Re: Wasabi blacklisting update - open letter / 24 questions discussion thread
⭐ Merited by n0nce (1)
Even in the blogpost where they spilled the beans, they gaslight the ramifications by describing it as a "debate" and "for the greater good."
Such gaslighting is a recurring theme:It does not come at the cost of privacy of our users and we do care about them. That's exactly why we introduced blacklisting: so we can continue to operate and users can still have privacy using Bitcoin. If we wouldn't care about our users, then we would not have sacrificed our reputation, just shut down the service and nobody would have got any privacy.
Right. "We are spying on you and censoring you because we care." 
What kind of gaslighting bullshit is this?I guess if they're being honest, documentation of Wasabi 2.0 will not include statements such as the deliberately misleading statements you mentioned, anymore.
How convenient that the docs for 2.0 have been under construction this whole time! The one thing which will apparently make it clear that they are blacklisting, anti-privacy, and pro-censorship, but it just happens to not be finished yet. But anyway, let's have a quick look at what is included so far. Specifically, this page: https://github.com/zkSNACKs/WasabiDoc/blob/docs-2.0/docs/why-wasabi/TransactionSurveillanceCompanies.mdQuote
Privacy invasions can lead to damaging or destroying bitcoin fungibility. The aim of bitcoin is to be a decentralized digital currency, but if all users are eventually required to consult centralized blacklists before accepting bitcoin, then its decentralization will be destroyed.
Quote
There appears to be no recourse for someone affected by false positive identification of exchange-disapproved transaction history. This could result in them wrongly having their coins confiscated.
Quote
Transaction surveillance company market themselves as a tool for finding "bad guys", but it's unclear which jurisdiction that applies to. For example, could one day the government of China pressure those companies into marking certain coins as "bad" because they belong to users who disagree with Chinese government policy?
Quote
Transaction surveillance companies rely on heuristics or assumptions when analyzing the blockchain. These heuristics are sometimes not true, for example, the common-input-ownership heuristic is broken by CoinJoin.
Wow. They make some very good arguments about why taint is complete nonsense and blockchain analysis companies are not to be trusted. Still no mention anywhere of the fact that they do the exact opposite of all of this and use your coinjoin fees to pay for blockchain analysis firms to spy on you. The bottom of the page even includes a list of blockchain analysis companies. Perhaps we could open a GitHub issue and ask them to put an asterisk next to the ones they work with.