Privacy.  I mean.  This is what you seem to now support anyway.

What happens when the other participants using o_e_l_e_o's coinjoin coordinator take justice into their own hands and refuse to sign SBF's coinjoin transaction?  Now o_e_l_e_o must ban these non signer vigilantes on behalf of SBF.

Why should o_e_l_e_o BAN these 'vigilantes'?  Why do your solutions always imply censorship, Kruw?

[Kruw]

Excluding some body from the Blockchain is censorship.  This is all we need to know.

You misunderstand how Bitcoin works: A coinjoin coordinator has no power to exclude anybody from the blockchain.  A coinjoin coordinator can only exclude someone from their own coinjoin transactions.

Why should o_e_l_e_o BAN these 'vigilantes'?  Why do your solutions always imply censorship, Kruw?

If o_e_l_e_o doesn't ban them, then a valid transaction will never be constructed.  The coinjoin will remain unsigned forever.

[PrivacyG]

You misunderstand how Bitcoin works: A coinjoin coordinator

I think you should start monitoring your level of ego.

-----

If Bitcoin can not FUNCTION any more due to an issue that NEEDS to be addressed.  The issue will be addressed.  The 184 Billion Bitcoin bug should tell you something.

Same for Coin Join coordinators.  If no more valid transactions will ever be possibly constructed with the 'vigilantes deciding to take justice into their own hands'.  Then obviously what you will need to do is make it possible to function again.

Also.  I am very curious to know the answers to the few questions I asked,

If you knew that a famous thief such as Sam Bankman-Fried was moving Bitcoin through Wallets of his and we knew which Wallets he owns, would you choose to help him hide his stolen funds from being traced?  Or would you agree with and support the application of censoring methods to keep him off the Blockchain?

If you knew that a famous thief such as Sam Bankman-Fried stole a billion worth of Bitcoin, would you choose to help him keep his stolen Bitcoin?  Or would you support an initiative of rolling back Blocks to give BTC back to the victims?

If you knew that a famous thief such as Sam Bankman-Fried was using Monero to move illegal funds, would you choose to help him hide his stolen funds from being traced?  Or would you support an initiative of turning Monero to a public Blockchain so this never happens again?

If you knew that a famous thief such as Sam Bankman-Fried was using cash, would you choose to help him hide his stolen funds from being traced?  Or would you sign a petition to turn the Society cash less?

If you knew that a famous thief such as Sam Bankman-Fried was using Tor, would you choose to help him hide his stolen funds from being traced?  Or would you support banning Tor?

[Kruw]

I think you should start monitoring your level of ego.

I'm not displaying any ego, I'm educating people how Bitcoin works.

If Bitcoin can not FUNCTION any more due to an issue that NEEDS to be addressed.  The issue will be addressed.  The 184 Billion Bitcoin bug should tell you something.

Bitcoin is functioning just fine, what are you talking about?

Same for Coin Join coordinators.  If no more valid transactions will ever be possibly constructed with the 'vigilantes deciding to take justice into their own hands'.  Then obviously what you will need to do is make it possible to function again.

Okay fine, go ahead and tell me how obvious it is to make coinjoin coordination work without banning the vigilantes: How do you make the coinjoin transaction valid if you don't have a signature from all of the inputs?

Also.  I am very curious to know the answers to the few questions I asked,

Your questions are based on the false premise that a coinjoin coordinator can exclude someone from the blockchain, so they don't make any sense.

[PrivacyG]

Bitcoin is functioning just fine, what are you talking about?

Sam Bankman-Fried is not registering his coins to my coinjoin coordinator.  In fact.  I do not even run a Coin Join coordinator.  What in the world are YOU talking about?

Your questions are based on the false premise that a coinjoin coordinator can exclude someone from the blockchain, so they don't make any sense.

Your question is based on the false premise that I am running a Coin Join coordinator, so it does not make any sense.  Also.  Your previous question is based on the false premise that I was saying Bitcoin is not functioning well.  Does not make any sense to even bother answering properly any of your previous questions so far.

If no more valid transactions will ever be possibly constructed with the 'vigilantes deciding to take justice into their own hands'.  Then obviously what you will need to do is make it possible to function again.

Okay fine, go ahead and tell me how obvious it is to make coinjoin coordination work without banning the vigilantes: How do you make the coinjoin transaction valid if you don't have a signature from all of the inputs?

I think you need either glasses or sleep.  Or both.

[Kruw]

Bitcoin is functioning just fine, what are you talking about?

Sam Bankman-Fried is not registering his coins to my coinjoin coordinator.  In fact.  I do not even run a Coin Join coordinator.  What in the world are YOU talking about?

I am disputing your claim that Bitcoin cannot function anymore:

If Bitcoin can not FUNCTION any more due to an issue that NEEDS to be addressed.  The issue will be addressed.  The 184 Billion Bitcoin bug should tell you something.

Your questions are based on the false premise that a coinjoin coordinator can exclude someone from the blockchain, so they don't make any sense.

Your question is based on the false premise that I am running a Coin Join coordinator, so it does not make any sense.  Also.  Your previous question is based on the false premise that I was saying Bitcoin is not functioning well.  Does not make any sense to even bother answering properly any of your previous questions so far.

I did not ask you a question.  I made a statement.  Questions end with this symbol: ?

Okay fine, go ahead and tell me how obvious it is to make coinjoin coordination work without banning the vigilantes: How do you make the coinjoin transaction valid if you don't have a signature from all of the inputs?

I think you need either glasses or sleep.  Or both.

I have glasses and I just woke up, tell me how you make the coinjoin transaction valid without censoring the anti-SBF vigilantes.