I'm all for adding more information, as long as it's legit like '100% comes from miners' and such; funny, informative, making the page a bit fuller and more similar to previous 'taint analysis sites', and - most importantly - true.
Why stop at 100%? I used
blockdata to check all cumulative transaction fees (up until block 744341). It turns out 256,732.07240401 Bitcoin was paid in fees! With slightly over 19 million Bitcoins mined, that means 101.34% of all Bitcoins currenly in existence came from a miner
Even better if you trace back an exact percentage for each individual input
Oh, you count a coin that went back to miners through transaction fees as 'mined twice'? I mean, yeah, I guess that way it's included in block rewards twice and you get a number above 100%.
Whatever curious and actually objective, informative statistics could be put on such a page would be welcome!
Honestly, what started as a joke might actually be a very good idea to implement..
Even if just to stand against all that other bullshit that's floating around.
If anyone does run with this idea, choose a name which does not have "taint" in it please. No point lending credence to their made up nonsense by naming your website after it.
Good point! Something like 'Coin
security analysis' or similar would be fine. Each coin should be understood as just as secure and legit, and safe to be accepted as any other, because it is.
And to answer your question - we already have good alternatives such as Bisq. The problem is getting enough people to leave all the anti-bitcoin examples I gave above and use these other pro-bitcoin platforms instead.
I would add that looking forward it's impossible to 100% trust new exchanges popping up, after we had enough companies with presumed 'good intentions' that went bad. So only consider services that don't collect any information about you, such as having no account, no sign-up, having Tor support (or exclusivity) and of course absolutely no KYC / PII information collection.
Two services I've used that ensure this are
https://bisq.network/ and
Robosats. Even if their devs were to go rogue, sold their souls or whatever, they don't have any information that I'm afraid they could leak or sell.
This just gave me the idea to make a website where you put in a transaction ID and it gives you a 'taint score' (just like those other blockchain analysis services), but this score is simply always 100%, with a nice green background and informative text saying 'This UTXO is wonderfully clean; it is yours if you have the private key to spend it and you can send it anywhere you like.'..
This is actually not a bad idea, but keep in mind that some psycho or regulators could sue or shut down your website you for not providing exact information like it is shown in other analytics services.
You should be fine as long as you add information in footer or in about section that website is created for fun purposes, and that you are not responsible for any coins being frozen on exchanges.
The whole point though is that this site would actually be
more exact,
more objective and
more true to the facts than any of these existing blockchain analysis sites.
Even if something on it was wrong, I don't think anyone can shut down your website or sue you because the information on your webpage disagrees with another website's (e.g. exchange) subjective opinion.
Let's get back on Wasabi wallet topic.
They answered best they could and we can't expect them to change course now when they decided the route they are going.
We can still support the idea of alternative coordinator or some Wasabi fork that would work without any censorship, but someone needs to take risk with this.
Sure, let's stay on topic! I also think we won't hear anything else from Wasabi anymore.
I hope this thread can remain informational for anyone confused about this blacklisting update. They can just read the first page and get a good overview of the questions, responses and the community's reactions and counter-responses as to why the Wasabi team responses are unsatisfactory to say the least.
I'm not sure we should pursue the idea of an alternative coordinator, since as we were able to see first-hand, this central point of failure can and will be exploited unless the whole mechanism changes to something decentralized.
There are other options out there, Sparrow wallet has implemented a coinjoin coordinator called Whirlpool. Samurai Wallet also has coinjoin implementation, but I don't remember the coordinator. I tend to agree with o_e_l_e_o, there are better alternatives.
Sparrow simply connects to Samourai wallet's CoinJoin implementation and to Samourai's own coordinator.
There are many kinds of coinjoins, each with different tradeoffs. Sparrow Wallet acts a client for the Samourai Whirlpool coinjoin implementation.