Pages:
Author

Topic: Wasabi Wallet - Open Source, Noncustodial Coinjoin Software - page 19. (Read 11758 times)

legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
Tell me exactly how you calculated the number of Monero users and calculated the number of coinjoin users to compare to each other.
Calm down, there is no evidence. It's just estimated, based on my personal experience. If solid evidence is what you're in favor of, then you can neither prove there are more Bitcoin users than Monero users, so the numbers remain rookie.

What I do observe is 43 million Monero transactions, and how many Bitcoin coinjoins in total?
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
The Monero users are, by far, greater in number than Coinjoin users.

Tell me exactly how you calculated the number of Monero users and calculated the number of coinjoin users to compare to each other. I'm sure you are just making up numbers just like last time:

If you never calculated the Boltzmann score, then why did you claim the Boltzmann score for a WabiSabi coinjoin is "worse"?

There is an entire analysis technique called Boltzmann score that computes resistance to this potential linking. WabiSabi coinjoin is worse in that matter, as it appears in kycp.org.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
What would be more private, let's pretend these are actual numbers of users - 10,000 CoinJoin users or 100 Monero users?
Those are rookie numbers. The Monero users are, by far, greater in number than Coinjoin users.

And no, the anonymity set of Bitcoin is not greater than Monero, just because it might have more users. The overwhelming majority keeps them on exchanges, under KYC, and from the rest, the majority of the coins are simply kept on a self-custodial wallet, without any privacy enhancements apart from coin control. A brief look at Bitcoin's current privacy options makes this clear.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
Shower thought. Monero is technically the most private cryptocurrency, and the best to do it, BUT because of its smaller anonymity-set, it perhaps could be debatable if it indeed it's more private than Bitcoin, no?

Every time you make a Monero transaction, your client picks 15 random inputs from the blockchain as decoys, hiding the true sender, and then it derives a one-time public key that's used to obfuscate the receiver, while simultaneously hiding the amounts transacted every time. And if those weren't enough, all these privacy gains are enforced compulsorily, by the protocol.

It's not debatable.


I'm having a shower thought about it more from the perspective of Law Enforcement in identifying privacy coins users, and because of the smaller anonymity-set, once they identify one group it could make it easier to identify other groups. But if we compare that to Bitcoin - total confusion because the number of users are simply bigger. Would that be a valid argument? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What would be more private, let's pretend these are actual numbers of users - 10,000 CoinJoin users or 100 Monero users?
legendary
Activity: 2730
Merit: 7065
There was no answer from you to the specific question.
You can check the replies by nopara73 in the topic Wasabi topic hijacked by crooked Kruw. He talks about Kruw being an ex zkSNACKs employee. If that's true, then he currently has no official connection to either zkSNACKs or Wasabi. nopara73 also stated that Kruw can't code. One liar is praising another liar, so take whatever you want from it.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
Shower thought. Monero is technically the most private cryptocurrency, and the best to do it, BUT because of its smaller anonymity-set, it perhaps could be debatable if it indeed it's more private than Bitcoin, no?
Every time you make a Monero transaction, your client picks 15 random inputs from the blockchain as decoys, hiding the true sender, and then it derives a one-time public key that's used to obfuscate the receiver, while simultaneously hiding the amounts transacted every time. And if those weren't enough, all these privacy gains are enforced compulsorily, by the protocol.

It's not debatable.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
Coinjoins are optional, and can't even compete other protocols, such as Monero. To me, that means falling short on a protocol level.

There are also centralized exchanges which require you to forfeit custody. That does not mean you can't have custody of your bitcoin.

That's basic English, TwistyPhrasy.


Shower thought. Monero is technically the most private cryptocurrency, and the best to do it, BUT because of its smaller anonymity-set, it perhaps could be debatable if it indeed it's more private than Bitcoin, no?
legendary
Activity: 2730
Merit: 7065
Here you go:

Nonetheless, there exist legit services which require you to forfeit custody, and you'll have to grasp that part.
No one with a decent understanding of the English language will fall for your attempt of changing the meaning of that sentence to make it look like you are right. The sentence is in no way an attempt to convince people that giving up custody of your bitcoin is a necessity for privacy. It simply explains that there are services (mixers) that require custody of your coins and people need to understand that if they want to use them. The end! Where is the part where BlackHatCoiner is convincing people that it's the only way to go if you want privacy?
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1713
Top Crypto Casino
There was no answer from you to the specific question.

What is stopping you from directly answering the question without either by using misdirection or by using walls of text:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.64318299

An answer or explanation is long overdue. What exactly is a "Contributor to Wasabi Wallet"? Can you explain what your relationship with zkSNACKS is? If you post an answer without trying to hide behind unnecessary words and misdirection, it will save myself or any other member asking about this again.

What was wrong with the answer you received the first time?
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
Coinjoins are optional

"Mixing sites" are optional too, this isn't a fact that saves you from your earlier claims.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
Coinjoins are optional, and can't even compete other protocols, such as Monero. To me, that means falling short on a protocol level.

There are also centralized exchanges which require you to forfeit custody. That does not mean you can't have custody of your bitcoin.

That's basic English, TwistyPhrasy.
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
We do fall short on a protocol level.

We don't fall short on a protocol level, there's multiple coinjoin protocols that provide privacy on Bitcoin: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63551707

That does not mean that giving up custody is a necessity. It's simply a choice, given certain tradeoffs.

When you used the word "require", you implied "necessity" which is the opposite of "choice".

Nonetheless, there exist legit services which require you to forfeit custody, and you'll have to grasp that part.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
We do fall short on a protocol level. That does not mean that giving up custody is a necessity. It's simply a choice, given certain tradeoffs. Nowhere have I stated that using mixers is the only way to have privacy.

Try harder.
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
Lol. Read again what I've asked, and then what you've quoted.

You asked for a post that shows you convincing people that giving up control of your coins was necessary to obtain privacy:

Find me one post of mine where I am convinced or have convinced another person that giving up control of your coins is necessary to attain privacy.

I provided a post where you claimed that forfeiting custody was required because privacy "falls short at the protocol level":

Yes, I want to advertise privacy enhancing services, I believe it's a fundamental right, which we fall short in a protocol level.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
Lol. Read again what I've asked, and then what you've quoted.
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
Find me one post of mine where I am convinced or have convinced another person that giving up control of your coins is necessary to attain privacy.

Here you go:

Nonetheless, there exist legit services which require you to forfeit custody, and you'll have to grasp that part.
legendary
Activity: 2730
Merit: 7065
Mixers and promoters of those services aren’t scammers because of the clients they attract, they are scammers because they convince users that giving up control of their coins is necessary in order to attain privacy.
So we are making up new accusations now, are we? According to Kruw, those people are scammers who have stolen money and should return it to their victims. On top of that, users with mixer signatures were also doing their best to convince users that giving up custody of their coins was the only way to attain privacy. Fabulous story. 

Those who recommended custodial mixers as a privacy solution exposed countless people to the risk of theft through exit scams and selective stealing, not to mention having their information logged and handed over to authorities.
Let's expand on that flawed logic a bit, shall we. Operators and promoters of coinjoin coordinators are thieves and scammers because they expose users to malicious services created to steal their coins as we saw with WasabiCoordinator. Expanding the flawed logic even further: anyone who runs, promotes, or defends such business practices is a thief who should be ashamed of themselves and should also return the money they stole asap. To go fully crazy, let me ask you and Kruw when are you planning to return the bitcoin you stole with Wasabi and its malicious coordinators? I see no flaws in my logic here.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
Mixers and promoters of those services aren’t scammers because of the clients they attract, they are scammers because they convince users that giving up control of their coins is necessary in order to attain privacy.
Find me one post of mine where I am convinced or have convinced another person that giving up control of your coins is necessary to attain privacy.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
Mixers and promoters of those services aren’t scammers because of the clients they attract, they are scammers because they convince users that giving up control of their coins is necessary in order to attain privacy. Those who recommended custodial mixers as a privacy solution exposed countless people to the risk of theft through exit scams and selective stealing, not to mention having their information logged and handed over to authorities.

How is that business model different from coordinators, especially when you have services like WasabiCoordinator which were able to find ways to "steal" user funds by using excessive rounds as well?

The reality is, when you use any privacy service that anonymizes coins, you have to trust that they won't find an exploit in the protocol to drain all of the money. The only case where you don't need to trust is when the privacy is baked into the protocol like in Monero.
Pages:
Jump to: