Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 01:06:24 PM

Quote from: Kruw on Today at 12:37:15 PM

As a coinjoin coordinator, would you deny service to Sam Bankman Fried if he wanted to coinjoin stolen FTX funds?

The answer is no regardless the client. Fungibility means coins are equal. By the same reasoning, Bitcoin miners should deny confirming any transaction coming from Sam's funds, unless approved by some chain analysis company; and yep, at this point we've switched from censorship-resistant cash to pro-censorship, just as the coordinator did.

If you think Sam shouldn't have his coins private, you can freely admit it. I can acknowledge it and respect your opinion to an extent. What I cannot respect is defending someone who's outright lying in the main page that privacy should be preserved at all times, but simultaneously not at all times.

Why would you help Sam hide the stolen money from his victims?

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 01:47:13 PM

Quote from: Kruw on Today at 12:37:15 PM

As a coinjoin coordinator, would you deny service to Sam Bankman Fried if he wanted to coinjoin stolen FTX funds? Or would you make his stolen coins private instead?

Hell, why stop there? If your blockchain analysis buddies don't want to provide services to SBF, then why not petition miners to blacklist his transactions altogether? There has been more than one mining pool in the past which has selectively censored transactions based on a blockchain analysis blacklist, OFAC blacklist, or other such bullshit. Only approved people should be allowed to use bitcoin at all! Congrats, you've just invented a CBDC.

After all, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear, right? Everyone who doesn't comply is a target.

You can fuck right off with your malignant permissioned privacy bullshit.

Sure, I'll approach it from the base layer: As a miner, would you deny service to Sam Bankman Fried if he wanted to coinjoin stolen FTX funds? Or would you make his stolen coins private instead?