I asked him about this whole issue of Wasabi not allowing certain UTXOs to be used in their CoinJoin service. He gave me a "plausible" response, essentially saying that the banned UTXOs would be those directly linked to wrongdoing (my wording), like for big BTC thefts, etc. He said it would be uncommon (again, my wording not his).
I doubt it and it does not make it sound any better.
Good and bad or wrongdoing as you say is subjective. If the one who decides what is good and bad has the power to ban the bad and does it, it now becomes an authority. The more someone tries to explain how censoring is not bad, the more skeptical I am and the more I start to believe it is VERY bad.
I was thinking the other day about their censorship-by-compliance and that maybe the real censorship will not be as bad as it sounds. Maybe they added this censorship just so authorities let them be. But that is not good either, because at the end of the day what we all probably preferred is that they fought it rather than comply to it.
And say they truly only banned 'bad' UTXO's like those directly related to large thefts. Will they NOT ban yours too if you are labeled a suspect by the authority deciding who was doing the wrong? You see, this will become very similar to the 'money laundering' excuse. Ban just the 'bad' UTXO's. Then start questioning and banning you too because you are suspect.
I will never buy this 'we are banning just the bad' excuse. Because after all, it is an excuse for censorship and censorship can not be excused.
-
Regards,
PrivacyG