If anything, getting banned by zkSNACKs is an otherwise unknowable advantage for the blacklisted user because now they are notified that at least one party has claimed their coins are involved in suspicious activity.
Ooft. That didn't take long to go from "censorship is harmless" to now "censorship is good".
What a clown show.
I used the word "harmless", but where did I use the word "good"?
I guess we should thank you for your service and sacrifice and give you a medal or something.
I'm sensing more sarcasm. I guess that confirms I must have made an excellent point.
So having a suspicion is enough. One would think that there should be more to it than just suspicion. When zkSNACKs receives a negative evaluation for certain coins by their blockchain analysis partners, do they care about the reasons? For instance, does blockchain analysis present solid evidence, suspicion, or at least a gut feeling that something is not right?
I don't know.