Long-time sig campaign farm ID'd via single wallet transaction

[JollyGood]

Well it happened to me too, figmentofmyass also contacted DT members asking them to either remove me from their trust list or add me to their distrust list.

I did question why but the idea of sock-puppets or alt-accounts never really came to my mind. I now think I must given red trust to one of his alt-accounts and that must have struck a nerve therefore he tried his best to manipulate others against me.

Well... Well... Well...

So the DT1 Troll figmentofmyass who DT distrusted me and spent many months convincing other DT1 Trolls that my investigations into alts was wild hysteria has been proven to be in actual fact an alt scammer him/herself scamming from the largest SigCamp.

[mikeywith]

I thought of that possibility too. It would be interesting (but painstaking) to cross-check all addresses ever posted by all participants.

Enough shocks for this month, can you do that a month later?. .

When you think about it, blockchain evidence is hard to deny even if someone tries to frame you, imagine if someone wants to connect your account to an alt, they can easily send you funds from the address they use for another signature campain, or send it to the address you send to, of course, I'd imagine another chipmixer participant won't attempt that unless they are willing to lose their spot in the process, but it all can be done "theoretically".

This brings up a question, is there someone who is willing to spend some BTC for an extended period just to frame someone?

[DaveF]

This brings up a question, is there someone who is willing to spend some BTC for an extended period just to frame someone?

I guess it would depend on the amount of BTC vs. the desire for revenge / screwing with people and their own economic situation.

If you REALLY REALLY pissed me off and for $30 week for 9 months (36 weeks) so a bit less then $1100 it might just be worth it. If I could really screw with you.
**But it would have to have done something really over the top for me to do that. Like ulta horrible, it's just not me or my thing. Others may feel differently.**

OTOH, the sig campaign I am in and have been in for 40+ weeks is paying $60 so it would be blowing 1/2 my "free" money.
If someone felt really wronged, they could look at it as only earning $30 a week instead of spending $30 a week.

YMMV.

-Dave

[nutildah]

Part I of II

I usually don't place much credit on "similar" registration dates (depending on how you define it), but in some instances it can certainly act as a piece of the puzzle, so I'll give credit where its due.

Generally speaking, the weight of similar registration dates shouldn't be enough to "convict" somebody of being an alt on their own, as a lot of harmless accounts can get caught in the crossfire. It should be used to add credence to a pre-existing theory.

So let's break it down in terms of what is correct usage of this as evidence vs. what is not.

from the OP's list of those they identified this simple list of the UID's involved shows their various creation dates / last active dates:

Code:

2012-11-21, 06:21:20 Date Registered: 	MAbtc

2013-07-09, 18:43:52 Date Registered: 	illyiller
2013-07-09, 18:49:13 Date Registered: 	figmentofmyass

2013-10-28, 00:34:01 Date Registered: 	exstasie

2013-11-18, 04:37:55 Date Registered: 	squatter
2013-11-18, 06:41:48 Date Registered: 	marky89

2014-07-27, 20:08:36 Date Registered: 	manchester93
2014-07-27, 20:20:46 Date Registered: 	romani245
2014-07-27, 20:31:48 Date Registered: 	illinest

2019-11-09, 08:23:27 Last Active: 	marky89

2020-01-15, 05:50:16  Last Active: 	MAbtc

2020-02-19, 17:55:53 Last Active: 	romani245

2021-02-02, 08:33:27 Last Active: 	exstasie

2020-03-05, 07:53:32 Last Active: 	manchester93
2020-03-05, 07:53:48 Last Active: 	illinest

2021-01-19, 20:49:35 Last Active: 	illyiller

2021-01-27, 10:33:45 Last Active: 	squatter
2021-01-30, 03:01:58 Last Active: 	figmentofmyass

Here we can clearly see 3 sets of accounts registered just minutes or hours apart. We already know suspect they're alts and the registration dates of at least 7 of these accounts pretty clearly adds to that theory. We also know there's a good chance he created these accounts specifically for the purpose of gaming the forum, and he's likely not coming back under them.

Here's where things start to get a little off the rails:

Were @darkstar_ to compile a list (indeed *any* Campaign Manager) something like that would stand out like a sore thumb.

While doing this may yield interesting results further worth pursuing, it's a great way to get a lot of innocents caught up in the crossfire and suspecting people of being alts on this criteria alone is a bad idea.

[ibminer]

Stop thinking in a world of rules and control and start thinking in a world where all possibilities and opportunities will be taken advantage of by someone, and protect yourself accordingly..

Your world sucks.
A world where only the most immoral and unethical people will thrive and dominate.. this is the world you want?

How are you going to "protect yourself accordingly" when all forms of possible protection are taken advantage of by someone, and aren't forms of protection at all anymore?  You'll either become them, or be owned by them.

I'm all about personal freedoms and independence.. i.e. governments, banks, etc.. should not have the type of power they have and should be limited on many fronts. However, no rules, no policies, no government at all... will not be a good thing.. not if you want to have a somewhat civil society or community.

I absolutely don't condone deception, but as far as scamming and defrauding goes, this is all very tame by bitcointalk or cryptocurrency-sphere standards.

It seems counterintuitive to say you absolutely do not condone deceptive behavior, but then try to play down deceptive behaviors.
Do you believe a person willing to cheat on a signature campaign for money is not going to cheat on a no-fee raffle, if he believes he can't be caught?  What odds would you give for this happening?

my tribute to this great legend:

 


Anyway, good work nutildah!

[nutildah]

Part II of II

So, here are the UID's I said are alts ways back in 2017:

Code:

2011-05-30, 19:00:03 Date Registered: 	dabest1

2012-07-13, 18:56:47 Date Registered: 	Fuckbuddies

2013-07-11, 20:33:34Date Registered: 	fildza

2013-07-26, 11:21:21 Date Registered: 	Wipeout2097

2013-08-10, 12:58:55 Date Registered: 	Kyle91

2013-09-13, 02:37:29 Date Registered: 	drpepperyummy

2013-09-24, 01:15:27 Date Registered: 	 ltiv

2013-10-26, 23:51:06 Date Registered: 	beegatewood
2013-10-28, 00:34:01 Date Registered: 	exstasie
2013-10-29, 01:01:20 Date Registered: 	mert1337
2013-10-29, 05:35:27 Date Registered: 	Xtrem999
2013-10-30, 19:49:21 Date Registered: 	Leezil
2013-10-31, 15:04:09Date Registered: 	BioBTC
2013-11-01, 11:50:23 Date Registered: 	Jochen

OK so now you're literally declaring people alts who have registered up to 15 months apart. Even between 10-26 and 11-01, how many accounts do you think were registered in that time period? Hundreds, at least.

I see you also connected them for shilling the same ICO (didn't look into it), so it could very well be they are bought accounts or are still part of a farm, but again I think you run the risk of involving too many innocents on these two things alone.

This I disagree with entirely, and I'll explain why:

...
2013-10-26, 23:51:06 Date Registered:    beegatewood
2013-10-28, 00:34:01 Date Registered:    exstasie
2013-10-29, 01:01:20 Date Registered:    mert1337
2013-10-29, 05:35:27 Date Registered:    Xtrem999
2013-10-30, 12:33:31 Date Registered:    gentlemand
2013-10-30, 19:49:21 Date Registered:    Leezil
2013-10-31, 15:04:09Date Registered:    BioBTC
2013-11-01, 11:50:23 Date Registered:    Jochen
...

This is exactly why you can't use registration date as your only piece of evidence for connecting alts. FOMA lives somewhere in the pacific northwest would be my guess, as his 3 biggest accounts post from that timezone (I didn't check the inactives). He's either American or Canadian whereas gentlemand is British through and through. It took me a minute to find this example and I'm sure there's hundreds of others:

...
In this day and age forums are on their way out unless already established. People do Facebook groups and IM stuff like Telegram or Discord. I think it's an unfortunate development as all that info effectively vapourises.
...

Americans spell the word "vaporizes."

You'd be hard pressed to find any FOMA-connected account who spells things British. Actually it's a challenge and I'll award 25 merits to someone who finds an example that proves me wrong.

imagine if someone wants to connect your account to an alt, they can easily send you funds from the address they use for another signature campain

If somebody randomly sends me bitcoin to my sig campaign / staked address, I suppose I'll have to learn to deal with the consequences.

Anyway, good work nutildah!

Thanks!

[suchmoon]

This brings up a question, is there someone who is willing to spend some BTC for an extended period just to frame someone?

Cost and suicidal strategy aside, it's not as easy as it may seem. You would have to rely on the recipient having poor privacy practices (spending unknown UTXOs, comingling, address reuse, etc).

[Quickseller]

This brings up a question, is there someone who is willing to spend some BTC for an extended period just to frame someone?

It is possible (and is actually happened in the past) that someone can frame someone for being a scammer without spending any BTC.

This happened to ndnh (formerly ndnhc) in 2015. Someone extorted someone, had their extortion scheme exposed, then posted an address that could be spend-linked to an address that ndnh posted to receive the proceeds from a loan. In that particular case, the evidence was intended to not stand up to scrutiny, as the address was posted in a giveaway/prediction thread whose deadline had expired, that ndnh was running(?). If someone had wanted the accusation to stick, they could have made minor adjustments to what they did.

[Timelord2067]

Well it happened to me too, figmentofmyass also contacted DT members asking them to either remove me from their trust list or add me to their distrust list.

I did question why but the idea of sock-puppets or alt-accounts never really came to my mind. I now think I must given red trust to one of his alt-accounts and that must have struck a nerve therefore he tried his best to manipulate others against me.

Well... Well... Well...

So the DT1 Troll figmentofmyass who DT distrusted me and spent many months convincing other DT1 Trolls that my investigations into alts was wild hysteria has been proven to be in actual fact an alt scammer him/herself scamming from the largest SigCamp.

Thanks for your good wishes @JollyGood , as sad as it sounds, unfortunately for the moment at least, we are stuck with DT1 Trolls who will attempt to undermine our work.


As you can see from the OP's post just a few prior to this follow up post of mine, the OP attempts to erode others with FUD flying in the face of cold hard facts.

For example:  At no point in my one prior post in this thread do I make any suggestion that any of the subsets are alts of any of the other subsets.  I even quoted the hypothesis' put forwards by others and compared the available data to answer their speculation, but made no confirmation statements concerning any of the UID's mentioned in this thread.


We will just have to keep calling out the DT1 Trolls as they whack-a-mole rear their ugly heads, rinse and repeat.

See you over in the Known Alts thread.

[nutildah]

I know you're talking to me and not around me. So, let's address your point together:

For example:  At no point in my one prior post in this thread do I make any suggestion that any of the subsets are alts of any of the other subsets.  I even quoted the hypothesis' put forwards by others and compared the available data to answer their speculation, but made no confirmation statements concerning any of the UID's mentioned in this thread.

I guess this doesn't mean what I thought it meant:

So, here are the UID's I said are alts ways back in 2017:

Regardless of how we interpret your mention of gentlemand, the fact that his account "registration date is spot on for these two clusters" has nothing to do with anything. By bringing it up here you are inferring that it does. I am telling you 100% it does not.

[LoyceV]

imagine if someone wants to connect your account to an alt, they can easily send you funds from the address they use for another signature campain, or send it to the address you send to
~
This brings up a question, is there someone who is willing to spend some BTC for an extended period just to frame someone?

If anyone wants to do this, please send your free Bitcoin to any address I own, and not to any of the addresses I send coins to. I may or may not have access to those addresses. I don't mind receiving free Bitcoin, and I'm not afraid at all of any accusations.

If you REALLY REALLY pissed me off and for $30 week for 9 months (36 weeks) so a bit less then $1100 it might just be worth it. If I could really screw with you.
**But it would have to have done something really over the top for me to do that. Like ulta horrible, it's just not me or my thing. Others may feel differently.**

So you're saying.... I have to do something really bad to get $1100 for free? I don't think that's how punishing someone works.

[hilariousetc]

I thought of that possibility too. It would be interesting (but painstaking) to cross-check all addresses ever posted by all participants.

Enough shocks for this month, can you do that a month later?. .

When you think about it, blockchain evidence is hard to deny even if someone tries to frame you, imagine if someone wants to connect your account to an alt, they can easily send you funds from the address they use for another signature campain, or send it to the address you send to, of course, I'd imagine another chipmixer participant won't attempt that unless they are willing to lose their spot in the process, but it all can be done "theoretically".

This brings up a question, is there someone who is willing to spend some BTC for an extended period just to frame someone?

I'm surprised this hasn't been done much more to be honest as it's very easy to do and just create a throwaway account to 'expose' it and let the feeding frenzy of default trust warriors go in for the kill. Somone would have to be pretty pissed off at you but who here hasn't annoyed someone at one point and we all know how petty some people can be.

This brings up a question, is there someone who is willing to spend some BTC for an extended period just to frame someone?

I guess it would depend on the amount of BTC vs. the desire for revenge / screwing with people and their own economic situation.

If you REALLY REALLY pissed me off and for $30 week for 9 months (36 weeks) so a bit less then $1100 it might just be worth it. If I could really screw with you.
**But it would have to have done something really over the top for me to do that. Like ulta horrible, it's just not me or my thing. Others may feel differently.**

Well it doesn't really matter how much was sent. All it takes is one transaction to link an address to another.

Here's where things start to get a little off the rails:

Were @darkstar_ to compile a list (indeed *any* Campaign Manager) something like that would stand out like a sore thumb.

While doing this may yield interesting results further worth pursuing, it's a great way to get a lot of innocents caught up in the crossfire and suspecting people of being alts on this criteria alone is a bad idea.

And that's where timelord fucks up. He's used worse parameters than that before for allegedly tying up accounts often verging on the ridiculous.

Well it happened to me too, figmentofmyass also contacted DT members asking them to either remove me from their trust list or add me to their distrust list.

I did question why but the idea of sock-puppets or alt-accounts never really came to my mind. I now think I must given red trust to one of his alt-accounts and that must have struck a nerve therefore he tried his best to manipulate others against me.

Well... Well... Well...

So the DT1 Troll figmentofmyass who DT distrusted me and spent many months convincing other DT1 Trolls that my investigations into alts was wild hysteria has been proven to be in actual fact an alt scammer him/herself scamming from the largest SigCamp.

Thanks for your good wishes @JollyGood , as sad as it sounds, unfortunately for the moment at least, we are stuck with DT1 Trolls who will attempt to undermine our work.

You undermine your own work with faulty conclusions and by the trust abuse you commit. Any 'good' work you do is invalidated when you use nonsense to tie other accounts together. You can't throw 50 darts at board and congratulate yourself when one of them manages to stick in whilst the rest fall to the floor.

[JollyGood]

I know you're talking to me and not around me. So, let's address your point together:

For example:  At no point in my one prior post in this thread do I make any suggestion that any of the subsets are alts of any of the other subsets.  I even quoted the hypothesis' put forwards by others and compared the available data to answer their speculation, but made no confirmation statements concerning any of the UID's mentioned in this thread.

I guess this doesn't mean what I thought it meant:

So, here are the UID's I said are alts ways back in 2017:

Regardless of how we interpret your mention of gentlemand, the fact that his account "registration date is spot on for these two clusters" has nothing to do with anything. By bringing it up here you are inferring that it does. I am telling you 100% it does not.

I agree with this....

gentlemand does have a particular (and in many way somewhat peculiar) manner of writing, to imitate that on an on-going basis as part of an alt-account group that has so many different ways of posting - used to milk and cheat signature campaigns - would be an extremely difficult thing to do.

There is a member in the forum that has stated he has met gentlemand in person, I believe him.

Well it happened to me too, figmentofmyass also contacted DT members asking them to either remove me from their trust list or add me to their distrust list.

I did question why but the idea of sock-puppets or alt-accounts never really came to my mind. I now think I must given red trust to one of his alt-accounts and that must have struck a nerve therefore he tried his best to manipulate others against me.

Well... Well... Well...

So the DT1 Troll figmentofmyass who DT distrusted me and spent many months convincing other DT1 Trolls that my investigations into alts was wild hysteria has been proven to be in actual fact an alt scammer him/herself scamming from the largest SigCamp.

Thanks for your good wishes @JollyGood , as sad as it sounds, unfortunately for the moment at least, we are stuck with DT1 Trolls who will attempt to undermine our work.

You undermine your own work with faulty conclusions and by the trust abuse you commit. Any 'good' work you do is invalidated when you use nonsense to tie other accounts together. You can't throw 50 darts at board and congratulate yourself when one of them manages to stick in whilst the rest fall to the floor.

@Timelord2067 I mentioned nothing else. I more or less stated I also was targeted by the figmentofmyass group because she/he/they tried to manipulate others in to distrusting me.

And you are right hilariousetc, though some of the accusations could be correct, it is somewhat counterproductive if 49 or so of those darts are not hitting the target. If something was presented that would make a very strong case for members to look at and head towards a general consensus it would have been better. Or if irrefutable evidence was presented then that speaks for itself.

I have a feeling this might not be over, there could be more accounts linked to the figmentofmyass account and since it has been a highly lucrative deception there is nothing stopping him from buying accounts or using dormant sleeper accounts to become active. Furthermore he could easily pay to be a copper member on a whole set of multiple accounts - he does have the funds after all.

[pugman]

Also, since potentially affected users lost against FomA in the competition to be admitted, them being accepted would technically mean CM would be paying for posts of inferior quality to those of FomA.

Counter-hypothetical: what if FOMA didn't cheat and made 120 posts per week with one account providing extra free advertising to CM, who could then hire one or two other users with the same budget and get even more advertising. That's basically how it works with honest participants like LoyceV who often exceeds the 50 post count by a large margin.

Yeah so Loyce can I hire you? You'are AI anyways so to speak. So technically, you won't cheating since you are no human. Thoughts?

Do you know what's even more ironic? I have always liked exstasie but I didn't really enjoy reading figmentofmyass's posts, it's "incredible" how one person may seem like a few, he indeed did a better job than "Kevin in the movie Split".

If I remember correctly, I particularly only had back-and-forths with exstasie and thought he was a one-up dude, pretty great and overall very chill. IT really sucked, things BTS weren't exactly so. But anyways, its a good thing, cause now we have new pARTICIPANTS! FELLOW CHIPMIXERS! So YEAHH!! excited for them!

[malevolent]

I absolutely don't condone deception, but as far as scamming and defrauding goes, this is all very tame by bitcointalk or cryptocurrency-sphere standards.

It seems counterintuitive to say you absolutely do not condone deceptive behavior, but then try to play down deceptive behaviors.

When countless people lose large amounts of money to hacks and scams, usually with no recourse, it's hard not to notice what seem to be interestingly disproportionate levels of indignation shown towards the behaviour of someone merely using alts at a signature campaign, sometimes to the point of comparing it to a robbery #118.

Do you believe a person willing to cheat on a signature campaign for money is not going to cheat on a no-fee raffle, if he believes he can't be caught?  What odds would you give for this happening?

I have no idea, you'd have to ask them. Personally I believe the latter to be far worse.

[DaveF]

If you REALLY REALLY pissed me off and for $30 week for 9 months (36 weeks) so a bit less then $1100 it might just be worth it. If I could really screw with you.
**But it would have to have done something really over the top for me to do that. Like ulta horrible, it's just not me or my thing. Others may feel differently.**

So you're saying.... I have to do something really bad to get $1100 for free? I don't think that's how punishing someone works.

So, if I spent $1100 to get you kicked out of the ChipMixer campaign that would not be "punishment"
If I started a bunch of alt accounts that I deliberately got banned and had funds could be tied to them also get tied to your addresses so you get banned from here that would not be punishment?

There would be some time and effort on my part, and probably some BTC spent to get some decent accounts to farm so I could do some other work to tie them together and then to you.

As I also said, not my style, my style is the ignore button and a ~ in trust.

Not that I think I would ever have to do that to you.
My only gripe with you is the post scraper that archives all my misspellings and grammar mistakes before I can edit them. ;-)

-Dave

[eddie13]

My only gripe with you is the post scraper that archives all my misspellings and grammar mistakes before I can edit them. ;-)

-Dave

Just always post a 1 liner and edit into the masterpiece you intended..

[LoyceV]

So, if I spent $1100 to get you kicked out of the ChipMixer campaign that would not be "punishment"
If I started a bunch of alt accounts that I deliberately got banned and had funds could be tied to them also get tied to your addresses so you get banned from here that would not be punishment?

You missed this part:

I'm not afraid at all of any accusations.

I like to think you can't fabricate hard evidence this way. I've seen fabricated plagiarism too.

My only gripe with you is the post scraper that archives all my misspellings and grammar mistakes before I can edit them. ;-)

Lol

[eddie13]

Stop thinking in a world of rules and control and start thinking in a world where all possibilities and opportunities will be taken advantage of by someone, and protect yourself accordingly..

Your world sucks.
A world where only the most immoral and unethical people will thrive and dominate.. this is the world you want?

How are you going to "protect yourself accordingly" when all forms of possible protection are taken advantage of by someone, and aren't forms of protection at all anymore?  You'll either become them, or be owned by them.

I'm all about personal freedoms and independence.. i.e. governments, banks, etc.. should not have the type of power they have and should be limited on many fronts. However, no rules, no policies, no government at all... will not be a good thing.. not if you want to have a somewhat civil society or community.

Sucks?
Well maybe, but it’s reality.. Maybe reality sucks..

If you are going to offer something to “anonymous” aliases, then why would you not EXPECT it to be taken advantage of by one person being multiple aliases?
Would you advocate for kyc? (Imagine ChipMixer requiring kyc lmao)

If forms of protection are available to all, that sounds fair to me..
I don’t think banks should be limited/regulated either, but at the same time they should have no special privileges or protections over any other person or company..

What makes the world “suck” in my opinion is when a government meddles with absolutely free voluntary capitalism in any way, such as giving banks privileges to do anything anyone else is regulated from doing, and then trying to regulate limits on a bank they just gave privileges to in the first place..

Like being a “licensed money transmitter”.. Ridiculous..
Why? To stop people from selling drugs at extremely jacked up prices due to government regulation, and to stop government tax evasion??

Fuck government.. They cause almost all of the problems in the first place they attempt to solve later..

If you are scared you can’t protect yourself so feel you need a government to protect you, then.. idk we aren’t the same..

When you step into a/this world of anonymity and unstoppable/unregulatable/unconfinscatable/untraceable cryptocurrency that was designed in the first place for the purpose of being possibly the most ultimate tool of liberty the world has ever seen, what do you expect? Puppies and kittens?

Satoshi didn’t create Bitcoin with the intention of making people rich, or it to be a cheaper/easier form of currency..
Satoshi created Bitcoin with its main principals/intentions of being able to fuck banks and governments right in their asses while remaining unstoppable.. (see the big blocker debate, decentralization and robustness against government attack [small blocks at the cost of reduced throughput])
You a BitchCoin fan?

You can use Bitcoin for whatever you want, but the fact is Bitcoin is basically the purest rendition of straight anarchy that has ever existed..

“But governments regulate what you can do with Bitcoin” - NO!! Governments merely regulate what punishment they will inflict on you IF you do XYZ with Bitcoin, but you can still do anything XYZ with Bitcoin and they cannot stop you (or catch you if you are smart)..

So basically expect that people are doing XYZ “naughty” things with Bitcoin at all times, because they can and will..
If you can imagine that their is a Satoshi to be made doing anything, no matter how immoral, bet your ass someone is doing it.. Likely with the help of your dearest ChipMixer..
Because they can..

Wtf possibly are you going to do about it? NSA can’t stop it, surely you can’t either, so you might as well accept the world you live in for what it is, or choose to be or not to be in that world (crypto)..


Don’t like it? Maybe the first thing you should do is start advocating against ChipMixer!!

What do you think CM does?
They launder money! They protect tax evaders, protect drug dealers, hitmen, you name it, the most immoral profitable thing you can imagine I’m sure chipmixer has protected them..
It’s what they do!!

Chipmixer got “scammed” a little tiny bit by some guy writing posts? Lol..
How do you feel about DPR getting scammed by redandwhite?
Live by the sword, die by the sword? No?


What happened here is FOMA didn’t use ChipMixer!!
CM is made for people just like FOMA..

Y’all just love CM because they are a stand up company with great principles?
These are their principles!! Anarchy! Lawlessness, enabling every sort of “criminal” you can imagine!!
What world do you think your in exactly?

[Slow death]

What do you think CM does?
They launder money! They protect tax evaders, protect drug dealers, hitmen, you name it, the most immoral profitable thing you can imagine I’m sure chipmixer has protected them..
It’s what they do!!

Chipmixer got “scammed” a little tiny bit by some guy writing posts? Lol..
How do you feel about DPR getting scammed by redandwhite?
Live by the sword, die by the sword? No?


What happened here is FOMA didn’t use ChipMixer!!
CM is made for people just like FOMA..

Y’all just love CM because they are a stand up company with great principles?
These are their principles!! Anarchy! Lawlessness, enabling every sort of “criminal” you can imagine!!
What world do you think your in exactly?

about your comment, I think the following:

did the chipmixer owner create a mixer for thieves or created for anyone who wants more privacy? i'm not a chipmixer owner i can only assume that it created for anyone to have more privacy.

because if he know (have proof) that criminals are using his mixer to commit crimes this is dangerous and bad.

bad because sooner or later the police will knock on his door and from what I see the justice system is very cruel for this type of crime