Re: Wasabi blacklisting update - open letter / 24 questions discussion thread
⭐ Merited by o_e_l_e_o (4)
It's possible that some Wasabi developers do believe in fungibility and oppose blacklists, but are overruled by a slight majority within the team. I have no idea, I'm just trying to give them a little 'benefit of the doubt' and making sense of this mess they've put themselves in. At the same time, I'm the first to point out issues and as such created the 24 questions and this whole thread, of course.
I'm not sure it's as innocent as you describe it, but I do hope I'm wrong. I'm starting to grow a significant amount of distrust for this development team, and their continued use of the word "fungibility" is starting to sound calculated and sinister. Could it be that they are trying to drive a narrative by saying obviously ignorant things like "fungibility is an essential property of good money"? What is bad money? If it's money it's fungible regardless of how many strippers' thongs they've visited or lines of coke they've ducted. It's neither good nor bad, it's just money.
Bitcoin is fungible with or without Wasabi. They are not assisting in any of the fungibility properties of bitcoin but blacklisting can only hurt. They must know this. I cannot reconcile the idea that they are so skilled as developers, yet so ignorant to not understand the meaning fungibility.
I'm saying it's a possibility. I remember the days Zuckerberg said the users came first. Then, he got rich 
Absolutely. Remember when Brave started and was being hailed as the next big privacy browser. Then ad companies paid them to whitelist their ads, so they did. Then Facebook paid them to let all their trackers through, so they did. Then Binance paid them to inject their code in to the browser, so they did. As soon as most people get offered money, then morals and principles quickly go out the window.Brave is a good example, but to this day I don't know if they truly valued integrity at first, or if was nothing more than a brilliant marketing ploy.
Could it be many of their users don't even know and simply believe the privacy claims?
Absolutely. They make deliberately misleading statements on their documentation which suggests that they are still anti-censorship, while making absolutely no mention whatsoever of their blacklists. They outright lie, such as the statement that they have "solved fungibility". Their website makes absolutely no mention anywhere of censorship, blacklists, blockchain analysis, etc. It is a deliberate campaign of misinformation to keep their users in the dark about what they are actually doing.Agreed, they certainly aren't making a big deal about blacklisting, nor making much of an effort to address the criticism. I think they're hoping that if they just ignore it (us) the whole thing will just go away. Even in the blogpost where they spilled the beans, they gaslight the ramifications by describing it as a "debate" and "for the greater good." I'm sure they're banking on the fact that many people won't know about the blacklist, and that many of those who do won't understand the greater implications. Just look at the other posts on their blog, they still portray themselves as the authority on private use of bitcoin.