The term JavaScript appears 4 times in this Bitcointalk thread and 5 times on the web. Java just one. Thanks to your understanding of technology for correcting this typo.
If it's a typo, why do you continue calling TLS (which you are indeed using), SSL? To me, it still seems you are mixing terms up, but I agree that this is a subjective opinion and I cannot prove it as a fact. It's just the most likely explanation for me.Not a good look; breaking big promises so quickly. How fast will you break your other promises, then? What if you need to suddenly activate JavaScript 'for technical reasons'? Or if you 'technically' need to start storing logs?
I have not broken any promise, you have omitted my last post:
Quote
I am working on the web to improve the service and some parts will be unstable some days. Don't worry, it will be online again soon. Be patient please. Thanks.
You could just as well take the whole webpage offline, fix your bugs and bring it back, all without setting up Cloudflare, which you yourself state is a privacy issue.
and you have preferred to test the web when it was not operational and was undergoing maintenance. There is no JavaScript or logs on the web.
Why is it not offline if it's not operational?The latest version of SSL is deprecated for 8 years now.[/url] I really hope you are using at least TLS v1.2 in 2023. Also, this encryption goes out of the window if you use Cloudflare. Again raises questions about the level of understanding and / or attention to detail of the service operator.
Once again I don't know where you get that data from, do a certificate test before speaking.
SSL Encryption - No unencrypted traffic.
So this somewhat confirms my assumption that you're not typo'ing but using some terms interchangeably when they're in fact not really interchangeable. But this is all relatively unimportant to me; the important bit is the fungibility / 'UTXO scoring' issue.
Your list is opaque. If you are going to include me in your Blacklist Whitelist for Scoring, you should include more mixers (much older) from this forum. But Why aren't they on your list if you already know them?
It's not complete, that is true. I warmly welcome you to add more taint proclaiming services as a reply in that thread, so I can add them to OP. I guess all you wanted is a link to your thread to give you visibility.
With all due respect, I am a humble poster. I think my threads already get lots of visibility; much more than I could ever have hoped for, and I am very grateful that other people get value out of what I post.And I recommend you include in your opaque and unreliable list all the mixers that use scoring for more than 6 years. Until you do, your whitelist is worthless.
It is unreasonable to ask someone to maintain a complete list of such services; hence why I cannot feasibly make a whitelist (of fungibility promoters), but have to create a blacklist instead, that displays who actively pushes for BTC taint and against fungibility.As it is a blacklist, I do find it useful as a first indicator for users who want to quickly check whether a service that they're considering using, has already been 'community-flagged' as a taint promoter. It does not guarantee that any website not on the list is 'safe', though, as stated in OP:
This is merely a blacklist, not a whitelist; exchanges not on this list aren't guaranteed to be 'safe and reliable'.
Like I wrote before, please feel free to add more services who openly state that they 'filter' or 'score' UTXOs based on blockchain analysis. This would benefit everyone.
