allow yourself to consider new information.
That's what I'm doing by directing sentences at you that have question marks at the end of them. Please provide such information for me to consider instead of this passive aggressive fortune cookie stuff, we were making progress:
Nothing? A coordinator is not a policeman nor a jury?
No one claimed you had to be an agent of the government to help defend the innocent against criminals.
Your worldview is that "when someone infringes on another person's freedom, there must be a mechanism in place to protect that individual if they cannot defend themselves":
When someone infringes on another person's freedom, there must be a mechanism in place to protect that individual if they cannot defend themselves.
Then you follow up that the mechanism zkSNACKs implemented to accommodate your worldview isn't sufficient enough since coinjoin coordinators are non custodial and can't confiscate the coins:
The coins aren't returned back to the victims, and likely never will.
So my question still remains: What additional mechanisms (given your worldview about defending victims that you explained already) should zkSNACKS put in place?
So what sort of mechanisms should zkSNACKs put in place to defend these victims from these criminals then?
Not self-custodial during the trade, but it minimizes trust.
"Minimizes trust" is not the same thing as "Self custodial". Self custody means you have unilateral exit with no trusted third party. Owning 1 of 2 keys in a multisig does not provide this (without a presigned redemption transaction + timelock, like Lightning).
"Yes, BHC, people do choose to forfeit their custody in exchange for this service, but I refuse to ever accept this reality."
My offer from above still stands, please respond to it:
Hey BlackHatCoiner, my wallet is now a "mixing site" service, send me your coins and I won't charge you any fees.
