Thank you, n0nce for the effort. I truly appreciate it. So many wrong things with their answer I could not wrap my head around it.
We do not care who you are and what you do with your bitcoins! We don't want to know. Unfortunately, some people do collect data, attach it to bitcoin addresses and make decisions based on that information.
We don’t want to do any chain surveillance ourselves, so we would rather just buy that information from others.
We do not care who you are and what you are doing in life. Unfortunately, some people care who you are. We do not murder ourselves, so we would rather just pay a hit man to do the job.
This explanation does not make it in ANY way better than I thought it is before their reply.
The company is getting in trouble and harassed because apparently some of the users of our coordinator are so-called “criminals”, according to the people keeping up these databases.
We are exercising our right as a company to choose not to serve those people who could get us in trouble and the ones whom we wouldn’t want to support for ethical reasons. This includes known thieves like politicians.
First off. If you are choosing whether to serve someone or not based on harassment, then it is not 'exercising your right'. A right to serve or not is when you choose one or the other. When you are harassed to make a decision, that is enforced.
And then I go back to what I said in the other thread. I am well aware some politicians are thieves. But here is what I would call a conflict initiated by powerful politicians and figures where as a small politician you can get screwed by just one bribe towards these 'people keeping up these databases'. If there was a system to decide whether you are a criminal or not by 100% accuracy, it would be one thing. This system can easily be brought to discrepancy between powerful and less powerful Elites.
If you knew a pedophile/murderer was eating at your restaurant, would you serve him? Especially if serving him gets you in trouble? Basically, are you willing to sacrifice yourself and your restaurant for him?
If my restaurant promised to be the best and only solution for privacy while eating without discrepancy then what I would do is either change what my restaurant promises or abolish the idea of owning a restaurant. We are living in an increasingly authoritarian world where you have to make sacrifices that put you in one boat or the other. By blacklisting, Wasabi put themselves in the authoritarian boat by leaving ours, turning to the enemy and sacrificing their own beliefs and promises for monetary gain.
Your answers are very conflicting. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. But this is what they said. We do not care who you are but we decided to work with a company instead who does. We do not like censorship and all that crap but we are exercising our right to choose who to serve or not. In fact, would you serve a bad guy if you were us?
Pick a side. If you do not want censorship, why are you censoring? If you do not like spying on users, why have you collaborated with someone who does it for you? Because in my world and set of mind, if you are doing what you say you do not like doing then you either blatantly lied all along or you are doing it all just for the monetary gains! And what frustrates me even more is what you said in the answer for the third question. 'we feel like Wasabi Wallet is the best way to improve privacy within Bitcoin'. How is it the best way to improve privacy when you said yourself that you had to make changes you do not like to the way Wasabi works?
Hopefully all users, wallets and services won't have to “consult a centralized blacklist before accepting bitcoin”. But it’s their choice if they want to discriminate against a certain coin, user or service. That’s part of the freedom of association if it's their decision. If this would be mandated by authority, it would be bad. But that’s not the case in our blacklisting, like I explained in the first answer.
This definitely does not make things better for me. You already said you are being harassed to exclude certain UTXO's out of your wallet, you are working with someone who spies on users.
In the answer to the first question, you said this. 'If you knew a pedophile/murderer was eating at your restaurant, would you serve him? Especially if serving him gets you in trouble?'. Then in the answer to the seventh question you said this. 'we dont care to become martyrs by serving thieves'. Tell me again why you would NOT blacklist a 'criminal' by 'exercising your right to serve someone' when you are being told they are definitely a criminal. I repeat. If you are being harassed to do something, it is NOT exercising your right!
I can not express how frustrated I am after reading just a small part of your answers. You are actually avoiding to properly answer by telling us it is fine for now since this is not a mandated blacklist and it is your right to choose whether to have an UTXO go through or not but you choose to not be 'martyrs by serving thieves'. So you are going to censor everything this great spying company tells you to, just put it like that!
We have not said that we would be buying services from the Chainalysis company. This is, again, projecting/assuming. We are going to buy info from a chain analysis company, but not from Chainalysis. We are not asking them which inputs we can include in a coinjoin, but what they know about these inputs.
Oh, right. You are not working with the police. You are working with the authorities, which makes it SO MUCH different, right?
You said you do not care who we are and what we are doing with our Bitcoins. Then what the f*ck are you doing by asking this chain analysis company what they know about the inputs? Not caring at its finest?
Without privacy, there’s no fungibility. Only after we fix the first one, can we dream of the latter.
And you found the best solution to fix the lack of privacy. Blacklisting! Congratulations, Wasabi.
I am not even going to bother continuing to read the rest of the answers. They are calling us stupid right in our faces. F*ck this, I am not having it.
-
Regards,
PrivacyG