Quote from: arabspaceship123 on November 06, 2023, 12:36:40 PM

It's the question ppl can't answer because taint can't be boxed in one category. It's meaning isn't the same from one govt to another. Wouldn't it start a different trouble if taint free UTXO's were getting rejected for being naughty by zkSNACKs but a few govts declared them taint free.

They can't define taint so how's any one else going to understand it?

Quote from: Pmalek on November 02, 2023, 05:48:27 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 30, 2023, 11:08:28 AM

Then that's why, layer your mixing/tumbling with other centralized mixers, then the Lightning Network, then back to onchain, then make attempts to mix them further in Wasabi's CoinJoin/centralized coordinator in order to get that "clean, safe, government-approved" UTXOs that are free from "taint".

Except the fact that you aren't getting that. There is no standard to measure and determine made up taint. Governments don't like the pursuit of privacy, so you can't use government-approved and taint-free UTXOs in the same sentence as mixing or coinjoining. Additionally, coins from mixers and coinjoins may trigger alarms on some services and not on others, proving again that they are making up their definitions of taint as they go.

For the context of what we are discussing and debating in the topic, "tainted" UTXOs are those that came from the Dark Markets, and those that have been marked by any government entity as "bad UTXOs" and UTXOs stored in sanctioned public addresses that merchants and services shouldn't accept.

In your post, you're describing a false positive, and I already said before that there should be a way for users to refute the evaluation of blockchain analysis companies, or else we would merely be believing in whatever they say.