They funded blockchain analysis and introduced blacklist filter in the main coordinator, or as I call it, sold out their users and turned pro-censorship.
Sparrow Wallet completely removed Whirlpool from their client, shouldn't you be outraged that they implemented 100% censorship?
If the answer is "No", then you must recognize that services have no obligation to engage in trade with anyone. If you show up to a fancy club wearing sandals and a swim suit, the bouncer at the door will not let you in, even if you are willing to pay the entry fee. This sort of exclusion is a deliberate business choice that the operator makes on behalf of the other customers who prefer a specific environment or atmosphere.
You can claim that the blacklisting was not on behalf of the customers but on behalf of the operator who wants to legally cover their ass. But this policy presents a business opportunity: I told the critics over and over that anyone can run their own coordinator and provide service for the censored. These critics could have easily charged a lower (or zero) service fee to attract liquidity from the default coordinator.
But they didn't. Instead, they engaged in destroying the reputation of open source software because they didn't like the policy of a company running that software.
Wasabi has become more decentralized, which is beneficial for a privacy protocol.
Unfortunately not, there's a tradeoff. Splitting liquidity among many coordinators reduces the block space efficiency/privacy efficiency compared to liquidity being concentrated with a single coordinator.
Wasabi coinjoins reusing addresses
BlackHatCoiner, didn't you hear 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 prevent people from installing the same seed on multiple wallets at once and using it on multiple wallets at once. It's not reasonable for them to go prevent that. Also, when you talk about address reuse, for instance, if I'm a Samourai user and I reuse an address that's an input to a coinjoin, well I mean that's just something you can expect to support. There is no way for a coinjoin implementation to reasonably prevent that. And there's also good use cases for it, maybe I want to have a public donation address, but then I want to preserve the privacy of the coins that get sent to that donation address and where they go. That's an obvious thing I can go do. Similarly, on the other side of this, when I could have a Wasabi Wallet and I could use that wallet to make donations to a singular donation address. Again, that's coins taken from the coinjoin and going to the same place. In both cases, addresses are being reused. It doesn't matter how many steps you add before and after that process, the fact is addresses are being reused either before or after the coinjoin for completely reasonable reasons. It's just not in their position to try to prevent that, there's no reason they should.
Avoiding the questions,
What question did I avoid? Provide a direct quote.
mocking users with a mixer signature,
My only regret is that I didn't repeat my warnings about these scams enough. BlackHatCoiner, do you simply not have any sympathy for the users who lost their coins and data to the scamming sites you promoted to them? Have you tried to pay any of your victims back yet?
being pro-censorship,
I'm supporting freedom of choice, which is a basic tenet of libertarian ethics. Are you suggesting that businesses should be FORCED to serve customers they don't want to? If you don't think that you should use force against businesses, don't you think it's reasonable to suggest competing against them in the free market?
wished death to another fellow user he disagreed with.
I didn't "wish death" on a "fellow user I disagreed with": I exposed the scamming that o_e_l_e_o was performing where he was deceiving users out of forfeiting custody of their coins and data. You can see the massive amount of evidence I've compiled against the scammer here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482198