Quote from: NotATether on Today at 04:44:18 PM

...
That still doesn't excuse the blacklisting decision though - not that Wasabi can do anything about it, the ball is firmly in zkSNACKs' park.
I'm slowly starting to believe that nopara73 is becoming more and more of "the man in the hot-seat", not because of anything he's doing though [indeed, there is *not much* he can do about this anyway], it's more like a label being put on him. He's being treated as a boogeyman of sorts.

Wait a minute; are zkSNACKS and Wasabi really this separate entities? I was under the assumption that they're one and the same thing. zkSNACKS is just the company behind Wasabi, no? And nopara73 is zkSNACKS' CEO - so I don't think it's wrong calling him the 'boogeyman', if he's literally the head of all this.

They could definitely be more transparent about the project / company structure, but https://zksnacks.com/ uses Wasabi's logo as favicon, and it says 'zkSNACKs' flagship product is a privacy oriented Bitcoin wallet, called Wasabi Wallet.'
Soo, in my eyes: zkSNACKs = Wasabi = nopara73. (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

Quote from: stompix on Today at 05:04:52 PM

I liked nopara73 take on that, he basically sad that only coins coming out are nonfungible, so their coins are better than your coins, but that's a fungibility issue, it's something they are "fixing". Again, you still have your privacy, or how he put it, but you don't have the fungibility, which by all standards, it's quite useless.

Good point: by creating 'fungible / private / [whatever] Wasabi coins' that are somehow different from all other coins, they are actually introducing non-fungibility and firmly plant this idea in their users' heads (which is the only location taint exists).

Quote from: DooMAD on Today at 09:53:02 PM

I'm definitely late to the party on this one. It's almost as though Wasabi is fuelled on some weird combination of hypocrisy and saviour complex. It's hard to make sense of. The way I'm reading it is something along the lines of:

"Government censorship is bad. Our censorship will help us stay in the government's good books. This will allow us to help others avoid government censorship, which is worse than our censorship."

Am I close? Or does that sound even more stupid than what they're actually saying?

Thanks for chiming in! I always appreciate someone joining into a topic and giving their take / understanding; especially since this article left me a bit puzzled. But yes, you put it very nicely. That's exactly how it sounds like...