Wasabi Wallet - Open Source, Noncustodial Coinjoin Software - page 10.

Kruw

member

Activity: 378

Merit: 93

Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1

Quote from: PrivacyG on September 26, 2024, 02:29:51 AM

A falsely accused person would be unable to purchase groceries using their own Bitcoin, would be denied transportation, would not be allowed to exchange Bitcoin for other Cryptocurrencies or even Fiat by their own will, would not be able to pay their Taxes.

At first glance, it is an innocent measure supposedly meant to 'protect'. Even if 'nothing bad can happen' as in a falsely accused person would not become under arrest and the shops, Services and institutions would not need to hand out any of their information to the Authorities, them being denied Service would significantly lower their quality of living.

That environment sounds like it would incentivize accused criminals to face their accusers in court. What's wrong with that?

Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 26, 2024, 03:37:17 AM

And mixer's receiving address is merely another peer in the network, no? Centralized mixers, like centralized exchanges, are merely providing a service for the community.

That's my exact point: A "mixing site" is just someone else's wallet. Unlike exchanges or casinos, a "mixing site" is not a service since there is no underlying purpose for the site's existence.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: Kruw on September 25, 2024, 06:57:17 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 25, 2024, 12:39:22 AM

The topic is currently a nit-picking debate between pro-centralized-mixers and anti-centralized-mixers. Can I be the moderator of the debate?

There's no debate necessary since there's never a reason why you would send your coins to someone else's wallet in the first place - The whitepaper immediately informs every new Bitcoin user that there is no need to go through a financial institution and the main benefits of Bitcoin are lost when you use a trusted third party:

Quote from: satoshi

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.

Another "because white paper" again. Haha. Plus Satoshi was talking about there's no need to go through a centralized entity to SEND a transaction from one peer to another peer. But users have the freedom to send their censorship-resistant money wherever they want. - And mixer's receiving address is merely another peer in the network, no?

Centralized mixers, like centralized exchanges, are merely providing a service for the community. It's either you want to use it or you don't. It's the users' choice.

PrivacyG

legendary

Activity: 882

Merit: 1873

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: Kruw on September 25, 2024, 06:57:17 AM

So why are you so hateful about zkSNACKs implementing a mechanism that extends a small protection to victims of crimes who can't defend their stolen coins anymore? Remember, there's no collateral damage against people who are falsely accused since zkSNACKs' policy does not empower them to confiscate funds or share data with law enforcement.

There is a collateral damage against people who are falsely accused.

By your logic, this same mechanism promising the extension of a small protection to victims of Crimes can be implemented at any given time any where in the World. Shops accepting Bitcoin, Bitcoin ATMs still lacking Know Your Customer procedures, Services including transportation, institutions et cetera.

And by your logic, this would cause no harm to anybody.

False.

A falsely accused person would be unable to purchase groceries using their own Bitcoin, would be denied transportation, would not be allowed to exchange Bitcoin for other Cryptocurrencies or even Fiat by their own will, would not be able to pay their Taxes.

At first glance, it is an innocent measure supposedly meant to 'protect'. Even if 'nothing bad can happen' as in a falsely accused person would not become under arrest and the shops, Services and institutions would not need to hand out any of their information to the Authorities, them being denied Service would significantly lower their quality of living.

Kruw

member

Activity: 378

Merit: 93

Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 24, 2024, 12:27:38 PM

I can hardly think of any alternative other than "an eye for an eye".

"Eye for an eye" sounds like a pretty just system to me.

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 24, 2024, 12:27:38 PM

When someone infringes on another person's freedom, there must be a mechanism in place to protect that individual if they cannot defend themselves.

So why are you so hateful about zkSNACKs implementing a mechanism that extends a small protection to victims of crimes who can't defend their stolen coins anymore? Remember, there's no collateral damage against people who are falsely accused since zkSNACKs' policy does not empower them to confiscate funds or share data with law enforcement.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 25, 2024, 12:39:22 AM

The topic is currently a nit-picking debate between pro-centralized-mixers and anti-centralized-mixers. Can I be the moderator of the debate?

There's no debate necessary since there's never a reason why you would send your coins to someone else's wallet in the first place - The whitepaper immediately informs every new Bitcoin user that there is no need to go through a financial institution and the main benefits of Bitcoin are lost when you use a trusted third party:

Quote from: satoshi

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

The topic is currently a nit-picking debate between pro-centralized-mixers and anti-centralized-mixers. Can I be the moderator of the debate?

Shower thought. Centralized mixers, being centralized, could also refuse service to some individuals who their admins "believe" to be holding coins that are from a "suspicious" source, no?

It's a mere trade-off to protect the service.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: Kruw on September 24, 2024, 12:14:29 PM

Why not? Surely you don't think the government should be in charge of something as critically important as justice, right?

I can hardly think of any alternative other than "an eye for an eye". While I do lean toward anarcho-capitalism, I struggle to envision a society that relies solely on the non-aggression principle. When someone infringes on another person's freedom, there must be a mechanism in place to protect that individual if they cannot defend themselves. I recognize that the Department of Justice is often inefficient and corrupt, but I acknowledge that these are complex questions without clear answers, and there is no always perfect solution in this world, if any.

Kruw

member

Activity: 378

Merit: 93

Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 24, 2024, 12:11:21 PM

You're not the arbiter of justice. Just because SBF is a criminal doesn't justify people taking the law into their own hands and preemptively discriminating against him.

Why not? Surely you don't think the government should be in charge of something as critically important as justice, right?

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 24, 2024, 12:11:21 PM

So, to sum up. It's not suspicious if someone's definition of "everyone" precludes criminals. Alright, lol. Cheesy

Correct.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: Kruw on September 24, 2024, 10:45:19 AM

Why do you think discriminating against SBF doesn't have any basis in justice? What is suspicious about that?

You're not the arbiter of justice. Just because SBF is a criminal doesn't justify people taking the law into their own hands and preemptively discriminating against him. But even if we agree to disagree on moral grounds, it's still suspicious for a pro-Bitcoin service to support censorship, when the core principle of Bitcoin is its permissionless and censorship-resistant nature.

Quote from: Kruw on September 24, 2024, 10:45:19 AM

I'm not against the idea of Japanese refusing foreigner tourists from shopping in their stores or nightclubs that require strict dress codes. Other are not obligated to interact with you, even if you offer them money, period.

Absolutely, but I never argued otherwise. Merchants should have the right to choose whom they serve, but that doesn't change my view of their actions. Just as they are free to make their choices, I am equally free to express my suspicion of them.

And as far as my educational background is concerned, choosing to refuse service based on race is suspicious.

Quote from: Kruw on September 24, 2024, 10:45:19 AM

No, I don't think it's suspicious that someone would treat criminals differently than innocent people.

So, to sum up. It's not suspicious if someone's definition of "everyone" precludes criminals. Alright, lol. Cheesy

Kruw

member

Activity: 378

Merit: 93

Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 24, 2024, 10:31:01 AM

Declining to do business with me is not beyond the bounds of justice,

Good, I'm glad we agree.

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 24, 2024, 10:31:01 AM

but discriminating people based on your own criteria gives the impression that you're acting as judge and jury. Choosing to discriminate and censor voluntarily, without any basis in justice, seems suspicious to me.

Why do you think discriminating against SBF doesn't have any basis in justice? What is suspicious about that?

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 24, 2024, 10:31:01 AM

If you walked into a restaurant, and they refused to serve you because they don't like serving white people, wouldn't you find it suspicious?

My ex girlfriend is Chinese. She dated me (white) but says she won't date black guys. What's suspicious about that?

I'm not against the idea of Japanese refusing foreigner tourists from shopping in their stores or nightclubs that require strict dress codes. Others are not obligated to interact with you, even if you offer them money, period.

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 24, 2024, 10:31:01 AM

Sure, you're free to run whatever software you want. But, if I told you that everyone deserves privacy, and then I refused to provide you with privacy, wouldn't you find it suspicious?

No, I don't think it's suspicious that someone would treat criminals differently than innocent people.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: Kruw on September 24, 2024, 10:16:40 AM

How is saying "I'm not going to do business with you" beyond the bounds of justice?

Declining to do business with me is not beyond the bounds of justice, but discriminating people based on your own criteria gives the impression that you're acting as judge and jury. Choosing to discriminate and censor voluntarily, without any basis in justice, seems suspicious to me.

If you walked into a restaurant, and they refused to serve you because they don't like serving white people, wouldn't you find it suspicious?

Quote from: Kruw on September 24, 2024, 10:16:40 AM

Libertarians believe that entrepreneurs have the right to decline a business deal, why do you believe that people should be forced to trade with people they don't like?

Sure, you're free to run whatever software you want. But, if I told you that everyone deserves privacy, and then I refused to provide you with privacy, wouldn't you find it suspicious?

Kruw

member

Activity: 378

Merit: 93

Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 24, 2024, 10:12:30 AM

Because supporting that censorship is good with the excuse that criminals need to get punished is suspicious. Censorship is not justified when it goes beyond the bounds of justice, and zkSNACKs was beyond the bounds of justice.

How is saying "I'm not going to do business with you" beyond the bounds of justice? Libertarians believe that entrepreneurs have the right to decline a business deal, why do you believe that people should be forced to trade with people they don't like?

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: Kruw on September 24, 2024, 10:07:58 AM

If you agree that criminals should be held to justice with imprisonment, then why did you post as if my motives for promoting non custodial open source privacy tools are suspicious?

Because supporting that censorship is good with the excuse that criminals need to get punished is suspicious. Censorship is not justified when it goes beyond the bounds of justice, and zkSNACKs was beyond the bounds of justice.

Kruw

member

Activity: 378

Merit: 93

Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 24, 2024, 09:33:23 AM

Throwing criminals in prison is justified.

If you agree that criminals should be held to justice with imprisonment, then why did you post as if my motives for promoting non custodial open source privacy tools are suspicious?

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 24, 2024, 08:07:38 AM

I do however remember him claiming that throwing a criminal in a dungeon is justified. It's safe to assume that his opinions are highly influenced by what he's shilling.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Throwing criminals in prison is justified. Supporting that censorship is good because criminals must be punished is not justified.

Kruw

member

Activity: 378

Merit: 93

Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 24, 2024, 08:07:38 AM

I do however remember him claiming that throwing a criminal in a dungeon is justified. It's safe to assume that his opinions are highly influenced by what he's shilling.

Why isn't throwing criminals in prison justified?

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: Pmalek on September 24, 2024, 07:25:41 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 24, 2024, 02:27:49 AM

My viewpoint - I don't care.

Perhaps not because you weren't affected personally.

But take a look at the following flawed logic.
You advertise an online casino in your signature. Without checking how exactly that casino works, I would guess that it's like any other gambling site: it has custody of your coins, it can freeze them, you can lose them, the money can be hacked, and essentially there is trust involved.

I, on the other hand, operate a casino that is (by some miracle) trustless. I can never confiscate your money, you have control of it at all times, and I can only take the wagers you lose.

The casino you advertise gets raided and seized by the feds for whatever reason, and the feds confiscate everyone's money because it's all deposited wallets that the casino control. Using flawed logic and pure viciousness, I start to claim that people who wore a Shuffle signature are scammers who should be ashamed of themselves because they tricked unknowing players into depositing money into a casino that was a scam. You, Wind_FURY, are a scammer. When will you return the money you stole?

Welcome to Kruw's mind.

You misunderstood my viewpoint and you're going out of context from your original post. This is your post,

Quote

If a scammer uses Kruw's coordinator and Wasabi to "clean" their stolen coins, that's ok and there is no problem there. Kruw and Wasabi aren't scammers for allowing that to happen. Everyone advertising Wasabi are heroes and privacy advocates.

If a scammer uses a mixer that later gets seized by the government, then the people paid to advertise said mixer are scammers and it's all their fault. They must also return all the coins the government seized.

You were talking about CoinJoin coordinators, centralized mixers, and "Kruw's logic". The people from both sides of the debate have their viewpoints, but personally I don't care if a "criminal" or a "normal user" uses a Wasabi coordinator, a centralized mixer, or the Lightning Network to obtain more privacy. Bitcoin is a permissionless system. ANYONE can use it and its applications/services.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: Pmalek on September 23, 2024, 07:44:59 AM

If a scammer uses Kruw's coordinator and Wasabi to "clean" their stolen coins, that's ok and there is no problem there. Kruw and Wasabi aren't scammers for allowing that to happen. Everyone advertising Wasabi are heroes and privacy advocates.
If a scammer uses a mixer that later gets seized by the government, then the people paid to advertise said mixer are scammers and it's all their fault. They must also return all the coins the government seized.

It's a pretty messed up situation, actually. His reasoning is that any privacy service that takes custody is a scammer, because you could have used Wasabi instead. I do however remember him claiming that throwing a criminal in a dungeon and denying him access to privacy is justified. It's safe to assume that his opinions are highly influenced by what he's shilling.

It's needless to say that censorship resistant money should come with censorship resistant privacy, and therefore everyone should have access to it, despite ethics. I've noticed some of us arguing the opposite when it comes to stolen coins, which opens up the Pandora box to start censoring.

Pmalek

legendary

Activity: 2730

Merit: 7065

Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 24, 2024, 02:27:49 AM

My viewpoint - I don't care.

Perhaps not because you weren't affected personally.

But take a look at the following flawed logic.
You advertise an online casino in your signature. Without checking how exactly that casino works, I would guess that it's like any other gambling site: it has custody of your coins, it can freeze them, you can lose them, the money can be hacked, and essentially there is trust involved.

I, on the other hand, operate a casino that is (by some miracle) trustless. I can never confiscate your money, you have control of it at all times, and I can only take the wagers you lose.

The casino you advertise gets raided and seized by the feds for whatever reason, and the feds confiscate everyone's money because it's all deposited wallets that the casino control. Using flawed logic and pure viciousness, I start to claim that people who wore a Shuffle signature are scammers who should be ashamed of themselves because they tricked unknowing players into depositing money into a casino that was a scam. You, Wind_FURY, are a scammer. When will you return the money you stole?

Welcome to Kruw's mind.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: Pmalek on September 23, 2024, 07:44:59 AM

@Wind_FURY
Haven't you figured out Kruw's logic yet?
If a scammer uses Kruw's coordinator and Wasabi to "clean" their stolen coins, that's ok and there is no problem there. Kruw and Wasabi aren't scammers for allowing that to happen. Everyone advertising Wasabi are heroes and privacy advocates.
If a scammer uses a mixer that later gets seized by the government, then the people paid to advertise said mixer are scammers and it's all their fault. They must also return all the coins the government seized.

Where the logic stops, Kruw begins.

My viewpoint - I don't care. Normal users, nefarious entities, government entities, business entities have the freedom to use, and/or the the risk to use, a censorship-resistant, permissionless protocol for any purpose that they want for themselves.

Quote from: Kruw on September 23, 2024, 08:53:47 AM

Quote from: Pmalek on September 23, 2024, 07:44:59 AM

Quote from: Kruw on September 23, 2024, 01:14:33 AM

In fact, you often see these "mixing site" scams advertise themselves as coinjoin services in order to gain more victims, here's an example: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitlistco-mixers-exchanges-services-casinos-5483310

That's a bad example.

Why is it a bad example? It's a smoking gun that proves they are intending to scam: Coinjoins are non custodial, these sites are not.

Perhaps it's better to merely inform icopress and have him remove the "CoinJoin" descriptions from what are not supposed to be CoinJoin applications/services. This is merely a misunderstanding and probably a lack of knowledge on what actually is the protocol called "CoinJoin".

Kruw

member

Activity: 378

Merit: 93

Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1

Quote from: Pmalek on September 23, 2024, 07:44:59 AM

Quote from: Kruw on September 23, 2024, 01:14:33 AM

In fact, you often see these "mixing site" scams advertise themselves as coinjoin services in order to gain more victims, here's an example: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitlistco-mixers-exchanges-services-casinos-5483310

That's a bad example.

Why is it a bad example? It's a smoking gun that proves they are intending to scam: Coinjoins are non custodial, these sites are not.

Topic: Wasabi Wallet - Open Source, Noncustodial Coinjoin Software - page 10. (Read 11727 times)