Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 02:30:42 PM

Quote from: Kruw on Today at 02:01:07 PM

Most people would agree it is unethical for you to buy the stolen car.

But I'd have the freedom to choose. There would be no coordinator who would enforce this moral view upon me.

You misunderstood the example. The used car dealer is the coordinator in the metaphor.

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 02:30:42 PM

And to be honest, I don't care about the history of the stuff I buy, just as I don't care about the history of the cash I hold, or the history of the components of everything I purchase.

Saying "I didn't care that the customer told me he stole it, I'm just trying to make money" probably won't satisfy the victims of the theft when they see you have their stolen car.

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 02:30:42 PM

Quote from: Kruw on Today at 02:01:07 PM

Have you considered that the honest users in the coinjoin transaction you coordinate don't want Stalin, SBF, or Chainanalysis to participate either?

What a pity, but Bitcoin being fungible will be my response. However, I'll happily redirect them to Wasabi since they don't go well with fungibility. They just have to pay a few bucks to have themselves spied on by chain analysis, but it's worth it!

My question wasn't rhetorical, it's an actual attack that coordinators have to defend against for a coinjoin to succeed. If honest users block Stalin from coinjoining by refusing to sign, the coordinator has to ban them in order for the coinjoin to proceed. The coordinator has to choose between which of their users they have to censor: Stalin, or Anti-Stalin vigilantes/Anti-Stalin victims. The coordinator does not have the option to not censor anyone and still have the coinjoin complete.

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 02:30:42 PM

Quote from: Kruw on Today at 02:01:07 PM

All of these actions you listed are immoral regardless of where and when they occurred

No, they are not. There are cultures which don't treat what I wrote as unethical, and in the past, most of what I said was acceptable. You yourself speculated above that most people would agree it's unethical to buy stolen stuff. Because ethics is purely subjective.

Ethics is not subjective. Ethics is objective. It doesn't make a different what a local or historical culture does, because entire cultures can be immoral.

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 02:30:42 PM

Quote from: Kruw on Today at 02:01:07 PM

Since Bitcoin is censorship resistant, if I were a miner, I would have no power to deny Sam's coinjoin transactions unless I controlled 51% of the hashpower.

Yes, you would. You could just avoid including his transactions in the candidate block. The transactions would confirm at some point without doubt, but you could decide to not be the person who did it.

[/quote]

Exactly. A miner cannot deny the coinjoin without 51% of the hashpower, he can only ignore it. Coordinators, however, can deny the input from being registered to a coinjoin at all.

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 02:30:42 PM

Quote from: Kruw on Today at 02:01:07 PM

So you'll shut up if the website is updated to say that "privacy should be preserved at all times unless you violate someone else's human rights"?

No. You also need to clarify that you don't see yourselves as just a privacy tool, but as an Internet court, and will censor in certain cases. That covers it.

The statement I wrote does clarify that. So you're satisfied?