Hello everyone, First of all, I believe this debate has been extremely constructive, despite some friction regarding inherent biases. I think Yuval has identified real risks, and at the same time, there was a lack of clarity regarding how the coordinator operated. If the coordinator had malicious intentions in the beginning, these have been observed and brought to the table by a community that is always active and vigilant about these crucial issues. I believe this is already part of the healthy culture surrounding Bitcoin.
At this moment, what is crucial is to look forward and demand: -Overall Transparency: We need clear answers to questions such as: How are the residual funds calculated and allocated? Which wallet(s) are used? Ultimately, this information should be publicly verifiable on the blockchain. -Audit and Review of the Revenue Model: Is the current mechanism (which retains residual funds) the best option? Could the excess be redistributed among users? Should it be handed over to a group of independent auditors, or what alternative is best? These are questions aimed at finding more transparent options, especially if disclosed properly. They could even be addressed through a bounty, for example. -Audit and Review of the Protocol Architecture: The measures above would help and could pave the way for the adoption of technical mitigations. Clearly, a thorough technical and ethical review is required, or else we wouldn’t have this healthy debate. Regards, -Javier El viernes, 4 de abril de 2025 a las 14:26:17 UTC-3, Peter Todd escribió: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 10:39:10PM +0100, Yuval Kogman wrote: > > - https://youtu.be/v952Fd1vmOs?t=2073 - here, months after launching > > his service, he fails to disclose until pressed to elaborate, then > > admits he's collecting revenues and casually misrepresents the > > "optimistic" behavior of wasabi (which a bug) as a "little known > > secret" that justifies his appropriation of excess funds, which under > > the zksnacks coordinator went to the mining fees (thereby bolstering > > sybil resistance, not undermining it). > > For the record, I checked the archive.org and github history of the > Wasabi Wallet docs themselves, and since at least Nov 23rd 2024 > (archive.org) or possible Oct 10th 2024 (git commit), they've clearly > stated that leftovers go to the coordinator: > > "In rare cases the output decomposition contains change (maximum of > 10,000 sats per coinjoin), this leftover goes to the coordinator. This > is because creating such small amounts would harm privacy and ends up > being more expensive than just forfeiting it." > > (note: this whole passage is highlighted) > > > https://web.archive.org/web/20241123035844/https://docs.wasabiwallet.io/using-wasabi/CoinJoin.html#fees > > https://github.com/WalletWasabi/WasabiDoc/commit/a1f2f474f282918f2e1626a01351ac8f1b9c43cf > > The git commit that introduced that language is PGP-signed by Github as > of Nov 9th 2024. > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/35a802c4-b0dc-43a3-a087-de2babf12759n%40googlegroups.com.
