Binance Hackers Bombard Chipmixer to Launder at Least 4,836 BTC

[Ucy]

This is bad for Chipmixer.  If the authority decided to investigate on this and targeted Chipmixer to shutdown regardless of the investigation, they can easily do it since they have a proof in their hand that a mixing service had been used to launder a hacked BTC.  I wonder why Chipmixer did not suspend those transactions.., Did they failed to track that those BTC were hacked?

I don't see how this is really bad for Chipmixer because I believe laundering is part of what tumblers do, except the management will want to act Hollier-Than-Thou now by feigning ignorance. Otherwise it is a legitimate business for the anonymity they provide for clients. Criminals will from time to time get in the mix and patronize such services.

Nice one.
If hiding ones identity with VPN is not considered a crime then this shouldn't be a problem also. I mean, even criminal hide behind VPN or tor to commit crimes, does that make VPN/tor users criminals? Of course not!
Most of us use VPN to protect our identities same way we use mixers.
Imagine a world without VPN, TOR, shelter, privacy or mixers

[squatter]

The author of the article is making inferences of their own.

I'm trying to discuss the actual numbers with you. Bitcoin Magazine is a red herring, so please stop distracting people. I am asserting that according to the published Chainalysis data, only 10.8% of mixed funds could be linked to illicit sources -- and that should be obvious to anyone willing to look at the source.

Moving the goal posts, are we? This is what you were trying to prove:

I'm sure a few people use it for non-criminal purposes, but they are in the minority.

Can you at least concede that you were utterly wrong about that?

What does it say next to the words "Possible exploit" in this slide?

That generic slide that's an ELI5 for how mixers work, which contains no supporting data? You're grasping at straws.

You said, "Chainalysis [doesn't] publish guesswork, and whenever something is uncertain, they state so." And Chainalysis has reported exactly how mixers are used, down to the percentage of each use case. So, why are you ignoring that data? Because it's completely at odds with your beliefs?

The data doesn't disprove what I'm saying. Just because funds came from exchanges or other sources it does not mean they weren't gained from illicit or illegal activity.

Let's put it this way: There is zero data supporting your assertions that mixers are predominantly used for criminal activity. The data from Chainalysis -- the only data we have on the subject -- does not support your claims in any way.

Its not a "more relevant slide." They are all relevant. You prefer this slide because you can use it to draw conclusions that favor your own economic interests, even if they are ultimately biased or incorrect.

No, it's more relevant because it reports actual data rather than baseless opinions. This discussion was about actual usage but you seem uninterested in that now that the data doesn't support your outlandish claims.

[CoinClarity]

The author of the article is making inferences of their own.

I'm trying to discuss the actual numbers with you. Bitcoin Magazine is a red herring, so please stop distracting people. I am asserting that according to the published Chainalysis data, only 10.8% of mixed funds could be linked to illicit sources -- and that should be obvious to anyone willing to look at the source.

Finally you presented the results in an appropriate context. "Only 10.8% of the mixed funds could be linked to illicit sources" -- yes, this is correct. This is not what you were saying earlier.

That generic slide that's an ELI5 for how mixers work, which contains no supporting data? You're grasping at straws.

Not really. I'm pointing out that Chainalysis' opinion of mixers isn't as rosy as you think it is.

You said, "Chainalysis [doesn't] publish guesswork, and whenever something is uncertain, they state so." And Chainalysis has reported exactly how mixers are used, down to the percentage of each use case. So, why are you ignoring that data? Because it's completely at odds with your beliefs?

We were talking about a different blockchain analytics firm when I said that, although the same thing indeed applies to Chainalysis. Nobody is ignoring the data, I just ask that you not draw false conclusions from it.

[jerry0]

I always wondered this.  But when hackers hack wallets for btc or other coins, how do they make it legitimate so they could sell it for real money?  So they use mixers but if they sell the btc to coinbase or bitstamp etc, aren't there going to be tax issues such as where did they get the btc from as how they earned it?


I mean if have btc and sell it for cash in person, well they can get cash.


But how do these hackers who hack this much money make it legit?  I mean if they don't have much money, well they can't create a business etc.  Always wondered how these hackers do these kind of things.

[TryNinja]

I always wondered this.  But when hackers hack wallets for btc or other coins, how do they make it legitimate so they could sell it for real money?  So they use mixers but if they sell the btc to coinbase or bitstamp etc, aren't there going to be tax issues such as where did they get the btc from as how they earned it?

I mean if have btc and sell it for cash in person, well they can get cash.

But how do these hackers who hack this much money make it legit?  I mean if they don't have much money, well they can't create a business etc.  Always wondered how these hackers do these kind of things.

Maybe they laundry the money through a (fake) legit business (just like real-world drug dealers), or live normally without worrying about money (but also not going around purchasing Lamborghinis). They surely can't withdrawal all at once without drawing a lot of attention, but there are many ways of getting the money. After all, people do that in the real life with illegally obtained money.