I dug this up due to mixer bans coming.
I have used trezor one for a long time.
I never did coinjoin.
So
a) can I talk about trezor and coin join
b) I have no need for my coins to be private
c) I never used a mixer
d) I used btc like cash never did long hodls
e) I mined and spent most profits
I now own:
Trezor One
Trezor Two
Trezor Three is on the way
If I never use coinjoin am I compliant with USA rules of mixing wrongly
If I never use a mixer am I compliant with USA rule of mixing wrongly
I do advertise a mixer as I know some people may have a need for private coins.
OG whales do not want to show they have 20 or 30 or 300 or 3000 coins even if they are fully tax compliant.
Seems like trezor may now be the way to keep privacy
Topic: Coinjoin on Trezor Suite (Read 427 times)
And on top of that, since Trezor does not use a secure element in their wallets, nobody should have been using them anyway.
Secure element is not a holly grail 
It's better to be fair open source device without secure element, than to be closed source black box with NDA secure element.
And btw Trezor is in final stages of releasing their own secure element.
Fair point, but and this is kind of a religious argument in terms of this vs. that, but FOR ME a black box NDA secured element is better then no element.
You and others may feel differently.
Tropic Square has been coming soon for a while now, and yes I know there was a pandemic going on but it's been a 'we will use this one when it's ready until then no SE' and everyone keeps waiting.
And looking at the way they do everything else in terms of security and privacy (this coinjoin, AOPP, the tor stuff you listed) do you really trust them to do a SE properly?
-Dave
Dude c'mon they are business, not a charity
They are a business which should be focused on self custody and security, and therefore not support protocols or ideas which compromise their users' privacy or aid blockchain analysis companies. We have both agreed in the past how ridiculous it was for Ledger to integrate a KYC credit card - this is the exact same principle. That looks like double standards to me.
We know that some VPNs harvest data - that doesn't make all VPNs useless.Once again, I'm all for developing/evolving your business and adapting to the environment where you are, but from my perspective one has to always stay true to their roots - after all, if they go against them, what will they stand for?
Worth remembering that there is no legislation forcing Wasabi to implement blacklists - they are doing it voluntarily. And if you want some real hypocrisy, go and check out some of the documentation on their website. For example:If Bitcoin fungibility is too weak in practice, then it cannot be decentralized: if someone important announces a list of stolen coins they won't accept coins derived from, you must carefully check coins you receive against that list and return the ones that fail. Everyone gets stuck checking blacklists issued by various authorities because in that world we'd all not like to get stuck with bad coins. This adds friction and transactional costs and makes Bitcoin less valuable as money.
Yes, imagine checking blacklists and making bitcoin less valuable as money!
Dude c'mon they are business, not a charity, unless you want to go full communism hardware wallet.
I totally agree with you dkbit98 - A business has to survive in the harsh environment that is created whenever competitors arise. What I can't defend is that they are not honoring their mission, hence why this picture sums it up rather well[1]. Just look at one of their pillars that support their mission values[2]:Quote
Protecting your rights
Exercise the freedom to buy, sell, trade, and pay with absolute confidence using Trezor hardware wallets and the Trezor Suite app.
(...)
Creating a secure ecosystem
Manage, store, and use your crypto within the inclusive Trezor environment for complete financial privacy and security.
How can a company state these honorable pillars, while at the same time making shady decisions such as partnering with zkSNACKs? Once again, I'm all for developing/evolving your business and adapting to the environment where you are, but from my perspective one has to always stay true to their roots - after all, if they go against them, what will they stand for?Exercise the freedom to buy, sell, trade, and pay with absolute confidence using Trezor hardware wallets and the Trezor Suite app.
(...)
Creating a secure ecosystem
Manage, store, and use your crypto within the inclusive Trezor environment for complete financial privacy and security.
[1]https://nitter.it/dammkewl/status/1648575580927930371
[2]https://trezor.io/company
Exactly. They only removed it when it became clear it might hurt their profits. They should never have considered implementing it in the first place, for the moral reasons of not helping centralized exchanges spy on their users.
Dude c'mon they are business, not a charity, unless you want to go full communism hardware wallet. Doesn't matter to me in the slightest anymore. I don't care if Trezor release the greatest hardware wallet the world has ever seen (or you know, even fix the critical seed extraction vulnerability 
). I will never purchase another Trezor device as long as they fund blockchain analysis.
I don't care what you do with your money at all, and you don't have to send your buying reports to me in public ). I will never purchase another Trezor device as long as they fund blockchain analysis.
Meanwhile you are going to continue trusting other centralized mixing services, even after it was proven that they deceived users about deleted data.
That looks like double standards to me.
Let's be fair, they removed AOPP after community reaction
Exactly. They only removed it when it became clear it might hurt their profits. They should never have considered implementing it in the first place, for the moral reasons of not helping centralized exchanges spy on their users.and I still didn't hear a single case of people complaining for mass censorship because of Coinjoin someone used, you painted unrealistic dark picture.
No one is going to come forward and say "Here is my UTXO which was censored". And even if they didn't censor a single UTXO, the fees they collect are still being used to directly fund blockchain analysis, which damages privacy for every single bitcoin user, advances the nonsense concept of taint, and works against fungibility.And btw Trezor is in final stages of releasing their own secure element.
Doesn't matter to me in the slightest anymore. I don't care if Trezor release the greatest hardware wallet the world has ever seen (or you know, even fix the critical seed extraction vulnerability ). I will never purchase another Trezor device as long as they fund blockchain analysis. Given their support for AOPP last year, embedding KYC requiring exchanges in to their software, and now funding mass surveillance and censorship, Trezor really have taken a major turn for the worse.
Let's be fair, they removed AOPP after community reaction, and I still didn't hear a single case of people complaining for mass censorship because of Coinjoin someone used, you painted unrealistic dark picture.Now I can also criticize Trezor in more realistic way, for example they introduced Tor support for Trezor Suite while ago, but it was really bad implementation that leaked real addresses
This would continue to happen if some good community member didn't report this issue on their github page.
Real rookie mistake, Trezor Desktop App with Tor Leaks DNS Queries:
https://github.com/trezor/trezor-suite/issues/8185
Trezor Desktop App with Tor Leaks DNS Queries
https://www.reddit.com/r/TREZOR/comments/12ut21x/trezor_desktop_app_with_tor_leaks_dns_queries/
Trezor's Tor features are either fishy or poorly implemented.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TREZOR/comments/12u0fbd/trezors_tor_features_are_either_fishy_or_poorly/
And on top of that, since Trezor does not use a secure element in their wallets, nobody should have been using them anyway.
Secure element is not a holly grail It's better to be fair open source device without secure element, than to be closed source black box with NDA secure element.
And btw Trezor is in final stages of releasing their own secure element.
I wonder what was going on on the head of the person who wrote this Terms
Probably something along the lines of "I don't care about morals, as long as I get paid."It always comes down to that.
Makes you wonder who came to who. Did Wasabi go to Trezor to help stem the flow of users from their service due to the spying. Or did Trezor go looking for a Coinjoin partner and Wasabi could do it.
Either way, I am 100% sure it all comes down to the almighty dollar, or whatever your local currency is.
And on top of that, since Trezor does not use a secure element in their wallets, nobody should have been using them anyway.
-Dave
This tweet pretty much sums it up: https://nitter.it/dammkewl/status/1648575580927930371
It is no wonder that privacy focus solutions are hammering down on Trezor for this. It's also shocking to see that no official communication has been issued by Trezor, other than the reply from one of their team members on their forums previously linked here. I know for a fact that they won't drop the coordinator since the damage is done, but at least they are fully aware that their users/clients are aware of these recent actions and for sure will voice their opinion whenever they can.[1]https://nitter.it/Trezor/status/1648563308859932672
I wonder what was going on on the head of the person who wrote this Terms
Probably something along the lines of "I don't care about morals, as long as I get paid."I don't know how anyone is able to read the pure definition on how the system blocks UTXO's and not feel like this is against the very notion of privacy, in any degree.
You know it is anti-privacy, I know it is anti-privacy, anyone who can read knows it is anti-privacy. The Wasabi guys are also fully aware it is anti-privacy, but they have decided that sacrificing their morals, selling out their users, implementing censorship, handing your UTXOs directly to blockchain analysis companies, and generally being anti-bitcoin is an acceptable price to pay as long as they get to keep make profits for themselves.It is even more shocking knowing that Trezor, as a company, fully aware of how the coordinator works, still decides to associate themselves (and their users) with such shady practices...
This tweet pretty much sums it up: https://nitter.it/dammkewl/status/1648575580927930371 If a centralized service such a CEX is discriminating against your coins for any reason, least of all simply because you used a mixer or a coinjoin in order to protect your privacy, then I would suggest never using that CEX. I would actually suggest never using any CEX, and instead buy and sell your bitcoin peer to peer using a high quality DEX: https://kycnot.me/
If Wasabi have censored your coins because they violate one of their secret criteria, there is a good chance that any centralized exchange will take similar issue with the same coins. But of course there are plenty of other privacy tools out there which don't spy on their users and enforce blacklists which you can use to bypass any such "taint" nonsense.
As Wasaibi Legal Terms puts it, their secret criteria is "(...) essential to zkSNACKs Ltd.'s risk management and security protocols." and thereby "(...)that zkSNACKs Ltd. is under no obligation to disclose the details of its risk management and security procedures to you."[1]. I wonder what was going on on the head of the person who wrote this Terms - didn't he/she thought that this a tremendous attack on an individual sovereignty? Factions aside - as this Terms were written by the company - I don't know how anyone is able to read the pure definition on how the system blocks UTXO's and not feel like this is against the very notion of privacy, in any degree. It is even more shocking knowing that Trezor, as a company, fully aware of how the coordinator works, still decides to associate themselves (and their users) with such shady practices...If Wasabi have censored your coins because they violate one of their secret criteria, there is a good chance that any centralized exchange will take similar issue with the same coins. But of course there are plenty of other privacy tools out there which don't spy on their users and enforce blacklists which you can use to bypass any such "taint" nonsense.
[1]https://raw.githubusercontent.com/zkSNACKs/WalletWasabi/master/WalletWasabi/Legal/Assets/LegalDocumentsWw2.txt
If a centralized service such a CEX is discriminating against your coins for any reason, least of all simply because you used a mixer or a coinjoin in order to protect your privacy, then I would suggest never using that CEX. I would actually suggest never using any CEX, and instead buy and sell your bitcoin peer to peer using a high quality DEX: https://kycnot.me/
If Wasabi have censored your coins because they violate one of their secret criteria, there is a good chance that any centralized exchange will take similar issue with the same coins. But of course there are plenty of other privacy tools out there which don't spy on their users and enforce blacklists which you can use to bypass any such "taint" nonsense.
If Wasabi have censored your coins because they violate one of their secret criteria, there is a good chance that any centralized exchange will take similar issue with the same coins. But of course there are plenty of other privacy tools out there which don't spy on their users and enforce blacklists which you can use to bypass any such "taint" nonsense.
legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1565
The first decentralized crypto betting platform
OK, so if we want to buy a HW, what's left?
Passport is currently the best on the market in my opinion. I haven't had any problems moving them so far.
Have you tried coinjoining them?No. But apart from the Wasabi problem I had also heard of some CEX blacklisting coins from mixers and things like that, although obviously I haven't transferred my coins to CEX either.
OK, so if we want to buy a HW, what's left?
Passport is currently the best on the market in my opinion. I haven't had any problems moving them so far.
Have you tried coinjoining them?What about people that have Trezor before or people that still like it because it is open source wallet but not going for the coinjoin but instead just use the legacy or segwit normal part of it?
If you already have a Trezor, then you are safe to keep using it provided you don't go anywhere near the coinjoin function. But when the time comes to replace or upgrade your hardware wallet, don't buy another Trezor. 
@ o_e_l_e_o. Because Trezor is now supporting coinjoin with the help of Wasabi which are making the chain analysis to cenzor transactions, it is a good reason not to use Trezor. What about people that have Trezor before or people that still like it because it is open source wallet but not going for the coinjoin but instead just use the legacy or segwit normal part of it? Are all the transactions now thought or guessed to be censored?
legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1565
The first decentralized crypto betting platform
OK, so if we want to buy a HW, what's left? In the old days it was Ledger and Trezor. Ledger is not very reliable because of the hacks he had and now Trezor with this. I know other HW brands came out over time, but are they reliable?
On the other hand, do we have news on the forum of people who have had transactions censored? Most of the coins circulating on the forum are from casinos or mixers, which are frowned upon in both cases. I haven't had any problems moving them so far.
On the other hand, do we have news on the forum of people who have had transactions censored? Most of the coins circulating on the forum are from casinos or mixers, which are frowned upon in both cases. I haven't had any problems moving them so far.
two big thing certain people are missing.
all the talk about "government" yet government politicians dont sit at computers monitoring every citizens financial movements. its the businesses that do this and then the business report crimes/suspicions
governments delegate businesses like wasabi/trezor to become the police. the businesses watch its customers and report suspicious stuff. so its not the government watching everyone. its the businesses.
by trezor joining up(excuse the pun) with such businesses is where people should be wary of.
secondly. by trezor getting people to move funds out of a cold wallet (cold wallets were trezors sole friggen purpose) to put into a 'account' which needs to be plugged in(hot) so a remote co-ordinator can then tap into the users software to sign automatically when the time is right. BIG SECURITY RISK
yep allowing some remote user to sign your funds away. is a big risk.
its not auto as in the software does it itself. its auto meaning the user is not required to consent by signing themselves.. the coordinator does the transaction template creation and signing. big risk of allowing outsiders to move your funds, which defeats trezors original purpose
all the talk about "government" yet government politicians dont sit at computers monitoring every citizens financial movements. its the businesses that do this and then the business report crimes/suspicions
governments delegate businesses like wasabi/trezor to become the police. the businesses watch its customers and report suspicious stuff. so its not the government watching everyone. its the businesses.
by trezor joining up(excuse the pun) with such businesses is where people should be wary of.
secondly. by trezor getting people to move funds out of a cold wallet (cold wallets were trezors sole friggen purpose) to put into a 'account' which needs to be plugged in(hot) so a remote co-ordinator can then tap into the users software to sign automatically when the time is right. BIG SECURITY RISK
yep allowing some remote user to sign your funds away. is a big risk.
its not auto as in the software does it itself. its auto meaning the user is not required to consent by signing themselves.. the coordinator does the transaction template creation and signing. big risk of allowing outsiders to move your funds, which defeats trezors original purpose
Opinions are divided about this decision by Trezor, I was hoping they would start different coordinator but it seems nobody is willing to take a risk with regulators now.
Given their support for AOPP last year, embedding KYC requiring exchanges in to their software, and now funding mass surveillance and censorship, Trezor really have taken a major turn for the worse.so I think people should focus more on Joinmarket.
I like JoinMarket and use it a lot, but there is no denying that it is significantly harder for your average user to set up and use.I really don't understand why they started doing that, they even deleted one of their old tweets when they criticized Wasabi for censoring transactions.
The same reason that Wasabi starting censoring transactions in the first place - they care more about making money than they do about morals or even bitcoin itself. Yeah, as RickDeckard says, there is absolutely no requirement for Trezor to work with zkSNACKs at all. They could run their own coordinator, they could set up their own coinjoin process, they could partner with Samourai or JoinMarket, they could just not implement coinjoin at all. By specifically choosing to partner with Wasabi, they are directly choosing to support surveillance and censorship when alternatives exist.
Opinions are divided about this decision by Trezor, I was hoping they would start different coordinator but it seems nobody is willing to take a risk with regulators now.Good thing that nobody is forced to use Coinjons with Trezor or Wasabi, you can use anything else instead.
Samourai also don't have such a great reputation and history, so I think people should focus more on Joinmarket.
Nitter also shows hidden replies by default, so you can see the dozens of tweets calling out Trezor for supporting censorship that they have hidden.
I really don't understand why they started doing that, they even deleted one of their old tweets when they criticized Wasabi for censoring transactions.
Yeah, as RickDeckard says, there is absolutely no requirement for Trezor to work with zkSNACKs at all. They could run their own coordinator, they could set up their own coinjoin process, they could partner with Samourai or JoinMarket, they could just not implement coinjoin at all. By specifically choosing to partner with Wasabi, they are directly choosing to support surveillance and censorship when alternatives exist.
This is just a personal privacy preference, but whenever I have the need to access Twitter I always prefer to use Nitter
Nitter also shows hidden replies by default, so you can see the dozens of tweets calling out Trezor for supporting censorship that they have hidden. Jump to: