Quote from: 20kevin20 on Today at 04:06:51 AM

Quote from: Kruw on June 21, 2023, 04:49:31 PM

If you think you can prove my claim about Bitcoin privacy being solved by the WabiSabi coinjoin protocol wrong, then try to link the outputs to any inputs of this transaction yourself: https://mempool.space/tx/d465033214fd2309dcce5a90c45fcaa788aa4394ee36debe07aad8d8a37907d2

LOL you’re seriously doing this? Should I give you my IBAN as a proof banks solve fiat privacy?

It’s not about me linking outputs to inputs. I’m a criminal. Your blockchain analysis partner tells you to deny participation of my UTXOs in the next CoinJoin. By default, you’re only allowing those you trust. This shrinks the list of possible identities behind UTXOs to as many as you like.

Explain how in your world list-shrinking censorship solves privacy.

Use case for your new partnership and censorship: when they want to find out what I’m doing with my money, insert decoy UTXOs, deny everyone else’s UTXOs for just 1 round of CoinJoin and allow only me in for that round, together with your decoys. Now I get an “unlinkable” CoinJoin you and your partner knows everything about. Censorship solves privacy, everyone!

The WabiSabi coinjoin protocol is uniquely resilient against the sort of Sybil attack you just described, I explain how a malicious coordinator can be detected by clients here: https://twitter.com/Kruwed/status/1643265823409143810