Kruw, nopara73, Wasabi, I have one question. It might currently not be a real concern, but it could be something of an issue if more and more people CoinJoin through Wasabi, and therefore with that, more and more "false positives" also happen.
How do we refute that an "alert" is a "false positive"? Because the blockchain analysis company could always claim that a "true positive" is proof of the reliability of the system, while a "false negative" could be used to claim that the company should set up tighter filters.
I believe that's something that the developers, and the community, could get together and work on.
How do we refute that an "alert" is a "false positive"? Because the blockchain analysis company could always claim that a "true positive" is proof of the reliability of the system, while a "false negative" could be used to claim that the company should set up tighter filters.
I believe that's something that the developers, and the community, could get together and work on.
I suppose you could always voluntarily disclose where/how funds were obtained if you think a false positive ban has occurred. The ban might not be lifted, but this feedback may help indicate that wallet clustering heuristics are being applied too aggressively.
I was afraid that you might say that, but it could be a start and raise the topic that there SHOULD be challengeability, or else we're merely going to follow their rules.
Another question. Is setting up a coordinator difficult? Or could anyone, a non-coder, who was basic technical knowledge, and who could compile and troubleshoot be enough to set up and install one?
Plus the documents and the readme doesn't have much information on compiling/installing/configuring one. Perhaps it's time to encourage the BitcoinTalk community to run and boot-strap their own coordinators?
