pull down to refresh
21 sats \ 11 replies \ @OT 7 Feb \ parent \ on: A directory for a Monero circular economy monero
I guess they must have been fake bitcoiners good sir. We still have Join Market and Wasabi for people that like coin joins. Samurai's whirlpool liquidity could give other CJ more anonymity, but I guess they chose to cry and quit.
Join market CAN provide some anonymity although it's hard to quantify and it's expensive.
Wasabi wallet is a joke and I wouldn't recommend to my worst enemy.
Whirlpool was best in class, but monero is private by default and doesn't require you to pay costly amounts of sats to "gain" privacy
reply
Wasabi wallet is a joke and I wouldn't recommend to my worst enemy.
Why?
reply
Because it's not capable of breaking deterministic links.
It can be unpeeled by chain anal. This has resulted in people being jailed.
They've had problems pointed out to them in the early days by Samourai Wallet and just ignored it.
They just pay shills to promote it which is how they've gained adoption. But be wary of anyone saying to use Wasabi, they probably were paid.
reply
Because it's not capable of breaking deterministic links. It can be unpeeled by chain anal.
How? Any source supporting these claims?
And if you are worried about blocklists, the zkSNACKs coordinator was shut down in June 2024. Now the coordinators are run by community members.
reply
Don't use Wasabi they are in bed with the government
reply
I see. Outputs from two different coinjoins went to the same address:
https://mempool.space/address/bc1qxp8k4un9tzkm2phsvs22r26l6l2ny93tnts7nq
This should not have happened.
Based on the date of the coinjoins (7th of September 2019), we can assume that Wasabi Wallet 1.1.6 was used.
Two possible explanations for how this happened come to mind:
- Either a bug in the coinjoin output address selection of Wasabi Wallet leading to address reuse
- Or the user had two instances of Wasabi Wallet with the same seed phrase running and coinjoining at the same time.
The issue with scenario 1 is that I could not find any bug disclosure or fix for this.
That suggests either:
- Such a bug never existed in the first place.
- It was an extremely rare edge case that was never discovered.
- It was silently fixed, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
The issue with scenario 2 is that it is highly unusual to be doing that. It would likely result from either an intentional attempt to break things or an honest mistake. Given that the user also failed to notice the address reuse, user error seems plausible.
This may help. Both links are for the same episode.