Moral principles suggest you to remove that privacy is a fundamental human right and that it should be preserved at all times from your main page, because it's an outright lie if you deny preserving privacy once.
Property rights are also a fundamental human right as well. If you violate the fundamental human rights of others, you lose access to your own human rights.
This is completely contradictory: If the coordinator had no moral principles and just wanted to "make a nice buck"
This is ridiculous, treating each of your clients equally isn't about making a buck, it's about ensuring censorship-resistance.
Clients are absolutely not equal: As a coinjoin coordinator, would you refuse to coinjoin funds from an address known to belong to a chain surveillance company, knowing they are attacking your honest users?
Ethics are subjective.
Moral principles (
"ethics") are objective. They are not localized to a location or to a period of time.
The protocol has no ethics. Transactions don't have a moral score to be valid, because they're resilient to any form of censorship. I'm very disappointed to read that the protocol should enforce someone's moral values, when that someone works on privacy and fungibility.
Censorship resistance is a property of Bitcoin, censorship resistance is not a property transaction coordination.
But really thank you for having the time to discuss with us. Now that I have talked with an individual responsible for Wasabi and have known their intentions in advance, I'll never use it.
I don't see how my support of property rights is considered some sort of sinister intention.
I'm asking you why you would choose to help Sam hide the stolen money from his victims.
Same principles, same answer (although I appreciate having principles that you stick to seems to be a foreign concept to Wasabi devs). If I ran a coinjoin coordinator, I still would not see myself as a moral, ethical, legal, or any other type of authority to start passing judgement on users and enforcing my own personal biases or opinions on users.
But you
ARE the authority since you are the coordinator of the coinjoin:
You have to be the person to tell the victims that you decided to take the immoral action of hiding the money Sam stole from them, which he can then use to further bribe politicians and journalists with.
Furthermore, I would be completely unable to do so since I wouldn't be paying mass surveillance entities for the information necessary to make such judgements in the first place.
You would be completely able to do so, you must already have a ban system in place to prevent attackers from disrupting the coinjoin rounds you are coordinating.
You say you don't want to serve SBF. What about the Canadian truckers? What about Russian citizens? What about whistleblowers? What about journalists? What about opposition political parties, or political dissidents? What about the Tor project? What about bitcoin which isn't fully KYCed? I can provide endless examples. All of these people/entities/things have been targeted by various laws and sanctions in various jurisdictions. Which laws are you going to follow? Where do you draw your completely arbitrary line? How much pressure is required for you to move that completely arbitrary line? I suspect not very much since you willingly started to censor people of your own volition.
Where do you draw the line? Would you allow Joseph Stalin to coinjoin his Bitcoin to disguise the shares of loot paid out to his underling politicians, cops, and soldiers? Or would you perform the necessary step to hide these monsters in the shadows to allow them to blend in with their victims?
And by your logic, then SBF shouldn't be allowed to communicate privately either, since allowing him to do so allows him to continue to hide stolen money. So Tor better start asking for KYC before you are allowed to use it. And we better get a government approved backdoor in to WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Briar, and every other end to end encrypted messaging service. Backdoors in to emails, too. Oh, and definitely ban PGP!
Permissioned privacy is no privacy at all.
You're right: I don't think SBF should be allowed to do anything. He should be chained to a boulder and left in a dungeon until his debts are paid off.