Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 11:13:25 AM

Quote from: Kruw on Today at 10:41:05 AM

In this event, the coordinator should prompt the chain analysis company for proof as to how they are certain these funds are owned by the accused

Still, central point of failure. Even if they are held accountable, it's still a central point of failure, which can make wrong assumptions, assertions, decisions. Treating each coin equally eliminates this drawback.

Central how? We already established that a coordinator can compare the data of multiple competing chain analysis companies?..

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 11:13:25 AM

Quote from: Kruw on Today at 10:41:05 AM

No, it's not a solution to your specific problem, the solution to your specific problem is to simply use a different WabiSabi coordinator

Here comes the question: why would I use software whose developers completely go oppositely to my Bitcoin ideals, with much worse feature (minimum liquidity), at the very moment where developers with better intentions to my ideals work on building Bitcoin mixing without arbitrary ethic borders, in a decentralized fashion? (e.g., JoinMarket)

I'd be impressed if you coordinated a JoinMarket coinjoin that was as private as a WabiSabi coinjoin. Can you give me an example of one?