[Blacklist] of unreliable, 'taint proclaiming' Bitcoin services / exchanges

[BlackHatCoiner]

Why work all your life for a tiny amount of money, while central banks create a million times more money than you earn in a lifetime in a millisecond?

Because you don't know there's an alternative, and if you don't know that, then you will, rationally, fall back on thinking that's the only solution there is. No matter how unfair it is, if you can't imagine of something better, your brain will, automatically, stop thinking about the problem. You will get to admit it, sooner or later.

But, it's time to change this. We do have a better alternative now. Bitcoin, that eliminates dishonest human behavior. There are no words in this system. Words are empty, they take no part in the way we construct consensus. Action is what matters. There's no faith in this system. Proof-of-Work is self-authenticating. Bitcoin is, ultimately, more fair.

And that's before we even talk about the efficiency aspect.

[Poker Player]

Add one more to the list, please.

Known scam site Bitlucy(crap).com is apparently very concerned about mixed coins:

8.8. Strict Anti-Coin Mixing Policy - Bitlucy has a strict policy against mixing coins. In accordance with the KYC and AML policies outlined in our terms. If a deposit or withdrawal is suspected of being received from or sent to an address that is associated with the mixing of coins, Bitlucy reserves the right to indefinitely hold a transaction until one of the following is complete: (1) The withdrawal is refunded to the same address through which the deposit was made from; or (2) the withdrawal is sent upon a full and thorough KYC and AML account verification and everything is accurate; or (3) the withdrawal is refunded and full gameplay has been reached.

What a joke.

[LoyceV]

Known scam site Bitlucy(crap).com is apparently very concerned about mixed coins:

They copied it from betcoin.ag (2015). And it's also copied by playbetr.com (2018). This is going to be a long list.

[icopress]

Add one more to the list, please. [...]

I don’t think that a fraudulent site should be added to this list, there are other lists for this, red tags, etc.

Have you seen the names of the companies represented in the OP? Are there scammers among them?

This list has a completely different goal ... not to mention that the Bitlucy plagiarized their conditions from other bookmakers.

[Poker Player]

I don’t think that a fraudulent site should be added to this list, there are other lists for this, red tags, etc.

Have you seen the names of the companies represented in the OP? Are there scammers among them?

This list has a completely different goal ... not to mention that the Bitlucy plagiarized their conditions from other bookmakers.

Of course I've seen it, and I've commented on it a few pages back.

I guess what you don't want is for legitimate projects (albeit with questionable blacklisting policies) to be mixed with scam sites, and I don't care if it gets listed or not. What had caught my attention is how a scam site supposedly cares about this, but seeing that they've probably copied it to give the appearance of seriousness, I'm not surprised.

[n0nce]

Known scam site Bitlucy(crap).com is apparently very concerned about mixed coins:

They copied it from betcoin.ag (2015). And it's also copied by playbetr.com (2018). This is going to be a long list.

Thanks guys; so the first one is a scam site and the other two are not? Then I'd just add Betcoin and Playbetr; since I wouldn't want to list scam coins in the first place to be honest.

[bbc.reporter]

|	Paxos Exchange	|	Rejects mixed funds	|	Source: https://news.bitcoin.com/another-crypto-exchange-discourages-the-use-of-bitcoin-mixing-services/	|
|	Binance Exchange	|	Rejects mixed funds (Wasabi)	|	Source: https://news.bitcoin.com/as-fatf-regulations-galvanize-crypto-mixing-applications-are-targeted/	|
|	Coinbase Exchange	|	Closes accounts that deposit mixed funds	|	[need source]	|
|	Wasabi 2.0 Mixer	|	Blacklists UTXOs by working with Chainalysis	|	Source: https://blog.wasabiwallet.io/zksnacks-blacklisting-update/	|
|	BestChange.com	|	Supports 'clean and dirty Bitcoins'	|	Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3309245.msg60225919#msg60225919	|
|	Gemini Exchange	|	No funds from gambling; 'Attempts to conceal the origin are not allowed'	|	Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5398316	|

This should bring attention to the importance of Defi protocols like Uniswap, onchain mixing similar to Tornado Cash, usage of anonymous coins and the development ZK rollups similar to ZKsync. Everything the community needs has been developed and will continue to be developed. If a scammer like Sifu can interact directly to a smart contract for onchain mixing and mock everyone about it on Twitter, it is very clear that it cannot get more unstoppable than this hehehehe.

[Poker Player]

Thanks guys; so the first one is a scam site and the other two are not? Then I'd just add Betcoin and Playbetr; since I wouldn't want to list scam coins in the first place to be honest.

The other two have been present on the forum for a long time and have signature campaigns runned by Hhampuz running for a couple of years, with no major problems with them so far. So yes, they are legitimate. In this case I would say that a copied T&C rule can be due to several legitimate factors, as someone who is going to launch a casino, looks at the T&C of some other reputable casino, and takes as a base their T&C adapting them and changing some points but not others.

[n0nce]

This should bring attention to the importance of Defi protocols like Uniswap, onchain mixing similar to Tornado Cash, usage of anonymous coins and the development ZK rollups similar to ZKsync.

Except all this DeFi stuff can't do fiat on-/off-ramps. You can only get so far with that. Sure, swap one token for another, or even cross-chain atomic swaps. But I believe most of the services that deanonymize users are centralized exchanges, which are seen as the only way to acquire or sell cryptocurrency by most users.

Everything the community needs has been developed and will continue to be developed.

Sure! Right now I'd recommend anyone to on-/off-ramp through Bisq or other P2P means and I'm looking for more usage of the existing and the development of competing solutions.

The other two have been present on the forum for a long time and have signature campaigns runned by Hhampuz running for a couple of years, with no major problems with them so far. So yes, they are legitimate. In this case I would say that a copied T&C rule can be due to several legitimate factors, as someone who is going to launch a casino, looks at the T&C of some other reputable casino, and takes as a base their T&C adapting them and changing some points but not others.

Thanks a lot!

[bbc.reporter]

This should bring attention to the importance of Defi protocols like Uniswap, onchain mixing similar to Tornado Cash, usage of anonymous coins and the development ZK rollups similar to ZKsync.

Except all this DeFi stuff can't do fiat on-/off-ramps. You can only get so far with that. Sure, swap one token for another, or even cross-chain atomic swaps. But I believe most of the services that deanonymize users are centralized exchanges, which are seen as the only way to acquire or sell cryptocurrency by most users.

Agreed, however, what is the cryptospace if it is not being developed to avoid converting to fiat. I reckon stablecoins might have very good growth in the cryptospace as we have been witnessing since 2017. The liquidity and volume of much of the market is in stablecoins and many exchanges have begun to accept only stablecoins as a replacement for fiat for purposes of compliance. Shadow banking in China is speculated to be running on USDT as their main currency..

Also, by using stablecoins it brings to the community a better solution for fiat. It is permisionless, borderless and can be cheap to use. But I agree to the cons also after what happened to Luna and UST.

[n0nce]

Agreed, however, what is the cryptospace if it is not being developed to avoid converting to fiat.

It's just the reality of things as of right now that most merchants only accept fiat, which means for lots of purchases, conversion back to fiat is necessary. The more private and more 'in the spirit of crypto' we can accomplish this, the better.

Also, by using stablecoins it brings to the community a better solution for fiat. It is permisionless, borderless and can be cheap to use. But I agree to the cons also after what happened to Luna and UST.

This makes no sense after your previous statement. First, you like the idea of replacing fiat with crypto, but then you also like crypto that is 'stable' which means 'pegged to fiat'? If we want to get away from fiat, we can't promote 'digital fiat'..
Unless a stablecoin exists that is pegged to 'purchasing power', which I don't think exists as an established index or anything like that.

[LoyceV]

Also, by using stablecoins it brings to the community a better solution for fiat. It is permisionless, borderless and can be cheap to use. But I agree to the cons also after what happened to Luna and UST.

This makes no sense after your previous statement. First, you like the idea of replacing fiat with crypto, but then you also like crypto that is 'stable' which means 'pegged to fiat'? If we want to get away from fiat, we can't promote 'digital fiat'..
Unless a stablecoin exists that is pegged to 'purchasing power', which I don't think exists as an established index or anything like that.

Not only does the value of stable coins depend on a single company, that also gives them the power to "taint" any coin they want. They could just as well have used a central database instead of a blockchain.
It gets even worse when a certain scam exchange creates their own centrally controlled blockchain and adds a stable coin (and even Bitcoin!) on their own fully controlled blockchain. Now there are 2 companies that can taint you "stable" coins!

TL;DR: "not your keys, not your coins".

[BlackHatCoiner]

Tether devs probably read the whitepaper until "Digital signatures provide part of the solution", skipping the "the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending" part.

but then you also like crypto that is 'stable' which means 'pegged to fiat'?

Not only they aren't "pegged to fiat", but this automatic consideration that fiat is stable is a nonsense. Have we seen what's going onto this world since 2020 the beginning of fiat currencies? There's no fiat currency that has retained its value. Even "strong" economies like the US, UK, EU, they're all experiencing massive devaluation of their currencies everyday.

Unless a stablecoin exists that is pegged to 'purchasing power', which I don't think exists as an established index or anything like that.

A stable coin whose exchange rate looks like 1 coin = 1 hash is definitely not stable. The more the purchasing power, the more the supply, ergo the less the equilibrium price. If only we could find a way to determine that the supply will remain the same, regardless of the energy spent, with some kind of variable parameter... 

They could just as well have used a central database instead of a blockchain.

I'll have to argue they don't. Blockchains have full transparency and an established monetary policy. You have neither of those in USDT.

[n0nce]

but then you also like crypto that is 'stable' which means 'pegged to fiat'?

Not only they aren't "pegged to fiat", but this automatic consideration that fiat is stable is a nonsense. Have we seen what's going onto this world since 2020 the beginning of fiat currencies? There's no fiat currency that has retained its value. Even "strong" economies like the US, UK, EU, they're all experiencing massive devaluation of their currencies everyday.

Fiat currencies are just as 'stable' as Bitcoin, if we determine the stability of a currency on its value denominated in itself.

If people consider something 'stable' that keeps a value of $1, they must deem the US dollar stable; just because it holds its own value.
It's funny, because by the same logic, I could argue that 'Bitcoin is a stablecoin, since BTC1 = BTC1'.

Or I could maybe create a 'BTCT' token that is 'pegged to BTC', so it's a stablecoin, because it is always worth the same amount as another currency (in this case BTC), even though that one fluctuates in value..
Don't see the difference between the scenarios I describe and 'USDT = stablecoin'.

Anyhow; we always end up on these huge tangents..

[BlackHatCoiner]

If people consider something 'stable' that keeps a value of $1, they must deem the US dollar stable; just because it holds its own value.

I think people consider the US dollar a stable currency, because it's "backed" (I really hate this word) by the US economy, is usable by anyone in an enforcing manner, and is minted by one entity* which supposedly tries to retain the value since it has complete control of the supply, and that's elected by the people "democratically".

However, this is not an advantage to begin with. It might look as an advantage, but in reality, you need to have your rights encroached to enjoy it. Same as with privacy invasion. Having less money laundering, tax evasion and terrorism is pointless if you have every inch of your privacy invaded.

*I mean cash (M0), but a much higher percentage (~95%) of non-cash money (M1, collateral) is controlled by commercial banks, whose actions are ultimately controlled by the central bank (not government!) who have seen themselves somewhat elite lately?

[dkbit98]

I'll have to argue they don't. Blockchains have full transparency and an established monetary policy. You have neither of those in USDT.

Isn't USDT just a token that is made on ethereum public transparent blockchain?
I am not fan of Tether but something like that can be useful short term when someone is trading.

It's funny, because by the same logic, I could argue that 'Bitcoin is a stablecoin, since BTC1 = BTC1'.

Not exactly, because they are comparing 1 dollar with all other fiat currencies and with other assets like gold, silver, etc. to determine how stable dollar is.
I think that nothing is really stable, it's only illusion used to steal wealth from people using inflation and other tools like that.
It's crazy to think that someone made us believe that fiat currencies can be called stable when we know they have infinite supply and they are printed all the time.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Isn't USDT just a token that is made on ethereum public transparent blockchain?

Does it matter if it's transparent alone, though? Alright, so we can verify that there are about 66.83B USDT according to coinmarketcap. Does it have a point if there can't be consensus found in a monetary policy and users have to just follow what one entity says? Sure, there's transparency of their action, but not of their arbitrary intentions. I can't do something if they decide to freeze some Ethereum addresses or inflate USDT to infinity by tomorrow morning, other than to verify it.

By the way, fun fact: Tether and Ethereum have no circulating supply completion bar. Because Tether and Ethereum are fiat. 

[n0nce]

It's funny, because by the same logic, I could argue that 'Bitcoin is a stablecoin, since BTC1 = BTC1'.

Not exactly, because they are comparing 1 dollar with all other fiat currencies and with other assets like gold, silver, etc. to determine how stable dollar is.

I don't think that's how stablecoins are defined. The definition of 'stable' is 'when measured against USD'. Just like they measure stocks and other assets against the USD; they do so with cryptocurrency and if a currency is more 'similar' to the US dollar, it's called 'more stable'. But I argue that the dollar itself isn't stable, and I don't think anyone doubts that.

Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies where the price is designed to be pegged to a cryptocurrency, fiat money, or to exchange-traded commodities (such as precious metals or industrial metals).

Basically, peg = stable - which is pretty misleading, if we look at the USD purchasing power chart.

[bbc.reporter]

Agreed, however, what is the cryptospace if it is not being developed to avoid converting to fiat.

It's just the reality of things as of right now that most merchants only accept fiat, which means for lots of purchases, conversion back to fiat is necessary. The more private and more 'in the spirit of crypto' we can accomplish this, the better.

Also, by using stablecoins it brings to the community a better solution for fiat. It is permisionless, borderless and can be cheap to use. But I agree to the cons also after what happened to Luna and UST.

This makes no sense after your previous statement. First, you like the idea of replacing fiat with crypto, but then you also like crypto that is 'stable' which means 'pegged to fiat'? If we want to get away from fiat, we can't promote 'digital fiat'..
Unless a stablecoin exists that is pegged to 'purchasing power', which I don't think exists as an established index or anything like that.

I am not quite certain what you are arguing about if a peg to fiat for you is a problem for a stablecoin. I am only talking about the concept of a stablecoin as a pemissionless, borderless and cheap internet currency we can use in crypto sportsbooks or in marketplaces similar to Opensea.

In any case, the whole cryptospace trading market is running on liquidity provided by stablecoins already. I reckon the market capitalization of USDT, USDC and BUSD added together would make in no.3 and this is growing.

Also, yes 1 bitcoin = 1 bitcoin but what you can buy with bitcoin during November will presently cost you more today because it is -85% in value. It is a head shaking argument for stability.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I am only talking about the concept of a stablecoin as a pemissionless, borderless

A stablecoin isn't permissionless/borderless. As said, Tether can decide to blacklist certain Ethereum addresses arbitrarily, and it has already happened. It's just one entity. You may not have to hand them over your identity to register, but it doesn't go in your way. You're under their own rules; not yours as in bitcoin. You someday might not be "worthy" enough to have access.

I reckon the market capitalization of USDT, USDC and BUSD added together would make in no.3 and this is growing.

Market capitalization is pointless in cryptocurrencies, let alone in stablecoins. It doesn't show the money that's inside the system. Tether can mint a quadrillion USDT, but there's no real money created other than unlicensed IOUs.