It's a centralized service, and you're free to criticize. But dishonest? Ser, it's literally there in print. It's definitely a trade-off.
"Trade-off" means you gain something in exchange for sacrificing something else. Coinjoins do not require a user to forfeit custody of their data and their coins, we can confirm that "mixing sites" are scams since they force their users to give up their data and their custody for no benefit.
In the context of trade-offs in my posts, I was trying to make everyone see it from what I believe is zkSNACK's viewpoint.
I'll now add you in my ignore list. I was the only person in the topic who tried to defend Wasabi's trade-off when everyone else was throwing criticisms against you.
I know, the first time you heard about Wasabi you were insisting that it would be a terrible idea to coinjoin since it would include funds from criminals:
Something to think about.
It might be safer to leave them alone. Tumbling with Coinjoin and mixers might mix your coins with the coins of criminals, black hat hackers, and dark market drug dealers.
But think about it, tumblers and coinjoins are not cheap, and who would be willing to pay for them to keep their privacy?
I believe an ordinary user would be digging himself into a bigger hole if he mixes his coins with what usually would be the criminals' coins.
Wasn't there always an open debate about taint and Bitcoin's fungibilty?
Bitcoin may seem fungible within its own protocol,
but external entities are applying “taint” information to coins, making Bitcoin infungible in practice. Most large exchanges are automatically performing risk assessment on incoming customer coins. While it’s easy to claim Bitcoin also has obvious plausible deniability, that does’t matter to Coinbase, Circle, Cash App, etc. They are applying taint with enough confidence to close your account.
https://medium.com/bitcoinerrorlog/bitcoin-is-not-fungible-should-it-be-620a28f3f8b1