Topic: 'Wasabigeddon' article discussion (it supposedly solves fungibility) - page 4. (Read 1027 times)

I disagree.  Would at this point not trust anything they say, because their answers have been conflicting and evasive many times before and continue to be that way.  They seem so full of themselves and now seem to think of themselves as 'saviors' of Bitcoin.  BS.  And if I was nopara, as soon as I realized they wanted me kneeling to whatever the authorities were putting pressure on him with I would have backed off or fought against it.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Dollar or euro or yen bills are fungible by definition, bitcoin is also fungible, as you mentioned there is no problem here to be fixed, if somebody is refusing to acknowledge that your one dollar bill is a one dollar bill that's not the problem of the bill itself and it can't be solved unless you slap the guy till it stops seeing traces of cocaine on your bill.

If the fungibility of coins would be a problem, Wasabi is technically not "solving" it, all it does is circumvent it.
Also, I don't understand why they are mixing in this article a lot the notions of privacy and fungibility..

If I were to exchange coins with o_e_l_e_o we (probably! ) wouldn't care much about the history of those coins nor would we demand KYC from each other, thus our privacy is safe, and the fungibility is not a problem, besides we can safely use a mixer to erase the links between our coins and wallets. If you deal with CEX then your privacy is gone so what is left of it?


I liked nopara73 take on that, he basically sad that only coins coming out are nonfungible, so their coins are better than your coins, but that's a fungibility issue, it's something they are "fixing". Again, you still have your privacy, or how he put it, but you don't have the fungibility, which by all standards, it's quite useless.

Eh, at least he was (mostly, see o_e_l_e_o's post) honest in the blog post. I certainly have a good understanding of that kind of "developer hell".

That still doesn't excuse the blacklisting decision though - not that Wasabi can do anything about it, the ball is firmly in zkSNACKs' park.

I'm slowly starting to believe that nopara73 is becoming more and more of "the man in the hot-seat", not because of anything he's doing though [indeed, there is *not much* he can do about this anyway], it's more like a label being put on him. He's being treated as a boogeyman of sorts.

More and more I think wallets that provide services beyond just being wallets should be avoided.
Not just the Wasabi mixing but with 'in app trading' or just about anything else. Because now they become more interested in protecting that which generates income instead of just being a wallet.
Which, can and will bring up conflicts of interest as they want to do "A" but to make a profit on the service they have to do "B" and the lawyers / management are worried about "C".

-Dave

Thank you for yet another great thread, n0nce.  Happy to see this being discussed in the Bitcoin Discussion sub-board, although it seems like not too many on this side of the forum are interested in the issue.

I think Wasabi is slowly becoming a honeypot of some sort.  The scariest part is them using doublethought as a tactic to make us think their actions are for our well being.  To them, this is how it is.  Fungible is non-fungible.  Discriminating is fair.  Spying is the solution to privacy.

Creepy as hell if you ask me.

Making a privacy tool more intuitive to use does not make it more private and does not enhance someone's privacy in my eyes.  If anything, I have lately ran away from anything promising to be more 'intuitive' and 'convenient' because there is always a huge downside I may be missing.  See everything used in households nowadays that are 'Smart'.  I think we could say Wasabi is turning 'Smart' as well, as to me anything called that way is automatically a threat to privacy.

It is now evident that Wasabi has turned to the enemy boat and left ours.  Not only that, but they are actively hitting our boat and calling themselves the saviors.  The fact that they are calling their new blacklisting 'solution' the only way Bitcoin can stay fungible makes them the villain and there is no way anyone could tell me they are taking part in revolutionizing what Bitcoin is and providing us the only solution to something that did not even need a solution in the first place, until Blockchain Analysis companies appeared and the artificial term 'taint' was pushed forward heavily by Exchanges and, probably, Governments.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Nah man, your analysis is already on point. And thanks for raising awareness to this issue about wasabi, as i think i first read it from your thread. There’s nothing to understand here and no excuses or justifications.

Companies should grow some courage again and maybe work in favour of their customers, instead of harming their customers again and again. It has already been shown that Bitcoin is barely used by criminals and doing so, would just leave a lot of evidence for the police forever. So what’s the point of all these measures. We don’t need blacklists or anything else, as we have law enforcement already and we don’t need private companies overreaching their responsibilities. They’re basically introducing „solutions“ that should solve some 0.1% probability scenarios, but affect 99.9% of users negatively in the process. Also when did we switch from innocent until proven guilty, to guilty until proven innocent? With all these new measures private institutions are introducing, where the customer needs to prove they’re innocent to a non-judiciary institution?

Bitcoin is already perfectly fungible, as each unit is the same as the other. The problem are private companies that start to differentiate between sats. So they’re the ones hurting the fungibility artificially. And are also violating censorship resistance. It’s just obvious and no reality-denying marketing talk will change that. Only thing we can do is stop using these services now, because it’s not really a fungibility problem. It’s a private companies overreaching their responsibilities problem and a fungibility problem only exists on their services, after introducing them themselves.

They can simply ask their customers if they want these things to be introduced, instead of guessing and pushing things down people throats and then selling it as some revolutionary solution. Things are really not that complicated.

As I mentioned in the other thread, although I take many issues with this article, this is what bothers me the most:

This is simply a lie, and there is no debating that this is a lie. You cannot state you have solved the issue of some bitcoin being discriminated against while you are actively discriminating against some bitcoin.

Bitcoin fungibility is only an issue in the first place because centralized blockchain analysis companies have succeed in convincing a bunch of people that some coins are tainted based on completely arbitrary and provably false assumptions. For Wasabi to claim they have solved this issue, when they are complicit in the very existence of it, is laughable. They would do far more to help bitcoin fungibility by not directly paying blockchain analysis companies to label your coins as tainted in the first place.

In my mind, Wasabi and their team are rapidly moving from "hopelessly misguided" to "actively malicious".

After o_e_l_e_o brought to my attention the following article, I started reading it and would like to hear what you guys think about some statements being made in the preface of the article.
https://nopara73.medium.com/wasabigeddon-9c63de88c1a1
It is written by nopara73, Wasabi CEO, who is also a member of this forum, so he may even answer himself, which would be optimal.


If you missed it, we have a whole thread about it here:
The default Wasabi Wallet coordinator will start censoring "illegal" UTXOs

And I created a kind of 'open letter' with 24 questions, which they replied to; discussion page about it is here:
Wasabi blacklisting update - open letter / 24 questions discussion thread

---

PSA: 'Taint' is basically the opposite of 'fungibility'. Saying that one coin is not like another is what we consider calling it 'tainted', and 'non-fungible'.