Bitcoin Forum

Moderators locked my thread!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5426967.0

From Fake Satoshi to FTX collpase, everything can be discussed in multiple threads. But, no one can doubt & discuss ChipMixer outside of their own thread. Especially, if that involves public poll.

Seriously theymos (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=35)? Does not it make obvious things look more obvious?

Update: Thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5426967.0) seems to have been unlocked since I made this post here.

The thread is not locked?

https://i.imgur.com/M7SiTkC.png

Are you blind or something? The threads seem open to me

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5426967.0

So what has Theymos have to do with your Paranoia?

Theymos works for the NSA, everybody knows that.

Shit, I probably shouldn't have been running amok, cursing him with my middle fingers waving about.  Any idea where I should send the apology flower bouquet to?

OP, it isn't likely Theymos would have locked any thread dealing with Chipmixer unless it was deemed spam--and in that case it still wouldn't have been him, it would've been a moderator.  As far as I know, big boss man has no vested interest in Chipmixer and even if he did I don't think he'd nuke a thread that's critical of it (and apparently it's not even locked, so oops on you).

Congratulations on the name change.

Flower bouquets is not how this works. You'll be called upon when he needs a favor, perhaps when someone like the OP gets too annoying you can provide some chemical assistance.

Sure, if you make up enough nonsense claims, maybe some Bitcointalk members will believe you (if you try hard enough).
Maybe theymos is secretly operating ChipMixer with forum funds (now you know why Bitcointalk doesn't need any ad banners anymore).  :D

https://i.imgur.com/30erCP6.jpg


What?  :D
Do you think polls are dangerous?

I was going to congratulate him too in one of his threads https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5426440.msg61415196#msg61415196 where he showed his disappointment with theymos not increasing his merit so he can help review and merit more posts. The Pharmacist, TSC will now know that it might take time but not that theymos actually disregarded his call for merit increase. If theymos could honor his demand for a name change today after several reminders, he can still honor his demand for more merit as a merit source. I just feel like letting him know this.

Isn't it the other way around? The NSA works for thermos?

Who are you, and what did you do to The Pharmacist? :o I guess your FU worked :D

Proof? Missing again?  :D :D :D
You don't even check your own topic correctly, your "concern" looks more and more like spam and you want to be taken serious. Good luck with that (/s).

WoW! Just WoW! As soon as I created this thread here, the thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5426967.0) got unlocked and moved from Bitcoin Discussion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=1.0) to Service Discussion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=85.0). Nice Ninja move by someone in the moderation team to tarnish my reputation in public eye. Kudos to the people who think, after spending 8+ years on BitcoinTalk, I can not recognize the difference between a locked and an unlocked thread. I should have taken a screenshot. My mistake, that I did not.

I don't know if locking & unlocking of a topic shows up in modlog or leave any other trace. If it does, it can be independently verified if the topic was locked for a brief period or not.

Regarding theymos (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=35), I have utmost respect for that man. I have witnessed, at the time of crisis in scaling debate, how he stood his ground against all odds. So, I thought, it would be worthwhile to tag him in a situation, where a mod is trying to cover some information from having maximum exposure on BitcoinTalk.

OP updated.

LOL you blithering sockpuppet, anybody can see that you "wake up" every few months to shit out some useless BS.

Post from your main account so that we can properly judge your Bitcointalk experience.

Well, doing something behind your back also counts as admitting that the decision was a mistake, so I don't really see all the fuss for this topic now. We can go about our own lives now, I wouldn't get upset about things that some stranger on the internet does.

As the shadiness of mixers is slowly being revealed and regulation is beginning their crackdown, maybe sweeping all the curious behavior surrounding Chipmixer and it's paid supporters here under the rug isn't the best idea.  Seeing this latest complaint makes me think that moderators shouldn't be allowed to participate in paid signature campaigns.  They're already being paid to be here by the forum itself, why allow them to continue abusing conflicts of interest to double dip?  It seems like others should continue to post threads like this calling out questionable behavior and those engaging in it should be checked for conflicts of interest.  Feels to me like moderators of this forum shouldn't feel the need to have to protect their income sources by abusing their positions here, but what do I know, I'm just a disgraced former contractor.  

Lol, man. Just lol.

If you think they abuse conflicts of interest, then allowing them to participate in sig campaigns is irrelevant. If they do abuse as you say, they shouldn't be mods in the first place. By the way, everybody's free to do as they please. If some authority is likely to abuse power, it's not the absence of the signature that's going to stop them. A simple bribe can cover it.

For someone who, as you say, has been on the forum for 8 years, you should know what belongs in the Bitcoin discussion and what doesn't belong there. I think the Service Discussion is quite appropriate for that topic, although of course it doesn't have as much exposure as the Bitcoin discussion.


No one is trying to hide anything, and the moderator who handles the report only acted on the report (I personally reported it) with a link to an already existing discussion, and if he closed the thread, he did it completely logically, because it makes no sense to have the same discussion in two different boards. Someone from the administration (global mod or admin) obviously had a different opinion even after seeing this thread and canceled the previous decision.

It's not the first time something like this has happened, not all people are the same and they don't make decisions in the same way.

Maybe the Bot, TryNinja (Who else are here?) try something which will keep track of which topics are being locked and unlocked LOL

Okay it proves, the topic was locked. But the reaction from OP was unnecessary. He is defiantly angry and don't like Chipmixer at all.

There's been hundreds - thousands even - of threads opened on far stupider & more redundant subjects.

You don't have to go out of your way to defend ChipMixer. You could simply choose to ignore criticism of it if you wanted.

Really the defense of ChipMixer by its sig campaigners has been far stronger than for any other entity that has ever advertised in such a manner on the forum. Its getting a bit embarrassing TBH.

I'm not ashamed of anything I've done on this forum, not even that I reported that thread like hundreds of others from the Bitcoin discussion. The fact is that a discussion on the same topic already existed, and that the OP (who is actually the alt account of a well-known member) posted that thread in a board that is not appropriate for such a discussion.

Your implication that I defend CM for financial reasons is more than ridiculous - especially since I might be the only one who hasn't spent a single satoshi since I joined that campaign.

Sounds rational to me. What isn't rational is for people who've nothing to do with Chipmixer to feel ethically superior and attack it once in a while with embarrassing arguments like money laundering, taint, "you've nothing to hide" etc.

The way you choose to spend your money doesn't alter the fact that you're making money.

I don't find it ridiculous to admit defense for financial reasons. I admit that part of my defense for ChipMixer is to have it continue operating, which first of all ensures the operation of an excellent service, and second, secures me income.

Indeed.  You can tell these people don't give a shit about how their activities negatively effect the community or Bitcoin, so long as they get some easy money.  The funny part is a lot of them act like they're the morality police around here, while being some of the worst actors on the forum with their activities, boosting scammer's reputations on the trust network to help troll those who point out their behavior or harassing those who try to build real projects here while they're actively helping scammers launder stolen funds.  Granted, these people would just join other campaigns when mixing sites get banned here for promoting money laundering, but they don't want to take the pay cut to do what's right and would rather pretend their behavior is honest until regulators step in.  I prefer to be on the right side of history (like always) which is not usually the popular position around here.

Will that happen before or after the ban on promoting illegal gambling?

Feel free to wait until someone quotes this post so that you can double quote.

That's not really fair, I think. I'm pretty sure you're oversimplifying other people's positions and ignoring some of the ideology behind being in favor of mixers.

For me, being for fungibility necessarily means being for mixers. "Taint" is an idea that needs to be stopped before it takes root too deeply, and mixing is the only way I know of to frustrate attempts at creating UTXO blacklists.

Either you let criminals get away with stolen funds (which I agree is not ideal), or you impose a vast draconian infrastructure on everyone (which decimates any semblance of financial freedom). I know which side I choose.

In the quote above about "getting embarrassing" I was thinking of ridicule of FatManTerra in the ChipMixer ANN thread as the most recent example, though there have been several previous instances. Obviously its OK that there be a separate thread dedicated to discussion of that topic, although yes perhaps "Service Discussion" is a better home for it.


To those on the outside looking in its pretty obvious that's what you're doing.


Kudos for your honesty.

I don't see the logic of your argument. Whether you don't spend the money, spend it on food or spend it on hookers and cocaine doesn't change the fact that Chip Mixer brings you a good income.


Good point. As if there were no questionable issues about crypto casinos.

I don't know what OgNasty's obsession about CM is. Did he appy for the sig campaign and got rejected?

As for the OP, I saw the thread in question, commented on it, and then realized that it had been moved. It makes more sense for it to be in Service Discussion, and there is no censorship on the subject, so I think this thread should be locked.

I know that you are very sensitive to when threads are moved and that because of one such case you left the forum for a while - but my reaction to the OP thread in the Bitcoin discussion was not motivated by defending CM, but exclusively by moving the thread to the appropriate board. It's a bit sad for me when I see old members who used to be pro-Bitcoin attacking everything that has to do with Bitcoin, and at the same time promoting things that are at least dubious and questionable.

---

You have been on the wrong side of history for a long time, you just haven't realized it yet.

He has a grudge against some people in the campaign and seems to be trying these chickenshit indirect attacks to discredit them.

OgNasty is on the thread and you could directly ask him about it. Why are you asking it to someone else who you know have conflict of interest with him. You are also using a loud voice that you have some personal problem with him.

From my observation all started from VOD vs OgNasty conflict. VOD is resting and OgNasty changed since then.

If you notice in my previous post I agreed that the thread shouldn't be kept in Bitcoin Discussion necessarily. And you've now dropped the part about how "a discussion on the same topic already existed" which is a lame rationale for locking the thread as it goes against any precedent of moderation on the forum.


This is a pretty clumsy reach. If I was "attacking everything that has to do with Bitcoin" on the forum, I'd never be finished posting. And for the record I've always been pro-bitcoin and I still am.


Not sure what you're talking about exactly, and not that it matters to this discussion whatsoever, but its not like you don't have any experience with that  ::) ::) ::)

As if asking Og directly would yield an unbiased answer.


Not really, or not only that. Vod was never in the CM campaign. Og had issues with some CM signature users (myself included) from way before the conflict with Vod. IIRC he had a relatively recent run-in with LoyceV for reasons unrelated to the conflict with Vod. Et cetera.

He would be able to give a better answer of the question because it's about him. If I find something not usual about you then I will ask you without asking it to CH or someone else who does not go well along with you. Asking an opponent does not really give the accurate answer. Whatever you will reply with Og will not like, on the other hand when Og will say something about it you will give the same attitude. Result will make the situation even worse.

I was meaning the whole Og not only about his conflicts with CM or CM campaigners

Still, he's been like that way before Vod conflict if not forever. Peruse his trust feedback, both sent and received, and you'll see.

I think it's to late for that already, and all we can do is try to make protocol base protocol changes that would include privacy and maybe inbuilt mixing.
We can pretend that concept of tainted coins doesn't exist and close or eyes, but reality is sadly different thanks to scammers like ftx ceo Scam Bankman, Binance CZ and others.
Alternative option is for us to develop separate services that would accept all Bitcoin transactions without checking address history, but I doubt regulators will tolerate that much longer.
They want to limit and cancel cash soon, so I don't see why Bitcoin would be in better position for them  :P

Most money in the world is probably laundered with gambling, so I don't understand how your ''right'' side of history is allowing promotion of that.
I guess double standards is allowed for some people, and coinjoin, privacy, mixers this are all ''evil'' tools in your ''right'' side of history :P

It's really interesting how some people suddenly started to care about money laundering...  usually the same people think they are going to ''save earth'' by driving their Tesla's  :D

Yep. It's sad, but I think you're probably right. At this point, too many people have been scared into believing that fungibility is a bad thing. Which is completely backwards, but it wouldn't be the first time that people have been coerced into abandoning their own long-term interests out of short-term fear. An eventual protocol change is likely the only realistic way to properly restore fungibility.

I agree, but (to be clear) my position is not that we should pretend it doesn't exist. My position is that we should be making "taint analysis" as unreliable as possible, by convincing people that being frightened into never mixing their coins is tantamount to them giving up on the concept of fungibility. What I think a lot of bitcoiners don't realize, is that by giving up on fungibility they're unwittingly opening the door to a slew of nightmarish infractions on their financial freedom. By the time they realize the extent of the damage, it will be too late to effectively fight back against (other than by altering Bitcoin itself).

Yeah, I've got some (long-term) plans to develop a few bitcoin-accepting services, and I can promise you that I won't be participating in any "mandated" checking/flagging of deposits. I'm a fungibility nut, so I simply don't care [1] where funds originate from, I'll accept them without bias and likely mix them on withdrawal, too.

Yup. Long live Tor, long live onion services and long live anonymous clearnet web hosting. As long as those remain viable, I'll thumb my nose at the regulators.

[1] When I say I don't care, I don't mean morally, I mean practically (i.e. I don't believe that any organization with the authority to issue a list of "bad" UTXOs wouldn't end up abusing that same power).

Good to hear you are working on that project, and I don't doubt it's going to be something interesting, judging by your recent forum contribution and suggestions for improevement.
If I want to be honest, all current centralized exchanges are acting like a mixers, more or less, but I guess they are intended more for high-profile customers.
They invented their own detection systems, and my theory is that they conveniently hacked themselves more than once, if you know what I mean.
It's much easier for them to blame some unknown evil hackers for everything.

It is not ideal, indeed!
But it's ideal for scammers, criminals, terrorists and enables narcotraffic!
Maybe we'll realize very soon: mixers are very damaging for Bitcoin because scams and crime is enabled on a large scale. Should scammers be left alone on Bitcointalk, too? Is negative trust also bad if it's affecting Bitcointalk account fungibility for scammer accounts negatively? LOL
Yes, let all scammers get away and don't paint scammer accounts red, don't call scammer coins tainted.
Maybe an approach similar to DT as WasabiWallet is figuring out can help but it's ChipMixer paying tons of money every week here.  ::)
Wasn't using centralized services discouraged? But "mUh fuNgiBiliTy".

I would not mix my coins in a mixer known for facilitating coins used in crimes. Still, everyone is free to do it. But don't complain if nobody wants to receive your tainted coins.
Stop enabling scammers, criminals, terrorists and narcotraffic!

We get it, ChipMixer, probably a honeypot, is paying handsomely and most members here don't care. ChipMixer is enabling all kind of shady behaviour, nobody cares as well, so consequences (like getting tainted coins) are on you if you are using it.


Your approach is similar to lazy campaign managers letting red-painted accounts into singature campaigns.
1xbet and friends.
Not beneficial at all.

1xbet and friends are also Bitcointalk account fungibility nuts.
What an idiocy.  ::)



Looks like OgNasty is right once again!

Nothing new.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse

@AliErkic: Either you're arguing in bad faith, or you've misunderstood my position.

The first half of your post reads to me like you're saying: "Oh, so you're okay with facilitating criminal activity!?"

The second half of your post reads to me like you're saying: "Oh, so it's just like with a shady signature campaign then, you're happy to turn a blind eye, if it serves you!?"

Those are two paper-thin takes which in each case are already addressed either by footnote or the text immediately adjacent to what was quoted.

I'll try one last time (in this thread) to clarify my position, by way of analogy:

Analogy (Sockpuppet Accounts)

Imagine the problem you're trying to solve is secret alt accounts on Bitcointalk. How would you do it? One way would be to enforce a KYC procedure on the forum (both retroactively and moving forward). To prevent people from selling pre-KYCed accounts, the procedure would have to be periodic, so every few weeks/months you'd have to go through it again, with a fresh photograph of you holding a written-out security phrase, or maybe a (recorded) video chat with a staffer. It might also involve the sharing of other personal information and a few documents, for good measure. Bitcointalk would offer to keep all of this data completely safe on a "best effort" basis.

Here's my position: I'm against sockpuppet accounts and would like to find ways to reduce/eliminate them, but I'm even more against adding KYC to Bitcointalk; the cure is worse than the disease.

Analogy (The Old West)

Imagine the problem you're trying to solve is bank robberies and cash-carrying train heists. How would you do it? One way would be to pass a law that from now on every cash-accepting establishment (the saloon, the general store, etc.) needs to have a government-appointed security clerk standing next to the cashier. Whenever a customer hands over a banknote, the security clerk looks up its serial number in his little black book and sees if there are corresponding instructions (e.g. "confiscate", "detain for questioning", "accept, but ask for identification", etc.)

Here's my position: I'm against bank robberies and train heists and would like to find ways to reduce/eliminate them, but I'm even more against having every cash transaction run through an opaque process that could/would be misused; the cure is worse than the disease.

You see the pattern? Now, imagine the problem you're trying to solve is Bitcoin being used for criminal activity...

Indeed! Criminals will always take advantages. But we should not enable it too much! Even Bitcointalk is giving scammers a hard time from DT.

It's somehow all of it. You and I know mixers are loved by criminals and you are NOT a criminal by using it. But it's providing criminals liquidity and personally I would appreciate it to keep me an option how to reject such tainted coins.


If such accounts don't scam, where's any issue?
As long as an account does not scam or abuse Bounty, it doesn't do any damage.
If it does damage = sent out red paint. Account will be useless.
Easy, like taint coins.

Usually, banks are protected by security.
Criminals are caught and arrested.
Bukele did some raids against criminals recently.
Money transport are usually heavily weaponized and armored.
Good luck trying to rob a cash transporter today.  :D
Or Fort Knocks is also protected.

It's not like wild, wild west like saloon, where a sheriff is overworked and understaffed, where houses shortly build after moving west made out of weak wood have lousy locked door security or where a Dallas Cowboy is hunting down a Denver Bronco (joke). We are modern socienty right now.
Modern problems require modern solution, SIR!

It doesn't have to be that way.  You don't have to either promote money laundering or force everyone to operate in a vast draconian infrastructure.  That's ridiculous.  There is also a third option.  Don't promote money laundering.  The fact that so many users are willing to openly promote money laundering for a couple hundred bucks a week while trying to maintain some level or authority over other users here is being a hypocrite on a level you can only describe as being a sellout.  Now I see people are personally attacking me and going after my signature sponsor?  I wonder why...  This is what they do.  Try to villainize anyone who shines a light on their bad behavior.  Stake is perfectly legal though, operating sites for use in many countries including my own.  There is nothing illegal about it and while more and more laws are being passed to support online gambling being legal in more and more states/countries (including my own), you'll find these same places moving forward with regulation against money laundering "mixers" and the like.  I don't expect any apologies when mixers do become illegal and aren't allowed to run signature campaigns here anymore, but remember those who were supporting organizations that launder funds for members who defraud others here.  Similar to those who supported extortion attempts (shocker, they're mostly the same individuals).



You mean the members who support money laundering and extortionists might not be good people?  Absolutely shocking.

No, you do. You can't have it both ways. You either promote money laundering privacy enhancing tools or you operate in draconian manner. What have you been taught by Orwell anyway? The fact that some such tools are not decentralized doesn't mean they don't protect your privacy, and that's probably where you've confused it. As far as I can tell, you're in favor of CoinJoin, MimbleWhimble, ring signatures, confidential transactions etc., which can obviously be used to obfuscate outputs and therefore launder money, but you're opposed to methods that require you to hand over custody. (which isn't even relevant)

I guess we can agree to disagree.  I'll continue not promoting money laundering and advocating for protocol level fungibility, not fungibility that depends on a 3rd party breaking the law and users being participants in that choice to break the law by using said third party.  That is not the vision I had (not that anyone gives a fuck) for blockchain privacy.  It will only lead to more regulation and honeypot attacks on community members just trying to have privacy, who like you, thought this was a legal and reasonable option to use because the moral police on bitcointalk were promoting it. 

Do we agree on the last part? The one which you don't have problem with privacy protection, in and of itself, but with the manner you'll protect it? Isn't your problem with centralized mixers? Would you be fine if somehow we could acquire the same protection ChipMixer provides if there was a decentralized manner to do it? If so, can you justify what's the moral or legal problem if some choose to accomplish in a centralized manner?

Mixing isn't illegal. What's illegal is to mix stolen funds-- and not because you mix them, but because you stole them.

That's the point that made me post in the first place. I don't understand where your confidence for that assertion comes from. Why are you so convinced that everyone in the ChipMixer campaign is some kind of sellout? Has it occurred to you that people might have taken an ideological stance?

That seems like a pretty minor thing to hang all of your gripes on. You're okay with protocol-level fungibility? But you're not okay with trying to accomplish the same thing (in the meantime) with third-party tools?

I mean, your position then seems (to me) to be: "I'm okay with making life difficult for AML initiatives, but only if it's built into the protocol."

Protocol-level fungibility can be used to launder money so by your own logic you're promoting money laundering.


Fungibility on its own is not against the law, at least not where I am, and if it ever is outlawed then it would likely make protocol-level fungibility (or usage thereof) unlawful as well. For example some exchanges delisted Monero etc for "compliance reasons", which is a good indication of how this would play out.

Didn't you saw latest US news?!
There was OG complaining and protesting every day about money laundering of US dollars.  :D
If Elon Musk laundered money with his DOGE scheme than people shouldn't drive Tesla because they are supporting money laundering.
Anyone who sent deposit to buy Tesla is supporting money laundering, drug trafficking and illegal surveillance.
Don't buy a knife because knife can be used to kill people, and in some countries knife is already illegal believe it or not.

I have to agree with him on one thing, it would be much better to have protocol based privacy for Bitcoin.
We can compare this with Monero, but Bitcoin is much bigger and it would be much harder if not impossible to make it illegal at this point.

Absolutely. And there are kinda-sorta-usable workarounds like CoinJoin. The point is that I don't get him cheering for centralized mixers to be outlawed... if that happens we're in deep shit because the gubbermint won't just leave us a nice shiny loophole in the protocol.


Just look at this: https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DAAML%20Act%20of%202022.pdf

Among all sorts of crazy shit, it defines mixers and "privacy coins" (i.e. anything that has protocol-level obfuscation) in the same category, and would basically outlaw it. If a law like that gets passed I don't see how Bitcoin gets an exception. At the very least any part of the Bitcoin ecosystem that provides privacy tools (be it CoinJoin, LN, Taproot, etc) would fall under that. But hey, at least Og would get his petty grudges settled so I'm sure he's rooting for Warren to push this through.

Watching the Department of Justice live stream about their recent International Cryptocurrency Enforcement Action. It seems directed at those who try to launder funds or use the blockchain for financial anonymity. They’ve stated that being offshore will not provide protection while enabling financial anonymity.

This is why I say financial privacy should be done at the protocol level. They stated their battle, “is just getting started.”

I recommend watching the announcement if you are a user or promoter of any coin mixing activities. You’re wearing a target and they’re taking aim.

https://www.justice.gov/live

Tornado Cash tried that, and they were shot dead.

Also the DOJ won't care whether it's done at the blockchain or the smart contract level. It's all the same to them. The justice department aren't privy to blockchain schematics.

Well, this is awkward. Can’t say I didn’t see it coming and try to steer people in the right direction. I got a bunch of trust exclusions for my efforts. If anyone feels like apologizing feel free.

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/03/15/germany-and-us-seize-over-46m-crypto-tied-to-chipmixer-investigation-europol/

I guess maybe I wasn’t a crazy person sounding off about the dangers of Chipmixer and how those advertising for it were maybe not the most upstanding members of our community. Signature campaign managers are about to be flooded with requests…

Nobody ever told you ChipMixer isn't used for illicit activity. It's just that you can't prevent someone from gaining privacy, just because some do use it illegally.

You're crazy to me, when you're in favor of decentralized privacy enhancing techniques but go completely against centralized (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5427213.msg61449845#msg61449845). It makes no sense.

You think that’s crazy, you should hear my thoughts about currency. That will really make you think I’ve lost my mind. I actually believe decentralized currencies are better than centralized ones as well and that people should be focusing on decentralized services over centralized always.

Decentralize all the things. Crazy I know. Pushing decentralization on a Bitcoin forum. Truly my most controversial act.

P.S. You can probably remove your signature and stop defending illegal activity now.

You know, decentralizing things doesn't eliminate responsibilities. Only unreliable actors. Now that these criminals are heading to JoinMarket, I want to see who you will blame.

No, thanks. I want to inform our forum users on how to earn bitcoin honestly (https://www.karriere.bka.de/). Lol, what a scum.

Could you make yourself clear that you are in favor of money laundering if it's decentralized money laundering?

I am not in favor of money laundering in any form. I am in favor of privacy being added to Bitcoin’s protocol. What I’m vehemently opposed to is users here advertising money laundering services to scammers to help them get away with scamming users here all so they can get a piece of the pie in the form of signature campaign payouts. Seems dishonest to me and against my decade plus long mission of making sure users can trade safely here.

Would you feel better if we advertised decentralized money laundering services to scammers to help them get away with scamming users to get a piece of the pie in the form of signature campaign payouts?

Why do I ask? It's crystal clear that this would be the morally correct thing to do.

You do you. Feel free to advertise whatever illegal thing you want. I may even do you the favor of letting you know when the government is targeting said services so you can do the honorable thing and leave before you have egg on your face. You still have a signature of an illegal money laundering service even after it’s shut down in the hopes you can still get a few dollars out of it, so I’m guessing you won’t be too thankful for my warnings. I’d remove it though, as it is possible people will start tagging accounts promoting this confirmed illegal activity.

What you mean to say is a thank you to me for calling this out before regulators acted and apologies for your misguided promotion and way of thinking, as it is very clearly wrong now and that has now been legally proven.

The very fact that the website was seized by 6+ law enforcement agencies and a guy was arrested by the Feds for running ChipMixer indisputably confirms that it was not a honeypot to begin with, no matter what people like FatManTerra claimed otherwise.

I guess it depends on your definition of honeypot and what information has been obtained by authorities. If there are records of every transaction and all those records are now in the hands of authorities as a result of it existing… Then I think you could make the argument, intentionally or not, the site functioned as a honeypot for authorities to gather information. If they got no information, then it would be difficult to make that argument.

Turned out OGnasty was right...

It will be really interesting to observe how much ShitMixer Signature Campaign participants will post overally after 50 paid post per week are no more because ShitMixer money laundering got busted.
Will we hear from ShitMixer apologists how ShitMixer obviously lied about not keeping logs and suddenly, we know about stolen coins from ShitMixer payouts because ShitMixer stored ALL data?

And: mixing your money in shit won't make it clean. Any intelligent person should know.
Happy learning procedure @everyone!  :)

I congratulate OGnasty for his valiant efforts; the now departed TECSHARE and the mad genius Cryptohunter were also among the highly insightful and moral members who called out the Chipmixer Signature scam for many years.

A by product of the incredible greed exhibited by the Chipmixer signature gang is that after years of backscratching and trust / merit collusion, some of these Chipmixer promoters ended up as the facetiously most "trusted" and "upstanding" members of this community...

Admin knew all about this, was warned many times, did absolutely nothing, how's that for decentralization, does decentralization mean you do nothing and play the three monkeys while the forum entrusted to you by satoshi himself is taken over by criminals ?

Some difficult questions that @theymos and his staff members need to ask themselves, if they can't clean up this forum, perhaps it's all for the best if international law enforcement does it eventually...

If international law enforcement clean up this forum, you won't be here either - the entire domain + server will be seized.

Thanks for the validation. You’d be surprised how frequently I turn out to be right. “I should’ve listened to you” is something I’ve heard so many times. Whether it be about investing in BTC or avoiding vaccines, or in this case taking payments to promote a money laundering service…



Thanks. I had nothing to gain personally from it and was retaliated against via the trust network for doing so. It should be obvious to people here now that the “upstanding” members of our community have been taking payments for helping scammers launder funds stolen from members here all while trying to act like the forum police for who is good and bad here. My gripes against the current state of the DT network should make more sense now for those who haven’t been paying close attention.

Now we get to watch all these money laundering promoters suddenly stop promoting ChipMixer while swearing they didn’t do it for the money, they did it to push privacy. LOL.

If there isn't a ChipMixer left to promote, why would people keep promoting it?  It's easy to say people are going to stop promoting it now it no longer exists.  But that's no indication of motive on their part.

Also, I guess you didn't notice my sig now.

I can't believe there are people who buy OgNasty's utopia. Nobody ever questioned the fact that some people do, indeed, use mixers to do bad, illegal, unethical, <whatever_else>, stuff. They do help criminals, indeed, but that's because their purpose is to help every person, regardless of their moral status. Just as Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are censorship-resistant and permissionless, so are mixers.

And the funny part is that he's in favor of mixing, as long as it's decentralized. He's provably confused. He blames mixers for being money laundering services, but he has no problem if all those criminals moved to decentralized solutions. He clearly has a problem with the people who run the mixer for reasons yet unknown.

I have a bigger problem with the people promoting it here to scammers so that their scammed funds can be mixed to avoid the community discovering who is using alts to repeatedly scam here. If that wasn’t bad enough, these are the people who have gained control of the trust network and are the biggest senders of merit to their friends who help cover up their scam enabling (see merit earned for bad takes above). I’m not the one who took away your golden goose. Don’t get mad at me. Quit trying to enable scammers here while you’re at it.

Edit: Looks like you already found a new money laundering service to promote for money to scammers here. Now that it’s proven to be illegal, I guess some people can’t admit when they’re wrong. Good luck making money promoting illegal services to users here to help them scam others.

I think the term you are looking for is "PayPal Mafia".

Dude. Are you in favor of mixing or not? If you are, then you're in favor of both centralized and decentralized mixers. If you're not, and you're against privacy in general, please clear it up, because that's a completely different topic. At the moment, you're whining about centralized mixing, but are in favor of "protocol privacy", which can't happen simultaneously. You are either in favor of privacy and accept money laundering as an inevitable part of human activity, or you switch to privacy violating with whatever consequence that has.

I think that privacy is good and money laundering is bad. I think that developing privacy for all is good and I think that taking money to advertise what has now been confirmed to be an illegal money laundering website to a forum where scamming and laundering stolen funds is an issue is really scummy behavior.

I'm reading through the various posts of this thread which started off a little disjointed, but since a ten or eleven week spell, the thread has come back to life to agonise over the seizure of the Chipmixer website as part of the investigation of illegal activities of its founder - are there others that have been charged?

I see there are two aspects of this discussion - the alledged illegal activities and for the forum the bullying approach and gang mentality by Chipmixer Signature participants of anyone they deamed to be undesirable by either themselves or their DT 1 & 2 Troll allies.

So... you're simply in denial that built-in-privacy at protocol level means that such a protocol can be used to illegally launder money? 

seems the comedy club has moved to meta

whether its a service or a whole crypto currency or sub network that has privacy enhanced features.. regulated services and regulators are on the look out and flagging services cryptos or subnetworks that have those features

monero is a red flag that gets users WATCHED CLOSELY
lightning is a red flag that gets users WATCHED CLOSELY
mixers/hoppers are a red flag that gets users WATCHED CLOSELY

mixers/hoppers/privacy tools do not hide people, it gets them spotted and monitored more closely

months ago i hinted(seems too subtly) that people can create services or subnetworks that do not loudly advertise themselves as laundering services

there are many ways to have privacy as a (subtle hint) side effect of offering a different service as advertised

but here is the funny part.
most who claim to want privacy are not private people. they are too loud they are too forthcoming of information about themselves whereby they hope some technology can scrub their stupidness for them

if you want privacy be smarter, start with the info you freely give out in the first place to a system.

if you cant get any hints from what i have said you are not interested in privacy you are just interested in a argument about privacy to promote some scheme you want to promote that pretends it will give privacy. but actually ends up highlighting and following people more closely

bro is so insistent with spreading bad takes everywhere like he was in charge of handing out smallpox infected blankets to native americans in the 1800s


Absolute bullshit.

The government (the US government mainly, the most important one in the world, deal with it) only cares about dangerous criminals. If you are doing stupid ass stuff like sending money to terrorist organizations or laundering large volumes of drug money with crypto, then yes, they will care. They will come after you IF the dollar amount is substantial enough AND they have the resources to deal with it. For everybody else, they do not give a single solitary fuck.

And franky1 enters the discussion on behalf of Craig Scammer Wright.  Reading from the faketoshi hymn sheet as per usual:


It speaks volumes as to your character that your values align so closely with the biggest scam artist in all of crypto.

Seriously, do you have any unique thoughts of your own?

No. I said money laundering was bad and privacy was good. I’m not in denial about anything. This whole idea that you have to support money laundering in order to support privacy is nonsense. The idea that a third party will protect your privacy is foolish. This has now been clearly demonstrated by ChipMixer. The people in denial are the ones defending an illegal money laundering service… You really think your ChipMixer transactions gave you privacy? I think the government now likely has records exposing every person who ever used it. Almost like it was used as a honeypot and those seeking privacy from a 3rd party mixing service were taken advantage of by false advertising claims pushed by greedy users who blindly trusted a 3rd party would keep their privacy safe with a service that was very clearly illegal and going to be shut down. It isn’t like I didn’t say all this beforehand and am now proven to be right…

I don't know where you got that idea for Lightning Network from, but I'm still waiting for Interpol to shut down Monero.

They can (and already have) ban exchanges from offering it, but coins don't need exchanges to prosper, cf. Bitcoin 2009-2011, you should know this as an OG.

I can see why you feel you have no choice but to attempt to maintain that facade, but it's clear your stance is conflicted.  People can utilise privacy for legitimate purposes, but they can equally use privacy to facilitate illegal activity.  You can't have one without the other.

Any whether it's a protocol or a service offering that privacy, that's not going to sway the view of authorities.  The only advantage decentralised protocols have is that they are more resistant to takedown.  Doesn't make a protocol less likely to be used for money laundering, though.

Mind your own business. To whom I trust my money and my privacy is none of yours. If I'm convinced a third party can grant me privacy, who are you to question the rightness of this decision?

Yep. To every merchant I've transacted with, I've hidden the fact that my coins come from a signature campaign. I could not have hidden this information better.

What you think is irrelevant.

"Almost like a honeypot" is pure speculation; it's utter opinion. And your opinion is, again, irrelevant. What's relevant is only facts.

You are free to be as foolish as you like.  It's when you take money to try and get other people to be foolish is where my issue is.


Damn, you've straight up been pulling every merchant you deal with into this ChipMixer mess investigation so you can hide that the funds came from your ChipMixer advertising?  Man, that's coldhearted as hell... Talk about passing the buck...


I know my opinion is irrelevant.  In fact, we're all just ants on a spinning rock.  Nothing we do matters.  If you want to talk users into entering honeypots to help them scam others here so you can get a quick buck, that's on you.  Make no mistake about it though, me saying "Almost like it was used as a honeypot" was me mocking the ignorant that still don't understand they've been promoting a honeypot while claiming it enables privacy.  How embarrassing.

Should we not wait and see first whether any CM campaigners are prevented from sending their signature earnings to exchanges?

Not to mention the Terrabytes of user data that was taken into custody along with the  ?$44M? USD in Bitcoins exchanged.

To be precise, it's terabytes of data, not "user data". At this moment, it's difficult to determine the exact nature of the information that was seized.

My best guess is that it's the size of DigitalOcean's droplet storage, and it's possible that most of the space is actually unused, i.e. it doesn't contain any data, which can create the impression of larger data volumes. This is simply due to the way disk images are managed and provisioned in cloud environments.

You don't have to say it again and again that it's foolish to have privacy with mixing. We get it. You don't like it.

Damn, I was trying to protect my Internet identity when interacting with complete strangers. What a scum that I am.

You talk a lot about scams, but I see no action. Why didn't you accuse the entire business for scam when it was alive? We have a board for this very reason. Maybe your arguments don't hold water.

I literally did call it a honeypot. I said multiple times it was a money laundering operation. I even came out and said beforehand that it would be shut down and to not use it. I was already being retaliated against by multiple members of their signature campaign in the trust network. I did plenty. Why was I the only one is the better question.

I seem to recall Thule and or TOAA etc start threads and were then hammered by the DT 1 Trolls too.

(I may have said something once or twice, but it's been quite a while and I may be mistaken)

Ya, this ChipMixer honeypot / money laundering organization utilized by scammers here and the way that it was defended and promoted by DT1 members who claim to be against scammers here really exposed some things myself and others had been saying for a long time. DT1 has been compromised. I’d give myself as the perfect example of someone who has been retaliated against for doing the right thing. Some of them even have Vod in their trusted network after it’s been proven he is a liar, extortionist, doxxer, and tried to raise funds from this community before disappearing… These people don’t care about what’s right or honest, they only want to gain power to punish people while behaving far worse themselves.

Starting to get the impression this topic is becoming less about ChipMixer itself and more about opportunists attempting to discredit DT1 users who were part of the ChipMixer sig campaign.  Anything to try and score a cheap point. 

There is still no evidence that Chipmixer was a honeypot.  And even if it did turn out to be (and I'm fairly confident that's not the case), it doesn't suddenly redeem anyone who has been distrusted or tagged by a campaign member.

ITT:  Disreputable people clutching at straws.

There’s a problem here that goes deeper than them just promoting a honeypot. This thread is about if we can even discuss it. You can see that there’s pushback from discussing that topic, even now from you. These members in DT1 retaliating on anyone that sounds the whistle about their promotion of illegal activity is a problem. Adding users to the trust network or “hammering” topics as a form of retaliation against people is serious dishonest behavior. Don’t try to sweep it under the rug.

You literally called it a honeypot and it was literally shut down by those who run honeypots. You have no evidence that ChipMixer was a honeypot, and yet you still think you are some kind of genius.

Saying without accusing is pointless. I can make utter guesswork as well, but if I don't take it to the Scam Accusation board and take personal responsibility for my accusation, it's just hollow words.

Yep. When OgNasty and Timelord2067 talk about DT1, you know there's going to be thread derailing.

Hehe, you're only realizing this now? That's been my impression of this topic for a while. OgNasty seeing an opportunity to win back some points and be "vindicated", even though his whole position makes zero sense (technically, I mean. He seems to be for protocol-level fungibility but against money laundering and doesn't seem to appreciate how the former will inevitably lead to the latter).

I'm just repeating what I said earlier, but the important thing that I think OgNasty is missing (intentionally, by the looks of it) is that there's a fungibility/privacy/freedom ideology that resonates with a lot of the people that were wearing the ChipMixer signature. It suits him to believe that he knew all along that ChipMixer was somehow "bad" and that this has now been "proven". I'm not defending ChipMixer itself (especially if they were storing logs or weren't deleting private keys properly), but I'll always be in favor of mixing in general (as a means to achieve fungibility, which is actually what I care about; mixing is just a way to facilitate that).

Your statement is not objective given you DT distrust me (https://loyce.club/trust/2023-03-25_Sat_05.07h/2775483.html).

You have proven you would attempt to silence anyone even discussing the subject of this thread.  Please be respectful.

It's subjective as it's my opinion. The fact that I distrust you is irrelevant to whether that is objective or not. To put it this way: would it make it objective if I neither trusted or distrusted you?

I think I'm pretty much respectful. I have made this discussion with OgNasty in the past as well, and it lead nowhere as well. When you two take part in a forum discussion, you'll sooner or later blame it to the DT. No surprise he completely ignores the point we're making with centralized and decentralized mixers. He just has personal agenda against some of the ChipMixer campaign participants, and tries to figure out ways to accuse them.

How we reached to talking about members of DT abusing their position, from ChipMixer being a honeypot is something you only know of.

This is literally a thread about why we cannot discuss chipmixer being a honeypot. It’s very relevant. I foretold everything that happened to chipmixer and as a result of my sounding the warning bells, I received distrust in the DT network from several of their campaign participants. Literally proving the point that this thread was trying to make, which is that if you speak out against chipmixer’s money laundering, you will be retaliated against. It’s important that people have this information, and very relevant to this thread.

And your assertion is that you are distrusted purely because of your views about ChipMixer?  Regardless, it strikes me as more of an issue for the Reputation board.

With Tornado Cash founders now being charged officially with money laundering and violating sanctions, do people expect to see charges against Chipmixer founders next? Is this forum not concerned that there are still users here promoting mixing services, some of which are in the default trust network and giving exclusions to those who speak out about them promoting money laundering for their own profit?

https://x.com/watcherguru/status/1694390897184502100

Sorry if you feel this is the wrong thread for this discussion, most others remain locked. It is interesting that many users in this thread praised me for foretelling the Chipmixer shut down, but several DT members distrusted me for it. That’s called corruption in the real world. Here they call it decentralization. I call it lazy management.

He has already been charged and is a wanted man...


A proper mixer is just a mixer -- it is ethically neutral. A good mixer is one that does its job as advertised. For the most part (though not 100%), that is what ChipMixer was. Sure, we can get into the weeds of whether or not it is moral to advertise a service that, as part of BAU, launders funds for designated terrorist groups, but its in line with the libertarian ethos of the forum to leave it up to the individual users whether they want to do this or not. I don't see the point in chastising them for this decision, or what it accomplishes.

No one knows the actual founder of ChipMixer. The wanted person (https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1574581/download) is only a single man and I am really doubtful that he is the founder and the only person who operated CM over years. He is possibly a canary from a whole CM team.

Staffs were asked to stop advertising mixers and maybe some well recognized, high contributed members of forum who potentially become staffs in future were asked the same too (my guess only), but globally on the whole forum, let's see.

I read through the court documents pretty thoroughly and it appears it was a one-man operation. Funds tied to ChipMixer server payments were traced back to that particular named individual. Its hard to say how much he profited from the service; after all, it was technically free. And he had a separate account on the forum that he used to make trades... from the looks of it he certainly wasn't "wealthy".

Who in particular did you have in mind? (LoyceV maybe for only using his sig-renting thread?)

Pretty much all of us moved on to other campaigns, mostly other mixers, after Chipmixer shut down, but to me it doesn't look like anyone else besides those who were already staff was asked to stop advertising mixers on their signatures.

Can you talk a little bit more specifically? Even though I must admit that you truly fell of my grace when you began making sweeping generalizations and criticizing centralized mixing in that manner (despite expressing support for decentralized mixing, completely contradicting yourself with the former argument).

---

Do we truly intend to delve into the notion that mixing is ethically incorrect?

The needle on your moral compass is influenced pretty heavily by all of that hot air coming out of your mouth, isn't it? 

Misappropriation of forum funds?  Og claims not corruption.
Calling out OgNasty on his bullshit?  Og claims corruption.

Yeah, that makes total sense.   ::)

I didn't want to dredge up all of those past allegations against OgNasty--mainly because I never quite looked into their validity--but that's the first thing that came to mind when I saw that he's railing against the supposed immorality of mixers. 

There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to keep your financial business private, and that includes obscuring your coins.  Sure, money laundering can and surely has been perpetrated using mixers, but is there any data showing the relative magnitude of laundering via mixers vs. the traditional way, through fiat-based businesses?  I get the sense that the latter is much, much more of a problem and that people/organizations with huge sums of money to launder aren't doing it through crypto, and if they are, there's probably fewer of them employing mixers, if only because of the enormous trust issue involved.

It's extremely difficult to compare, as both by their nature go undetected. However, there have been lots of instances of large banks caught to launder billions.

But, that's not the point. The main concern is that OgNasty morally supports decentralized mixing but opposes centralized mixing[1]. This stance is simply nonsensical, even for someone with lenient ethical standards. You can't oppose software that helps criminals unless nobody is in charge of its operation. What fucked up morals are these? When using a decentralized, pseudonymous, and potentially anonymous currency, one must come to terms with the fact that criminals exploiting it, much like any regular individual, is an inherent aspect of the system.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5423124.msg61358824#msg61358824

I never misappropriated forum funds. That’s ridiculous. The blockchain exists for a reason and you can clearly look and see at the public address I held the funds that they were never touched. This is exactly what I’m talking about. People make up stories and then others believe it without doing any research because the corrupt people spouting lies are assumed to be honest. They aren’t. They’re compromised corrupt individuals that would risk taking down this entire forum to promote money laundering here for money. No need to cast lies at me to deflect from their bad behavior.

No surprise that you’re advertising money laundering in your signature… As are others defending their illegal advertising on this thread by taking shots at me. Why deflect? How does that justify YOUR behavior?

If I had done something wrong I would have to justify my behaviour.  Aside from vague posturing, you haven't stated exactly what it is I should be justifying.  Yes, I have a signature for a mixer, so what?  I believe privacy is a fundamental right and I will support that right wherever I deem it appropriate to do so. 

There's no "story" here.  You pocketed airdrops from coins that did not belong to you.  You're damn lucky theymos didn't particularly care about those assets.  Personally, I'd have had you charged with theft if this were my forum.  So get off your damn high horse and learn to live with the fact that some of us think you're scum.  You brought it upon yourself, so don't cry to us about it.

You are promoting money laundering. If the organization you are promoting does any real volume, they will be closed down and their founders arrested. That is what you’re promoting.

As for your accusations, I did nothing wrong. I can use my private keys however I want and I lived up to my end of the treasury agreement perfectly. The person who didn’t was theymos, who went years without paying me and then didn’t compensate me for the forked coins I missed out on while I gave him the forked coins I didn’t have to according to our agreement, but who cares about reality right?

This sounds as if you have grounds for a flag and/or red trust on theymos, but instead you have posted a positive trust rating for him.

So you're either lying or lying.

I don't think the forum should be too concerned. It wasn't that long ago that Bitcoin itself was being called money laundering. At most, I'd guess the forum could get some formal legal request to ban or remove certain things from the site and/or maybe banning any participants that continue to advertise for a particular service which has been deemed illegal by the country the forum is hosted at, but I wouldn't see the forum itself in any big risk, as theymos would probably comply if it is related to advertising. That said, I'm not a lawyer.

So does this mean those minted coins you sell don't really belong to the "fans" that buy them?  

They are "your" keys after all, you did create them.. and you seem to have no regrets using private keys for personal gain simply because you created them.. so, based on your logic here, it may be time to sweep my coin and melt the silver (I'm assuming it is silver..). :-\

You should consider taking the example of Theymos as to why he only asked staff members to stop promoting mixing services but not the whole forum.

I understand your point here, but theymos simply don't want to take away the rights of individuals as to what they promote.

This forum if goes down due to promoting mixing services, then it will be individuals other than staff members to blame, which again wouldn't matter since the forum will be gone by that time.

---

All mixing services are evil?:
I guess not. Some strive to deliver what they promise but can't confirm if they are being used to launder the crypto.

In the case of Mixers, there can't be a "White line", If the mixers do that, then it won't be decentralized, and people won't use them obviously for privacy reasons, I can't think of any solutions for it.

It isn’t decentralized now. That’s my whole point and what those bashing me by saying I’m not making sense don’t seem to understand because they’re blinded by their own greed. If Bitcoin’s privacy depends on centralized run services that result in their founders being jailed, it has failed in providing privacy. The answer is doing it at the protocol level, which must be done after Bitcoin has already been accepted into the existing financial system like a Trojan horse.

People willing to put a target on Bitcoin, this forum, and their own backs by promoting centralized money laundering services for money aren’t doing some great thing for privacy. Them using everything in their power to silence and discredit those that point this out is a whole other issue. One that a strong leader would address.

Bitcoin isn't dependent solely on centralized mixers, don't generalize like that. We already have wonderful alternatives, Joinmarket, Whirlpool, trading XMR back and forth, and so on. And yes, we also have the option to use a mixer, because sometimes it might fit the need best. If someone wants to run such a business, we should definitely not reject them; it'd be completely against the Bitcoin spirit.

If you don't like mixers, don't use them. Simple as that.

Centralized mixers do put target on Bitcoin, but decentralized solutions which allow money laundering and are not censorable don't. Completely rational. ::)

Have you ever considered that the intense pursuit by federal authorities to shut down mixers might indicate that they indeed offer uncontrollable privacy? Providing privacy in such a manner is classified as a significant boon for privacy.