Whoever stood for the childish arguments Kruw had back then looks pretty silly now when you have
Kruw himself running an uncensored coordinator, which is doing the exact opposite of what he said himself, which was that Censorship is the morally correct thing to do.
Oh, yes. The censorship chapter of this saga, unending. "You shouldn't coinjoin if you're a criminal" <-- they've literally
said that. If you read that post, you can see Max arguing that Bitcoin is permissioned, and you can send "bad coins" only if you own hashrate or bribe a miner. And we're supposed to trust the skills of these clowns.
Oh, and since I've sent you to that post already, read my favorite part:
There’s a lot of nuance here, but in general what we can say is: yes—that is another precedent that UTXOs are not fungible, that there is metadata associated to UTXOs that are outside of the consensus implementation. And that’s just super difficult because now you’re gonna have different surveillance companies that have different blacklists and different risk scores associated to it. And now you have competing soft forked clients, basically, that reach a different consensus of which coins are good and which coins are bad. And well—there’s no solution to it.
There is no solution to which coins are good and bad, but let's buy chain analysis crap data, but let's grant them control over who gets to coinjoin and who doesn't.
