Mixers are not prohibited by law.
In the US, a money transmitter license is required as mixers are classified as a "money services business." No mixer has one, as far as I know... https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1574581/download18. Based on my training and experience, I am aware the Bank Secrecy Act requires
anyone who owns or controls a money transmitting business to register with the United States
Department of the Treasury. See 31 U.S.C. § 5330(a)(1). I am further aware that federal
regulations issued pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act define a “money services business,” which
include “money transmitter(s).” 31 C.F.R. § 1010.100(ff)(5). Money transmitters are defined
broadly to include anyone who “accept(s) . . . currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for
currency from one person and . . . transmi(ts) . . . currency, funds, or other value that substitutes
for currency to another location or person by any means,” as well as “[a]ny other person engaged
in the transfer of funds.” 31 C.F.R. § 1010.100(ff)(5)(i)(A)-(B). MSBs are required to register
with FinCEN, a division of the Department of the Treasury, unless specific exemptions apply. 31
C.F.R. § 1022.380(a)(1). MSBs are required to establish and maintain anti-money laundering
programs, to detect and report suspicious transactions, and to collect certain records of customers
and customer transactions. I am further aware that bitcoin “mixers” or “tumblers” such as
ChipMixer are considered to be MSBs under federal law. See U.S. Department of Treasury
FinCEN Guidance, Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Certain Business Models Involving
Convertible Virtual Currencies, FIN-2019-G001 (May 9, 2019), at 19-20. Sorry to put it so bluntly but anyone advertising a mixer that doesn't have this license is advertising an illegal business (if the business is servicing US-based customers, anyway). Funny, its actually been the case since May 2019, but either nobody here knew this or the ones who did never said anything about it. Not saying the forum administration needs to make changes either way, but individuals participating in mixer sig campaigns should at least be aware of this. You could use the same analogy for people who have casino signatures. Online gambling is not legal in a lot of places. On that note, how many casinos that people were wearing sigs for cut and ran with peoples money vs mixers? How many mixers had / have complaints against them for taking seizing peoples funds vs mixers? As for the amount of data, 7tb is a lot until you figure that the blockchain is 500+gb 2 copies of that and you are at over 1tb -Dave |
|
|
|
Massive update!Sinbad management decided to increase their weekly budget which means we have OPEN SLOTS! Please apply until I announce CFNP later today as the week already started. PS: To fit these new members in the campaign we will not consider the queue which means you will get paid for the rank you are applying. Whoever already is in the campaign stays in their assigned payroll. BlackHatCoiner
OmegaStarScream
DaveF
dkbit98 Welcome aboard, Please update your signature and avatar, then make a post after this response so that I know where to start counting. Done as of now. Post 6266 Thanks, Dave |
|
|
|
Throwing my hat in the ring.... Bitcointalk Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=300014Rank:Legendary Current amount of posts (including this one): 6264 SegWit BTC Address for Payouts: bc1q75e3m9sy20xnkefqd3m8p2ukqk3lvqth0sp8lx EARNED merit in the last 120 days: 751 |
|
|
|
@DaveF, we have no reliable evidence that the account changed owner, and BPIP only shows that he reset the password three times via e-mail in the period from 2018 to 2020, and I'm not sure if this could be some kind of indicator that the owner has changed? However, I admit that it is a bit strange to see that your feedback shows his account as Light Green, which is not very appropriate for those members who publicly offered their BTT account for sale. Also, I can't say if @ONLYfree has anything to do with these three accounts that sell BTT accounts on the forum and that have been tagging me at the same time - but they all have his old thread for reference. If you have read all the other feedbacks, this one is particularly interesting and leads to this post -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1702409.msg18425502#msg18425502I am torn, honestly he did a deal with me and it was all good, which was why there is the positive feedback. And on the same note, there is nobody reputable saying that they were scammed by him. Which is what the trust is for. I have been complaining about it on and off for years: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5154576That account has not logged in for 2+ years at the moment. So if he does come back I'll keep an eye on it, but for now I don't think it matters. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
Well that's a bummer.
Wonder if they are going to go after the operators. Usually when they do something like this if they know who they are / could find them they mention that.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
|
So you are making a mixer.
And then you reference tornado cash. Those developers wound up getting arrested and lots of people lost access to funds.
Come back with a real plan on how you are going to secure the funds, make sure 'the man' can't get your info, how you will protect against hacks, how you will avoid possible regulations, and so on.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
Still goes back to what I said a month ago. Can the time stamp be manipulated? Yes. Does it matter? No. Nodes care about when the received the block and so long as it has a valid timestamp it's fine. Have there been any recently on alts that follow the BTC consensus? If someone went and coded some other alt that behaved some other way then how it responds to invalid timestamps would be different then how BTC responds. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
Looks like an abandoned project.
Outside of the domain registration which may be costing the operator a few bucks a year if they did not prepay for an extended time it's hosted on fly.io and they have a free tier. So, in theory it could be sitting there a very long time just hanging out doing nothing. I have a few sites setup like that that I will take care of "tomorrow" and yeah, it never gets done.
Could have had potential years ago, but as of now it would require a complete re-do and I doubt the operators is going to do that at this point.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
It's not their usual modus operandi. It seems to me that they usually sell them at auctions, as it already happened previously.
In any case, there must be a reason to have sent ~200 million dollars on Coinbase and it seems to me that it was not to play with dolls.
Testing something, or just looking for another method to sell the bitcoins other than an auctions, while selling not everthing at once of course but by fractions (again, as they ususually do)
The weird part is that they sent it to Coinbase specifically, but not just because it's an exchange. Two years ago the USMS entered a partnership with Anchorage Digital to take care of all the troubles they had with auctions, but Anchorage is a competitor to Coinbase in offering custody solutions so why are the coins going to Coinbase, no idea. It's weird to have Anchorage win the partnership in this deal only to then use another competitor that was not selected. Anchorage does not, or at least I cannot find a public trading desk. There are some things that when the government sells are at, and I know this is not the exact proper term, fair market value at that point in time. Some things they can auction, other things they have to trade just like the rest of us. It's usually things like gold and such but I guess BTC / crypto in general can fall into that. Some things depending on the case are going to auctioned. Others are just going to a trading desk. It's just the nature of how and why the government came into holding the asset. -Dave |
|
|
|
I have been reading up on the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and the FED's response to handling the dire situation. A report from Bloomberg states: "US financial regulators moved on Sunday to protect depositors’ funds following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and set up a new financial backstop, seeking to stem fears that households and businesses would flee smaller lenders." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-12/us-moves-to-help-depositors-offer-bank-backstop-in-wake-of-svb?leadSource=uverify%20wallQuite chilling to hear that this is happening at a time of sky-high interest rates and general financial turmoil. What do you guys think the fallout will be like on Monday when markets open and what effect would this collapse have on Bitcoin? Bitcoin of course, conceived following the 08 crisis is built to bypass this sort of thing, "financial backstops". This just shows how uninformed you really are. Sky high interest rates? HAHAHAHAHAHA we are not even NEAR where they were in the mid 2000s or the early 2000s or the late 90s or the early 90s or.... For those that follow finance the 2008 implosion over the summer was clearly seen in late 2006 and by the summer of 2007 was evident what was happening. But the US government / central bank and other governments and central banks looked the other way because they thought it was going to be a small bump. What you are seeing now is a proactive government taking care of things. You the necrotic tissue out of the body, you don't watch and see what happens. -Dave |
|
|
|
Regarding Coinomi, it's not uncommon for wallet providers to disclaim responsibility for lost funds, especially if the funds were not stolen due to a flaw in the wallet software or the company's infrastructure. So what they said is all they can do actually.
That only works for open source software that is released under certain licenses such as MIT that ensures the developers aren't liable for any "damages". But for a closed source software that we can't even verify where the vulnerability was that led to the loss, it should not work although the companies behind them will make it work. Actually it's in the ToS that nobody reads. And stated a few other times & places. More or less it boils down to 'we are not responsible for anything' and although not with Coinomi specifically similar ToS it have made it though the courts in a few places and so long as it was not hidden and mentioned several times it's been upheld. Nobody is making you closed source software with an iffy reputation. Nobody is making you not use a hardware wallet / multisig wallet. Nobody is forcing you to store your funds in a hot wallet. And so on. Perhaps a bit harsh, but in the end it's what it comes down to. -Dave |
|
|
|
would you use it with a domain you don't control? This is the classical problem of public keys: if you cannot share your public key in a safe way, then you cannot trust public key cryptography at all. Because no matter if this is your PGP key, your Bitcoin public key wrapped in any address type, or another kind of public key, the same thing is strictly required: sharing public keys in a safe way. The same is true for classical PGP keys with e-mail addresses: if you have your mailbox on some server, and if you have your public key posted in some keybase, what if those entries will be manipulated? You cannot stop mailbox provider from sending fake e-mails that will be poorly verified by inexperienced users. And you cannot stop keybase maintainer from sending fake PGP key, fully controlled by them, if the end user will not double-check that a keybase is no longer trusted. I am still thinking there has to be a way for me to offer up a service that does this that does not allow me to run with your funds. There is a way, but you probably won't like it. 1. You can wrap your public key in your e-mail. For example, in Tor, there are those long names with 56 characters. You can also use shorter names, and introduce any kind of hashing, like it was with SHA-1 truncated to 80-bit for old names with 16 characters, then the size of the name is determined by the hashrate of the attacker. 2. Using any NameCoin-like solution will work. Blockchain-based names will be bulletproof, but then, your users will have to download and verify the full list of all names (or use a third party to do that, and then it will bring us back to the starting point). 3. Your server could be a proxy for Silent payments. Then, sharing a single public key is needed, and your service could be used for scanning addresses, and providing any kind of SPV proofs for users. Then, you can only leak connections between addresses, but you cannot change them, if you cannot control them, and if you only know about "the current thing to find on the blockchain". 4. User-based puzzles will also work. For example, if your user knows that "SHA-256(pubkey||secret)" starts with N number of zero bits, and you don't know the "secret", then you cannot generate a fake address (because it would be as suspicious as brute-forcing someone's PIN). And then, users can safely share that "secret" and "algorithm" combination, that can be shorter than "pubkey". It is the same as salted passwords: if sharing the full public key by sharing 56 characters like in onion addresses is too much, then sharing a shorter "secret" is possible. But all of those add a shit ton of complexity. It would have to be something that is transparent for the user and simple (for people who might not understand how everything works) to verify. As I said it was just an idea I was kicking around. Since in the end you would have to trust the person running the domain and the web-server I do not see a simple way of making sure the LNRUL is actually the one that should be there without adding a way for people to check it, which in theory means trusting someone else not to be in cahoots with the person running the service. Gets back to not your keys -not your coins. But it's not your domain - not your email. -Dave |
|
|
|
Do you trust the other party that sent those currencies, or is it an unknown person from the Internet? If it was an unknown person, consider that you did not receive the money unless you get one confirmation. If you trust him, the sender can do Replace-By-Fee, which means resend the transaction, but with a higher fee, or you can do CPFP, which are well explained here -----> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1802212.0The easiest way is to ask the sender to do RBF (if you trust him and if his wallet is Electrum or any wallet that supports RBF) Do you mean that other wallets is not supportive if the sender want to add more fees it most be electrum wallet, i need more clarification in this point. No, many (most?) wallets support it. However there are a few that do not. Electrum does. Core does. What wallet is it that your friend is using? You still did not answer the question of what is the TXID. With that we can probably give you an estimate on what fee would have to be used to send the TX. Keep in mind the mempool is filled with a bunch of low fee TXs at the moment so it should not be that much (probably under 20 sat/vb) but without more information it all a guess. -Dave |
|
|
|
Reasons for the current cryptocurrency market downturn: The closure of the US Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) caused Bitcoin prices to fall overnight. SVB, the US lender to startups, announced on Wednesday that it will sell shares worth $225 million to strengthen its balance sheet. One of their announcements spread among the bank's victimized customers and created panic among customers and investors. Then as the share price drops by more than half, customers are more likely to withdraw their money. Due to this, the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) bank was closed.
to be more specific to the explanation SVB privately invested customer balance into treasury bonds at 1% when the bank run occured started. SVB had to sell the treasury bonds to liquidate the bonds back into fiat to then honour withdrawals of SVB customer fiat balance the big problem is that the bonds market have ample bonds at higher % to trade. so no one wants the 1% bonds. thus SVB had to sell them at a loss to liquidate them meaning SVB did not get 1:1 value of bonds. thus made a loss meaning their SVB customer balance is no longer 1:1 of available fiat A bit oversimplified but yes. There are a lot of other issues, but that is the one that caused the implosion so to speak. If you are driving fast, on a wet road, with bald tires and bad suspension, did that pothole really cause the crash? <shrug> does it really matter? People will keep putting money into the next big thing. From what I read even if USDC does take a hit from this from what I read they do have other insurance but getting accurate info now is kind of difficult. -Dave |
|
|
|
That's the effect of Silvergate Bank closing down, not the Planet of the Apes jpegs taking over the blockchain.
And now with Silicon Valley Bank getting shut down it is now causing pressure on USDC so now more people will be going back to BTC which will fill up the mempool even more as people try to move their USDC out. Personally I am wondering if I should gamble a bit and buy some in case it goes back up on Monday. Wonder how many people are panic selling / moving coins and if it will recover on Monday. -Dave |
|
|
|
Its called child pays for parent. https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/cpfp/You send a transaction that has a high enough fee to cover itself and the original. What is the txid of the transaction that is waiting to be confirmed? -Dave |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
