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.
