Mixers that mix bitcoin without letting it be obvious that it came from a mixer?

[franky1]

LOYCE

please take 10 minutes out of your day. step out of the "need to defend a buddy"
and have an independant thought

people that want real privacy, dont want to appear on an SAR (government watchlist)
the smart plan is to learn what the rules are that make people appear on an SAR.. and avoid that thing

you now know and been told several times mixers will get you flagged and watched
it doesnt matter if your buying/spending habits before or after are clean or dirty. just using a mixer(that event alone) gets you highlighted as suspicious. so mixers do not help you to stay off a SAR

think about it and dont reply with the usual group mentality. silly arguments

[tadamichi]

I am not fond of mixing at all, it should be illegal

The irony and hypocrisy, you’re advertising for a service that is programmed to mathematically guarantee that their userbase is losing more money than they’re making from it and have the audacity to judge a privacy tool as bringing in something bad and that it serves bad purposes. Modern humans are the perfect idiots, they make it so easy. Wake up sheep and think before you call for banning things. Touch your own nose first.

[tadamichi]

LOYCE

please take 10 minutes out of your day. step out of the "need to defend a buddy"
and have an independant thought

people that want real privacy, dont want to appear on an SAR (government watchlist)
the smart plan is to learn what the rules are that make people appear on an SAR.. and avoid that thing

you now know and been told several times mixers will get you flagged and watched
it doesnt matter if your buying/spending habits before or after are clean or dirty. just using a mixer(that event alone) gets you highlighted as suspicious. so mixers do not help you to stay off a SAR

think about it and dont reply with the usual group mentality. silly arguments

If you’re really concerned about privacy and financial sovereignty, you should be more concerned about the current criminalisation of privacy and abolishment of freedom principles, than you appearing on some useless list that can do nothing against you in the end, because we’re not criminals.

The correct response would be all of us triggering SARs with useless information on purpose, so they see that their tactics don’t work again us. But as most people get scared of lists, the punishment of privacy advocates and let themselves be divided easily, they rather let themselves be controlled. All it would take for us is to use our brains collectively just once to stop this nonsense. Divide and rule always outsmarts the sheep tho, because it doesn’t take much to do so.

[franky1]

The correct response would be all of us triggering SARs with useless information on purpose, so they see that their tactics don’t work again us.

WOW completely insane response to even suggest..!!

if you think you should get every user to give themselves headaches by using fake ID, that will just get them into even more trouble.
yep that is a criminal offense using a FAKE ID

you lot are unbelievable!! you flipped from wanting everyone to be on a SAR which means the government watches them (thus not privacy advice)
and now your suggesting they commit a criminal act of fraud just to make a silly point that changes nothing for regulators

the actual solution is much much much more simple, and its legal and it keeps you off a SAR

stop calling and advertising a certain feature as a "mixer"
much like uber doesnt call itself a taxicab company to avoid taxicab regulations

start creating and using something called.. for instance "property rights protection tool"
where the function is similar to what you want. but where its protected by actual property rights laws by describing it as being related to property rights, instead of privacy

yep property rights laws are stronger and have existed for centuries
however privacy laws are modern and dont apply to economics. so trying to hit your head against a hard rock trying to scream for financial privacy is a weak defence.

it truly does pay to do research, learn things and not just reply on the buddy speak of ignorant people

[tadamichi]

The correct response would be all of us triggering SARs with useless information on purpose, so they see that their tactics don’t work again us.

WOW completely insane response to even suggest..!!

if you think you should get every user to give themselves headaches by using fake ID, that will just get them into even more trouble.
yep that is a criminal offense using a FAKE ID

Nah something legal, simple and funny, like if a large amount of customers kept depositing and withdrawing small sums from privacy tools for example. This is about privacy and not becoming criminals, it would be funny if they had to report a lot of their customers, because it would show how broken the process is and that it isnt feasible to suspect everyone a criminal for wanting privacy. If they get bombarded with SARs of non-criminal users they might consider removing some bs triggers off that list, if they dont want it to become unusable.

the actual solution is much much much more simple, and its legal and it keeps you off a SAR

stop calling and advertising a certain feature as a "mixer"
much like uber doesnt call itself a taxicab company to avoid taxicab regulations

start creating and using something called.. for instance "property rights protection tool"
where the function is similar to what you want. but where its protected by actual property rights laws by describing it as being related to property rights, instead of privacy

Its not a bad idea, but im not sure if they would let it count in practice and if so for how long. Also how would it get past chainanalysis? For this the type of your business doesnt matter, theyre analysing transactions. In the end they dont have any incentive to create fair rules for Bitcoin, so sooner or later we will get put trough more and more absurdities and will have to face it at some point.

however privacy laws are modern and dont apply to economics. so trying to hit your head against a hard rock trying to scream for financial privacy is a weak defence.

If peopler never fought for their rights, we wouldnt have any. More and more surveillance is bad economically and doesnt prevent criminality, the reasons for it are actually based on weak defences.

[franky1]

Its not a bad idea, but im not sure if they would let it count in practice and if so for how long. Also how would it get past chainanalysis? For this the type of your business doesnt matter, theyre analysing transactions. In the end they dont have any incentive to create fair rules for Bitcoin, so sooner or later we will get put trough more and more absurdities and will have to face it at some point.

well property protection rights would mean you as the property owner have more protections about your property.. thus you get to sue businesses alot easier if they abuse your property rights
(something you cant do under the elusive privacy buzzword, especially if you are triggering the clause of the privacy protection(bank secrecy act) that allows businesses to share/sell your data)

yep when authorities seize assets under a court order. people do not go to court declaring "privacy" as the defense to get coins back.. they instead invoke their property rights to get their coins back(well if they are innocent ofcourse)

If peopler never fought for their rights, we wouldnt have any. More and more surveillance is bad economically and doesnt prevent criminality, the reasons for it are actually based on weak defences.

the first concept to understand is. property protection rights vs privacy rights.. the latter is not really deeply meaningful, well established or even fightable in a court or lobbying effort. especially when it comes to financial data

for instance the "bank secrecy act" meant to stop MSB from sharing financial information about you.. ..however there is a clause.. you should know this clause by now..
"unless there is a legal obligation/requirement to share information"

and guess what. the legal obligation/requirement is.. yep the suspicion of certain activity..
..

and if you went to court to fight it. you then have to explain your own transaction history and life story to explain away why you appeared on a SAR in the first place to even then become a data point that was sold
..

Nah something legal, simple and funny, like if a large amount of customers kept depositing and withdrawing small sums from privacy tools for example.

as for just trying to blanket bomb authorities with SAR reports. seems funny. but doesnt make them walk away
instead they intensify their efforts like arrest people that send in false ID's(they get the FBI involved as ID fraud is a federal level crime(felony))

oh and by blanket bombing them with SAR trigged from bitcoin transactions. ends up with authorities just telling exchanges to stop administering trades/accounts for bitcoin.

yep. the government are already one step ahead

https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/recommendations/Updated-Guidance-VA-VASP.pdf
VA = Virtual Asset - VASP = Virtual Asset Service Provider - AEC = Anonymity-Enhanced Cryptocurrency

174
...
 If the VASP cannot manage and mitigate the risks posed
by engaging in such activities, then the VASP should not be permitted to engage in
such activities.

if exchanges cannot manage and keep SAR under control. then exchanges simply have to stop using the currency that is causing it

EG
every monero/liquid transactions/LN (1ml.com reveals all funding tx) would trigger a SAR.. so guess what.. coinbase just dont offer monero/liquid/LN for customer use. for that very reason
meanwhile
some may pretend "good that means we shut down coinbase, kraken, bitpay, etc from accepting bitcoin"
but that does not stop the SAR reporting because data mine companies still get to sell data and put peoples tx's on watch lists to the sell for profit

meaning it does not stop personal data from being sold
..
as i have been saying all along if people for once thought outside the buddy system of the loyalty to the DCG roadmap and business plan

if those who support the DCG can get/persuade users to do something suspicious. it then allows the businesses to share(sell) info to each other. which is worth alot of money

the funny fact is that oeleo actually slipped up and showed how much the government pay coinbase for customer data. but coinbase and other exchanges ans MSB's also make alot of money when they sell data to other companies "in the clause of sharing kyc info of suspected users"

chain analysis makes money too by combining all the info it has from its sister companies, cheaply/for free, and sells it to non subsidiaries at a premium

all this pushing for everyone to get reported is just a scheme to make DCG alot of money selling customer data
are you starting to see one of many reasons why for 7 years i have disliked DCG and his loyal supporters
..

[Wind_FURY]

Mixers that mix bitcoin without letting it be obvious that it came from a mixer?

Shower thought. What if a mixer only accepted transactions sent to it through the Lightning Network? In theory, it could help with OP's question on how to "hide" the fact that someone used a mixer, because a transaction in the Lightning Network takes multiple hops before making it to the destination. It won't be your actual UTXOs that reaches the mixer. How will outside-observers know that you're actually using a mixer?

[franky1]

Mixers that mix bitcoin without letting it be obvious that it came from a mixer?

Shower thought. What if a mixer only accepted transactions sent to it through the Lightning Network? In theory, it could help with OP's question on how to "hide" the fact that someone used a mixer, because a transaction in the Lightning Network takes multiple hops before making it to the destination. It won't be your actual UTXOs that reaches the mixer. How will outside-observers know that you're actually using a mixer?

shower with some soap thought

locking funds up. and then using said references to then do some offchain swaps where the utxo to unlock of someone elses (random person) then goes to you. is better than spamming the network with traditional mixer span..
.. but if you then advertise that other network(LN) as a privacy enhancing tool (like regulators already recognise LN as a privacy enhancing tool) still gets all the locks to LN  red flagged
yep all them locks listed on 1ml are red flagged as suspicious.

so you would need to create a whole new smart contract network. NOT advertise it as a privacy enhancing network (while physically ensuring you dont ask for info that breaks privacy) but where the other network facilitates legitimate usage and more then just a niche things. oh and also where the routing/payment process does not require a gossip policy to publicly displaying fund locks as part (because yea thats not actually privacy in the first place) to ensure its not super easy to know which locks are tied to LN channels.. because yea common sense..
a network advertising itself as a privacy tool but by default publicly gossips all the utxo's linked to its network references of channels.. is not really then private

[Wind_FURY]

Mixers that mix bitcoin without letting it be obvious that it came from a mixer?

Shower thought. What if a mixer only accepted transactions sent to it through the Lightning Network? In theory, it could help with OP's question on how to "hide" the fact that someone used a mixer, because a transaction in the Lightning Network takes multiple hops before making it to the destination. It won't be your actual UTXOs that reaches the mixer. How will outside-observers know that you're actually using a mixer?

shower with some soap thought

locking funds up. and then using said references to then do some offchain swaps where the utxo to unlock of someone elses (random person) then goes to you. is better than spamming the network with traditional mixer span..
.. but if you then advertise that other network(LN) as a privacy enhancing tool (like regulators already recognise LN as a privacy enhancing tool) still gets all the locks to LN  red flagged
yep all them locks listed on 1ml are red flagged as suspicious.

You started the post reasonably, but there you are again, franky1. Starting to include subtle disinformation, and gaslighting techniques.

so you would need to create a whole new smart contract network. NOT advertise it as a privacy enhancing network (while physically ensuring you dont ask for info that breaks privacy) but where the other network facilitates legitimate usage and more then just a niche things. oh and also where the routing/payment process does not require a gossip policy to publicly displaying fund locks as part (because yea thats not actually privacy in the first place) to ensure its not super easy to know which locks are tied to LN channels.. because yea common sense..
a network advertising itself as a privacy tool but by default publicly gossips all the utxo's linked to its network references of channels.. is not really then private

I found this editorial opinion about the Gossip Protocol and the users' privacy from Bitcoin Magazine, which I will read later, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bitcoin-lightning-gossip-protocol-privacy

Plus in theory, having a mixer accept Lightning Network deposits and withdrawals might not be needed because Lightning could already act as a "pseudo-mixer" when a user sends a transaction through multiple hops to himself. I believe it will be those "unintentional use cases" that might bring more demand for Lightning transactions.

[AGD]

Are there any?

What's the point of a mixer if you don't get a fresh entirely new bitcoin address with no connections to any other bitcoin that could be "tainted"

Speaking of tainted bitcoins. Some people said tainted bitcoins aren't a thing. Well tornado cash crackdowns seem to suggest otherwise.

Cheapest and safest option I know is to open a private channel on Lightning, send funds to yourself to a regular lightning wallet and close the channel

[franky1]

Mixers that mix bitcoin without letting it be obvious that it came from a mixer?

Shower thought. What if a mixer only accepted transactions sent to it through the Lightning Network? In theory, it could help with OP's question on how to "hide" the fact that someone used a mixer, because a transaction in the Lightning Network takes multiple hops before making it to the destination. It won't be your actual UTXOs that reaches the mixer. How will outside-observers know that you're actually using a mixer?

shower with some soap thought
locking funds up. and then using said references to then do some offchain swaps where the utxo to unlock of someone elses (random person) then goes to you. is better than spamming the network with traditional mixer span..
.. but if you then advertise that other network(LN) as a privacy enhancing tool (like regulators already recognise LN as a privacy enhancing tool) still gets all the locks to LN  red flagged
yep all them locks listed on 1ml are red flagged as suspicious.

You started the post reasonably, but there you are again, franky1. Starting to include subtle disinformation, and gaslighting techniques.

you love the word gaslighting. but you have no clue.
try to do your own research and stop relying on buddies/peoples teachings..
funny part is i am the one that provides actual data from actual sources of actual things that are actually related.
its your buddies that just quote another buddy who quotes another buddy all with similar mindsets as their "sources". which makes them the gaslighters

go check the FATF policies
https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/recommendations/Updated-Guidance-VA-VASP.pdf
heck i even linked them to your lil buddy group. heck i even sumarising a few paragraphs of importance to them.. i even made them colourful to really show the things in a way that might tempt them to read..
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5409206.msg60729993#msg60729993
(its in blue)
and guess what..
the FATF do mention about layered networks promoted as scaling solutions but used as privacy enhancing tools.. so yep FATF are well aware of LN


..
i know your buddies are whispering to you to ignore regulations. dont do research and try to stroke your head back to sleepy land of utopian dreams that LN is the best thing ever and regulators dont know about LN.. all becasue one of their buddies told them so they should tell you that your in a good place with them

but your wrong
to save another if trying to battle your buddies groups ignorance. ill just repeat myself in the same post giving you 2 oppertunities to be brave and do the research by checking
something that is diferent to what your buddies have told you
 
here i picked out just some of the hundreds of things in the wall of text policy(your buddies never read walls of text so i know they did not read the FATF regulations)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5409206.msg60729993#msg60729993
the blue writing will show you that they know of LN and they consider these 'layering systems' and 'scaling solutions' that are promoted as privacy tools as suspect and red flag triggers

HENSE why i said stop advertising things as "privacy enhancing" and instead call a new smart contract network (with less flaws as LN has) a "property rights" network
then you will have more legal bases to defend against certain things. while then offering a feature that still (without mentioning it) does the functions you need

its called being smart. to find the loop holes of regulations. like how uber disrupted the taxicab industry without calling themselves a taxi service

rather then pretending regulations are not real and then advertising things as the very thing regulators are watching out for/actioning against

this topic is about the topic creator wanting to do a function without it being easily spotted as doing that function..
i gave actual advice..
the certain few people  of a certain group however.. are just saying "dont worry just use a service publicly promoted as doing the function"
(facepalm).. thus they are the ones giving bad advice

[o_e_l_e_o]

If peopler never fought for their rights, we wouldnt have any. More and more surveillance is bad economically and doesnt prevent criminality, the reasons for it are actually based on weak defences.

This. I have yet to see any evidence that blockchain analysis and mass invasion of users' privacy leads to less crime or fewer instances of money laundering, just like there is no evidence that general mass surveillance of the population reduces terrorism or any of the other nonsense the government feeds people to justify their actions. It's never about the things they claim. It's about control of their populace.

You started the post reasonably, but there you are again, franky1. Starting to include subtle disinformation, and gaslighting techniques.

It doesn't matter if they do. As I showed earlier in this thread, if you so much as withdraw your coins to your own private wallet and away from KYC enabled platforms, then you have already earned yourself a red flag. Whether or not you then open a Lightning channel is immaterial.

[darewaller]

I do not think that you guys need to really argue about something as easy as a data backed information that one of you could like and the other would dislike or agree or disagree. This topic doesn't really deserve any kind of hatred or excitement or anger that you guys are both showing. I think we do not really need bitcoin at all and that is why I never really considered it a problem.

There are so many coins out there in the world which has zero to little costs to transaction fee and people do not realize that people are already using this method to go their transactions between a billion or whatever addresses back into something and even though it can be tracked, the manhour or the machine power required becomes high so usually it "can" be found if it is a big deal, but usually not bothered 99% of the time.

[franky1]

I am not fond of mixing at all, it should be illegal

So asking change for the meter would become illegal too? It still amazes me how many people always ask for more government regulation and less freedom.

people who will keep doing it for bad purposes

Let me guess: next you'll tell me you have nothing to hide?

LOYCE..
you are kind of realising things. but afraid to step over the line and go against your buddies rhetoric.

the feature of a service that gives out change for a meter. is not regulation red flag.. because.. wait for it.. i think you know. but if not take a seat and wait for it.. [drum role]:

although the function is the same.. ITS NOT ADVERTISED as a mixer. its not promoting itself as a privacy enhancing tool..

get the idea yet? the loop hope i was talking about you guys seem to not get

stop advertising that people should use things defined as mixers, knowing that the use of mixers are the things that get people on watchlists

become smarter. start a new smart contract network without the LN flaws/bugs and bottlenecks.. dont advertise it as a privacy tool. call it a property rights protection network. (secretly it can function to swap coins between users without being on a ledger) and dont advertise it as a mixer/privacy enhancing tool. and so regulations are then not going to go after it.

yep a service giving change for a meter would be red flagged if it continued doing the same service. but started calling itself a privacy enhancing tool/mixer/tumbler(all the keywords of regulation red flags)

its not red flagged because its not advertised as such..
.. simple

[Wind_FURY]

Mixers that mix bitcoin without letting it be obvious that it came from a mixer?

Shower thought. What if a mixer only accepted transactions sent to it through the Lightning Network? In theory, it could help with OP's question on how to "hide" the fact that someone used a mixer, because a transaction in the Lightning Network takes multiple hops before making it to the destination. It won't be your actual UTXOs that reaches the mixer. How will outside-observers know that you're actually using a mixer?

shower with some soap thought
locking funds up. and then using said references to then do some offchain swaps where the utxo to unlock of someone elses (random person) then goes to you. is better than spamming the network with traditional mixer span..
.. but if you then advertise that other network(LN) as a privacy enhancing tool (like regulators already recognise LN as a privacy enhancing tool) still gets all the locks to LN  red flagged
yep all them locks listed on 1ml are red flagged as suspicious.

You started the post reasonably, but there you are again, franky1. Starting to include subtle disinformation, and gaslighting techniques.

you love the word gaslighting. but you have no clue.
try to do your own research and stop relying on buddies/peoples teachings..
funny part is i am the one that provides actual data from actual sources of actual things that are actually related.
its your buddies that just quote another buddy who quotes another buddy all with similar mindsets as their "sources". which makes them the gaslighters

go check the FATF policies
https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/recommendations/Updated-Guidance-VA-VASP.pdf
heck i even linked them to your lil buddy group. heck i even sumarising a few paragraphs of importance to them.. i even made them colourful to really show the things in a way that might tempt them to read..
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5409206.msg60729993#msg60729993
(its in blue)
and guess what..
the FATF do mention about layered networks promoted as scaling solutions but used as privacy enhancing tools.. so yep FATF are well aware of LN


..
i know your buddies are whispering to you to ignore regulations. dont do research and try to stroke your head back to sleepy land of utopian dreams that LN is the best thing ever and regulators dont know about LN.. all becasue one of their buddies told them so they should tell you that your in a good place with them

but your wrong
to save another if trying to battle your buddies groups ignorance. ill just repeat myself in the same post giving you 2 oppertunities to be brave and do the research by checking
something that is diferent to what your buddies have told you
 
here i picked out just some of the hundreds of things in the wall of text policy(your buddies never read walls of text so i know they did not read the FATF regulations)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5409206.msg60729993#msg60729993
the blue writing will show you that they know of LN and they consider these 'layering systems' and 'scaling solutions' that are promoted as privacy tools as suspect and red flag triggers

I never saw read the updated guidelines before, thanks for posting. OK, I admit my mistake.

HENSE why i said stop advertising things as "privacy enhancing" and instead call a new smart contract network (with less flaws as LN has) a "property rights" network
then you will have more legal bases to defend against certain things. while then offering a feature that still (without mentioning it) does the functions you need

its called being smart. to find the loop holes of regulations. like how uber disrupted the taxicab industry without calling themselves a taxi service

rather then pretending regulations are not real and then advertising things as the very thing regulators are watching out for/actioning against

this topic is about the topic creator wanting to do a function without it being easily spotted as doing that function..
i gave actual advice..
the certain few people  of a certain group however.. are just saying "dont worry just use a service publicly promoted as doing the function"
(facepalm).. thus they are the ones giving bad advice

Personally, I'm not pretending that regulations don't exist, and "they" the government are not real. In fact, my discussion in another topic about WasabiWallet blocking outputs used for "illegal transactions", and its users accepting the trade off, is something which I believe is the same debate to not ignore regulations because it could cause the user some legal problems years later.

I am not fond of mixing at all, it should be illegal

So asking change for the meter would become illegal too? It still amazes me how many people always ask for more government regulation and less freedom.

people who will keep doing it for bad purposes

Let me guess: next you'll tell me you have nothing to hide?

LOYCE..
you are kind of realising things. but afraid to step over the line and go against your buddies rhetoric.

the feature of a service that gives out change for a meter. is not regulation red flag.. because.. wait for it.. i think you know. but if not take a seat and wait for it.. [drum role]:

although the function is the same.. ITS NOT ADVERTISED as a mixer. its not promoting itself as a privacy enhancing tool..

get the idea yet? the loop hope i was talking about you guys seem to not get

stop advertising that people should use things defined as mixers, knowing that the use of mixers are the things that get people on watchlists

become smarter. start a new smart contract network without the LN flaws/bugs and bottlenecks.. dont advertise it as a privacy tool. call it a property rights protection network. (secretly it can function to swap coins between users without being on a ledger) and dont advertise it as a mixer/privacy enhancing tool. and so regulations are then not going to go after it.

yep a service giving change for a meter would be red flagged if it continued doing the same service. but started calling itself a privacy enhancing tool/mixer/tumbler(all the keywords of regulation red flags)

its not red flagged because its not advertised as such..
.. simple

From a technical standpoint, would sanctioning the Lightning Network be as easy as sanctioning Tornado Cash? Tornado Cash is a mixer in Ethereum, Lightning is a whole network of nodes from different locations worldwide.

[o_e_l_e_o]

In fact, my discussion in another topic about WasabiWallet blocking outputs used for "illegal transactions", and its users accepting the trade off, is something which I believe is the same debate to not ignore regulations because it could cause the user some legal problems years later.

So, sanction yourself and modify your own behaviors now in anticipation of what the government might do in the future? Yeah, that's going to be a hard pass from me, as I said earlier in this thread:

Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked.

Don't use mixers, or the government won't like it.
In fact, don't pay attention to your privacy at all, lest you anger the government.
In fact, why bother even holding your own coins? Leave them in a CEX so the government know exactly what you are doing with them at all times. That way, they will leave you alone.
In fact, better just let them monitor everything you do. You've got nothing to hide, right?

From a technical standpoint, would sanctioning the Lightning Network be as easy as sanctioning Tornado Cash? Tornado Cash is a mixer in Ethereum, Lightning is a whole network of nodes from different locations worldwide.

Of course not. Tornado Cash was a centralized service built on a centralized coin. Not only could they shut down the service, but they could also freeze all the coins and addresses involved. On the other hand, I can open a Lightning channel directly with another user in a peer-to-peer manner with no input from third parties. There is nothing there to sanction, short of sanctioning the entire bitcoin network.

[franky1]

oeleo loves to go to extremes to then explain away why he thinks he should not care about real world things..

it would be better he learn real world things to then work around them.. rather then exagerate things and say there is only 2 opens ignore or run away completely


put it this way.
last year there was a draft law and a certain few of the buddy group. wanted to exagerate the draft bill to scare peole nito thinking it aplied to bitcoin devs, bitcoin miners and bitcoin node users..
. the purpose of the exageration was 2 fold.
a. later when its made clear its not about devs, miners, node users, the exagerators can pretend it was their highlighting of the draft that then triggered a change of the draft(facepalm)
b. to try to scare people away from making other reference clients, to scare people off from using bitcoin

..
now here is the thing. the real targets of the draft were users that were acting as mixers, exchages without registering as a business.. oh and here is something that will boil and bubble your shower water.. the bit about (not verbatim)"anyone who facilitates the movement of value for a commision(money/fee) is to be deemed a money facilitator/MSB"
is also directed at LN routers

now you might be pretending this is not able to be regulated..
but lets take away al exageration. all dream utopia and be realistic

LN is not private the gossip defaults show pretty much everything. 1ml has lot of channels easy to search through

but here is the thing. lets take bitrefills and bitfinex.
if regulators were to push into LN.. they can get bitfinex to KYC comply or sever servicing their channel partners who dont comply..
and just like the hop process of routing. by the partners then KYC complying and then having to get their channel partners to comply or close channels. soon it all becomes a complient KYC network
where there would be a darker swamp LN network of non compliers passing the parcel between each other but finding it harder to get a link/route path from the swamp to the clearnet LN where by they can buy things in LN. because any service that does link to the darknet swamp routes of nodes that dont then KYC makes that service in trouble with regulators

yep.. because LN functions via routes of fee's just to pass the parcel.. makes LN more easy to end up having to follow MSB/MF compliance rules..

where as bitcoins relay network does not ask peers to pay a fee just to peer to peer relay. which is where bitcoin is not affected by that draft. but LN is

[OgNasty]

Personally, I think making mixers illegal would have a tremendously positive effect on this forum.  It would likely cut down on wannabe scammers, spam, and harassment from bored signature spammers looking to stir up drama for more reasons to post.  

There are privacy coins people can use already.  Tangling Bitcoin up with money laundering and defending it so you can make a couple bucks to spam here while pretending it's a privacy issue seems pretty selfish to me.

[n0nce]

Tangling Bitcoin up with money laundering and defending it so you can make a couple bucks to spam here while pretending it's a privacy issue seems pretty selfish to me.

In your eyes, is there no privacy issue that when you send me a Bitcoin payment, I can see where your change went and what you're going to do with it afterwards? That I could trace a payment to a centralized exchange or an online shop and ask them which customer deposited from that address?
I would certainly prefer to mix the output or have mixed UTXOs in appropriate sizes already that I can spend in full, without generating change...

[franky1]

Tangling Bitcoin up with money laundering and defending it so you can make a couple bucks to spam here while pretending it's a privacy issue seems pretty selfish to me.

In your eyes, is there no privacy issue that when you send me a Bitcoin payment, I can see where your change went and what you're going to do with it afterwards? That I could trace a payment to a centralized exchange or an online shop and ask them which customer deposited from that address?
I would certainly prefer to mix the output or have mixed UTXOs in appropriate sizes already that I can spend in full, without generating change...

by using a mixer you are actually giving up your privacy because your utxo movements before and after WILL BE FLAGGED and your movements from the services before and after the mixer WILL BE on a sar report that goes to authorities..

if the privacy goal is to not be watched by authorities. then you have to realise how the authorities watch certain people..

you do realise that authorities do not track every movement. there are like 10,000 tx a day.
just in bitcoin(let alone all the other currencies they look at(fiat included)
they dont have the time to watch them all and track them all..
its the very point of them looking at what things to define as suspicious to narrow down a short list of interesting transactions to concentrate their time on and actually watch

they then get financial services to make ways to generate that short list of people of concern..
and yet again i have to tell you USING A MIXER WIL GET YOU WATCHED

so if you dont want to be on a narrow shortlist of being watched. dont use a mixer

there are other ways not defined as mixers, other ways to create new things not described or promoted as mixers/privacy enhancing tools to meander through to make it tougher to be linked.
but mixers specifically and anything described as privacy enhancing will get you watched which makes them fail their purpose

be smart stop advertising things when you know the consequences of it. dont be stupid to continue advertising things that will put you on a watch list.
..