Hasn't Wasabi wallet been bullied exactly for that? They pay a blockchain analysis company to analyze any UTXO which are trying to be coinjoined, which is a partnership and you offer the same idea.
There are two slight differences I think:
- In my protocol idea it's the user himself who can chose to initiate the check. If the check is not performed, then full KYC/AML may be performed in the case the risk score is too high.
- The idea is also that there is a clear separation of the check and the token you receive from the third party service, and the service provider itself. The idea is that the token only is given when the check is positive (i.e. low risk is found). If the risk is high, instead, you're not given a token. And thus, the mixer provider in this case will never see that your address/UTXO has a high risk core.
If I remember correct, Wasabi would have known if you had a high risk score, and it would have been up to them to pursue additional measures, and also the check was automatic.
If I'm incorrect and indeed there was such a separation (like @nc50lc's post suggest), then I think the criticism was exaggerated. I think some "privacy-oriented" users definitely are seeing the situation too much in a black or white way.
But the idea of "middle grounds" like my proposed protocol is not to cater to
anybody's necessities. It is specifically directed at honest users who may fear to have got tainted coins in a P2P exchange for example. There is no perfect fungibility solution as long as we don't have a completely non-custodial privacy feature in Bitcoin (although of course, Lightning exists already, this is possibly even a better solution).
Also, I wonder, which jurisdiction will allow Bitcoin mixer to be run officially?
All jurisdictions where no-KYC crypto swap services are allowed, i.e. where there is no mandatory KYC check for
any custodial (yes, mixers and also instant exchangers are custodial) crypto services. And in my previous post above I have also shown an example of a non-custodial type service that could even be allowed in jurisdictions where custodial mixing without KYC would be banned.
All these headaches—for a legitimate user bothered about censorship—can be avoided by simply using a decentralized P2P service for off/on-ramping.
But P2P can deliver you tainted coins or illegal money. It's also much harder to use.
I honestly don't understand the rest of your post. There is no difference in linking an ID to an UTXO or an address, because each of both implies the other too.
