It's like Brian Armstrong and Coinbase.
Aside from Brian not portraying Coinbase as the ultimate privacy-oriented, non-KYC centralized exchange, how often do you observe the Bitcoin community expressing favor towards Coinbase? Because all I witness is criticism directed at them, branding them as one of the worst companies in their field. There have been sudden closures of customer accounts, allegations of insider trading, numerous technical problems, and an astonishingly anti-privacy and anti-Bitcoin stance. 
Topic: Petition to remove Wasabi from recommendations of bitcoin.org - page 12. (Read 3084 times)
It's like Brian Armstrong and Coinbase. Doesn't Coinbase employ the services of a blockchain analytics company to filter which UTXOs are allowed to enter the exchange? I don't see anyone persecuting Brian Armstrong, who, truly deserves it more for being one of the signatories who supported the New York Agreement.
If the response is "Coinbase a centralized service, it's in their right to block what goes in the exchange". Wasabi's coordinator is centralized too, and like Coinbase, we can warn users about the pros and cons, but we can't have an attitude like what the social justice warriors do today.
You are still not understanding the clear distinction between being an honest centralized service and a dishonest one. Someone who uses Coinbase knows well that they have zero control since they don't even have access to their own keys. Not to mention the KYC they enforce. They are not advertised as KYC-less custodial wallet, they are advertised and known as a centralized KYC-enforcing privacy invading necessary evil.If the response is "Coinbase a centralized service, it's in their right to block what goes in the exchange". Wasabi's coordinator is centralized too, and like Coinbase, we can warn users about the pros and cons, but we can't have an attitude like what the social justice warriors do today.
This is both honest and OK.
You can't say the same thing about Wasabi. This tool is being advertised as and is known as a tool to improve your privacy. Which is clearly not true since the company is working with the blockchain analysis organizations that nullify any privacy users of this wallet had.
In other words Wasabi is a honeypot which is worse.
Doesn't Coinbase employ the services of a blockchain analytics company to filter which UTXOs are allowed to enter the exchange?
As do all centralized exchanges. However, these exchanges don't promote themselves as the ultimate privacy solution at the same time.Wasabi's coordinator is centralized too, and like Coinbase, we can warn users about the pros and cons
Great. So let's warn them by putting a big "Caution" heading and explanation in the privacy section for the Wasabi listing. 
It's like Brian Armstrong and Coinbase. Doesn't Coinbase employ the services of a blockchain analytics company to filter which UTXOs are allowed to enter the exchange? I don't see anyone persecuting Brian Armstrong, who, truly deserves it more for being one of the signatories who supported the New York Agreement.
If the response is "Coinbase a centralized service, it's in their right to block what goes in the exchange". Wasabi's coordinator is centralized too, and like Coinbase, we can warn users about the pros and cons, but we can't have an attitude like what the social justice warriors do today.
If the response is "Coinbase a centralized service, it's in their right to block what goes in the exchange". Wasabi's coordinator is centralized too, and like Coinbase, we can warn users about the pros and cons, but we can't have an attitude like what the social justice warriors do today.
OK, but everything in context. It's almost like everyone wants nopara73 to burn on the stake for the design decisions they made with their wallet. What else should happen? Banish Wasabi from the community?
People want clarity and honesty. When they see conflicts they act this way and it is very well justified. Why do you think people hate bcash so much? It is not because they created an altcoin, otherwise there has been over a ten thousand altcoin at this point. It is because they were dishonest and scammed people by selling it to newbies as "real bitcoin".It's the same with Wasabi. People aren't bashing it because it lacks privacy, they do it because it promises high privacy but delivers a "spyware".
Just throwing this out there. Blindly using the recommendations from bitcoin.org for wallets is also a bit problematic at best.
For those of you that don't remember bitcoin developer and the creator of bitcoinknots lukedashjr was hacked https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-developer-lukedashjrs-wallet-was-hacked-5432665
On the bitcoinknots page there is actually a warning that the downloads may be compromised: http://bitcoinknots.org/
At no point in time did the webmaster / people or person controlling bitcoin.org take that software off the recommended list.
Nor, did they even bother putting up a notice about what happened on the chance that someone may see it.
So, with that happening do you really think they are going to jump up and rush to take Wasabi off.
-Dave
For those of you that don't remember bitcoin developer and the creator of bitcoinknots lukedashjr was hacked https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-developer-lukedashjrs-wallet-was-hacked-5432665
On the bitcoinknots page there is actually a warning that the downloads may be compromised: http://bitcoinknots.org/
Quote
This server may be compromised at present. Do not blindly trust downloads - always verify both the SHA256 hash and the OpenPGP signatures match. Luke Dashjr's OpenPGP key is likely to be compromised, so his signatures have been removed and replaced with other developers' signatures. There is no evidence of a tampered download ever having been offered, but if you have downloaded Bitcoin Knots after 2022 December 1st, it is recommended you re-verify the files you previously downloaded to be sure.
At no point in time did the webmaster / people or person controlling bitcoin.org take that software off the recommended list.
Nor, did they even bother putting up a notice about what happened on the chance that someone may see it.
So, with that happening do you really think they are going to jump up and rush to take Wasabi off.
-Dave
Bitcoin.org already warns users that Wasabi relies on a centralized service by default, https://bitcoin.org/en/wallets/desktop/windows/wasabi/?step=5&platform=windows&user=experienced&important=privacy&features=bech32
Isn't that enough?
Isn't that enough?
You misunderstood what Bitcoin.org said. "Centralized service" in that context only refer to service which provide wallet with relevant Bitcoin transaction. In addition, Bitcoin.org never state any details about it's CoinJoin feature. So IMO warning about privacy issue when using CoinJoin should be mentioned.
I don't think Wasabi will be removed as a recommended wallet on bitcoin.org. Therefore, I think it's a waste of time to suggest that. It's not a waste of time to put up warnings of their most recent activities. Hard facts only, no subjective interpretations and emotional statements. Wasabi is a software that allows partial privacy if you pass the tests their blockchain analysis partner puts you through. That alone is a privacy invasion. If you don't pass the tests (for reasons unknown), you have also had your privacy invaded and declared unfit to participate.
What else should happen? Banish Wasabi from the community?
The Wasabi team are obviously free to continue to create and promote their anti-privacy, pro-surveillance, and pro-censorship wallet. And we are similarly free to call them out for being anti-privacy, pro-surveillance, and pro-censorship. That includes amending recommendations such as that on bitcoin.org which were written before Wasabi started funding blockchain analysis.Isn't that enough?
Relying on a third party to sync your wallet and your wallet actively paying blockchain analysis firms to spy on you are entirely different issues. If bitcoin.org can warn about the former, then they should also warn about the latter.It's a centralized service. It's either accept the trade-offs themselves and comply, or the government puts a big FBI/DOJ badge in their site and nopara73 leaves his house in handcuffs.
As I said above: "Then shut down your service. Selling out your users and directly funding entities which actively undermine bitcoin and attack everything it stands for just so you can continue to make profit for yourself is disgusting." 
OK, but everything in context. It's almost like everyone wants nopara73 to burn on the stake for the design decisions they made with their wallet. What else should happen? Banish Wasabi from the community?
To 'banish' or censor isn't part of what BTC stands for, so nobody is talking about banishing Wasabi nor can anybody do that, it is a free market, imagine that many people in the community still hold their funds in centralized exchanges and lending and earning platforms, but yet we can't stop warning them of how dangerous it is; that's the same with the Wasabi case, the community has to know that they do not support privacy as they claim; it is about setting the records straight, especially for the unsuspecting bitcoiners, whoever still decides to use Wasabi can go ahead, that's the beauty of a permissionless network. What else should happen? Banish Wasabi from the community?
Wasabi has already been prosecuted by the community. They have already lost lots of clients, me included. Their decision is simply insane. Isn't that enough?
Complete transparency is indeed misinforming, so I'll agree with OP that there should be a warning there.It's a centralized service. It's either accept the trade-offs themselves and comply, or the government puts a big FBI/DOJ badge in their site and nopara73 leaves his house in handcuffs.
Or they:- switch to developing a decentralized alternative.
- shut down their coordinator with the excuse that they feel in danger.
Funding a mass surveillance firm? Nah. Really disgraceful. But sure, as company they have every right to deny service in some clients. Just as we have every right to judge this attitude. I mean, how can you leave this unchallenged?
By exploiting the only architectural flaw of Wasabi Wallet's non-anonymously run coordinator: lack of censorship resistance; we broke one of the largest taboos of Bitcoin: blacklisting, to achieve something greater: survival of the best Bitcoin privacy technology.
Isn't BitcoinTalk being "a Karen" about the Wasabi issue?
If we took that line of thinking with every issue then CSW would currently reign supreme and bitcoin would have died a long time ago.
No it won't because we're not taking the same line of thinking with each and every issue.
It's probably better for the admin of Bitcoin.org to make a footnote saying that Wasabi is blocking UTXOs from "nefarious sources according to chain analytics companies".
We don't know the criteria involved in the blacklists Wasabi implements, because they won't tell us. (They may not even know themselves, and just do what their blockchain analysis buddies Coinfirm tell them to.) Who gets to decide what is classified as a "nefarious source"? Certainly not us. Lots of people think bitcoin itself is nefarious. What about porn sites? Gambling/casinos/sportsbooks? What about peer to peer loans? What about non KYCed coins? What about peer to peer transactions not involving a centralized third party which can automatically track and report everything to your government? All of these things are classed as "nefarious" by various governments.
I really hope I don't need to point out on bitcointalk of all places why implementing government blacklists is antithetical to the very purpose of bitcoin.
It's a centralized service. It's either accept the trade-offs themselves and comply, or the government puts a big FBI/DOJ badge in their site and nopara73 leaves his house in handcuffs.
Isn't BitcoinTalk being "a Karen" about the Wasabi issue?
If we took that line of thinking with every issue then CSW would currently reign supreme and bitcoin would have died a long time ago. Bullshit needs to be called out as bullshit whenever and wherever it comes from. A wallet directly funding blockchain analysis while styling themselves as the ultimate privacy solution is a prime example of such bullshit.It's probably better for the admin of Bitcoin.org to make a footnote saying that Wasabi is blocking UTXOs from "nefarious sources according to chain analytics companies".
We don't know the criteria involved in the blacklists Wasabi implements, because they won't tell us. (They may not even know themselves, and just do what their blockchain analysis buddies Coinfirm tell them to.) Who gets to decide what is classified as a "nefarious source"? Certainly not us. Lots of people think bitcoin itself is nefarious. What about porn sites? Gambling/casinos/sportsbooks? What about peer to peer loans? What about non KYCed coins? What about peer to peer transactions not involving a centralized third party which can automatically track and report everything to your government? All of these things are classed as "nefarious" by various governments. I really hope I don't need to point out on bitcointalk of all places why implementing government blacklists is antithetical to the very purpose of bitcoin.
Plus Cobra currently has his own problems right now because he was ordered to appear in court and reveal his real identity. I don't know all of the details, but it's a case involving Craig Wright and the "infringement" of his rights for posting the white paper in Bitcoin.org.
That case is long finished. Cobra refused to dox himself and so the whitepaper is no longer available via bitcoin.org if you are in the UK.
Isn't BitcoinTalk being "a Karen" about the Wasabi issue? It's probably better for the admin of Bitcoin.org to make a footnote saying that Wasabi is blocking UTXOs from "nefarious sources according to chain analytics companies".
Plus Cobra currently has his own problems right now because he was ordered to appear in court and reveal his real identity. I don't know all of the details, but it's a case involving Craig Wright and the "infringement" of his rights for posting the white paper in Bitcoin.org.
Plus Cobra currently has his own problems right now because he was ordered to appear in court and reveal his real identity. I don't know all of the details, but it's a case involving Craig Wright and the "infringement" of his rights for posting the white paper in Bitcoin.org.
This is part of the reason I now almost exclusively use self built airgapped, encrypted, cold storage.
Which is where bitcoin seems to originate from; being free (as in freedom) software and trusting none. It is turned out multiple times that following profit isn't a cast of mind which respects the core principles of bitcoin. Focusing on protecting users' privacy can have collective benefit for the network, but it's most likely not going to be as profitable for a company as going to the opposite direction. This is just my perception. We can't expect from the corporate sector to be incentivized to adopt and promote bitcoin, and respect those principles at the same time for the simplest reason that many of their benefits are in opposition with the collective benefit of the network.
Which begs the question, Shouldn't this include the Trezor wallets that are under the Hardware wallet category, since they also decided to collaborate with Wasabi over the coinjoin feature?
Yes. They should also have the same privacy warning applied regarding cooperating with blockchain analysis and surveilling all their users.The quick changing tides with the creators and owners of some of these projects makes me so hesitant to buy/use some of their products. Today, you buy it, and it's a very excellent product, within two weeks, they decide to go complete opposite of their initial vision, and you regret having bought the device in the first place.
This is part of the reason I now almost exclusively use self built airgapped, encrypted, cold storage. No third parties to suddenly start cooperating with blockchain analysis or extract my seed phrase via a so called recovery feature. 
Which begs the question, Shouldn't this include the Trezor wallets that are under the Hardware wallet category, since they also decided to collaborate with Wasabi over the coinjoin feature?
Under privacy section I see the label “Not Applicable” but I think this need to be changed to maybe “caution”
The quick changing tides with the creators and owners of some of these projects makes me so hesitant to buy/use some of their products. Today, you buy it, and it's a very excellent product, within two weeks, they decide to go complete opposite of their initial vision, and you regret having bought the device in the first place.
Under privacy section I see the label “Not Applicable” but I think this need to be changed to maybe “caution”
The quick changing tides with the creators and owners of some of these projects makes me so hesitant to buy/use some of their products. Today, you buy it, and it's a very excellent product, within two weeks, they decide to go complete opposite of their initial vision, and you regret having bought the device in the first place.
I'm just wondering what kind of new nonsense will appear tomorrow or the day after, because there are more and more people we can't trust, even though they keep trying to convince us that there's nothing controversial about it.
The latest stupidity I heard was CeDeFi - centralized decentralized finance. Apparently the term was first used by CZ in 2020 in relation to Binance Smart Chain. So, in other words, 100% centralized trash."The crypto community" (actually just developers coding for bread) will perpetually rush to create the next big technology on some Ethereum or Binance chain and all these innovations are going to fall flat on their faces, because almost nobody will use them successfully for their intended purposes, and will be used as quick cash grabs instead and get exposed on YouTube, all because they don't consider the economics part of money.
Because ultimately, whatever you build on top of Bitcoin or another chain, is also treated as money.
The latest stupidity I heard was CeDeFi - centralized decentralized finance.
~snip~
~snip~
Although the news is really from 2020, I have to admit that this is the first time I've heard of this expression, and it really sounds amazing that someone could think of something like that. It's really a shame that so many people still have confidence in someone who has such crazy ideas, even though I would even call them dangerous.
I'm just wondering what kind of new nonsense will appear tomorrow or the day after, because there are more and more people we can't trust, even though they keep trying to convince us that there's nothing controversial about it.
The latest stupidity I heard was CeDeFi - centralized decentralized finance. Apparently the term was first used by CZ in 2020 in relation to Binance Smart Chain. So, in other words, 100% centralized trash.Just like CZ pretends his centralized bullshit is decentralized, Wasabi pretend that their pro-surveillance bullshit is private.
I think it's because the developers are well known, have families and may fear any legal repercussions from continuing to provide services that might seem like a gray area to governments.
Then shut down your service. Selling out your users and directly funding entities which actively undermine bitcoin and attack everything it stands for just so you can continue to make profit for yourself is disgusting. Jump to: