Off the top of my head I can think of the Ronin bridge hackers ($73m) and the Binance hackers ($80m) although I'm sure there are more. The information you are basing your points on is incorrect.

Sorry all, didn't mean to spark a heated discussion - I'll take the discourse back to Twitter. Happy to answer questions there or via DM.

If ChipMixer is indeed a honeypot, then the data they gather wouldn't be used to catch small or even medium-sized criminals. It's about getting a few big fish - the robberies that are in the hundreds of millions. If every $20m or $40m hack was pursued using privileged data, people would catch on pretty fast and the honeypot would become worthless.

May I request that future questions or concerns about the theory be directed to me via DM either here or on Twitter? While I have thought this through carefully and likely have explanations for all of your concerns or rebuttals, I'd prefer not to turn this thread into a back and forth about ChipMixer being a honeypot, because ultimately it's just a theory and it probably shouldn't be discussed at length in their official business thread.

Come on... Sorry, but this is nonsense. What mob have I organized? When have I advocated for ChipMixer to be "closed down"? You are just making stuff up. It makes no sense too, because as per my theory, the government wouldn't shut ChipMixer down anyway.


Depends, how many of those advertising bitcoins are left in the budget?

For real though, DW makes a good point in that you can still gain privacy from the outside world if you're a small-time mixer user not engaging in serious crime. Just remember that someone sees everything and you don't know who that someone is. The signs all point to one answer. (Again, no offence. Either way, you've made a tool that's useful to many.)

Fair question. I'm not entirely sure. Maybe something like "we are not related to or employed by any world government, our extremely high start-up capital came from XYZ source, we made X in donations this year, we think we have never been investigated or indicted or admonished by LE because of XYZ..." Doesn't really matter, it's just a theory anyway.


I find this confusing and unnecessarily aggressive. I'm not sure how or what I lost is relevant - we're discussing a mixer; let's keep it on-topic if possible. FWIW, I wish from the bottom of my heart that I got much less attention, because at times it can be overwhelming. For example, when I initially posted the ChipMixer thread, I didn't at all expect it to blow up across Twitter, be picked up by news outlets, or for me to be contacted by a lawyer looking for expert witnesses for a separate bitcoin mixer legal case.

I can't help but notice that you, too, are being paid by ChipMixer. This doesn't mean your points are useless, but you could at least tone down the ad hominems & emotionally defensive behaviour. It comes across as paid shill-y, even though it may well not be.


The Tornado Cash contract itself is under OFAC sanctions. Any sort of interaction with the mixer is now a legal risk. Similar measures could have been put in place for known ChipMixer deposits given their similar user profile (not condoning this, just pointing it out), but the government really doesn't seem to care, which was one of my points. The contract itself can't be doxed.


The way these things normally work is, to keep the honeypot going, they make up a plausible excuse for how they found the criminal based on a link they found later, thus they don't have to disclose the ace up their sleeve.

To be 100% clear, this theory (very explicitly labelled as such for the avoidance of doubt) is solely my personal opinion, posted on my personal Twitter account, and I don't mean to offend ChipMixer, their users, or their advertisers. I do not expect ChipMixer to prove anything (you can't prove a negative anyway). To me (again, in my personal opinion), the story stacks up perfectly, and I've tried to explain my reasoning in the thread as clearly as I can, but it remains an opinion and you are all obviously welcome to have your own. Sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused to anyone in the thread.

I'm confused; how is that incompatible with what I said? Laws aren't always right. I was merely pointing out that you can go to jail for running a mixer. I am pro-privacy and I support the existence of mixers, especially zero knowledge mixers such as Tornado Cash. The service you tout as a human right actually doing exactly the opposite might be a bitter pill to swallow, which is why I understand your reluctance to fully appreciate my position.


Sorry, I think you misunderstood this point. I wasn't stating that the mixer is bad because major criminals use it. I was drawing a comparison between Tornado Cash and ChipMixer, pointing out that the same echelon of major criminals use both, yet only one is being crucified.


I'd much prefer if we looked at arguments atomically and on a meritocratic basis instead of relying on history or expertise. I've been around a while, but that doesn't matter. I was just sharing a theory that I personally found pretty compelling. It is also an opinion, not a fact. I'm not claiming to be an authority on the subject (I'm not one) nor am I asking anyone to believe me. Just wanted to open the matter up for discussion and hear others' thoughts on it. It looks like that goal has been achieved, as every major post I've seen about ChipMixer (like the FTX hacker-related one) has a bunch of comments either posting about the theory or linking to it.

(With all due respect, I was warned that by posting this thread I would be, and I quote, "mobbed by the DT circle jerk," so that combined with your obvious financial interest in defending ChipMixer leave me unsurprised by this collective response.)

ChipMixer's response has been weak as well, which further reinforces my belief in the theory, not that there was much doubt in my mind. (As a side note: while I think privacy is more important than mass surveillance, which prompted my post, I consider myself a friend of the US government, and I am happy to stop talking about ChipMixer if requested. I will not delete the original thread but I'll stop working on new ones related to mixers. You have my email.)

Is the above address related to the Patoshi mining set? I assume not, but would be cool if someone could check.

Imagine you are a prosecutor in SDNY looking into FTX, and SBF is just running his mouth confessing on Twitter and in media interviews. Let's ignore extradition, jurisdiction, everything. Are you in a rush to lock him up so his lawyer finally convinces him that the Fifth Amendment is important or do you enjoy Thanksgiving?

Obviously, I am disappointed by this decision. I don't believe the terms of the bet were correctly upheld given all of the comprehensive background information provided. I'm also very displeased that your original decision was changed based on the opinion of someone who himself claimed to be confused by the situation - and perhaps also by nubcake's private threats of causing "potential drama" if the decision didn't go his way.

This was an important lesson for me in trust and counterparty risk - don't so easily assume that the other party will always act in good faith even though you have no reason to believe otherwise.

That being said, at the outset, I agreed to comply with your decision without complaint.

Thank you for your help with this. (No hard feelings from me - that's just how it goes - I'm sure you did what you believed to be correct.)

Signed and broadcasted: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/b172c884fd4f419b47e53229d43692a40322dece3fe94eb6f501aded44ca2fb2

I'll ignore the slanderous personal attacks for the sake of time, but it's funny you mention this. Double Eagle made a similar bet with me where I custodied the money upfront. I was to be the sole oracle with no arbitration allowed. When a disagreement over a term arose, I was well within my rights to rule in favour of myself. Instead, I allowed him to pick any arbitrator of his own choosing to rule on the matter and paid a fee out of pocket despite the issue being quite cut and dried in my favour and despite me having zero obligation to use external arbitration. I take gambling integrity very, very seriously. No one deserves to be freerolled. Everyone deserves a fair experience.


Thank you, DW. Take your time. I know that this matter has expanded beyond its original expected scope. I hope you enjoy your vacation.

I'm not claiming victory, I'm just saying the bet should continue as specified in the terms. Either you or I could still easily win.

I didn't harass you, lol. I was banned from the TR Discord for saying the burn tax was suicidal and would crash the price (my precise words were "the burn tax will be a sell-the-news event" and I was banned for "FUDding"). LUNC dropped 20-30% after the tax was implemented. To continue discussing the tax, I made an alt account (named... well, my current username spelt backwards, making no attempt to hide). Not trolling, not harassing, just trying to discuss stuff. It was pretty obvious that it was me. (Not sure how any of this is relevant to the matter at hand, but I understand that playing the victim and claiming I "harassed" you might be advantageous to you. I did no such thing.)

I think there's a decent chance that the other account is an astroturf account (if not you, then perhaps a friend). I have no way of knowing for sure, of course - I just pointed out that it's odd how a relatively new account wakes up, starts defending you, and starts accusing two people in good standing of bribery without evidence. If I knew for sure that it was you, I would have said so. Merely entertained the possibility.

Trying to move things back on topic: it looks like our respective cases have been laid out and we can await DW's final decision.

Correct; that was because zazarb said he was confused by the situation. DW has a pretty good handle on it. Someone who doesn't understand the situation may not necessarily make the right ruling and can thus defer to another trusted, neutral party. Like I said, I really didn't care either way; it was just a way to make things smoother.

Thank you, Loyce, for your opinion. It is much appreciated.

Yes, it is correct that the on-chain tax has been reduced to 0.2% for most transactions, although the higher tax still applies to some swaps if I recall correctly.

The distinction I am trying to draw here is between the burn tax when we made it (the proposal phase, where it was flimsy & prone to reduction) and the burn tax post-implementation. When referring to the burn tax in the original agreement, we were talking about the burn tax being reduced insofar as the 1.2% never gets implemented on chain. As shown by my contextual message, this was my intent behind drafting the term.

I completely see that without further clarity, a carte blanche indefinite void clause can be a valid interpretation. When originally brought up in private discussions, I saw it to be a genuine misunderstanding. This was before the tax reduction. We discussed changing the minimum requirement to 0.2% instead of 0.9%. nubcake remarked that the terms were fair and that not following through would be welching. It was our way of discussing a fair outcome without necessarily having to decide on one interpretation or the other.

However, once the tax was actually reduced, his tune changed. He is now demanding a refund. What really made me end up thinking this was a bad faith request, though, was his adamant refusal to enter into review context that he himself recorded (presumably for an event like this).

Given that as time elapses, the odds of nubcake winning ticks down (as the bet is time sensitive), and given CZ's comments, I believe nubcake is essentially trying to freeroll me instead of following the original spirit of the bet. I believe my proposed concessions (a 0.2% minimum) are fully in line with the original spirit of the bet, but he is not accepting them because his perceived odds have reduced. I do not see this as fair - I firmly believe in fair risk/reward dynamics and don't think freerolling should be encouraged.

I maintain that my interpretation of the term is the correct one, as backed up by the chat evidence. I, too, wish the terms had been more exhaustive, but when facing what I believe to be an exploitation attempt, using nuance and judgement seems appropriate. I also believe the angle DW added made sense; there were some good points there that I didn't think of.

I firmly believe the bet should continue on as agreed until it meets resolution terms. I believe the 'burn tax' phrase should be looked at at the time it was referred to (ie. its proposal phase), not a later point, as the bet was not placed at said later point. That being said, despite my conviction in this, I will comply with DW's final decision without complaint. I trust his judgement and believe he will do the right thing here. (He also has more specific knowledge of the Terra situation.) Nonetheless, your input is valued as always.

Coin received. While I'm greatly disappointed by this outcome, I will abide by my promise to not argue with your decision. Thank you for your help.

Right - exactly - so external context to determine whether or not a particular term applies is allowed.

I've said this many times, but again, explaining the intention, spirit, and context behind the formation of the terms, using context that nubcake himself saved, is not out of line. And again, I am not advocating for anything but the original terms to be used for determination. Explanation is necessary due to the present ambiguity, as the term can have more than one interpretation.

No one is backing out of escrow. A request like that would obviously be in bad faith, much like this refund request.

I'm not sure all of these personal attacks are of much utility, especially when you've accused me & DW of engaging in bribery merely because he posited a rational opinion based on his own (more informed) understanding of the situation. I'm forced to consider this a bad faith trolling attempt and don't see the point in engaging further. I will await fair bet resolution (either Jan 1 or when an exchange implements the off-chain tax).

The agreement will always be the sole deciding factor. External data is necessary to parse exactly what the agreement entails. Is linking to the burn tax reduction proposal also violating the rules? It's external info after all. No, it doesn't work that way. External context that's necessary or useful to explain what the terms mean or entail is perfectly fine. As stated, nubcake is the one who recorded and saved this context in the first place. Asking that saved context not to be reviewed is obviously disingenuous, at least to me. Additional rules are not being added. Rule changes are not being requested. The original agreement must be enforced. It's just a matter of what - precisely - the original agreement entails.

Yes, you're right in that zazarb does not have much knowledge of the LUNC situation. DW does. To anyone familiar with the situation, the context of that term is clear. To anyone not familiar, reading the arguments/evidence provided should be sufficient to determine how the term should be followed. You need to draw a distinction between adding context/information for guidance necessary to follow the original agreement and adding new terms. Only the former is happening here, not the latter.

The bet was posted here for record-keeping purposes and so that the escrow system could work properly. It's certainly not a free-for-all match. I, too, could rally plenty of people on my side, some with long histories of trust on this platform, but that would obviously be inappropriate. The two of us signed up for a decision from DW and that is what we expect. Nothing more, nothing less.

I agree that rules should be strict and coherent. I tried to add some more details and clarity to the terms myself. But I did not imagine refund requests would be made in bad faith, so the bet wording was fairly casual, in parts ambiguous, and non-exhaustive. If I had a do-over I would probably have made the terms one or two pages to protect against exploitation (or miscommunication). That being said, the contextual evidence from our discussion IMO sufficiently proves the real intent here, coupled with the timing as mentioned. I also agree with the spirit-related arguments DW made later that I hadn't considered.

The internal (real) odds of the off-chain burn tax being implemented have, in fact, increased, not decreased (exchanges are far more likely to implement a 0.2% tax compared to a 1.2% tax). The only reason nubcake is seeking a refund early is because the external (perceived) odds (in his estimation) have changed given CZ's statement (and time elapsed). This entire situation is an attempt to back out of a fair wager because he realizes his odds aren't as good as he initially thought, which is not at all a fair way to place the bet.

He himself knows this, as he referred to voiding the bet as "welching" four times. Money > morals, I suppose. I am not enjoying this but at least we're in good hands.

Not creating a more exhaustive set of terms to remove ambiguity was definitely an oversight. I assumed that I was entering a friendly gentleman's agreement in good faith. In hindsight, this was a mistake on my part.

nubcake and I both agreed on the escrow providers involved. I was ready to use zazarb for both of the coins, but nubcake himself suggested choosing someone else to spread out risk. Out of several potential options we went with DW. The whole time, I was completely apathetic about who to use as long as they were fairly trusted on the forum. I believe that any neutral & reasonable person would find the same outcomes when presented with this set of decisions.

Suggesting that I bribed this neutral party that we both agreed on who is, again, highly trusted on Bitcoin Talk, is inappropriate & conspiracy talk. No one was bribed. There have been no secret payments or promises to anyone. Alleging that both DW and I are untrustworthy and that we secretly conspired, just to further your view/agenda, is a step too far.

If you're a nubcake alt, then, like I explained on Telegram, even unreasonable people can be adamant and may truly believe in their position, which is why a neutral party is necessary for determination of the truth. In any case, this crazy talk about people being "in my pocket" does a disservice to everyone involved and comes off as bad faith trolling.

Interpreting a rule certainly matters. This is why there are constant debates over the letter of the law in court. The terms, as written, can be seen in more than one way, and require a neutral judge to adjudicate. I agree that the rules should be followed as is, but what "followed" precisely entails is in contention here.



As described in my arguments, this was clear from the time the bet was placed. The bet was placed while the burn tax was a governance proposal, and that's what it referred to. If the bet was placed after the burn tax had already been implemented, then your view would make sense, but it wasn't. I've also included evidence from our original discussion to back this up. It's a matter of interpretation but this point is pretty clear IMO.


Once again, I agree that only the agreement is important. Now, there was a clear, purpose-built conversation around the nature & spirit of the bet leading to the agreement being created. nubcake himself recorded this conversation, created a video file, and sent it to me for the avoidance of doubt. Why would such a file ever be necessary? Presumably, in the event of a dispute. Begging not to have this very context shared indicates to me that his refund request is in bad faith.

In courts, when there's a dispute over a civil contract, even though the agreement is confined to the realms of the contract alone, do we submit the agreement document to the judge and have them make a blind decision? No. Both parties argue their case, even though the contract exists, usually because there is ambiguity or contention that requires further explanation. A holistic decision is made - if the contract is valid, still on the basis of the contract - taking into account the terms, their implications, the genuine intent behind them, and a meeting of the minds. This is key for any genuine, good faith agreement.

DW is familiar with the burn tax subject matter from related prior arbitration and is a trusted, intelligent, valued member of the community. He understands full well what is going on here. Despite attempts from near-brand new astroturf accounts (or perhaps genuine people less educated on the subject, who knows) to sway the discussion, I am confident that a fair outcome will be reached.

Thanks for your input, DW. Some good points made that I didn't think of, such as the tax being in flux and the exchange burn very much still in play. I agree that resolution should only occur as stated (Jan 1 or off-chain tax implementation). Appreciate your time and sorry for the confusion.

I'm not sure how the dev contribution is relevant. The two were voted in through the same proposal but the code is separate. There is still a 0.2% burn and a disparate 0.02% community pool mint. It seems like you're adding on yet another unrelated excuse in an attempt to make your unreasonable refund request look more legitimate.

The issue boils down to whether or not the void clause refers to the pre-implementation proposal phase burn tax or the post-implementation burn tax carte blanche. I believe the timing and context makes it clear what the intention here was. I would assume this to be a genuine miscommunication between us, but your refusal to include the very context you recorded and saved makes me believe this is a disingenuous, bad faith request. Attempts to divert the discussion aren't appreciated either.

I will let the escrowers decide which interpretation is right and we can take it from there. They are neutral & reasonable, thus I'm sure they'll make the correct choice.