Petition to remove Wasabi from recommendations of bitcoin.org

[Medusah]

Wasabi team has announced the default coordinator will implement blacklisting in coinjoin^[1], and will refuse to let some coins from being mixed, which completely goes against the fungibility they argue they enhance^[2] and to the privacy being preserved at all times as they represent^[3].  Due to this update, I find it very hypocritical of them to believe they are the ultimate solution to Bitcoin's privacy issues, while partnering with people who go against the fundamentals of privacy and fungibility in the first place. 

Wasabi is recommended in bitcoin.org^[4], the place where every beginner learns the first steps to start their Bitcoin journey.  I think that, in such crucial place, presenting Wasabi as privacy-focused and completely transparent project is wrong and should be not be recommended.

In this topic, I would like to gather petitions so we can send an email to Cobra (the bitcoin.org administrator) and explain our reasoning.

[1] https://blog.wasabiwallet.io/zksnacks-blacklisting-update/
[2], [3] https://zksnacks.com/
[4] https://bitcoin.org/en/wallets/desktop/linux/wasabi/?step=5&platform=linux

[1714257972]

1714257972

[1714257972]

1714257972

[Z-tight]

Bitcoin.org is a great place for people to get good information about BTC wallets, but it isn't BTC's "official" website. Because BTC is decentralized, there is no official website or place of information where you can be 100% certain that the info you get is directly from the BTC network, it's not possible because there is no central authority.

The admin of bitcoin.org is surely aware of Wasabi's latest mess and censorship, and if they decide to make a change it will be up to them, there's no need to email them in my honest opinion. People should do extra research about the wallet they want to use, it does not matter where they got the recommendation from, they should read up about the wallet, how they operate and their latest implementations before using it.

[DaveF]

Bitcoin.org is a great place for people to get good information about BTC, but it isn't BTC's "official" website, because BTC is decentralized, there is no official website or place of information where you can be 100% certain that the info you get is directly from the BTC network, it's not possible because there is no central authority.

The admin of bitcoin.org is surely aware of Wasabi's latest mess and censorship, and if they decide to make a change it will be up to them, there's no need to email them in my honest opinion. People should do extra research about the wallet they want to use, it does not matter where they got the recommendation from, they should read up about the wallet, how they operate and their latest implementations before using it.

Actually, it's they may or may not reading here and Reddit and twitter where it is being discussed. Could be 1000 reasons why we hear know about what they are doing but the bi7coin.org web people do not.

But, there is no reason for them not to list the wallet. It's no more or less of a choice for someone to use it without getting all the details as it is for them to use any other particular wallet.

If you're not using the coin joins you would never even know or care. As a wallet, it works. And it's probably secure. Anything beyond that it's really not their concern because they are telling you about what wallets are available not necessarily if the features the wallet is talking about are done well for the user. So long as they are not stealing your money like others wallets I have no issue with it staying there. With that being said, I would *never* ever use it.

-Dave

[mk4]

*snip*

Pretty much — the user should just be responsible enough to do at least a little bit of digging before using a certain wallet service/feature. Because if we'd like to delist every wallet that has some controversy, we'd probably run out of wallet to list besides Bitcoin Core.

[pooya87]

In this topic, I would like to gather petitions so we can send an email to Cobra (the bitcoin.org administrator) and explain our reasoning.

Bitcoin.org is also open source and the way to suggest changes is like any other open source software, it is by opening a new issue on their github page that can be found here:
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/issues/new/choose

Simply explain why it should be removed in that issue and try to get the discussion rolling there. You can also include a link to this topic.

If you're not using the coin joins you would never even know or care. As a wallet, it works.

I disagree because Wasabi is not a wallet, it is a privacy oriented wallet and the main purpose that it serves (which is also what it is known for and used for) is its CoinJoin feature. A privacy oriented wallet that is cooperating with anti-privacy organizations can not be trusted.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Completely agree it should be removed, or at the very least have its privacy rating downgraded from "Good" to "Caution". Under the Wasabi page (https://bitcoin.org/en/wallets/desktop/linux/wasabi/?step=5&platform=linux) it currently says "Prevents spying on your payments" which is just categorically not true - they pay Coinfirm to actively spy on your payments.

If you're not using the coin joins you would never even know or care.

Maybe worth pointing out that Wasabi now apparently automatically starts coinjoining everything, charging you a fee to be spied on, whether you want it to or not: https://nitter.net/DiracDel/status/1672294717193859074

[Medusah]

Because BTC is decentralized, there is no official website or place of information where you can be 100% certain that the info you get is directly from the BTC network, it's not possible because there is no central authority.

I never said there is an official website for Bitcoin.  I only said bitcoin.org is the place where most beginners learn what is Bitcoin and how to start using it.

The admin of bitcoin.org is surely aware of Wasabi's latest mess and censorship, and if they decide to make a change it will be up to them, there's no need to email them in my honest opinion.

I think they need to read some feedback from the Bitcoin community.  They may also have not done the same research as some users in this forum, me included.

But, there is no reason for them not to list the wallet.

There are reasons.

• Wasabi team have been caught lying frequently, which makes them not trustworthy.  I can point you to some examples if you want.
• They advertise themselves as the best solution to Bitcoin privacy issues, and simultaneously partner with a mass surveillance company, which is hypocritical for obvious reasons.
• They have been caught doxxing their competitors (Samurai team).
• Their software has also been caught to reusing addresses, which is unforgivable for a project that aims to preserve privacy.

Bitcoin.org is also open source and the way to suggest changes is like any other open source software, it is by opening a new issue on their github page that can be found here:
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/issues/new/choose

Thank you.  I will create an issue and/or pull a request.

Maybe worth pointing out that Wasabi now apparently automatically starts coinjoining everything, charging you a fee to be spied on, whether you want it to or not: https://nitter.net/DiracDel/status/1672294717193859074

Lol:

If people fail to use Bitcoin privately by default we have inadvertently created the most extensive mass surveillance system in history.

So, if people fail to use Wasabi which funds the operation of mass surveillance and which can prevent some people from coinjoining (as the top fungibility protocols do), we will have created the most extensive mass surveillance system in history.  

[ABCbits]

Bitcoin.org doesn't have very strict criteria[1], so i don't expect Wasabi would be removed anytime soon. Although i strongly agree the privacy section should be downgraded from "Good".

If you're not using the coin joins you would never even know or care.

Maybe worth pointing out that Wasabi now apparently automatically starts coinjoining everything, charging you a fee to be spied on, whether you want it to or not: https://nitter.net/DiracDel/status/1672294717193859074

In addition, it would make user's coin would be blacklisted on some centralized service. Last time i tried Wasabi Wallet 2, there's no such warning.

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/blob/master/docs/managing-wallets.md

[Yamane_Keto]

Many people may not like my opinion and they may disagree with me, but if I look at the Wasabi wallet, the conversation is about the privacy and not the security. There were no reports or complaints about hacking or seed bugs, and therefore there is no need to remove it.
the WalletScrutiny report, which proved that most of the existing wallets are closed source, have weak programming, or have currency security problems.

Code:

9 Reproducible 22 Build Error! 209 No Source! 652 Custodial! 75 No send/receive!

Those who visit bitcoin.org are newbies who will not be able to properly protect their privacy.

I know the approach is not true, but even electrum is not considered to be privacy wallet.

Therefore, I am against removing them, although they are very bad.

The best thing is to put a warning about privacy.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Those who visit bitcoin.org are newbies who will not be able to properly protect their privacy.

All the more reason not to recommend wallets which actively spy on their users, since newbies won't have the requisite knowledge to evaluate this information or act accordingly by choosing a different wallet.

Once your privacy is lost, it is extremely hard to recover it. There are plenty of users I've spoken to over the years who wished they knew more about privacy when they first started out, as they now find themselves in situations where they cannot get back that which was lost. By recommending newbies' first wallet to be one which actively funds blockchain analysis to spy on their UTXOs, you set them down a path they may never be able to recover from.

[pooya87]

I know the approach is not true, but even electrum is not considered to be privacy wallet.

To be fair Electrum was never introduced as a "privacy wallet" whereas Wasabi was and still is.
Electrum is always introduced as SPV client and it is a well known fact that SPV clients are weak when it comes to privacy.

We may argue that removing it is not the best approach but the page should definitely change the privacy from "Good" to "Caution" with a warning that instead of saying "Improved privacy" should say "it cooperates with chain-analysis aka anti-privacy agencies".

[Yamane_Keto]

All the more reason not to recommend wallets which actively spy on their users, since newbies won't have the requisite knowledge to evaluate this information or act accordingly by choosing a different wallet.

After seeing some who trust closed source wallets, poorly programmed that they don't know what caused users to lose their money, and here I mean A *Non-Custodial wallet*, Atomic Wallet, thinking about privacy is a luxury.

I agree it should make changes but removing them with limited open source options doesn't sound like a good thing.

We may argue that removing it is not the best approach but the page should definitely change the privacy from "Good" to "Caution" with a warning that instead of saying "Improved privacy" should say "it cooperates with chain-analysis aka anti-privacy agencies".

I totally agree.

[MusaMohamed]

To be fair Electrum was never introduced as a "privacy wallet" whereas Wasabi was and still is.

Wasabi wallet is like Brave browser.

The best privacy online is one of many phrases about privacy at the landing page of Brave.com.

They break their own words by KYC if users want to claim BRAVE token rewards.
What is "KYC" and how does it fit into Brave Rewards?

[20kevin20]

I agree it should be delisted or kept with a very visible warning about their cooperation with surveillance firms.

I also get why some of you wouldn’t censor them for what they’ve done. It’s true, they should still be out there for people who desire paying for inexistent privacy, but their constant lying and manipulation leads me to believe it’s better off without them than with them because a lot of users will be fooled otherwise.

You ask them whether they’re really the solution to privacy and they give you links to read text an average Joe wouldn’t even comprehend. Then the average Joe looks at you, anonymous account arguing with them, looks at Wasabi providing false proof (and I’m calling it false because you ask them about apples and they tell you about trees). In the end, it’s not that likely the average Joe gives up on them because Wasabi continues to fight for their case although they know they’re in the wrong.

Hence, I tend to believe they should either be delisted until they spread truth instead of manipulate and deceive, or they should be kept there with a big red flag for new users.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I'll right as well vote for removing it. The developers / contributors are frequently found lying, indeed. We've already talked a lot in a topic dedicated for Wasabi, and we're like 12 pages now arguing on semantics. The conclusion is that Wasabi is not pro-fungibility, nor pro-privacy organization / company.

Many people may not like my opinion and they may disagree with me, but if I look at the Wasabi wallet, the conversation is about the privacy and not the security. There were no reports or complaints about hacking or seed bugs, and therefore there is no need to remove it.

It's a wallet which presents itself as the solution to the privacy problems, while funding mass surveillance at the same time. Fish stinks from the head.

[20kevin20]

The conclusion is that Wasabi is not pro-fungibility, nor pro-privacy organization / company.

And the issue isn’t even that but the way they’re deceitfully trying to portray what Wasabi is. So many centralized exchanges and nobody gives a damn, we have a free choice, but situations like Freewallet and Wasabi need to be solved differently because they’re different in a very negative way to their customers, to newbies trying to learn and even to Bitcoin itself.

You can’t solve fungibility and privacy by working with surveillance. I’ll say this again, it’s an Orwellian style of doing business. We’re giving you privacy but first we need to check you out and put a tag on you is their way of conducting business. Disappointing, deceiving and last but not least, utterly immoral.

[dkbit98]

So you are fine with Bitcoin.org having other outdated wallets like Armory and Bither, or BitPay that is openly restricting usage to some regions and demand kyc for their payment processor, but you just want to remove Wasabi wallet?
I am fine with people not liking Wasabi (I dont like their new interface) and having issues with their coinjoin implementation, but this is still open source wallet and it works fine without that OPTIONAL coinjoin feature.
If you want to waste your time you can go for it and write email to Cobra that won't have any result whatsoever.
Much better suggestion for bitcoin.org is to add open source hardware wallets.

Many people may not like my opinion and they may disagree with me, but if I look at the Wasabi wallet, the conversation is about the privacy and not the security. There were no reports or complaints about hacking or seed bugs, and therefore there is no need to remove it.
the WalletScrutiny report, which proved that most of the existing wallets are closed source, have weak programming, or have currency security problems.

Yeah but some people like hating wasabi, and I think they are hoping someone will hack wasabi 
I agree that saying that something is open source is not enough for wallet to be good, and websites like Walletscrutiny and Bitcoinbinary are very good addition.

[Zoomic]

*snip*

Pretty much — the user should just be responsible enough to do at least a little bit of digging before using a certain wallet service/feature. Because if we'd like to delist every wallet that has some controversy, we'd probably run out of wallet to list besides Bitcoin Core.

Newbies seem to first be sure the reputation of where they are getting their information and once they discover that their source of information is reliable, they will believe whatever is emanating from there.
If there are other things wallets should compromise, it shouldn't be privacy.

[NotATether]

There's no reason to send an email about it, the entire site is hosted on Github https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org so just create an issue there instead.

Although I'm not too sure whether Cobra will reason with that considering that Bitcoin Core releases on bitcoin.org are terribly out of date.

A lot of websites link to Bitcoin.org whenever they want to promote Bitcoin, so whatever is on the website should be in our (the community's) interests.

[Lucius]

~snip~
A privacy oriented wallet that is cooperating with anti-privacy organizations can not be trusted.

It's unbelievable to me that we have to construct sentences like this because some people try to combine things that just can't go with each other by any logic. I'm just wondering what kind of new nonsense will appear tomorrow or the day after, because there are more and more people we can't trust, even though they keep trying to convince us that there's nothing controversial about it.


As for the removal, I think it might be too harsh, because in that case someone might say that we should remove Ledger, which in my opinion is a much bigger problem, and is also one of the recommendations. I agree with some that a warning might be more appropriate.