Topic: Wasabi Coinjoins Seem Larger and More Popular (Read 178 times)

JoinMarket is definitely better, although heard it's harder to use. I don't know if more non-technical people than me will use it, and I am non-technical who truly likes to learn/do basic "Bitcoin-Technical" things.

Do you have a link with latest update in JoinMarket's liquidity? Because there was an old blog that said JoinMarket doesn't have a great deal of deep-liquidity, which is discouraging for users who want mix their coins, and therefore also discouraging for users from providing liquidity as makers. I can't remember where I read it, but it was probably more than two years old.

Or we just don't do coinjoins using a coordinator a la Wasabi, and we take the JoinMarket path, which is the equivalent, but besides self-custody respecting, it's also decentralized.

That's another plus for JoinMarket, as it will never run out of liquidity due to that incident.

That's perhaps the only solution, or the other "privacy-respecting company" could fork the coordinator. In fact, there's already a Wasabi fork. ChainCase, https://github.com/chaincase-app/chaincase/discussions/119

Although, I'm not sure about its liquidity, because we already know that for the pool to work, there has to be a large amount of users mixing a large amount of coins to make it more effective.

No. There are lots of other software that do coinjoins, such as JoinMarket, Samurai wallet, Hidden wallet. You can also make coinjoin individually, with simple software like Bitcoin Core and Electrum, but that requires to be a little technically competent.

I don't believe there's a direct way. Sparing a part of your funds for all these coinjoin services can let you know which transaction comes from what.

The public knows nothing if mixing is allowed regardless the inputs. Otherwise, if you implement what Wasabi did recently, then there isn't much point to using their service, because their coinjoins must be approved by those who spy the chain.

currently, is only wasabi wallet used coinjoins?.
If not, how to know that transaction uses a wasabi wallet?.

And, until today, many public knows if the transaction (tx) is used coin join, mixer, whirlpool, or anything kind of laundry. is mixed function failed?,

If it were my investment house, I would want to keep my clients' funds and transactions private just to aid in the customer's ability to remain private.  Bank transactions can remain private since all transactions are conducted centrally, and are not broadcast publicly, but that's not possible with the blockchain.


Oh, hello there, Mr. Wasabi.  How kind of you to join us, if only to mock our speculations.  Instead of your mockery, perhaps you can enlighten us as to how you managed to drum up so much business from the same demographic you aim to condemn?

You're addressing the wrong person. No Wasabi developer can answer you that with confidence. The chairmen of the chain analysis company are the heads of this scandal. And no, you're obviously not going to get a sufficient response if you ever e-mailed them that question. The company analyzes the chain in a not transparent manner, decides what's illegal / illicit / unethical in a yet unknown technique, and approves the Wasabi CoinJoin according to that.

...

A comment on the subject of this thread, and then a comment on Wasabi and their working with a chain analysis company.

I have looked at a fairly large number of Wasabi's coinjoins (they are distinctive looking diagrams at mempool.space, easily identified), and while the link I first posted above has the LARGEST UTXO I have seen, it is by no means the only large one I have noted.  I very often see a series of 10 - 12 BTC as inputs, and similar sized outputs.  While an over 50BTC UTXO is not all that common, they do show up fairly regularly.  So, maybe they are institutional, yeah, perhaps so.  But as BlackHatCoiner notes (but in my words here), it does seem unusual that (many) institutions would bother joining their coins if Wasabi just passes that info on to [Chainanalysis]...

Also, I would sure like to know WHICH exchanges (CEX) then accept Wasabi-joined BTC as clean.  I would REALLY like to know that.  Also the analysis company (that's called "transparency").

*   *   *

OK, I already know that nopara73 and the Wasabi team thought long and hard about their policy of working with [...].  But, by not being transparent, especially taking such a controversial step that would infuriate privacy advocates (like me, and probably 90% of members at this forum), Wasabi looks BAD in their eyes.  

Perhaps Wasabi could be more transparent.  Who is their [...]?  And how "clean" are the coins coming out of their coinjoins?  Wasabi would likely respond "That's confidential, it would only invite X, Y, and/or Z to take countermeasures to take additional steps to maintain their privacy hide their dirty money..."

So, what do you say, Wasabi?  Tell us who your partners are, and who among Coinbase, Binance, Kraken, Gemini, Bitstamp, etc. would accept your outputted coins as clean?

Else, perhaps, some other privacy-respecting company will come along and offer a truly private solution (a good coinjoin without ratting out your own customers).

A pretty wild theory coming from one of your ex customers who put many thousands of dollars in your pockets before you betrayed us all.  This is the respect I get in return.  Evasive answers and being mocked by you.

You are pretending this is a theory, I call this a very possible reality.  Bribing is a thing.  Corruption exists too.  They work so wonderful together.  But wait, the Government wants my best and so do you by jumping in their boat and helping them achieve another step in their attempt of bringing Bitcoin to a downfall.  Kneeling in front of Blockchain Analysis companies like a puppy waiting for their approvals before allowing transactions to pass.  All of this just to get a little more money in the bag.  Pretending to be a Privacy advocate who then turns 180 once the proper offer pops up in their mail.

Dare I tell you that many of your (ex) customers were using your Wallet because we did not trust the system.  You knew and still know this very well.  How dare you even pretend to be surprised that your ex customers do not trust you any more when the main demographic of your customers was people who were paranoid and people who do not trust.  Now you are part of the system so there is that.  Disgusting.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

I'm still curious why an institutional investment house wants to gain privacy only if the anti-privacy and anti-fungibility company approves. Like, if only there were other ways to mix coins without the clean-coins-check, right?

Pretty wild how you went from privacy advocate to privacy critic. Bribing must change people.

That's quite a large amount, meaning it shows that the wasabi wallet is one of the reliable hot wallets that can store our assets like bitcoin.

Whose address is that? It is possible that the owner of wasabi is also the owner and he only did it to encourage the other community here in the crypto space to also use the wasabi wallet as a storage of bitcoin or cryptocurrency.

Pretty wild theories you got there

I have some other sort of theory.

Back when they announced working with Blockchain Analysis companies, I suspected our privacy was slowly vanishing away while corporations and officials get to launder money legally.  How hard is it really to bribe Blockchain Analysis into pretending your UTXO's are 'legitimate' and always give them a green check.

If only 'legitimate' Bitcoin is going through their Joins.  Then companies always get a green check.  Politicians in some countries are known for bribing and accepting bribe.  So silently offer them a few millions to move your billions.  How do I know they are going to deny such an offer.

They can do this without even bribing.  Infiltrate the right people in Blockchain Analysis, get them to overtake leadership in a matter of years and now you got your own people saying yes or no to your transactions.  What if the right people actually already work at Blockchain Analysis.

Then some transactions may be censored for other reasons that got nothing to do with criminal activity.  As of now, Russians are being actively censored everywhere around the world.  Is it normal for Blockchain Analysis to give red X marks to Russian transactions in support for Ukraine?  It is already happening anyway.  If you are from Russia you get no more ad revenue from big corporations.  Or you can not play sports supporting your nationality.  I rather remain neutral about the war in Ukraine.  But many of these people have nothing to do with the war.  And if we apply censorship, there are so many ways this can go wrong.  Including using Blockchain Analysis to accept or deny transactions.

Or, you are Donald Trump.  And some body pays good amounts of money to Blockchain Analysis in order to block his Bitcoin transactions because his opposition wants so.

Or, CIA tells Blockchain Analysis to block my UTXO's for classified information they have on me.  The actual purpose is they found I was trying to earn my Privacy, so they are trying to insert an obstacle and make it harder for me.  But would Blockchain Analysis oppose an order from an authority like CIA?  Big doubts.

Fuck this shit.  This is the thing about checking for legitimacy of an action.  Think of it like borders and trafficking.  Some borders accept bribe and give criminals a green check and then you, as an innocent, get your car checked cautiously for what ever you may have on you.  I am going to keep my point of view.  Monero is still allowed to exist just because people on top of the system get to benefit from it.  Coin Join has become an uncertainty for us, average human beings, because Blockchain Analysis gives only particular people a green check for the transaction.  People on top of the system can easily get to benefit from it.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Good point, it could very well be a publicity stunt.  And you're right about the large transaction being withdrawn all at once, how is that supposed to help with privacy?  It would be the same with any mixing service; i.e. if you dump 130BTC into a mixer, then transfer 130BTC into a single wallet a few minutes, hours, days, or even weeks later anyone with any sense would assume the transactions are related.

Maybe this was a test by their team or something to see how well a large transaction would work.  The government has come out and said that they can trace coins through traditional coin mixers if the amount is over a certain threshold.  Perhaps this is them testing if they can truly keep large transactions anonymous.  It also could just be a promotional tactic.  I've seen plenty of posts and articles about this large transaction already, which is probably the best advertising one could have for Wasabi wallet.  I think that's more likely then someone suddenly wanting to use coinjoin for such a massive transaction.  Even if they were to use coinjoin for this amount, wouldn't they still split it up to avoid being in the news? Seems contrary to what they were trying to accomplish if it were a real transaction. 

Although it seems surprising to those of us who are concerned about privacy and Wasabi's plan to use blockchain analysis to blacklist UTXOs, it's not surprising to see large transactions going through Wasabi's coinjoin coordinator.  The Wasabi team made it clear when they made their announcement last year that the primary reason for the decision was to attract institutional investment houses to use their coinjoin.

The large transactions make it more likely that it is institutional investors using Wasabi, and that could easily account for the larger coinjoin pools.

...

I have been curious to follow Wasabi coinjoins since they started their new service.  Even with the fact that they are working with a blockchain analysis company I see more coinjoins, and perhaps more interestingly larger coinjoins (when 2 - 3 sats/vB get into a block).  It's not rare at all to see 200+ BTC joined all at once now.

Check out the below transaction from yesterday (with a whopping 130BTC UTXO):

https://mempool.space/tx/b1c32fee891ebc3f4e3ee9553ce9a71f44eb62b2df602146bf051f633cd4c6c5

That's about $3,000,000 worth of BTC going to just one address.

Bet that address is getting scrutiny...