I was afraid that you might say that, but it could be a start and raise the topic that there SHOULD be challengeability, or else we're merely going to follow their rules. Since the rules are proprietary information, there's not a good way to challenge or verify the results.  As a community, we should probably find a compromise. Because they, as centralized entities, can't truly be trusted, no? 🤔 Another question. Is setting up a coordinator difficult? Or could anyone, a non-coder, who was basic technical knowledge, and who could compile and troubleshoot be enough to set up and install one? It's easy with the BTCPay Server WabiSabi plugin, you just click "enable coordinator". Can a modified version of BTCPay Server then be used as a substitute as a CoinJoin app for mixing/tumbling is the next question. Haha. Trying to learn how to run a coordinator as a pleb is more complicated than I thought! But the smarter, more technical people in the forum look like they haven't shown any interest yet. Let's wait. I believe a BitcoinTalk group will start running one soon. If the incentives are worth it, it's a good opportnity.  |
|
|
|
Bump, found this topic while I was reading about BTCPayServer + CoinJoin. It's probably more relevant today with mixers being banned in the forum after 2023.
The problem with the statement "choose a different coordinator" is that there are to date, as far as I am aware, no other coordinators to choose from. And sure, you can spin up your own, but if it is only you and one or two other people using it, then the anonymity it provides is easily broken.
While that's true, I believe it's not truly a real problem. Because as people become more and more aware that there's an actual need for CoinJoin to gain our privacy back, we'll need more than centralized mixers to get that done. There should be a large group of people outside of BitcoinTalk that are passionate enough and willing to provide enough liquidity to boot-strap the pool, no?
People who are using Wasabi aren't generally going to bother changing coordinator, because anyone who actually cares about privacy and not having their details fed directly to a blockchain analysis firm isn't using Wasabi in the first place.
Perhaps, but with another coordinator, they'll have a choice between zkSNACKS coordinator, an open coordintor, and a centralized mixer. I believe all three are good depending on what a user needs. |
|
|
|
Kruw, nopara73, Wasabi, I have one question. It might currently not be a real concern, but it could be something of an issue if more and more people CoinJoin through Wasabi, and therefore with that, more and more "false positives" also happen.
How do we refute that an "alert" is a "false positive"? Because the blockchain analysis company could always claim that a "true positive" is proof of the reliability of the system, while a "false negative" could be used to claim that the company should set up tighter filters.
I believe that's something that the developers, and the community, could get together and work on.
I suppose you could always voluntarily disclose where/how funds were obtained if you think a false positive ban has occurred. The ban might not be lifted, but this feedback may help indicate that wallet clustering heuristics are being applied too aggressively. I was afraid that you might say that, but it could be a start and raise the topic that there SHOULD be challengeability, or else we're merely going to follow their rules. Another question. Is setting up a coordinator difficult? Or could anyone, a non-coder, who was basic technical knowledge, and who could compile and troubleshoot be enough to set up and install one? Plus the documents and the readme doesn't have much information on compiling/installing/configuring one. Perhaps it's time to encourage the BitcoinTalk community to run and boot-strap their own coordinators? |
|
|
|
That gives bad actors the opportunity to build a months/years long sustainable ecosystem to price many users out from using the network. The "protocol" of Ordinals by itself is not the attack, but it could be used as an attack vector. It's going to be an annoying few months until the hype goes down, but it might not be the end of that. It goes, then it comes back.
No one is pushed out of using the network . Anyone has the right to increase the fee to a level that will make his transaction enter into the next block . Isn't that the purpose of the fee market , to make blockchain space as much valuable as possible ? Well , mission accomplished . I didn't say pushed out, I said priced out. I believe there's an obvious difference. It is as the network was designed, to be robust. Plus by keeping the costs of running a full node low, the costs are pushed to the users. I wouldn't say that it isn't annoying for plebs like me though.
To be honest , i see current fee market at a low level . As soon as more protocols start to create defi's etc on btc , fees will increase in thousands of dollars for a single tx .
The unfortunate ones will be those that will have to exit from LN for whatever reason and those stacking sats . A new era is coming .
Why don't they build on the "Bitcoin" with big blocks? That would be "more efficient" and more sustainable, no? |
|
|
|
|
Jamie Dimon, the same person who said Bitcoin could print more coins because "Did you see the algorithms"?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If the government decided to shut the network down, they're already too late. They would have to shut the internet down to stop Bitcoin. Plus the cat is out of the bag, because if they succesfully stopped Bitcoin, the idea of a Bitcoin will continue to exist and another one will definitely be built, after another.
Satoshi opened a Pandora's Box, and it will never be closed again.
|
|
|
|
FortuneJack, I'd still entrust some money to them. Most of the complaints I came across are only for delays on withdrawals that are being solved when raised, together with the overall site functionality. With Rollbit, they have been bombarded with a lot of complaints recently, most of which are directly tied with scams involving their platform.
Overall though, I won't entrust a huge amount of money to any platform AT ALL under any circumstances. It's best to stay safe even if you're being just too paranoid and nothing bad will really happen. Prevention is better than cure, and that rings true even with gambling platforms.
I believe with the technology and the innovation available to us through Bitcoin, there probably should be a sort of decentralized escrow service. Would such an app be possible to build through Bitcoin Script, or build one through the use of multisig escrow? That could be very useful, especially for high-rollers. The first casino to have it might attract them. |
|
|
|
What do you mean? 2. It is possible for the mixer to steal property passing through it. Assume that the sender does everything as correctly as possible. Also assume that no miners/verifiers on the base-layer cryptocurrency are evil. But assume that every other actor involved is evil (everyone able to vote in a DAO, every coordination server, every counterparty, every member of a multisig, etc.). Ignore short-term software bugs which are expected to be quickly fixed. Which means, if it is possible for a mixer to steal the coins (it is the case in typical, centralized mixers), then it is not allowed. But if a mixer is only a proxy, and has no way of stealing those coins, then it is accepted. Pardon me, I'm not really sure about this, but I have always had the assumption that running a coordinator in Wasabi only allows the administrators to coordinate the CoinJoin, and earn some fees from it. But of course, you probably could also join the liquidity pool to boot-strap your coordinator, and that's the only coins you control in the pool. I'll ask Kruw in WasabiWallet's topic. I have also suggested that they make an ELI-5 guide in how to set up our own coordinator. The community will need it. |
|
|
|
If the situation continues miners will have their best christmas ever . Looks like the hype isn't cooling down , ordi is now at more than 50000 times the money cost to inscribe . That gives a lot of ammo to the inscribers to continue .
That gives bad actors the opportunity to build a months/years long sustainable ecosystem to price many users out from using the network. The "protocol" of Ordinals by itself is not the attack, but it could be used as an attack vector. It's going to be an annoying few months until the hype goes down, but it might not be the end of that. It goes, then it comes back. That aside, Luke Dash Jr. released a new version of Bitcoin Knots, "fixing" the bug called Ordinals. PSA: “Inscriptions” are exploiting a vulnerability in #Bitcoin Core to spam the blockchain. Bitcoin Core has, since 2013, allowed users to set a limit on the size of extra data in transactions they relay or mine (`-datacarriersize`). By obfuscating their data as program code, Inscriptions bypass this limit. This bug was recently fixed in Bitcoin Knots v25.1. It took longer than usual due to my workflow being severely disrupted at the end of last year (v24 was skipped entirely). Bitcoin Core is still vulnerable in the upcoming v26 release. I can only hope it will finally get fixed before v27 next year. https://twitter.com/lukedashjr/status/1732204937466032285?s=12&t=fx2RmsbaS0qNJTJTdpNu2wAnti-Ordinals users should start running that. |
|
|
|
Would that, in your opinion, have a chance to be reconsidered to advertise in the forum? I guess it will be accepted by theymos, but he is the one making the rules (he said about KYC, not about "blockchain analytics company", so I don't know if it is treated differently or not). Because if I would be the one to decide, I wouldn't ban mixers. However, I wouldn't start running a centralized forum in the first place, so I am not the right person to make that decision. I just noticed the part of theymos' post that had "not requiring KYC" indicated. OK, then how about if a centralized entity or the BitcoinTalk community set up and operate a coordinator for Wasabi which collects fees for coordinating CoinJoins. If the administrators of the coordinating service decides to advertise in the forum, would such a service be allowed? I believe it's debatable, but it could be reconsidered. Running a coordinating service could be part of the evolution of Bitcoin mixing/tumbling. From OP, Why would it be forbidden to advertise a coordinator? Wasabi is already allowed because it's non-custodial and a coordinator is a part of that setup so as such I don't see why it would be forbidden. It shouldn't be, no? It's probably the best, or THE only, chance for the forum's privacy advocates to advertise a mixing service in BitcoinTalk. But perhaps it's better to consult with theymos first.
Only would it be a problem if the coordinator took funds of the coinjoin into custody.
What do you mean? If the administrators took fees from the service? I believe that won't be a problem. zkSNACKS also does that, to support their developers. A community-operated coordinator could also take fees to support the operators/admins, and also use it for advertising and marketing. |
|
|
|
Would that, in your opinion, have a chance to be reconsidered to advertise in the forum? I guess it will be accepted by theymos, but he is the one making the rules (he said about KYC, not about "blockchain analytics company", so I don't know if it is treated differently or not). Because if I would be the one to decide, I wouldn't ban mixers. However, I wouldn't start running a centralized forum in the first place, so I am not the right person to make that decision. I just noticed the part of theymos' post that had "not requiring KYC" indicated. OK, then how about if a centralized entity or the BitcoinTalk community set up and operate a coordinator for Wasabi which collects fees for coordinating CoinJoins. If the administrators of the coordinating service decides to advertise in the forum, would such a service be allowed? I believe it's debatable, but it could be reconsidered. Running a coordinating service could be part of the evolution of Bitcoin mixing/tumbling. From OP, |
|
|
|
are bookies fortunejack.com & rollbit.com trustworthy with larger amounts ?
somebody can confirm betting on this 2 bookies with over 10k , 50k ? and no issues with withdrawls
I believe there are known people in crypto that gamble in Rollbit and Stake regularly without problems and that have also vouched for them. One of them is known for his Twitter username as "KeyboardMonkey". I believe he is just one of the few real professional traders that has truly made large profit through trading cryptocurrencies. There's also another Bitcoin whale mentioned here in BitcoinTalk that gambles in either Rollbit or Stake, called Gainzy. For users in the forum, I've seen those newbie accounts in BlackJack.Fun's topic that are known in the site as the whales from their community chat. |
|
|
|
But in the context that a mixer is looking for approval to advertise in BitcoinTalk, would a mixer that uses the services of a blockchain analytics company be reconsidered?
I guess it could be, if it would mean some kind of KYC will be there. But then, the bigger question is: why anyone would want to make such a service? Making a casino, an exchange, or some blockchain game will be more successful than any KYC-based mixer. And I guess if someone will want to make a mixer with KYC, then it will not be advertized in this way. A mixer with KYC would definitely defeat the purpose of trying to get privacy and pseudonymity. But let's not put KYC in the conversation. I was merely asking about a mixer hiring the services of a blockchain analytics company to filter out inputs from "nefarious sources", which therefore might make the mixer not liable to be taken down by law enforcement. The hiring of the chain analytics' services serves as a "protection" of the mixer. Would that, in your opinion, have a chance to be reconsidered to advertise in the forum? |
|
|
|
There is no threat to gambling sites because they are obeying the laws. They have the anti-money laundering policy.
If gambling sites should be affected, organizations that favors money laundering should all be closed down. No bank supposed to be existing again because they are used to launder money. Launderers just get a legit business, then use the business to launder money into bank.
Dirty money used in gambling are also mostly like this. Just as unclean money are in banks.
Plus as posted by theymos, the new rules are more about the concern on a noticeable pattern with mixers that get taken down by the authorities after getting popular enough. Law enforcement probably looks all over the internet, and checks where those mixers were advertised or where they might have a strong presence in cryptocurrency forums, Reddit, and other community platforms. Most of them will always point here in BitcoinTalk, and that probably could be a risk for the forum and its administrators. Bitcointalk.org aims to allow about as much freedom as is reasonably possible. But this is not a darknet forum, and with mixers looking "grayer and grayer", it's no longer reasonably possible to allow linking to mixers. Even though "a cryptocurrency mixing service is not necessarily illegal," a clear pattern has emerged where mixers pop up, last for a little while, and then get taken down by law enforcement once they get too big. Allowing mixers to be posted on bitcointalk.org before they seemingly-inevitably get declared illegal and seized is not sustainable. Therefore, linking to mixers will no longer be allowed, just the same as linking to darknet sites is already not allowed. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5476162.0For OP's issue/concern, it's laughable. Apples and Oranges. |
|
|
|
Would it help mixers if they use the services of a blockchain analysis company to filter out "tainted" inputs from entering their liquidity pool?
Theymos mentioned that if a mixer uses KYC, then it is allowed. And your proposal is more or less KYC, because then, you "Know Your Customer", and you know, if some coins are allowed, or not (instead of allowing all coins). I would rather not mix with such a service because mixing + KYC would defeat the purpose of doing it for privacy. Haha. It would definitely be better to merely deposit your coins to an exchange, then withdraw later if a user wants to break the link from his/her UTXOs and start with a fresh wallet. Plus that at least wouldn't alert the authorities that you might be "hiding something".
That would have an argument that a service isn't part of the "darknet", no?
Well, it depends. You know, a coin can be marked as "tainted", but there are more ways to mix your coins, than you can imagine. For example, imagine a mining pool as a mixing service: you send you coin as a fee, and you receive your coins in the coinbase transaction. Of course, that kind of mixing is for whales, or for a large group of users, but it is still possible. And it can be used to bypass a rule, that "My mixer definition says to assume that zero miners are evil". Edit: And yes, it can be done trustlessly. For example, we have Taproot, which means, all miners can create a huge N-of-N multisig. It can be required in the first place, to turn coins into fees, and in the second place, to give each user his on-chain coins over time. It can be spread between many coinbase transactions, it depends how huge a given mining pool is. And also, not all users have to go on-chain immediately. They can stay in a "coin pool", behind a single N-of-N multisig, as long as they want. If you think about a CoinJoin with a multisig in the middle, you will get the idea: +---------------------------------------+
| coin #1 -> 6-of-6 multisig -> coin #1 |
| coin #2 coin #2 |
| coin #3 coin #3 |
| coin #4 coin #4 |
| coin #5 coin #5 |
| coin #6 coin #6 |
+---------------------------------------+ And then, imagine the first transition from coins into multisig, can be done by fees. And the second transition can happen in many coinbase transactions, and can take a lot of time. Also note that it is possible to use "Proof of Work coupons" called "shares" in the process, so it is possible to make it compatible with existing centralized mining pools. Which means, if you want to mix 0.01 BTC, then all you need, is to send 0.01 BTC in fees, and get some shares, produced by some miner, as a reward, and then claim your coins in the same way, as that miner would claim his reward from the mining pool. Edit: Also note that while the regular CoinJoin can be easily marked as such, in this specific case, if you have a huge multisig in the middle, it is equivalent, but it is less tainted. Because then, you can pretend, that you just sent your coins to a huge entity (called "exchange"), and then you got your coins back. And also note that N-of-N multisig can be done outside Taproot, even on P2PK. So, if you want to mix your coins, this kind of CoinJoin is much better, than if you have direct transaction with M inputs and N outputs. Because then, you can call the address in the middle "exchange", "mining pool", or whatever, and make it legal in many jurisdictions, including new rules on this forum (of course, talk to your lawyer before applying any of that, if you want to pay taxes, based on this model; disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so take it with a grain of salt). But in the context that a mixer is looking for approval to advertise in BitcoinTalk, would a mixer that uses the services of a blockchain analytics company be reconsidered? |
|
|
|
Strategic mistake. But we are not law enforcement to say having them here could be better to keep an eye on them all in one place instead of having them go elsewhere scattered.
I’m neutral on this. Tough call, to be sure, but some of us gave theymos like $20 a long time ago and expected him to run the forums in perpetuity. And he has indeed kept the lights on around here. The best argument for banning mixers though is because if the government can stop a mixer, then you have risk if you promote/permit them. Let this be an impetus for creating decentralized privacy solutions that can not be stopped. That indicates more CoinJoin apps and more community-operated coordinators to be set up in Wasabi, and probably even start utilizing the Lightning Network as an off-chain privacy layer on top of Bitcoin to be used alone or in combination with CoinJoin apps. Examples of things that are not banned mixers include exchangers (unless they have a mixing function), CoinJoin-supporting non-custodial wallets, and Monero.
Plus I noticed that "decentralized privacy solutions" is the subject-matter of the topic, and I'm merely curious. Did the community's reaction towards Wasabi's decision to hire the service of a chain analytics company helped set off theymos' decision to ban all centralized mixers? Or was it already on the table before Sinbad was taken down? I wonder if there is a need to explicitly create the list of allowed and disallowed things. Because I guess the biggest issue will be with those users, who will not be 100% sure, if something is allowed or not. And then, some of them may be disappointed, that a certain mixer is allowed ("Why you allowed it theymos, it is a mixer!") or not ("Why you rejected it theymos, it is just a CoinJoin!"). But, I also guess that kind of list could also cause more harm than good, so I don't know, how to handle it properly, and I am happy, that I am not responsible for making such decisions.
Edit: I wonder if it is a good idea or not, but I will share it anyway. It is not needed to share the list of banned things in plaintext. It is possible to write a program, that will check, if user input is acceptable or not. And then, it is possible to create a message, for example: "Your signature mentions a mixer, and this is not allowed" or "Your post mentions a mixer". Then, people will know for sure, without any need of asking "Can I advertize X?". Because then, the word "X" will be included in the blacklist, or in the whitelist. And something like that will be needed anyway, to check if users follow the rules.
Would it help mixers if they use the services of a blockchain analysis company to filter out "tainted" inputs from entering their liquidity pool? That would have an argument that a service isn't part of the "darknet", no? |
|
|
|
|
Kruw, nopara73, Wasabi, I have one question. It might currently not be a real concern, but it could be something of an issue if more and more people CoinJoin through Wasabi, and therefore with that, more and more "false positives" also happen.
How do we refute that an "alert" is a "false positive"? Because the blockchain analysis company could always claim that a "true positive" is proof of the reliability of the system, while a "false negative" could be used to claim that the company should set up tighter filters.
I believe that's something that the developers, and the community, could get together and work on.
|
|
|
|
|
Off-topic, but still a valid question.
If quantum computers actually start gaining the ability to crack Bitcoin's encryption, how fast will the Core Developers code a patch, have it merged, have it deployed? Fast enough?
If that wouldn't be a problem, how fast will full nodes run the new software? That I believe would be more "complicated".
|
|
|
|
I may not prefer using DCA as a strategy for buying Bitcoin, but obviously El Salvador's DCA under the policy of Nayib Bukele is starting to produce dividends. Does anyome know what the average cost of ther investment is? I believe surging to a new all time high would make that about 2.5x, no? If Bitcoin surges more to a six digit valuation, then some of the other Latin American countries would probably start proposals to DCA Bitcoin. Bukele front-ran all of them. |
|
|
|
The problem I see with this is that it is just one more step in saying goodbye to privacy in Bitcoin. Mixers have been banned here because it won't be long before there will be regulations expressly prohibiting them. I said it some time ago: services that serve to obfuscate the origin of funds cannot have much future. The casinos that have been so important in the history of Bitcoin and Bitcointalk will have to end up operating like fiat casinos, with everyone perfectly identified from the beginning among other things. We are on a seemingly unstoppable path of loss of privacy in general, and Bitcoin is not going to be an exception. It won't be that. I believe it will be wallet apps that will start having features that will "warn" users that they are about to receive a "tainted" input. As more users become "taint-aware", the moment they receive a "tainted" input, it's going to be a game of hot-potato. - Users would sell those "tainted" coins as soon as possible, making the price of "tainted" Bitcoins lower than "clean" Bitcoins.
b. invent a new service that does not even mention privacy/cleaning, mixing.. and is more creative with how it takes in deposits and withdraws .. cough cough satoshi-dice cough cough
Isn't there an upgrade that would make transactions for opening Lightning channels indistinguishable from normal transactions? you dont need a bitcoin upgrade. you just need to think smarter, lightning can do some changes and fix their flaws, even flaws in regard to how recognisable a channel lock format is I believe it has something to do with Taproot. But I'm not sure if the making of opening and closures of Lightning channels indistinguishable from regular transactions have been implemented yet. But if it is, then I believe the Lightning Network could be used as more of an off-chain privacy layer rather than an off-chain network for fast and cheap transactions. Because I believe it won't be cheap forever once demand for Lightning goes up. Why? Because Bitcoin is a limited source of capital, then therefore Lightning channels will be limited. |
|
|
|
|
If ROLR.io could maintain, "Wagerless", "No max bet", "No max payout", "Low KYC" and "Card to play", then I believe we have something that all other cryptocurrency casinos should watch and learn from. Plus their site might not look very flamboyant/attractive, but if they're offering everyone no maximum betting limits + no maximum payouts, then I believe this casino is very well-capitalized, and that they're willing to take on the high-rollers of crypto.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
