He claims 2 outputs makes you "impossible to trace", but then o_e_l_e_o also claims 195 output coinjoins can be traced?
Your urge to twist his words is nearly impressive. Nowhere has he stated that "2 outputs" make you untraceable. What he's argued is that it's impossible to know if the bitcoin changes hands, so it is absolutely unacceptable to base evidence on blockchain analysis.
That doesn't mean that you're "untraceable" (nowhere has he stated that in the quoted post). He merely said that it is impossible to know with confidence if the money changes hands, because blockchain analysis (which you're proudly funding) is flawed.
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
- Lots of people in Twitter are reporting the opposite. So you're claiming they are all lying.
- I have heard Peter Todd, and I agree with allowing inputs to be reused (i.e., if they come from a donation address), but Wasabi has been caught to reusing outputs which is unacceptable, unless you think that every time that happened the user specifically attempted to donate (which as far as I know doesn't happen on the front end, the coinjoin process just starts automatically).