Petition to remove Wasabi from recommendations of bitcoin.org

[NotATether]

The question is for Kruw and the developers of mixers that use the services of blockchain analysis companies. If all UTXOs are "guilty until proven innocent", how can users refute evaluations that are "false-positives"?

They can't, because you can't prove a negative.

[1714316093]

1714316093

[1714316093]

1714316093

[1714316093]

1714316093

[1714316093]

1714316093

[Pmalek]

If zksnacks evaporates, then some whale will just create another coordinator that works with Wasabi. It's not rocket-science to bootstrap a coordinator, as there is an open-source repo with instructions somewhere on Github.

I know. But that's not exactly what I wanted to hear from Kruw about Wasabi and the importance/nonimportance of zkSNACKs.He didn't reply, still I will keep my thoughts secret until/if he does say exactly what I want him to. He seems to be more careful this time around.   

[BlackHatCoiner]

I do not see them removing anything from their current recommendations as they probably got a lot of money to list them in there in the first place. It's all about the money, I think.

Do you have any evidence they're getting paid by all that open-source wallets? I'm pretty confident they don't. As far as I remember, bitcoin.org is living off donations.

Wasabi Wallet has not quite become more unknown despite its popularity tanking over the last couple months. So in any case I find it highly unlikely that coinjoining will suddenly fail on Wasabi for whatever reason.

In this forum we've prosecuted it, and to the best of my knowledge, I see an increasing number of people becoming frustrated with the recent blacklisting update. What data do we possess regarding coinjoin volume?

Edit: I found this from the Wasabi thread: https://stats.wasabiwallet.io/search/45/from2023-08-14/to2023-09-14. It does have quite large volume.

[Kruw]

If zksnacks evaporates, then some whale will just create another coordinator that works with Wasabi. It's not rocket-science to bootstrap a coordinator, as there is an open-source repo with instructions somewhere on Github.

I know. But that's not exactly what I wanted to hear from Kruw about Wasabi and the importance/nonimportance of zkSNACKs.He didn't reply, still I will keep my thoughts secret until/if he does say exactly what I want him to. He seems to be more careful this time around.   

Why do you keep asking me rhetorical questions?

Not only that, but Kruw keeps highligting that the software and code is open-source, so why would there be a problem for Bitcoin if zkSNACKs disappeared tomorrow? I know why I am asking this, lets see if Kruw takes the bait or dodges the question. 

No one at any point suggested that Bitcoin would have problems if zkSNACKs disappeared.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Why do you keep asking me rhetorical questions?

Why do you keep ignoring the points everyone has made about zkSNACKs, the company responsible for the prosperity of Wasabi?

No one at any point suggested that Bitcoin would have problems if zkSNACKs disappeared.

I mean, aren't you tired lying yet? In the blacklisting blog post, it literally says that if zkSNACKs were discontinued, Bitcoin's privacy would be a lot worse.

We are fully aware of the gravity of our actions and had been even before the decision was made. By exploiting the only architectural flaw of Wasabi Wallet’s non-anonymously run coordinator: lack of censorship resistance; we broke one of the largest taboos of Bitcoin: blacklisting, to achieve something greater: survival of the best Bitcoin privacy technology. In doing this, we are giving Bitcoin’s anonymity a chance to thrive. The alternative, discontinuing zkSNACKs would have set back Bitcoin privacy for decades.

They've literally meant that if the default coordinator is shut down, the Bitcoin's privacy, other coordinators included, will be set back for decades.

[Kruw]

Why do you keep ignoring the points everyone has made about zkSNACKs, the company responsible for the prosperity of Wasabi?

I've never ignored anyone's points, I've directly addressed everyone's points by offering an immediate solution:  Copy and paste zkSNACKs' open source coordinator code.  They literally did all the work for you, their business can be yours with CTRL + C, and instead, the losers on this thread are instructing people not to use Wasabi at all.

The reason you refuse to accept this solution is because you would not be able to steal anyone's coins if you ran a coordinator.  As you've already established from your collaborations with Chipmixer, Whirlwind.Money, and Betnomi, you understand that stealing users' coins is a crucial part of the business model that allows them to pay you such massive rates for luring new victims.

I mean, aren't you tired lying yet? In the blacklisting blog post, it literally says that if zkSNACKs were discontinued, Bitcoin's privacy would be a lot worse.

We are fully aware of the gravity of our actions and had been even before the decision was made. By exploiting the only architectural flaw of Wasabi Wallet’s non-anonymously run coordinator: lack of censorship resistance; we broke one of the largest taboos of Bitcoin: blacklisting, to achieve something greater: survival of the best Bitcoin privacy technology. In doing this, we are giving Bitcoin’s anonymity a chance to thrive. The alternative, discontinuing zkSNACKs would have set back Bitcoin privacy for decades.

They've literally meant that if the default coordinator is shut down, the Bitcoin's privacy, other coordinators included, will be set back for decades.

I agree Bitcoin privacy would be worse given zkSNACKs' huge investments into it over the past 7 years.  But that wasn't the question Pmalek asked, was it?  Look closely:

Not only that, but Kruw keeps highligting that the software and code is open-source, so why would there be a problem for Bitcoin if zkSNACKs disappeared tomorrow? I know why I am asking this, lets see if Kruw takes the bait or dodges the question.  

As you can see, he dropped the word "Privacy" from the claim and then smugly called his statement "bait" to see if I would notice.  I noticed, but apparently you did not.

[Pmalek]

Why do you keep asking me rhetorical questions?

Because I want you to say what I already knew. In my first bait attempt, I wanted to hear that you have no idea what your blockchain analysis partners blacklist, deem unfit for coinjoining, and also that you don't care. You, the advocates of privacy and openness care not one bit about the secrecy that the opponents of Bitcoin and your partners present to you. That part is done. Now I want to hear something else, but judging by one of your sentences in one of your previous replies, you either figured it out or you aren't going to contradict yourself.

No one at any point suggested that Bitcoin would have problems if zkSNACKs disappeared.

You did, as BlackHatCoiner showed.

The reason you refuse to accept this solution is because you would not be able to steal anyone's coins if you ran a coordinator.  As you've already established from your collaborations with Chipmixer, Whirlwind.Money, and Betnomi, you understand that stealing users' coins is a crucial part of the business model that allows them to pay you such massive rates for luring new victims.

Oh, did he hit a nerve? Is that frustration and anger I am sensing? What else could be the reason that you are going back to your 'BlackHatCoiner is a thief' card?

[Kruw]

Oh, did he hit a nerve? Is that frustration and anger I am sensing? What else could be the reason that you are going back to your 'BlackHatCoiner is a thief' card?

I don't understand the point of this trolling?  Are you suggesting you shouldn't be angry at BlackHatCoiner for partnering with these businesses to steal money from Bitcointalk users?

[BlackHatCoiner]

I've never ignored anyone's points, I've directly addressed everyone's points by offering an immediate solution:  Copy and paste zkSNACKs' open source coordinator code.

Lol. Rewriting the backend software from scratch is also an alternative. Can you provide us some guidance on how can this be done? Sort of like step by step. I've seen no one using a different coordinator, let alone to have the skill set to set it up themselves.

The reason you refuse to accept this solution is because you would not be able to steal anyone's coins if you ran a coordinator.

That's right. This is why I'm an advocate of Whirlpool and Monero.  

As you've already established from your collaborations with Chipmixer, Whirlwind.Money, and Betnomi, you understand that stealing users' coins is a crucial part of the business model that allows them to pay you such massive rates for luring new victims.

Alright, time to stop repeating this horseshit. ChipMixer did not steal coins. It got confiscated by the German authorities. Yes, people lost money, but by the German feds. As for whirlwind: the manager of their campaign paid out the victims using whirlwind's money. (Betnomi is a casino, and I find it irrelevant)

I agree Bitcoin privacy would be worse given zkSNACKs' huge investments into it over the past 7 years.  But that wasn't the question Pmalek asked, was it?

Pmalek literally asked you what's the problem with zkSNACKs suddenly disappearing, given that Wasabi can operate normally without them. Then you literally said nobody suggested Bitcoin would have problems with that. Then, I quoted the part where zkSNACKs literally said there would be.

Literally.

[Kruw]

Can you provide us some guidance on how can this be done? Sort of like step by step.

Go to your node and check the "Enable Coordinator" button on your BTCPay Server WabiSabi coinjoin plugin:

Stop doubting, start running: https://i.imgur.com/dA1YkUp.png

I've seen no one using a different coordinator

Yes you have:

Yep.  Anyone who feels brave enough to copy and paste the coordinator code can do so.  Others have already because they actually care about what they are saying: https://t.me/WasabiWallet/70611

Alright, time to stop repeating this horseshit. ChipMixer did not steal coins. It got confiscated by the German authorities. Yes, people lost money, but by the German feds. As for whirlwind: the manager of their campaign paid out the victims using whirlwind's money. (Betnomi is a casino, and I find it irrelevant)

Wow, are they still paying you to cover up for them?  Please stop trying to convince new victims that ChipMixer was not a scam after Bitcointalk users already confirmed they got their money stolen:

~snip~
Even my chips which I had in chipmixer service for which they claimed to "delete private" keys after 7 days or whatever, were seized/transfered.
and these transactions took place good 3 months ago.

It seems that you are right, whoever had vouchers or chips was left without them. I checked some old wallets older than 1 year that only contained chips from CM, and they were all emptied. Yes, it's a bit stupid that I didn't spend them, but honestly I forgot about a few $ in those old wallets. It's really strange that it wasn't all deleted, but now we at least know where even 7GB of data came from.

Can confirm, they stole a chip of mine a friend of mine that he hadn't yet spent. :/ Really fucking bad practice of ChipMixer to keep private keys, not gonna lie.

Pmalek literally asked you what's the problem with zkSNACKs suddenly disappearing, given that Wasabi can operate normally without them. Then you literally said nobody suggested Bitcoin would have problems with that. Then, I quoted the part where zkSNACKs literally said there would be.

Literally.

It appears you still haven't noticed that Pmalek used sleight of hand and dropped the word "Privacy" from his question.  I'll highlight it since you still didn't catch the trick:

Not only that, but Kruw keeps highligting that the software and code is open-source, so why would there be a problem for Bitcoin if zkSNACKs disappeared tomorrow? I know why I am asking this, lets see if Kruw takes the bait or dodges the question.  

Which you can see does not match the narrow claim made in Wasabi's blog post about zkSNACKs' impact on Bitcoin privacy development:

We are fully aware of the gravity of our actions and had been even before the decision was made. By exploiting the only architectural flaw of Wasabi Wallet’s non-anonymously run coordinator: lack of censorship resistance; we broke one of the largest taboos of Bitcoin: blacklisting, to achieve something greater: survival of the best Bitcoin privacy technology. In doing this, we are giving Bitcoin’s anonymity a chance to thrive. The alternative, discontinuing zkSNACKs would have set back Bitcoin privacy for decades.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Go to your node and check the "Enable Coordinator" button on your BTCPay Server WabiSabi coinjoin plugin

I am not running BTCPay Server. Does Wasabi have a step by step for coordinator only, or is it just more user friendly with BTCPay installed?

Yes you have

My bad then. There is some Kevin who's running their own coordinator. Anyone else? Is there an extended list with alternative coordinators?

Wow, are they still paying you to cover up for them?  Please stop trying to convince new victims that ChipMixer was not a scam after Bitcointalk users already confirmed they got their money stolen

Lol, man. You're just hilarious. n0nce's "they" refers to the German authorities. Not the ChipMixer "they". Stop spreading FUD, it isn't going to be left unchallenged in this place.

It appears you still haven't noticed that Pmalek used sleight of hand and dropped the word "Privacy" from his question.

I know you're in love with semantics, but allow me to consider lack of Bitcoin privacy (as zkSNACKs put it) a Bitcoin problem (as Pmalek puts it).

[Kruw]

Go to your node and check the "Enable Coordinator" button on your BTCPay Server WabiSabi coinjoin plugin

I am not running BTCPay Server. Does Wasabi have a step by step for coordinator only, or is it just more user friendly with BTCPay installed?

BTCPay is more user friendly, but there is the step by step guide from Wasabi (it's not updated though): https://pastebin.com/i1KVfRUG

My bad then. There is some Kevin who's running their own coordinator. Anyone else? Is there an extended list with alternative coordinators?

Yes, like JoinMarket, you can list or pick from the WabiSabi coordinator orderbook (except you use Nostr for discovery): https://i.imgur.com/mE3AoMT.png

Lol, man. You're just hilarious. n0nce's "they" refers to the German authorities. Not the ChipMixer "they". Stop spreading FUD, it isn't going to be left unchallenged in this place.

Please read the quotes again.  Bitcointalk users reported having money stolen from private keys that ChipMixer said they had deleted:

~snip~
Even my chips which I had in chipmixer service for which they claimed to "delete private" keys after 7 days or whatever, were seized/transfered.
and these transactions took place good 3 months ago.

It seems that you are right, whoever had vouchers or chips was left without them. I checked some old wallets older than 1 year that only contained chips from CM, and they were all emptied. Yes, it's a bit stupid that I didn't spend them, but honestly I forgot about a few $ in those old wallets. It's really strange that it wasn't all deleted, but now we at least know where even 7GB of data came from.

Can confirm, they stole a chip of mine a friend of mine that he hadn't yet spent. :/ Really fucking bad practice of ChipMixer to keep private keys, not gonna lie.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Bad practice = Theft. Very rational.

[goldkingcoiner]

I do not see them removing anything from their current recommendations as they probably got a lot of money to list them in there in the first place. It's all about the money, I think.

Do you have any evidence they're getting paid by all that open-source wallets? I'm pretty confident they don't. As far as I remember, bitcoin.org is living off donations.

That would be very disappointing, because they could be making a lot of Bitcoin and helping the Bitcoin economy as well as encouraging the Bitcoin community. But if they choose to "live off of donations" like some Indian mountain guru, instead of developing a business plan and boosting the adoption of Bitcoin, then whatever. I judge not. I know a lot of people in the forum would disagree with me because we are all part of the open-source, charitable Bitcoin community, but if spending money boosts the economy in the current fiat economy, would that not do the same for the Bitcoin economy? I mean they do not have to go full capitalist and accept only the highest bidders, but they could put a price tag for their advertising. All I'm saying.

[Wind_FURY]

The question is for Kruw and the developers of mixers that use the services of blockchain analysis companies. If all UTXOs are "guilty until proven innocent", how can users refute evaluations that are "false-positives"?

They can't, because you can't prove a negative.

Or "WE can't". Because from their viewpoint if it's a validated positive, then it's a good illustration of the effectiveness of blockchain analytics. But if a "tainted" UTXO passed through, then it's merely an illustration that the blockchain analysis company should set up more filters.

The hypothesis that there might be two different prices between KYC-Bitcoin and "tainted" non-KYC-Bitcoin might start being a real issue when BlackRock and the other institutions/asset managers truly come in, no? Perhaps in five years?

[BlackHatCoiner]

That would be very disappointing, because they could be making a lot of Bitcoin and helping the Bitcoin economy as well as encouraging the Bitcoin community.

How would bitcoin.org accepting payments for adding wallet software in their page, improve the Bitcoin economy?

But if they choose to "live off of donations" like some Indian mountain guru, instead of developing a business plan and boosting the adoption of Bitcoin, then whatever.

Why would an informative page like this be a business? What service does it provide? Also, how would them being a business boost the adoption of bitcoin?

I mean they do not have to go full capitalist and accept only the highest bidders, but they could put a price tag for their advertising. All I'm saying.

Good, open-source wallets live off donations. If bidding was a thing, then the recommended wallets would be Binance, Kraken and Coinbase.

But if a "tainted" UTXO passed through, then it's merely an illustration that the blockchain analysis company should set up more filters.

You don't get it yet. Taint can be defined by any entity. I can right as well say that coinbase rewards are tainted. If I make the disclaimer that I will provide absolutely no evidence for my claim, then you can't disprove it, no matter how many chain analysis companies argue it is or isn't tainted.

[Pmalek]

I don't understand the point of this trolling?  Are you suggesting you shouldn't be angry at BlackHatCoiner for partnering with these businesses to steal money from Bitcointalk users?

The one trolling and lying maliciously not only about the nature of the company he works for and the partners they cooperate with, but also about other forum members is you. I just hope the moderators won't delete your posts like in the Wasabi thread so that everyone can see how low you've fallen.

Bad practice = Theft. Very rational.

This is Kruw's logic.
You owe me money and we are about to meet so you can pay me back. On your way to the meeting point, the police stop you asking for ID. You act suspicious, so they search you. At that point they find 3 grand in your bag, a knife and some marihuana for personal use. They confiscate everything and bring you in for questioning and perhaps holding for 24 hours in a cell. The fact we didn't meet and I didn't get my money, makes you a thief. Your arrest and/or confiscation of your belongings apparently doesn't change that.

Chipmixer deserves criticism for their storing of private keys longer than they said they would and lying about it. But do you @Kruw understand the difference between getting everything confiscated and stealing from your users? The fact that nothing happened to those keys for one year (in that one example) until the German government took everything shows you the difference between the two terms.     

[Kruw]

Chipmixer deserves criticism for their storing of private keys longer than they said they would and lying about it. But do you @Kruw understand the difference between getting everything confiscated and stealing from your users?

No, I don't understand:  Please explain why it matters to n0nce, Lucius, and james3441 that their coins from the private keys ChipMixer said they deleted were "confiscated" instead of "stolen".

[Pmalek]

Please explain why it matters to n0nce, Lucius, and james3441 that their coins from the private keys ChipMixer said they deleted were "confiscated" instead of "stolen".

Why it matters? Are you talking about the final result? The final result is that they no longer have access to those coins whose keys were stored on the confiscated ChipMixer server. So yes, if you are only talking about the aftermath of the incident, the result is that the coins are gone.

But you know very well that is not the point. You are not a stupid person not to know the difference. But I am getting the feeling that you sometimes act like it with the way you represent the wrong arguments. You have written multiple times that ChipMixer has stolen people's bitcoins and that isn't true. They got everything taken from them by the feds and the German authorities. So that's a big difference. They shouldn't have had the keys that were recovered from the servers, but that's a different topic of discussion.

What's even worse is that you have accused the likes of BlackHatCoiner and o_e_l_e_o of stealing coins themselves and being scammers. And you are acting stupid in that regard as well. And when I started calling you out for it, I got added to the list of scammers and thieves. You are very well aware that it's a lie but you are hoping someone will believe you. It's not going to work because there will always be those who will point out the difference.

Stop the act, it's getting old.

[Kruw]

Please explain why it matters to n0nce, Lucius, and james3441 that their coins from the private keys ChipMixer said they deleted were "confiscated" instead of "stolen".

Why it matters? Are you talking about the final result? The final result is that they no longer have access to those coins whose keys were stored on the confiscated ChipMixer server. So yes, if you are only talking about the aftermath of the incident, the result is that the coins are gone.

Thanks for confirming there is no difference.

They shouldn't have had the keys that were recovered from the servers, but that's a different topic of discussion.

It's the same topic because the stored private keys prove ChipMixer was a premeditated scam the entire time.

What's even worse is that you have accused the likes of BlackHatCoiner and o_e_l_e_o of stealing coins themselves and being scammers.

Yes, I make sure to keep proof of everyone's collaboration with scamming sites.