Petition to remove Wasabi from recommendations of bitcoin.org

[Pmalek]

I mean it's technically still running, I only used it for coordinating my own coinjoin one time.

Based on that, can we conclude that you weren't satisfied with the zkSNACKs coordinator for some reason, and that made you run your own despite suffering from liquidity and traffic issues because I am guessing there weren't many other parties coinjoining with you? Why would a pro-Wasabi and zkSNACKs individual run a different coordinator? Just testing it out? 

[1714673971]

1714673971

[1714673971]

1714673971

[PrivacyG]

If you can't come up with anything to contribute to the topic that isn't sarcasm, then I've made my point effectively.

Your point being?  We are using sarcasm because of how ironical and funny the B S you are saying is.  Do you ever read your own posts to realize how silly they sound?

I have some serious non sarcastic questions you never answer to.  They are a contribution to both topics I answered to and I have not seen an answer to those yet. Oh.  Wait.  Maybe because you only answer to the fragments of our posts that are convenient to you and to non serious replies.

They are paid to promote custodians, it's not like they don't obviously know they are accepting fractionally reserved funds. And they have no excuse that they didn't see it coming because once the previous custodian finished taking all the money from their customers, they switched to advertise a new custodian. Can you guess what happened with the new custodian?

Who are you even talking about?  Name and shame.  Which scammer did I support, besides you?

You took all my Wasabi Coin Join fees back when Wasabi pretended to be the Privacy protecting party of Bitcoin and are using it for Blockchain Analysis tools.  You are pretty much using the fees I paid against me, attacking the privileges I was paying you for.  Any body with two brain cells would understand using Blockchain Analysis on their own Privacy advocate customers would be a move against the customers.  Let alone Wasabi who I have no doubt knew this.  And you call out Mixers and Samourai?

Then Wasabi completely ignored the backlash and further more even started promoting their surveillance partnered Wallet on Bitcoin Talk for the first time.  I wonder why.

I have been using Mixers for many years.  Got scammed precisely zero times.  Zero BTC stolen from me.  With the way you are using my fees which were pretty hefty, I can comfortably say I got scammed.

-----

How come the only partners we have heard about from Wasabi are Blockchain Analysis and Trezor, out of which one is the most hated in the Bitcoin Talk community and the other has a history like this,

They were also a big supporter of AOPP, which was a protocol designed to make you KYC your own addresses to centralized exchanges before being allowed to withdraw.

?

-----

There is only a single thing I get out of this whole situation.  Wasabi was pressured and cornered by some authority and it was a disappear or comply type of situation.  I get Wasabi wanted from a business perspective to continue as earnings I suppose were not negligible.

But then it would have made sense to act in a different manner.  If I had to choose between obeying and disappearing out of the Market and I was depending on the earnings from Wasabi I do not know what I would have done.  Mentally I would say disappear but I have not been there to know.

What I know is if my choice was to comply I would have said the unfortunate truth.  There would have been so much more for you to gain by doing so.  Imagine Wasabi came out telling the truth and apologizing by explaining there was nothing else they could have done but to obey.  Imagine they did not continue to deceive their users.  I would have continued to respect Wasabi knowing this is a tough time to try to rebel against the rules because by protesting you know they will try to take you out.

I in fact believe some of us would have even continued to stay and support.  You could have worked with us rather than go against us.  We could have helped you find a way to make it better for every body while not risking the safety of Wasabis team.  You could have said something along the lines of 'We are sorry this is happening.  It is inconvenient to all of us.  Particularly to our customers.  We want to let you know that even if we had no choice but to obey, this does not mean your Coins will ever get to any authority.  It does not mean we have switched sides.  We will strive to find a better way for every body to be happy'.

Instead.  You chose to fully switch sides, lie, deceive and act as a Bitcoin hero.  Recently turning into pretending that Wasabi is in fact Bitcoin.  Guess the only missing piece of the puzzle is some body from Wasabis team partnering with CSW or pretending to be Satoshi themselves.

More over.  What I would have done is fund competitors who continue to do what I wanted to do.  Such as Join Market.  I would have funded others who are trying to continue doing what my dream was.  Building a way to create close to perfect Privacy for Bitcoin users.  That would have shown respect to my customers and respect to those who are brave enough to continue what I have been warned to stop doing.

Trying to overlook Join Market with superiority only makes you seem even worse.  As I said.  It is understandable to break down mentally and choose the safer way for you.  But if you then IMMEDIATELY transition to spitting on all the rest who are choosing the riskier side.  Then it means you were a pathological liar pretending all along.

But what did I expect really.  Superheroes are only real in the movies.

[Kruw]

Just testing it out? 

Yes, I was just testing it out.

[PrivacyG]

Yes, I was just testing it out.

Now that I posted something with no sarcasm after your complain you resort to avoidance again.  This makes the situation no better for you, I hope you do understand that.

Replying to this post while avoiding my previous one does not count by the way.

[Medusah]

If some competitor treats you with sarcasm at the first response, then your point is made.  Indeed.

But, if everyone is being sarcastic after you evade their counter arguments for like a hundred times, then.. chances are you are the problem.

[pooya87]

I don't know when and how this very simple matter got too complicated!

A centralized company that is behind Wasabi wallet, a tool that was supposed to be improving privacy, has been working with blockchain analysis companies that are doing the exact opposite to censor transactions.

It's just that simple!
Arguing about coordinators, fees, bringing up other tools like Samurai, etc. is just evading the real problem which is Wasabi devs being pro-censorship and anti-privacy while claiming otherwise!

[NotATether]

There is only a single thing I get out of this whole situation.  Wasabi was pressured and cornered by some authority and it was a disappear or comply type of situation.  I get Wasabi wanted from a business perspective to continue as earnings I suppose were not negligible.

That's actually true:

18. You already said this isn't the case; so you don't have to confirm or deny if this happened; but if we're being skeptic, we have to consider the idea that you were pressured by authorities after all, with an extra clause that you're not allowed to say anything about it. Did you ever consider that a privacy-enhancing service would sooner or later be targeted and pressured by authorities? Other similar services explicitly made sure from the beginning that the creators and developers are anonymous, pseudonymous or generally unknown, to make sure such pressure can't be exterted on the project. Actually, satoshi himself may have left Bitcoin to remove such a central point of failure (through pressure on the creator).

Answer: Information about pressures will be posted later. Satoshi is one of the few people who have actually stayed anonymous and left the project. Otherwise, I’m not sure who you mean. Working on a privacy project in today's day and age is very risky. If the project succeeds and grows, it’s only a matter of time before the people involved get harassed. This is expected and that’s why it’s important that we build as much as we can before the worst comes. Even though there’s not necessarily a law forbidding a privacy focused business, it’s only a matter of time before regulators find a way to try to shut the project down. We want to try to distance ourselves from these problems as much as possible, by avoiding unnecessary negative attention.

Someone might nit-pick here and say: "But he said 'it's only a matter of time before regulators ... shut the project'", but that's missing the point. Why would they be having these concerns after all these years of running without censorship, if somebody was not already harassing your company about it?

[Kruw]

I don't know when and how this very simple matter got too complicated!

A centralized company that is behind Wasabi wallet, a tool that was supposed to be improving privacy, has been working with blockchain analysis companies that are doing the exact opposite to censor transactions.

It seems you like can't tell the difference between open source software and people who use open source software.  The open source software improves privacy no matter who uses it, whether its you or a centralized company.  

If you don't like that a centralized company that uses Wasabi Wallet's open source software for coordinating coinjoins isn't accepting business from all customers, then why don't you solve the problem singlehandedly by using Wasabi Wallet's open source software to provide privacy to everyone?  

If you were using Nostr and you didn't like that one centralized company didn't store notes from everyone, then you should solve the problem by singlehandedly using Nostr's open source software to store everyone's notes.  If you were using Lightning and you didn't like that one centralized company didn't accept channels from everyone, then you should solve the problem singlehandedly by using Lightning's open source software to accept channels from everyone.

And yet, you would instead participate in a petition against Nostr and Lightning because you demand that someone else provide you services using their open source software instead of running your own copy.  This only damages the adoption of these incredibly useful open source softwares, but it doesn't solve your problem:  In fact, it makes your problem worse.

[Synchronice]

@Kruw
Just a question for you. Do you like the idea of Wasabi funding blockchain analysis companies? It looks like funding a country that manufactures weapons that are used to destroy your own country. I hope you don't like this and I hope you understand that Wasabi is funding an enemy. I clearly understand and analyze this step of yours, it's done for this business to survive and I appreciate the open-source of this project but I'm just frank here, Wasabi is not the best tool to protect privacy because of your partnership with BA and how you guys blacklist.

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

I would clarify that Wasabi were not pressured or harassed in to implementing blacklists. There were no regulations at the time which forced them to do so, and currently regulations such as the FinCEN one are still in a proposal stage and not law. Wasabi preemptively started censoring their users in an attempt to cover their own backs.

Just to be clear, there is no regulation that would compel this, and I don’t think that there would be anytime soon

Although as we've just seen with Swan telling people not to use Wasabi, their preemptive censorship didn't actually achieve anything.

[Kruw]

@Kruw
Just a question for you. Do you like the idea of Wasabi funding blockchain analysis companies? It looks like funding a country that manufactures weapons that are used to destroy your own country. I hope you don't like this and I hope you understand that Wasabi is funding an enemy. I clearly understand and analyze this step of yours, it's done for this business to survive and I appreciate the open-source of this project but I'm just frank here, Wasabi is not the best tool to protect privacy because of your partnership with BA and how you guys blacklist.

Wasabi is the best tool to protect privacy.  That fact doesn't change no matter what people spend their money on.

[Synchronice]

@Kruw
Just a question for you. Do you like the idea of Wasabi funding blockchain analysis companies? It looks like funding a country that manufactures weapons that are used to destroy your own country. I hope you don't like this and I hope you understand that Wasabi is funding an enemy. I clearly understand and analyze this step of yours, it's done for this business to survive and I appreciate the open-source of this project but I'm just frank here, Wasabi is not the best tool to protect privacy because of your partnership with BA and how you guys blacklist.

Wasabi is the best tool to protect privacy.  That fact doesn't change no matter what people spend their money on.

Is it a patriotic act to fund a country that manufactures weapons that are used to destroy your own country? No, it is not. I prefer to live in a country that uses all the funds for its own development or betterment rather than to live in a country that funds it's opponent to destroy it.

I just don't understand why you aren't frank. Yes, Wasabi is better than nothing but it's not the best tool to protect privacy because you fund your own worst enemy. If you want to say it's still the best tool, yes, you can say but facts are facts.

[Kruw]

Is it a patriotic act to fund a country that manufactures weapons that are used to destroy your own country? No, it is not. I prefer to live in a country that uses all the funds for its own development or betterment rather than to live in a country that funds it's opponent to destroy it.

I don't understand your metaphor, Wasabi is open source software, there's no countries or weapons involved.

I just don't understand why you aren't frank. Yes, Wasabi is better than nothing but it's not the best tool to protect privacy because you fund your own worst enemy. If you want to say it's still the best tool, yes, you can say but facts are facts.

I am being as frank as possible: The fact is that Wasabi is the best tool to protect privacy and that fact does not change regardless of what anyone spends their money on.

[PrivacyG]

I am being as frank as possible: The fact is that Wasabi is the best tool to protect privacy and that fact does not change regardless of what anyone spends their money on.

How is it the best tool to protect Privacy if in a desperate, urgent attempt to Coin Join my funds there is a possibility my UTXO is banned?  The best tool to protect Privacy is a tool that allows any body to protect their Privacy.  Not a tool where only the selected participants will.  Because in that case it is not a tool to protect Privacy.  It could at any time turn into a pass only to those whose identity has already be unveiled.

I keep asking you a question you constantly avoid.  It is very related to this particular discussion.

It's harmless to rely on these reports even if they are inaccurate because there's no consequences for users who are mistakenly identified as "tainted".

Will they be able to enjoy private money?

[Medusah]

I don't understand your metaphor, Wasabi is open source software, there's no countries or weapons involved.

So?  Can't a company which works on open-source use their money to engage in morally bad activities? 

How is it the best tool to protect Privacy if in a desperate, urgent attempt to Coin Join my funds there is a possibility my UTXO is banned?

Forget about that.  Wasabi is flawed.  End of story.

I would clarify that Wasabi were not pressured or harassed in to implementing blacklists.

According to this tweet, they did have government pressure:  https://nitter.cz/btcdragonlord/status/1635521177400606720#m

[Kruw]

Forget about that.  Wasabi is flawed.  End of story.

You should know by now not to listen to o_e_l_e_o, he will say any lie necessary about open source privacy software in order to trick people into losing their money to a custodian instead.  There is no "flaw", stop FUDing and start verifying:

Don't take it personally. Kruw has been ignoring stuff he doesn't like or can't answer for the best part of a year now:

Step 1 - Get shown blockchain evidence of Wasabi address reuse
Step 2 - Ignore said evidence
Step 3 - Ask for the evidence you've just ignored
Step 4 - Go to Step 1

o_e_l_e_o, didn't you hear Peter Todd?  https://youtu.be/oPNFdhZUGmk?t=162

BlackHatCoiner, another custodial shill, was also spreading this same lie of Wasabi being "flawed":

Wasabi coinjoins reusing addresses, leading to users being doxxed: https://nitter.it/ErgoBTC/status/1585671294783311872
Wasabi coinjoins using the same address on both sides of a transaction: https://mempool.space/tx/af50a27691c0f0b7b626cddb74445a0e26bb6ed7b045861067326ea173bc17d0 (address bc1qft2uze947wtdvvhdqtx00c8el954y6ekxjk73h)

Didn't you hear Peter Todd?  https://youtu.be/oPNFdhZUGmk?t=162

The custodians are desperate to attack open source privacy software.  It's the only way they can get their hands on your Bitcoins and data.  Don't fall for their obvious lies.

[Medusah]

You should know by now not to listen to o_e_l_e_o, he will say any lie necessary about open source privacy software in order to trick people into losing their money to a custodian instead.

No, he does not lie.  You lie and ignore everything he has presented.  Even Hillebrand Max has accepted the fact that wasabi is flawed:  https://nitter.cz/LaurentMT/status/1585997168464351233#m.  Unless you think Max has lied too.

[o_e_l_e_o]

According to this tweet, they did have government pressure:  https://nitter.cz/btcdragonlord/status/1635521177400606720#m

To me, that doesn't read like government pressure:

After 2 months thing seems to have settled down but there came a message in March 12th from a journalist working for the Financial Times asking questions about the criminal money laundering activities done through its coordinator and the broader space.

Everybody was shocked, I guess @HillebrandMax was less shocked, but overall the argument started that the blacklisting must commence because now the regulators will be onto us in Gibraltar.

The lawyers were called up and were discussing the options during the day about it.

Sounds like journalists were asking questions, and there was a fear of future regulations, so they started blacklisting preemptively. At no point then or since has anyone from Wasabi ever pointed to a piece of legislation and said "This is why we are now pro-censorship". Indeed, such legislation is only now starting to come out, long after Wasabi started censoring their users (and hilariously, such legislation is discriminating against Wasabi all the same despite their censorship).

Here are a few quotes from Max Hillebrand in an interview a couple of weeks after they started censoring:

Just to be clear, there is no regulation that would compel this, and I don’t think that there would be anytime soon

This was just one preemptive move to help with the scaling of the company, because we think that now we can provide the service at a much larger scale while still having way less regulatory pressure than before

[Medusah]

Thanks for bringing this up.  I will definitely read it when I find time.

Not only did they not have pressure from government but as it turns out according to Max, they envision a network of coordinators with coinjoin risk factors shown in the client side:

If, on the client side, you could blacklist certain risk factors, for example—because there are people who would be super stringent. I want to go all the way down to only CoinJoin with risk factor 1—lowest risk possible—for example. Some clients would have this specific preference. And maybe it could be implemented in a nice way on the client-side so that if you don’t care, you just leave it all the way up to 10, and if you do care, you configure it. And maybe that would have led to a better outcome because you can still talk to one coordinator and all the risk factor coins can still talk to one coordinator, and then we just figure out on the client-side of how to allocate this—maybe.

If you want to curate the coins that you’re seeing in this proposed CoinJoin and you decide whether or not you want to CoinJoin based on the metadata risk factor, you need to ask the chain surveillance company and then you need to get an account and KYC, probably, in all of this. So—not that easy. In the meantime, just doing it top-down from the coordinator-side is a solution that—assuming that you want to do this—it is a solution that is cheaper, because only one person has to talk to the chain surveillance company compared to all the users who want to do it.

Not only they are not pro-fungibility, but they believe there is room for treating bitcoin as "tainted" in their software.  Wasabi is spreading the notion that 1 BTC != 1 BTC.  They should not to be trusted with anything. 

[Kruw]

No, he does not lie.  You lie and ignore everything he has presented.  Even Hillebrand Max has accepted the fact that wasabi is flawed:  https://nitter.cz/LaurentMT/status/1585997168464351233#m.  Unless you think Max has lied too.

Medusah, didn't you hear Peter Todd?  https://youtu.be/oPNFdhZUGmk?t=162