Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 01:09:41 PM

For the sake of the discussion, o_e_l_e_o has helped people care about their privacy and improve it more than anyone I know of in this board. He always seems to distinguish misinformation and cares to share his thoughts in a simple, yet comprehensible and constructive manner.

It really is one of the worst accusations one can make in this board. He is a treasure for bitcointalk, and for Bitcoin as a whole.

o_e_l_e_o can't help but deceive people with false claims that WabiSabi coinjoins are "easily traced":

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on November 14, 2023, 12:51:38 PM

Another example of a Wasabi coinjoin completely failing: https://nitter.cz/ErgoBTC/status/1723700744576971012#m

25 stolen BTC were coinjoined in Wasabi (wait, I thought their blacklisting was supposed to prevent that? Roll Eyes

), and has been easily traced to a variety of exchanges. Oh, and some of the stolen coins were split off as "toxic change" and combined with presumably KYCed coins from a Binance account: https://nitter.cz/coinableS/status/1723806321441710412#m. You know, the same thing Kruw has been telling us is impossible with Wasabi. Cheesy

I'm sure we'll be treated to the usual litany of excuses, but the bottom line is that Wasabi does not work.

Yet, when it comes to other wallets that don't eliminate common input ownership or traceable change, o_e_l_e_o claims that it is IMPOSSIBLE to say where the Bitcoin ended up where if a transaction has 2 outputs:

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on August 29, 2023, 08:11:21 AM

As I've said before, blockchain analysis is based on guesswork.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on July 06, 2022, 09:45:44 AM

Bitcoin, by design, is fungible. As soon as a transaction has more than one output, it is impossible to say which bitcoin ended up where. It cannot be done. Everyone who claims to be able to do it is guessing, lying, or both. All blockchain analysis companies, all centralized exchanges, and now Wasabi too (which is particularly hilarious considering they base their whole existence on coinjoins). They have made up a system based on guesswork, and have successfully marketed it for their own profit to large parts of this space as some infallible law. It is not, and the only way to get rid of it is for the community to agree to shun companies and entities which support and enforce this made up nonsense.

As soon as a transaction has been made, it is impossible to say that those coins haven't changed hands. As soon as a transaction has more than out output, it is impossible to say which bitcoin ended up where (and indeed, "which" bitcoin doesn't even exist at a protocol level). It is trivially easily to fool many of the heuristics blockchain analysis uses, such as script type matching to identify the change output, or inputs being spent together to identify co-ownership. And not just to fool them as in "they can't draw any conclusions", but to fool them as in "they actively draw the incorrect conclusion". And of course one incorrect conclusion leads them to build more and more incorrect conclusions on top, building an entire chain of nonsense which they then pass off as irrefutable fact.

I've said for a long time that blockchain analysis is provable nonsense with no scientific basis. It seems even the directors of blockchain analysis companies agree with that. But of course they will continue to peddle their nonsense to centralized exchanges and governments alike because it pays handsomely to do so.

I did a small experiment some time ago regarding blockchain analysis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395035.msg59905002#msg59905002

One particular piece of blockchain analysis software put a significant amount of coins in the wallet of various centralized exchanges in one of the categories of scams, hacks, or blacklists. Obviously the blockchain analysis software being used by these exchanges did not classify these coins in this manner, otherwise they wouldn't have accepted those coins. The fact that two different pieces of software can come to completely different conclusions about the exact same coins should be more than enough to tell you that blockchain analysis is made up trash.

One of the core principles of any piece of science is that its results are repeatable and independently verifiable. If I come up with a process to say, isolate gold from an alloy, then I publish my methods and other people perform the same steps, end up with the same results, and verify my process works. If I come up with a process to say some coins are tainted, and other people do the same thing and end up with completely different results, then my process is bullshit.

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 01:09:41 PM

- Yes, privacy from Wasabi coinjoins appears to be questionable, because there are lots of instances of people claiming they were de-anonymized, and there are crystal clear signs of address reuse.

Privacy from Wasabi coinjoins is not questionable. No one has provided proof of anyone being deanonymized. Your misinformation about "address reuse" has already been completely debunked by Peter Todd:

Quote from: Kruw on November 06, 2023, 09:01:02 PM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on November 06, 2023, 08:51:04 PM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on April 13, 2023, 05:28:03 PM

Wasabi coinjoins reusing addresses, leading to users being doxxed: https://nitter.it/ErgoBTC/status/1585671294783311872
Wasabi coinjoins using the same address on both sides of a transaction: https://mempool.space/tx/af50a27691c0f0b7b626cddb74445a0e26bb6ed7b045861067326ea173bc17d0 (address bc1qft2uze947wtdvvhdqtx00c8el954y6ekxjk73h)

Didn't you hear Peter Todd? https://youtu.be/oPNFdhZUGmk?t=162