Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 10:15:53 AM

Quote from: NotATether on Today at 09:53:40 AM

Darn it. I completely forgot about liquidity. It's not like anyone wants to put their personal funds on the line to run a coordinator.

It's not so much that, but you need other users to coinjoin too. I could spin up a coordinator right now and load it up with 100 outputs ready to be coinjoined. Anyone using it would obtain zero privacy since their outputs could be completely de-anonymized by process of elimination.

This.
For the moment being you should assume every liquid coordinator is in reality a “three letter agency honeypot” to break your privacy.

Regarding the Wasabi debacle, please remember that the risk in a centralised company were clear even to the founders on day one.

I tend to separate responsibilities from Wasabi the software developers, zkSNACKs (the company running the coordinators) and Wasabi the wallet.

Wasabi is an open software project funded by zkSNACKs. This same company appeared to run the default coordinator.
Having a “default” choice for coordinator was a good choice for privacy, as this maximised liquidity to an “honest” coordinator, but was a poor choice for the resilience of the system to legal threat. This trade off was very clear from the beginning both to the developers and zkSNACKs (Riccardo Masutti confirmed that on a live cast in the outbreak of the news).

Wallet developers, were in any way agreeing to the implementation of those techniques which are a “choice” of the coordinator. The wallet itself, as a front-end do not implement any of those.

So, while I condemn zkSNACKs, I cannot blame no para and the other developers who gave us such a great product for many years.