Re: Petition to remove Wasabi from recommendations of bitcoin.org
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).
I have not "twisted his words" at all, read exactly what he said about 2 output transactions:
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.[/b]
Now read exactly what he said about this 195 output coinjoin transaction:
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?
), 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. 
I'm sure we'll be treated to the usual litany of excuses, but the bottom line is that Wasabi does not work.
25 stolen BTC were coinjoined in Wasabi (wait, I thought their blacklisting was supposed to prevent that?
), 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. I'm sure we'll be treated to the usual litany of excuses, but the bottom line is that Wasabi does not work.
The hypocrisy is off the charts. No lie is too bold for someone who wants to funnel Bitcoins out of open source privacy wallets and into data collecting, coin stealing custodians.
- Lots of people in Twitter are reporting the opposite. So you're claiming they are all lying.
"Lots of people in Twitter" doesn't sound like proof to me.
- 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).
Peter Todd is talking about OUTPUTS being reused in coinjoins:
Quote from: Peter Todd
That's not Wasabi fucking up, that's Wasabi users fucking up. Wasabi, they fundamentally, are not in a position where they can go and prevent people from installing the same seed in multiple wallets at once and using it in multiple wallets at once.
Your attempts to convince people that BIP32 deterministic address generation is a "flaw in coinjoins" is pure deception and you know it.