Yessir.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5120280.msg50166733#msg50166733
Above is a correction and explanation.
After considering this for a day, and weighing the evidence, I no longer believe BenCodie is the same as Parodium beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://archive.is/L3b0a

I want to let you know I think it is untrustworthy to give positive trust to yourself. Specifically, I am referring to the below rating:
I no longer believe beyond a reasonable doubt that BenCodie is the same as Parodium, after further consideration.
I also question the value of most of your collateral, and the ability for a lender to quickly liquidate the majority of the collateral you are offering.

I also wish to point out that you lent 0.05 BTC to acquire your forum account last August, which was worth ~$320 at the time, but you are valuing it at $1,000 now. For some bizarre reason you did not post a repayment address, but it does not appear the loan was repaid.

The "estimates" of values of domains are often very inaccurate and will almost never represent the fair market value of the domains.

Taking over an account with a large balance is going to be very risky, and any reputable company is going to be willing to help someone regain access to their account, even if their identity is not associated with it.

It is unclear what this means, however if a condition of getting a loan is creating a new account on a third party website, a entirely new Password should be used that is unique to the person's Bitcointalk password.

Being that you have very little reputation and history of being entrusted with others' money, any collateral should be sent to someone whom both the lender and borrower are willing to trust, and not to the lender directly.

Did you reply to the last message from Bitstamp? If so, did you receive a response?

My suspicion is that Bitstamp has been told by a law enforcement agency to not process your withdrawal, potentially pending a civil forfeiture case. If they have been instructed by their regulator or by law enforcement not to process the withdrawal, your only option is to pursue legal action; you may be able to get your money back if you hire a lawyer who sends a demand letter on your behalf, but I would not bet on this working.

An alternative possibility is Bitstamp is trying to gather information in order to file a SAR (Suspicious Activity Report), or equivalent, and law enforcement and/or their regulator may then tell Bitstamp to either release or not release the funds in your account.  

If you haven't done so already, I would provide the requested information in the last message Bitstamp sent you. They are saying they will release the funds after you provide this information; I do not have a lot of confidence they will release your money after you provide this.

Yes, absolutely this.

There are many, many scammers on the various gambling sites, probably so many that keeping track of them all would require the effort of multiple full time jobs.

Often times, anyone who wants to take out a "gambling loan" is either a scammer, a degenerate gambler, or both. If they were good enough at gambling, to repay the loan plus interest, they would not need the loan in the first place.

None of these have any impact on privacy if users of Bitcoin are not using these features. When he wrote his paper, transaction fees were >$20, and using multiple change addresses would be very expensive for a business that processes many transactions. The same is true if a business generates transaction inputs in not the most efficient way.

Above all, the most effective way to maximize privacy when using Bitcoin is to abstain from address reuse, and to only conduct business with those who abstain from address reuse. This would be very effective in making "mixers" obsolete, and unnecessary in most cases.

My reading of .../license.txt is these websites have purchased a license to use the bustabit script.

It is not clear what the terms of the license they purchased are.

There appears to be a scam accusations against the owner of those sites, and it would be a good idea not to deposit anything to any of those sites, especially after reading this.

It looks like a major problem with coinmixer.se is their transactions all had multiple unique variables. If a mixing service were to use multiple node/wallet implementations to create and sign transactions, and use randomized values for the variables you found to always be constant with coinmixer.se transactions, it might be more difficult to determine their "network", or would have a less degree of certainty as to which transactions are part of their network.

An attacker using their service is ultimately a massive, unavoidable data leak. Your 20 "test transactions" during that week, accounted for more than 1% of their weekly transactions.

When bitmixer closed, they made a very interesting comment:
This appears to imply they believe similar research was done successfully on their mixing service, and did not want to give their customers a false sense of securityprivacy.

theymos accepting Grin is symbolic more than anything.

Grin doesn't appear to be accepted for ad auction payments, which leaves payments for Copper memberships and proxy bans (I am unsure if the later accepts payment via Grin).

There are less than 680 copper members wearing their copper membership title. The payments for these memberships could fit into one Bitcoin block, and the copper membership has been available for years.