Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 13, 2023, 12:46:29 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 13, 2023, 09:18:50 AM

Then what's the point of having to check them for "taint"? Would UTXOs received from a Dark Market dealer pass through their coordinator?

If Coinfirm deems this "naughty", it will be rejected. The point of discriminating against some "naughty coins" is to create the perfect environment so that large corporations like Binance can justify requesting all that ton of KYC info when you make an account, which in addition is extremely useful for a surveillance state.

How can users be sure that centralized mixers themselves don't use Coinfirm or the services of blockchain analysis companies? To be frank, I believe it's merely a trade-off for mixers to protect themselves from the state, but like you posted it could be an attack vector.

They should inform the user, no?

Quote

Quoting myself:

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 03, 2023, 09:06:03 PM

Blockchain analysis companies are the practice of "being guilty until proven innocent". Living under a state which can put me behind the bars because I might be involved with some activity, with absolutely no scientific evidence is totalitarian. Literally everyone in the blockchain is potentially involved in some illegal activity.

But it's just genius. They've convinced the world that it's needed. A weapon to intrude into people's liberty and having them voluntarily handing it over is just the ultimate weapon.

Then the question is for Kruw and the developers of mixers that use the services of blockchain analysis companies. If all UTXOs are "guilty until proven innocent", how can users refute evaluations that are "false-positives"?