Wasabi Wallet - Total Privacy For Bitcoin

[BlackHatCoiner]

Throwing criminals in prison is justified. Supporting that censorship is good because criminals must be punished is not justified.

[Kruw]

Throwing criminals in prison is justified.

If you agree that criminals should be held to justice with imprisonment, then why did you post as if my motives for promoting non custodial open source privacy tools are suspicious?

I do however remember him claiming that throwing a criminal in a dungeon is justified. It's safe to assume that his opinions are highly influenced by what he's shilling.

[BlackHatCoiner]

If you agree that criminals should be held to justice with imprisonment, then why did you post as if my motives for promoting non custodial open source privacy tools are suspicious?

Because supporting that censorship is good with the excuse that criminals need to get punished is suspicious. Censorship is not justified when it goes beyond the bounds of justice, and zkSNACKs was beyond the bounds of justice.

[Kruw]

Because supporting that censorship is good with the excuse that criminals need to get punished is suspicious. Censorship is not justified when it goes beyond the bounds of justice, and zkSNACKs was beyond the bounds of justice.

How is saying "I'm not going to do business with you" beyond the bounds of justice? Libertarians believe that entrepreneurs have the right to decline a business deal, why do you believe that people should be forced to trade with people they don't like?

[BlackHatCoiner]

How is saying "I'm not going to do business with you" beyond the bounds of justice?

Declining to do business with me is not beyond the bounds of justice, but discriminating people based on your own criteria gives the impression that you're acting as judge and jury. Choosing to discriminate and censor voluntarily, without any basis in justice, seems suspicious to me.

If you walked into a restaurant, and they refused to serve you because they don't like serving white people, wouldn't you find it suspicious?

Libertarians believe that entrepreneurs have the right to decline a business deal, why do you believe that people should be forced to trade with people they don't like?

Sure, you're free to run whatever software you want. But, if I told you that everyone deserves privacy, and then I refused to provide you with privacy, wouldn't you find it suspicious?

[Kruw]

Declining to do business with me is not beyond the bounds of justice,

Good, I'm glad we agree.

but discriminating people based on your own criteria gives the impression that you're acting as judge and jury. Choosing to discriminate and censor voluntarily, without any basis in justice, seems suspicious to me.

Why do you think discriminating against SBF doesn't have any basis in justice? What is suspicious about that?

If you walked into a restaurant, and they refused to serve you because they don't like serving white people, wouldn't you find it suspicious?

My ex girlfriend is Chinese. She dated me (white) but says she won't date black guys. What's suspicious about that?

I'm not against the idea of Japanese refusing foreigner tourists from shopping in their stores or nightclubs that require strict dress codes. Others are not obligated to interact with you, even if you offer them money, period.

Sure, you're free to run whatever software you want. But, if I told you that everyone deserves privacy, and then I refused to provide you with privacy, wouldn't you find it suspicious?

No, I don't think it's suspicious that someone would treat criminals differently than innocent people.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Why do you think discriminating against SBF doesn't have any basis in justice? What is suspicious about that?

You're not the arbiter of justice. Just because SBF is a criminal doesn't justify people taking the law into their own hands and preemptively discriminating against him. But even if we agree to disagree on moral grounds, it's still suspicious for a pro-Bitcoin service to support censorship, when the core principle of Bitcoin is its permissionless and censorship-resistant nature.

I'm not against the idea of Japanese refusing foreigner tourists from shopping in their stores or nightclubs that require strict dress codes. Other are not obligated to interact with you, even if you offer them money, period.

Absolutely, but I never argued otherwise. Merchants should have the right to choose whom they serve, but that doesn't change my view of their actions. Just as they are free to make their choices, I am equally free to express my suspicion of them.

And as far as my educational background is concerned, choosing to refuse service based on race is suspicious. 

No, I don't think it's suspicious that someone would treat criminals differently than innocent people.

So, to sum up. It's not suspicious if someone's definition of "everyone" precludes criminals. Alright, lol.  

[Kruw]

You're not the arbiter of justice. Just because SBF is a criminal doesn't justify people taking the law into their own hands and preemptively discriminating against him.

Why not? Surely you don't think the government should be in charge of something as critically important as justice, right?

So, to sum up. It's not suspicious if someone's definition of "everyone" precludes criminals. Alright, lol. 

Correct.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Why not? Surely you don't think the government should be in charge of something as critically important as justice, right?

I can hardly think of any alternative other than "an eye for an eye". While I do lean toward anarcho-capitalism, I struggle to envision a society that relies solely on the non-aggression principle. When someone infringes on another person's freedom, there must be a mechanism in place to protect that individual if they cannot defend themselves. I recognize that the Department of Justice is often inefficient and corrupt, but I acknowledge that these are complex questions without clear answers, and there is no always perfect solution in this world, if any.

[Wind_FURY]

The topic is currently a nit-picking debate between pro-centralized-mixers and anti-centralized-mixers. Can I be the moderator of the debate?

Shower thought. Centralized mixers, being centralized, could also refuse service to some individuals who their admins "believe" to be holding coins that are from a "suspicious" source, no?

It's a mere trade-off to protect the service.

[Kruw]

I can hardly think of any alternative other than "an eye for an eye".

"Eye for an eye" sounds like a pretty just system to me.

When someone infringes on another person's freedom, there must be a mechanism in place to protect that individual if they cannot defend themselves.

So why are you so hateful about zkSNACKs implementing a mechanism that extends a small protection to victims of crimes who can't defend their stolen coins anymore? Remember, there's no collateral damage against people who are falsely accused since zkSNACKs' policy does not empower them to confiscate funds or share data with law enforcement.

The topic is currently a nit-picking debate between pro-centralized-mixers and anti-centralized-mixers. Can I be the moderator of the debate?

There's no debate necessary since there's never a reason why you would send your coins to someone else's wallet in the first place - The whitepaper immediately informs every new Bitcoin user that there is no need to go through a financial institution and the main benefits of Bitcoin are lost when you use a trusted third party:

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.

[PrivacyG]

So why are you so hateful about zkSNACKs implementing a mechanism that extends a small protection to victims of crimes who can't defend their stolen coins anymore? Remember, there's no collateral damage against people who are falsely accused since zkSNACKs' policy does not empower them to confiscate funds or share data with law enforcement.

There is a collateral damage against people who are falsely accused.

By your logic, this same mechanism promising the extension of a small protection to victims of Crimes can be implemented at any given time any where in the World.  Shops accepting Bitcoin, Bitcoin ATMs still lacking Know Your Customer procedures, Services including transportation, institutions et cetera.

And by your logic, this would cause no harm to anybody.

False.

A falsely accused person would be unable to purchase groceries using their own Bitcoin, would be denied transportation, would not be allowed to exchange Bitcoin for other Cryptocurrencies or even Fiat by their own will, would not be able to pay their Taxes.

At first glance, it is an innocent measure supposedly meant to 'protect'.  Even if 'nothing bad can happen' as in a falsely accused person would not become under arrest and the shops, Services and institutions would not need to hand out any of their information to the Authorities, them being denied Service would significantly lower their quality of living.

[Wind_FURY]

The topic is currently a nit-picking debate between pro-centralized-mixers and anti-centralized-mixers. Can I be the moderator of the debate?

There's no debate necessary since there's never a reason why you would send your coins to someone else's wallet in the first place - The whitepaper immediately informs every new Bitcoin user that there is no need to go through a financial institution and the main benefits of Bitcoin are lost when you use a trusted third party:

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.

Another "because white paper" again. Haha. Plus Satoshi was talking about there's no need to go through a centralized entity to SEND a transaction from one peer to another peer. But users have the freedom to send their censorship-resistant money wherever they want. - And mixer's receiving address is merely another peer in the network, no?

Centralized mixers, like centralized exchanges, are merely providing a service for the community. It's either you want to use it or you don't. It's the users' choice.

[Kruw]

A falsely accused person would be unable to purchase groceries using their own Bitcoin, would be denied transportation, would not be allowed to exchange Bitcoin for other Cryptocurrencies or even Fiat by their own will, would not be able to pay their Taxes.

At first glance, it is an innocent measure supposedly meant to 'protect'.  Even if 'nothing bad can happen' as in a falsely accused person would not become under arrest and the shops, Services and institutions would not need to hand out any of their information to the Authorities, them being denied Service would significantly lower their quality of living.

That environment sounds like it would incentivize accused criminals to face their accusers in court. What's wrong with that?

And mixer's receiving address is merely another peer in the network, no? Centralized mixers, like centralized exchanges, are merely providing a service for the community.

That's my exact point: A "mixing site" is just someone else's wallet. Unlike exchanges or casinos, a "mixing site" is not a service since there is no underlying purpose for the site's existence.

[PrivacyG]

That environment sounds like it would incentivize accused criminals to face their accusers in court. What's wrong with that?

Do you seriously not see any thing wrong with the scenario I wrote or are you trolling?

[Kruw]

Do you seriously not see any thing wrong with the scenario I wrote or are you trolling?

I analyzed your scenario and responded with its logical conclusion:

That environment sounds like it would incentivize accused criminals to face their accusers in court. What's wrong with that?

Explain to me how I'm "trolling" by reaching this conclusion.

[BlackHatCoiner]

So why are you so hateful about zkSNACKs implementing a mechanism that extends a small protection to victims of crimes who can't defend their stolen coins anymore?

Because it doesn't protect anyone. If a criminal sees that his coins are refused to enter the coinjoin, he will simply mix them elsewhere. The coins aren't returned back to the victims, and likely never will.

There's no debate necessary since there's never a reason why you would send your coins to someone else's wallet in the first place - The whitepaper immediately informs every new Bitcoin user that there is no need to go through a financial institution and the main benefits of Bitcoin are lost when you use a trusted third party

There's Bisq, a decentralized, self-custodial exchange. You might want to call every promoter and affiliate of Binance, Coinbase and Kraken a scammer, at this point.

That's my exact point: A "mixing site" is just someone else's wallet. Unlike exchanges or casinos, a "mixing site" is not a service since there is no underlying purpose for the site's existence.

I understand you're fixated on dictating what people can and can't do, but the simple fact that people use them is undeniable proof that they provide a service. For example, there have been mixers in the past that charged no fees at all, not even the mining fee.

[Kruw]

Because it doesn't protect anyone. If a criminal sees that his coins are refused to enter the coinjoin, he will simply mix them elsewhere. The coins aren't returned back to the victims, and likely never will.

So what sort of mechanisms should zkSNACKs put in place to defend these victims from these criminals then?

When someone infringes on another person's freedom, there must be a mechanism in place to protect that individual if they cannot defend themselves.

There's Bisq, a decentralized, self-custodial exchange.

Bisq uses trusted third parties who escrow, it's not self-custodial.

I understand you're fixated on dictating what people can and can't do, but the simple fact that people use them is undeniable proof that they provide a service. For example, there have been mixers in the past that charged no fees at all, not even the mining fee.

Hey BlackHatCoiner, my wallet is now a "mixing site" service, send me your coins and I won't charge you any fees.

[BlackHatCoiner]

So what sort of mechanisms should zkSNACKs put in place to defend these victims from these criminals?

Nothing? A coordinator is not a policeman nor a jury?

Bisq uses trusted third parties who escrow, it's not self-custodial.

Not self-custodial during the trade, but it minimizes trust. Anyway, my point is that your previous citing of the whitepaper is completely flawed, because Satoshi meant that most benefits are lost if electronic money requires a third party to prevent double-spending. It does not apply on everything indefinitely, and centralized exchanges are a perfect example, in which you do need to forfeit custody to sell it.  

Hey BlackHatCoiner, my wallet is now a "mixing site" service, send me your coins and I won't charge you any fees.

"Yes, BHC, people do choose to forfeit their custody in exchange for this service, but I refuse to ever accept this reality."

[Kruw]

Nothing? A coordinator is not a policeman nor a jury?

No one claimed you had to be an agent of the government to help defend the innocent against criminals.

Your worldview is that "when someone infringes on another person's freedom, there must be a mechanism in place to protect that individual if they cannot defend themselves":

When someone infringes on another person's freedom, there must be a mechanism in place to protect that individual if they cannot defend themselves.

Then you follow up that the mechanism zkSNACKs implemented to accommodate your worldview isn't sufficient enough since coinjoin coordinators are non custodial and can't confiscate the coins:

The coins aren't returned back to the victims, and likely never will.

So my question still remains: What additional mechanisms (given your worldview about defending victims that you explained already) should zkSNACKS put in place?

So what sort of mechanisms should zkSNACKs put in place to defend these victims from these criminals then?

Not self-custodial during the trade, but it minimizes trust.

"Minimizes trust" is not the same thing as "Self custodial". Self custody means you have unilateral exit with no trusted third party. Owning 1 of 2 keys in a multisig does not provide this (without a presigned redemption transaction + timelock, like Lightning).

"Yes, BHC, people do choose to forfeit their custody in exchange for this service, but I refuse to ever accept this reality."

My offer from above still stands, please respond to it:

Hey BlackHatCoiner, my wallet is now a "mixing site" service, send me your coins and I won't charge you any fees.