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 438 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.
This is just a personal privacy preference, but whenever I have the need to access Twitter I always prefer to use Nitter[1][2]:
[1]https://nitter.net/about
[2]https://github.com/zedeus/nitter
[3]https://unchained.com/blog/what-is-coinjoin/
[4]https://code.samourai.io/whirlpool/Whirlpool
I totally get that. But isn't this something that we could totally blame on Wasabi? Knowing that as far as I know they're a US-based company. Potential government-related problems of getting your company shut down and all that.
From my perspective, Trezor could choose, if they wanted, to create their own coordinator as "CoinJoin is a collaboration among several people to create a bitcoin transaction—you can imagine that they are joining their coins together temporarily."[3]. Anyone is free to correct me if I'm wrong, but they could have go with centralized coordinators used by Samourai Wallet[4] since they aren't (yet) blackmailing UTXO's but they didn't choose that route and instead opted for siding with zkSNACKs...[1]https://nitter.net/about
[2]https://github.com/zedeus/nitter
[3]https://unchained.com/blog/what-is-coinjoin/
[4]https://code.samourai.io/whirlpool/Whirlpool
Wasabi, and now Trezor, are actively supporting and in fact directly funding government sanctioned surveillance and censorship. This is about as antithetical to bitcoin as you can get.
I totally get that. But isn't this something that we could totally blame on Wasabi? Knowing that as far as I know they're a US-based company. Potential government-related problems of getting your company shut down and all that.
I wouldn't use Coinjoin operations in Trezor until they decide to choose another coordinator (if that is even possible to do so).
I don't think the problem is creating a new coordinator, and I am sure Trezor could have done it by putting in some more work. The problem is getting enough liquidity and users willing to switch from zkSNACKs to your new coordinator. The best option would have been to do nothing at the moment. The way things stand now, you have to choose between two evils. Using the pro-censorship zkSNACKs coordinator or running a new one no else is/will be using. Quote
How does the coinjoin coordinator choose inputs?
Since your UTXOs will be sent in a transaction with other users’ funds, the coordinator checks that no individual UTXO has caused a recent coinjoin to fail and is not on a list of known high-risk UTXOs. This keeps your coins private without affecting fungibility. Owning a high-risk UTXO will not prevent other UTXOs in your wallet from being coinjoined.
Since your UTXOs will be sent in a transaction with other users’ funds, the coordinator checks that no individual UTXO has caused a recent coinjoin to fail and is not on a list of known high-risk UTXOs. This keeps your coins private without affecting fungibility. Owning a high-risk UTXO will not prevent other UTXOs in your wallet from being coinjoined.
Nic's stance is kinda convincing to me, but I might have some blindspots.
Wasabi, and now Trezor, are actively supporting and in fact directly funding government sanctioned surveillance and censorship. This is about as antithetical to bitcoin as you can get.
Trezor <> CoinJoins is a pretty hot topic rn.
For the highly technologically literate peeps here, any opinions on this Twitter back-and-forth between Nicolas Dorier and BitBuyBitPod? Nic's stance is kinda convincing to me, but I might have some blindspots.
vvv
https://twitter.com/BitBuyBitPod/status/1648933303343280133
For the highly technologically literate peeps here, any opinions on this Twitter back-and-forth between Nicolas Dorier and BitBuyBitPod? Nic's stance is kinda convincing to me, but I might have some blindspots.
vvv
https://twitter.com/BitBuyBitPod/status/1648933303343280133
Before this time, wasabi is one of the recommended means to privately secure our bitcoin but once this was detected from that to have a privacy leak on user's data, there's a shift in which people move away from using it to the most preferred bitcoincore client using Tor, same thing we also deduce a linkage from wasabi to trezor in terms of same challenges and this makes both a thing of serious concerns if considering privacy or data leakage.
When CoinJoining on Trezor, you can't choose a coordinator to manage your transactions because it only work with "official" zkSNACKs coordinator.
You are not allowed to decide which of your coins should participate in a CoinJoin transaction, you need to rely on their algorithm of automatic selection.
In one of the sections of their FAQ they claim that Bitcoin is fungible and that, at the same time, there may be some "high-risk UTXOs" in your wallet unworthy to be mixed by their software.
https://trezor.io/learn/a/coinjoin-in-trezor-suite#FAQs
Quote
Will Trezor sign just any transaction when it is in the automated signing mode?
No. Trezor will only sign transactions that have been prepared by zkSNACKs official coinjoin coordinator.
No. Trezor will only sign transactions that have been prepared by zkSNACKs official coinjoin coordinator.
You are not allowed to decide which of your coins should participate in a CoinJoin transaction, you need to rely on their algorithm of automatic selection.
Quote
Can I manually select which coins to register for coinjoin?
No. All coins in your coinjoin account are eligible for mixing. The coins are selected automatically based on multiple factors.
No. All coins in your coinjoin account are eligible for mixing. The coins are selected automatically based on multiple factors.
In one of the sections of their FAQ they claim that Bitcoin is fungible and that, at the same time, there may be some "high-risk UTXOs" in your wallet unworthy to be mixed by their software.
Quote
How does the coinjoin coordinator choose inputs?
When you press Start, the coinjoin coordinator maintained by zkSNACKs receives a list of UTXOs to include in a coinjoin. Since your UTXOs will be sent in a transaction with other users’ funds, the coordinator checks that no individual UTXO has caused a recent coinjoin to fail and is not on a list of known high-risk UTXOs. This keeps your coins private without affecting fungibility. Owning a high-risk UTXO will not prevent other UTXOs in your wallet from being coinjoined.
When you press Start, the coinjoin coordinator maintained by zkSNACKs receives a list of UTXOs to include in a coinjoin. Since your UTXOs will be sent in a transaction with other users’ funds, the coordinator checks that no individual UTXO has caused a recent coinjoin to fail and is not on a list of known high-risk UTXOs. This keeps your coins private without affecting fungibility. Owning a high-risk UTXO will not prevent other UTXOs in your wallet from being coinjoined.
https://trezor.io/learn/a/coinjoin-in-trezor-suite#FAQs
Haha, perfect timing here as we discuss Passport:
And Trezor are hiding dozens and dozens of replies on Twitter calling them out for partnering with Wasabi and blockchain analysis. The irony of a pro-censorship company censoring everyone calling them out on their censorship.
Trezor have really messed up big time here. No one should ever buy another Trezor device.
Totally coincidental timing, but we've got a $10 off promo code for you fine folks 👋
Use "NOCENSORSHIP" at checkout (valid until Sunday) to save $10 and get the peace of mind that comes from unwavering security + uncensorable Bitcoin transactions.
Use "NOCENSORSHIP" at checkout (valid until Sunday) to save $10 and get the peace of mind that comes from unwavering security + uncensorable Bitcoin transactions.
And Trezor are hiding dozens and dozens of replies on Twitter calling them out for partnering with Wasabi and blockchain analysis. The irony of a pro-censorship company censoring everyone calling them out on their censorship.
Trezor have really messed up big time here. No one should ever buy another Trezor device.
Pmalek has also reported that, besides officially launching Coinjoin, Trezor also associated this event with a 15% discount on Model T. As per my reply on that thread[1], it is sad to see that Trezor gave in into working with zkSNACKs[2]. I wouldn't use Coinjoin operations in Trezor until they decide to choose another coordinator (if that is even possible to do so).
[1]https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62118829
[2]https://blog.trezor.io/coinjoin-privacy-for-bitcoin-11aaf291f23
[3]https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/foundation-devices-passport-batch-2-hardware-wallet-review-5421713
[4]https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/foundation-passport-fe-hardware-wallet-review-and-walkthrough-5382675
If I was going to buy a hardware wallet right now, I'd pick either a Passport or a Coldcard.
Can't recommend enough Passport devices. @She shining I definitely recommend that you read these[3][4] review topics created by n0nce regarding both Passport devices as I'm sure you'll find a lot of good feedback there.[1]https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62118829
[2]https://blog.trezor.io/coinjoin-privacy-for-bitcoin-11aaf291f23
[3]https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/foundation-devices-passport-batch-2-hardware-wallet-review-5421713
[4]https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/foundation-passport-fe-hardware-wallet-review-and-walkthrough-5382675
maybe is my naivety speaking but I think despite breaking the trust of their customers, they are just trying to appease the government and protect their name.
And why would you want your hardware wallet to spy on you and sell you out for the sake of appeasing the government or their own reputation? The whole point of bitcoin is to not require permission from third parties in order to make the transactions you want, be they governments or blockchain analysis companies.I was thinking of trying their device(Trezor) before, but if you believe its better to avoid it, Do help me with a recommendation.
If I was going to buy a hardware wallet right now, I'd pick either a Passport or a Coldcard.But do assist me in understanding why use conjoining rather than a direct transaction.
For your privacy. 
Bitcoin is for freedom and censorship Bitcoin UTXOs is something violates that core use case of Bitcoin.
Wasabi blacklisting update - open letter / 24 questions discussion thread
Wasabi wallet explains new Bitcoin censorship
I am not against Wasabi wallet but above are facts about their latest upgrades as well as their policies to censor blacklisted UTXOs.
Wasabi blacklisting update - open letter / 24 questions discussion thread
Wasabi wallet explains new Bitcoin censorship
I am not against Wasabi wallet but above are facts about their latest upgrades as well as their policies to censor blacklisted UTXOs.
Trezor is using Wasabi to perform their coinjoins, which pays blockchain analysis companies to spy on all your UTXOs and censor ones they don't like. I would stay well clear of this and all Trezor devices.
You can now conjoin on Trezor Suite
You want to know about what coinjoin is: https://trezor.io/learn/a/what-is-coinjoin
Guide: https://trezor.io/learn/a/coinjoin-in-trezor-suite
Read the guide to know what are necessary, for example using Tor: https://trezor.io/learn/a/coinjoin-in-trezor-suite
You want to know about what coinjoin is: https://trezor.io/learn/a/what-is-coinjoin
Guide: https://trezor.io/learn/a/coinjoin-in-trezor-suite
Quote
Coinjoin fees
A 0.3% coordinator fee will be taken from fresh coins greater than 1,000,000 sats (0.01 BTC). There is no such fee for UTXOs below this amount.
As with any other bitcoin transaction, you also need to pay mining fees. For coinjoin, you must pay a mining fee for each round.
A 0.3% coordinator fee will be taken from fresh coins greater than 1,000,000 sats (0.01 BTC). There is no such fee for UTXOs below this amount.
As with any other bitcoin transaction, you also need to pay mining fees. For coinjoin, you must pay a mining fee for each round.
Read the guide to know what are necessary, for example using Tor: https://trezor.io/learn/a/coinjoin-in-trezor-suite
Jump to: