Pages:
Author

Topic: Wasabi Wallet - Open Source, Noncustodial Coinjoin Software - page 4. (Read 10759 times)

legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1713
Top Crypto Casino
If those casinos or exchanges are non-KYC then that might be possible but the source is still exposed to them and if harvested can be linked to future transactions.

The only problem I have with your explanation is that you are making the assumption all third party mixers are mixing in a manner that will lead back to the source after blockchain analysis. If any third party mixer implements conjoins as their mixing process, how is that less private than using a third party coordinator (Kruw or Open Coordiantor) for coinjoins?

Did you ever test anything on the lines of this?

Yes, I've addressed this point, if trusting a third party with your financial data is considered acceptable, then using an exchange or casino is superior to a "mixing site" because there is actually an underlying service that provides more liquidity for deposits and withdrawals:
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823

Simply answer the question Wind_FURY: Since you clearly know that "mixing sites" scams provide absolutely no privacy whatsoever in the process of stealing the deposits of their users, why do you continue to pretend there is a chance they are providing a service or performing a job?


Pretending? No ser, merely asking for fairness sake. We can assume that some of them are scams, OK, but ALL of them? I believe not. But if you could provide the verifiable data showing that all of them actually are scams that don't do the service that they claim, then that would be very useful, thank you very much. Cool

I'm neutral in this matter, and because you were saying that they are scams, then I was simply asking for some data to prove this.
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
Did you ever test anything on the lines of this?

Yes, I've addressed this point, if trusting a third party with your financial data is considered acceptable, then using an exchange or casino is superior to a "mixing site" because there is actually an underlying service that provides more liquidity for deposits and withdrawals:

Well. Let's clarify. A man sends over TOR/VPN his coins  to exchange which doesn't require him to go through KYC procedure. Which private details  could be revealed in this case?
Which part of "it isn't designed to offer privacy" don't you understand? Of course and you can make an account anonymously, but that isn't my point. Your coins could be confiscated for either being "tainted", or your account could be terminated for using a "banned IP address". Can you gain privacy from such service? Perhaps. Is it suitable for that purpose? No.

The mixer you advertise is also not designed to offer privacy.  How do you not understand that?  Your mixer says it can confiscate your coins or terminate your account, so the only difference between using an exchange and using your mixer is that exchanges have a larger user base.  It is not suitable for the purpose of gaining privacy.

The real question is why would you ever want to do that? The exchange isn't portraying itself as a mixer, and if you take the time to read their privacy policy, you'll quickly figure out that you have no privacy.

Did you take the time to read the privacy policy of the mixer you are using?

Quote from: [banned mixer
]3. Quality scoring of incoming transactions
We run a thorough background check of incoming funds through a proprietary algorithm.

Quote from: [banned mixer
]2.1. Privacy Policy

Please refer to our Privacy Policy to get an understanding of our confidentiality obligations. You consent to the collection and use of information as described in the Privacy Policy.

2.2 Suspension or termination of services

[banned mixer] reserves the right to suspend or terminate access to services at any time at its own discretion, with or without reasons, with or without notification assuming no responsibility whatsoever.

For example, services may be suspended or terminated due to the following reasons:

    an actual or suspected violation of these Terms and Conditions;
    use of the service in such a manner that is conducive to the legal liability of [banned mixer] or Service malfunction;
    planned or unplanned maintenance, etc.

2.3 Unacceptable use

You agree that you personally will not commit, encourage or support the committal of:

    use of any unauthorized means to access the [banned mixer] service or use of any automated process or service (for example, spider, crawler or periodic caching of information stored or generated by [banned mixer]) except for the functions described in our API, as well as distribution of instructions, software or tools with this aim in view;
    modification, change, distortion or any other interference in work of the [banned mixer] service;
    disturbing or interference in operation of servers or networks used by [banned mixer] to deliver the Services;
    disabling, overload or degradation of [banned mixer] performance (or any other network connected to the service);
    use of the [banned mixer] service or website for any other purposes other than those specifically provided by these Terms and Privacy Policy;
    any illegal or fraudulent activity, as well as use of this Service in order to legalize illegal income, financing of terrorism, participation in schemes of phishing, forgery or other such falsification or manipulation;
    unauthorized spamming, pyramid schemes or any other activity duplicating unwanted messages should they be commercially oriented or of other nature.

2.4 Service updates

At any time and at its absolute discretion [banned mixer] can carry out unscheduled works related to the service modification, update and enhancement. We are liable to add or remove functions and cease activities of the service and website.
2.5 License and restrictions

[banned mixer] provides you with a personal nontransferable nonexclusive license to use the Service as it is stipulated for you by [banned mixer]. This license is provided under conditions and restricted to the provisions, stipulations and constraints stated in these Terms. Therewith, such license is intended for personal, noncommercial use. You may not copy, modify, create a derivative work of, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the service or any part thereof, exclusive of data permitted by law, or expressly allowed by the [banned mixer] platform (use of templates, API, etc.). You may not reassign (or grant a sublicense of) your rights to use the service, or otherwise transfer any part of your rights in accordance with these Terms. These Rules do not provide you with any license or permission to copy, distribute, change or otherwise use any applications programming interface despite any provisions to the contrary. No property rights or ownership rights related to the Service are not granted to you according to these Terms. [banned mixer] reserves all rights that have not been expressly granted.

This is why you should absolutely not be recommending mixers to the OP as an alternative for exchanges.  You are trading one trusted custodian for another without solving the issue of privacy.
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1713
Top Crypto Casino
Making a distinction between the actual mix and the data collated by the server hosting the website for a moment and focusing only on the mix element. If someone posted an address and then used what you refer to as a "mixer website" of their choice to mix, would you be able to find the exact location of the mixed funds?

Or, if someone already mixed using a website and gave you the post-mix address, would you be able to trace it back to the source? If the answer is yes, then that defeats the object of obfuscation the privacy seeker wanted and the/those mixer websites do not offer privacy. Did you ever test anything on the lines of this?

Your "if" statement isn't a possibility, funds are always associated with the original transaction when you use a "mixing website" since a "mixing website" has the exact same privacy as the traditional banking system.
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
Let us just say for a moment that all of the mixing websites out there do not mix in the way that a coinjoin using Wasabi Wallet or Ginger Wallet does, in the end how is that detrimental to the aims of the privacy seeker if at the end of the mix the funds cannot be associated with the original transaction the privacy seeker wanted to obfuscate?

Your "if" statement isn't a possibility, funds are always associated with the original transaction when you use a "mixing website" since a "mixing website" has the exact same privacy as the traditional banking system.
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1713
Top Crypto Casino
Let us just say for a moment that all of the mixing websites out there do not mix in the way that a coinjoin using Wasabi Wallet or Ginger Wallet does, in the end how is that detrimental to the aims of the privacy seeker if at the end of the mix the funds cannot be associated with the original transaction the privacy seeker wanted to obfuscate?

There is the possible data harvesting issue that could take place using the mixing websites when sending/receiving funds but when it comes to the mix itself, if it does the intended job why are you calling it a scam?

Yes, I'm forcing you to provide proof for the false claim you made over and over and OVER AGAIN that "mixing site" scams provide a service:
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
I wasn't accusing any specific centralized mixer of not doing their job, it was you, and you're asking me for proof?

Yes, I'm forcing you to provide proof for the false claim you made over and over and OVER AGAIN that "mixing site" scams provide a service:

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.

Because if the entity you call "the wallet" actually mixes their users' outputs well, then who are you to tell everyone that "there's no underlying purpose for its existence"? If it's a service and does the service well, then it's up to you to use it, or not to use it.

The entity's wallet doesn't mix users' outputs at all. There's absolutely nothing technological involved here that enhances privacy.

I'm talking about a hypothetical mixing service that actually does everything right, which may also exist somewhere, no?

Yeah, that's exactly my point that proves o_e_l_e_o and BlackHatCoiner's goal is to scam users out of both their coins AND their data. You can't possibly mistake these scammers for "Privacy Advocates" since the custodians they promote don't provide any privacy whatsoever, despite the option for these custodians to issue fully anonymous Chaumian Ecash.

But if you believe that a mixer that was advertised in BitcoinTalk is/was merely an "entity's wallet" that does/did absolutely nothing, then please ser, kindly show us the data/proof of your findings.

Stop playing dumb, it's not like you could have forgotten that you still owe everyone on this thread an apology for your partnership with Sinbad

where's the data that those services actually didn't do their jobs in mixing their users' outputs? They probably did mix them, no?

No, we already established these sites do absolutely no "mixing" whatsoever, it's just a deposit address for the scammer's wallet

Centralized mixers might have flaws, there might be weaknesses, but those entities actually making no effort of mixing their users' outputs?

A mixing site is not "flawed". A mixing site does not have "weaknesses". A mixing site has LITERALLY NO PRIVACY ASPECTS WHATSOEVER, A MIXING SITE JUST GENERATES A DEPOSIT ADDRESS FOR THE SCAMMER'S WALLET.

Because not all centralized mixers are built the same, no? Although you make a good point of telling us that there are bad actors out there, but there must be those good ones that do provide an actual service of making users' outputs untraceable?

I already explained this to you:

I'm talking about a hypothetical mixing service that actually does everything right, which may also exist somewhere, no?

Yeah, that's exactly my point that proves o_e_l_e_o and BlackHatCoiner's goal is to scam users out of both their coins AND their data. You can't possibly mistake these scammers for "Privacy Advocates" since the custodians they promote don't provide any privacy whatsoever, despite the option for these custodians to issue fully anonymous Chaumian Ecash.

many of them also try to build a real mixing service to make their users' outputs untraceable after the mix, no?

No, they don't. I already explained this to you:

I'm talking about a hypothetical mixing service that actually does everything right, which may also exist somewhere, no?

Yeah, that's exactly my point that proves o_e_l_e_o and BlackHatCoiner's goal is to scam users out of both their coins AND their data. You can't possibly mistake these scammers for "Privacy Advocates" since the custodians they promote don't provide any privacy whatsoever, despite the option for these custodians to issue fully anonymous Chaumian Ecash.

These custodial sites do not issue Chaumian ecash. These custodial sites do not issue coins on a sidechain with confidential transactions. "Mixing sites" offer absolutely zero privacy whatsoever to depositors in the process of stealing their coins.

I understand, you already posted about that.

Then why are you still pretending like there's a chance these scamming sites are providing a service?

But the burden of proof on what? That my opinion is that there are centralized mixers that accept the trade-offs of being centralized/be a trusted-third-party to do what their service is supposed to do?

Yes, you've had a week to justify your opinion with a single shred of proof that supports it:

BUT like you posted in your post before, you have no data to the claim that any/all centralized mixers are mere wallets that do not mix their users' outputs. No data = no proof = ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The burden of proof is on you, not me.

You accuse ALL of them of being scams? OK, then please provide the data/proof of your claims.

The burden of proof is on you, not me.

And after a week you failed to find any proof whatsoever of a "mixing site" actually performing a privacy operation on the deposits of their users in the process of stealing them. Since you clearly know that "mixing sites" are scams, why do you continue to pretend there is a chance they are providing a service?

Simply answer the question Wind_FURY: Since you clearly know that "mixing sites" scams provide absolutely no privacy whatsoever in the process of stealing the deposits of their users, why do you continue to pretend there is a chance they are providing a service or performing a job?
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
But the burden of proof on what? That my opinion is that there are centralized mixers that accept the trade-offs of being centralized/be a trusted-third-party to do what their service is supposed to do?

Yes, you've had a week to justify your opinion with a single shred of proof that supports it:

BUT like you posted in your post before, you have no data to the claim that any/all centralized mixers are mere wallets that do not mix their users' outputs. No data = no proof = ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The burden of proof is on you, not me.

You accuse ALL of them of being scams? OK, then please provide the data/proof of your claims.

The burden of proof is on you, not me.

And after a week you failed to find any proof whatsoever of a "mixing site" actually performing a privacy operation on the deposits of their users in the process of stealing them. Since you clearly know that "mixing sites" are scams, why do you continue to pretend there is a chance they are providing a service?


I wasn't accusing any specific centralized mixer of not doing their job, it was you, and you're asking me for proof?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm not even accusing you of spreading FUD, or being wrong because you might also be right. I was simply asking for practical/readable and verifiable data for fairness sake, and for the sake of the topic. Because if no one could provide the data, then the claims will always be open to debate.
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
Positive feedback from a Wasabi user:

Quote
The more I use Wasabi Wallet, the more I appreciate the brilliance of the talented individuals who came together to create such a thoughtful solution for those of us who value privacy. While I am not wealthy or have anything to hide, I simply prefer that online retailers don’t know the full extent of my assets in my main wallet.

Having been involved in the crypto space for about eight years, I initially mined ETH until it transitioned to proof-of-stake. That’s when Bitcoin caught my attention. Although I’ve read extensively about BTC, using Wasabi Wallet has truly challenged me to dive deeper into Bitcoin. Over the past two to three months, dedicating over ten hours a day to learning, I still feel like there’s so much more to discover about Wasabi.

I want to express my heartfelt gratitude for all your hard work and dedication. Thank you for empowering users like me with such a remarkable tool!

Comments like these remind you that fighting the army of "mixing site" scammers here on Bitcointalk.org is worth it. Wasabi Wallet unlocks privacy for Bitcoin and freedom for the entire world, no mission could possibly be more important.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
Here's the research paper proving the coinjoin protocol turns your coins completely anonymous: https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/206.pdf

Here's the open source code implementing that protocol that you can verify yourself: https://github.com/WalletWasabi/WalletWasabi
Research paper can be faked and neither you or me can write Code so that page is pretty much useless to both of us,

I am not entirely versed in cryptography research papers although I study the WabiSabi whitepaper from time to time, but this paper definitely isn't a fake (unlike low-effort papers created by memecoin developers by comparison, if any).

Although since I can't demonstrate how any of the theorems work, I can't actually prove that, but it's commonly accepted to be the case.
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
Research paper can be faked and neither you or me can write Code so that page is pretty much useless to both of us,

Sounds like a skill issue.
hero member
Activity: 882
Merit: 1873
Crypto Swap Exchange
Here's the research paper proving the coinjoin protocol turns your coins completely anonymous: https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/206.pdf

Here's the open source code implementing that protocol that you can verify yourself: https://github.com/WalletWasabi/WalletWasabi
Research paper can be faked and neither you or me can write Code so that page is pretty much useless to both of us,

I don't know how to write code, my only pull request to Wasabi simply adds a single line of text to warn users not to forget their passwords: https://github.com/WalletWasabi/WalletWasabi/pull/12207
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
Prove Coin Joins actually do something for our Privacy and are have not already been cracked by Authorities yet, which would render them useless.

Here's the research paper proving the coinjoin protocol turns your coins completely anonymous: https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/206.pdf

Here's the open source code implementing that protocol that you can verify yourself: https://github.com/WalletWasabi/WalletWasabi
hero member
Activity: 882
Merit: 1873
Crypto Swap Exchange
And after a week you failed to find any proof whatsoever of a "mixing site" actually performing a privacy operation on the deposits of their users in the process of stealing them.
You could spin that how ever you want.  Typical Kruw word play.

Prove Coin Joins actually do something for our Privacy and are have not already been cracked by Authorities yet, which would render them useless.
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
But the burden of proof on what? That my opinion is that there are centralized mixers that accept the trade-offs of being centralized/be a trusted-third-party to do what their service is supposed to do?

Yes, you've had a week to justify your opinion with a single shred of proof that supports it:

BUT like you posted in your post before, you have no data to the claim that any/all centralized mixers are mere wallets that do not mix their users' outputs. No data = no proof = ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The burden of proof is on you, not me.

You accuse ALL of them of being scams? OK, then please provide the data/proof of your claims.

The burden of proof is on you, not me.

And after a week you failed to find any proof whatsoever of a "mixing site" actually performing a privacy operation on the deposits of their users in the process of stealing them. Since you clearly know that "mixing sites" are scams, why do you continue to pretend there is a chance they are providing a service?
sr. member
Activity: 1680
Merit: 379
Top Crypto Casino
But the burden of proof on what? That my opinion is that there are centralized mixers that accept the trade-offs of being centralized/be a trusted-third-party to do what their service is supposed to do?

Every custodial mixer is closed source and therefore we really don’t know if they are doing what they are claiming to do. Many of them don’t make a serious effort to provide users with privacy and are just clumsily moving coins around between wallets without any concern that they might be leaking information that may potentially deanonymize their customers. Mixers are really just a cash grab foremost, rather than a privacy service.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
You accuse ALL of them of being scams? OK, then please provide the data/proof of your claims.

The burden of proof is on you, not me.


But the burden of proof on what? That my opinion is that there are centralized mixers that accept the trade-offs of being centralized/be a trusted-third-party to do what their service is supposed to do?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Because I didn't accuse centralized mixers and centralized coordinators for not doing their jobs, although I understand that it's possible for some of them to be operated by bad actors.
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
You accuse ALL of them of being scams? OK, then please provide the data/proof of your claims.

The burden of proof is on you, not me.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
I understand, you already posted about that.

Then why are you still pretending like there's a chance these scamming sites are providing a service?


Ser, please get the whole context. You accuse ALL of them of being scams? OK, then please provide the data/proof of your claims. I'm not trying to offend you. I'm merely trying to be objective and impartial to everyone in the topic because I truly believe that there are no absolutes. Merely trade-offs.

In fact, when Wasabi Wallet's developers decided to work with a blockchain analytics company to filter "bad outputs", I was the only person who wasn't from Wasabi who posted that it's a mere trade-off and that it should be an understandable decision.
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
I understand, you already posted about that.

Then why are you still pretending like there's a chance these scamming sites are providing a service?
Pages:
Jump to: