I never expressed confidence in blockchain analysis precision.
But zkSNACKs did/does, otherwise why rely on it to provide you with inputs about who can coinjoin and who not? Why use a method to determine non-existent taint using imprecise data and algorithms? How do you not see that you are defending and justifying something flawed you yourself don't believe in?
Of course, it's not exactly surprising to hear a pro-SBF responses from BlackHatCoiner and o_e_l_e_o since they both partner with custodians that steal their money from their users, so they would never deny coinjoin services to their hero and role model Sam Bankman-Fried.
That's just stupid, and no one with half a brain between their ears will believe that. You don't believe it either, so drop the act.
What's being defended here is the fungibility and non-censorship nature of Bitcoin, not someone like SBF.
If someone sends donations in BTC to Ukraine to defend against Russia it proves that Bitcoin works.
If someone else sends BTC to Russia to attack Ukraine, guess what, BTC works again.
If you send your coins to Palestine to defend against Israel, Bitcoin worked.
And finally, if you donate to the Israelis for their war on Palestine, the network again works as it should.
None of what I wrote is politics nor support for one side against the other. Bitcoin isn't supposed to have sides or a party capable of deciding what it can and can't be used for.