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

[n0nce]

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 the 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.
..

For example.. Lightning Network, right? It's not a mixer, yet it allows me to spend anonymously... Oh no, you don't like that either! Sorry - off-topic.

Anyhow, I actually asked OgNasty whether he believes there is no privacy problem in Bitcoin, because he made it sound that way.

[franky1]

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 the 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.
..

For example.. Lightning Network, right? It's not a mixer, yet it allows me to spend anonymously... Oh no, you don't like that either! Sorry - off-topic.

Anyhow, I actually asked OgNasty whether he believes there is no privacy problem in Bitcoin, because he made it sound that way.

the FATF (financial action task force) mentions:
anonymity-enhancing technologies or mechanisms
including but not limited to:
AECs, mixers, tumblers, privacy wallets
and other technologies that obfuscate the identity of the sender, recipient, holder,
or beneficial owner


(aec) anonymity enhanced currencies
anonymity enhancing tools and service

and yep wait for it       look at what its describing:
the use of embedded layering or other scaling solutions
virtual-to-virtual layering schemes that attempt to further obfuscate transactions in a comparatively easy, cheap, and secure manner.


its not about what i like or dont like
READ THE GOVERNMENTS OWN ADVICE OF WHAT THEY WANT BUSINESSES TO WATCH OUT FOR AND PASS INFORMATION TO AUTHORITIES

seems yet again you think its "about franky so ignore it"
no.. dont point fingers at me for actually doing the research which you lot are incapable of,.
dont blame me for informing you of things you ignore or hide away from reading..
how about go do your own research

i find it very sad that when i point out flaws in services and altnets.. instead of doing your own research you want to point fingers and cry and then get upset that someone had to tell you the harsh truth, and then get mad that someone is not kissing your ass and being a best buddy, and so instead of living the real world and actually doing the research, you cower down to a buddy system who will kiss you back to sleepy dream land of ignorant utopia while telling you not to protect yourself and telling you not to do the research

stop with the social drama of finding ways to stay ignorant by trying to think of the messenger ass the bad guy you need to ignore.
and just do the research. realise that mixers and privacy enhancing tool will get you red flagged and yes in them same regulation guidelines it does also mention LN
and here is the funny. i am not an agent nor anyone relativised to politics or regulations. i did not write it so dont blame me that they are also classing LN as something suspicious and bad.
so stop pretending "its franky so ignore it"

if you care about your privacy its in your best interest to do your own research and not play ignorant cry baby when someone tells you the harsh truth.

dont cry about me being harsh.. instead think about the reality of life and facts. do your own research and realise what happens in the real world outside the utopian dreams you want to tell each other.

[o_e_l_e_o]

seems yet again you think its "about franky so ignore it"
no.. dont point fingers at me for actually doing the research which you lot are incapable of,.

You mean like the research I did 3 pages ago which thoroughly debunked this nonsense you keep repeating but you have simply chosen to ignore?

Since you seem to be so keen on what the FATF have to say about bitcoin, here are some more great quotes from them you might be interested in (but will probably also ignore):

The FATF defines peer-to-peer’ (P2P) transactions as VA transfers conducted without the use or involvement of a VASP or other obliged entity (e.g., VA transfers between two unhosted wallets whose users are acting on their own behalf).

The FATF recognises that P2P transactions could pose specific ML/TF risks, as they can potentially be used to avoid AML/CFT controls in the FATF Standards.

Therefore, ML/TF risks related to P2P transactions should be monitored in an ongoing and forward-looking manner.

So, any transaction which does not involve a centralized exchange "should be monitored".

And from the same document, under the headings "Risk factors":

Transactions from / to non-obliged entities (e.g., unhosted wallets with no obliged entity)

So, any transaction to or from your own personal wallet constitutes a "risk".

So go ahead and bleat on about how mixers are high risk according to the FATF, while conveniently ignoring that fact that the FATF say that any transaction which is not part of a KYCed account on a centralized exchange reporting directly to your government is equally high risk.

[franky1]

debunked me?
nope you made up a narrative which you thought was a rebuttal.. that was all..
you however did not really do any research, because you did not understand the context of the quotes you used. you simply just tried to find a snippet that might sound like something and then exaggerated its meaning to try to fit your narrative, without you understanding what it actually implies

you do know that it is about advice to VASPs.. right?

so when you said that this

Receiving funds from or sending funds to VASPs whose CDD or know-your-customer (KYC) processes are demonstrably weak or non-existent.

Pretty sure that covers all the examples I gave above. But wait! There's more!

where you imply (in your warped mind) that all transactions are red flagged... you have forgotten that the advice in that quote is given to regulated/compliant VASPS.. where by it is about if VASPS send or receive funds from to/other VASPS whos CDD/KYC processes are weak or non existent then treat the funds coming from those other VASPS as suspicious

its not about all VA from user wallets

..
i know you are trying to push hard to try to make bitcoin look like:
a complete red flag system where all transactions are SAR
broke
not fit for purpose
(yea i know your game from the last couple years of trying to push that narrative that people should not use bitcoin unless its for the benefit of using a service/offramp/altnet you advertise)

.. you are then trying to divert and ignore that the FATF have called out services like mixers directly and undeniably.. and also layer networks promoted as scaling solutions (LN) which also were directly mentioned. aswell as AEC(liquid/monero)

strange how your trying to AVOID at all times to admit that mixers/LN/monero(the main things you promote.use) are treated as suspicious and how you want to call out bitcoin as a whole as bad..

so have fun trying to twist words that are not actually mentioning bitcoin as a whole
while then trying to ignore, avoid where things like LN, mixers, AEC(liquid/monero) are described as suspicious to a higher threshold... have fun with your silly narrative. but i hope one day you see the consequence of your dreamy narrative of ignorance.
..
as for your latest quote about VA (not using a service)

you are forgetting that it does not say anything about red flagging those transactions or SAR those transactions

again meaning not sending that data up to authorities to be on some watch list.

you really need to read it properly.. and realise that regulated services put a "risk rating" where there is a threshold(well several thresholds)
the first threshold triggers a service to internally do an investigation to see if it hits a suspicion level threshold.
this next level then allows them to share data with their other parters/sister companies and other services they have made agreements to share data with..
if they then find that the transaction meets the red flag threshold its then sent as a SAR to authorities.

the FATF mentions what things to look out for to raise the risk rating to next thresholds and what they consider a thing to watch out for to trigger an SAR

no where in the FATF does it ever say, suggest, hint, ask, request that all transactions be put into a SAR to then go to authorities.

but it does say hint suggest, request that a transaction that has performed a certain activity by using a certain feature, function tool (mixers tumblers, AEC, layered networks advertised as scaling solutions)be highlighted for a SAR.

one other thing you forget.. but recently admitted to..
this sharing of data and SAR costs money. you admitted recently that coinbase gets paid hundreds of thousands for sending SAR to authorities

but if you look at the amounts involved. and you actually look on government websites about the number of SAR's sent to the authorities.. you will notice in actual data .. that its not 10,000tx a day.
no where near that

now please.. do some proper research.. and i dont mean try to find snippets that doent mean what you say but are then twisted to pretend it says what you mean via your misunderstanding..
drop the confirmation bias tactics of your warped mindset. and actually do open minded research of fact finding, even if it means getting answers/results you may not like.

learning things you may not like can actually be helpful to you. you can then learn what to watch out for.
however ignoring things you dont like and staying ignorant hoping to remain in the dreamy utopia, wont help you in the long run, yea it may feel good to you and cradle you back to sleep by playing confirmation bias games.. but reality is a better place to live in. and you cant really live if your asleep

[o_e_l_e_o]

you do know that it is about advice to VASPs.. right?

You haven't read it at all, have you? Do you just search for the word mixer and copy and paste that paragraph while ignoring the rest of the document?

Here's some more direct quotes for you. Emphasis mine.

It [the guidance] is intended to both help national authorities in understanding and developing regulatory and supervisory responses to VA activities and VASPs

The Guidance describes the application of the FATF Recommendations to countries and competent authorities

The Guidance is intended to help national authorities in understanding and developing regulatory responses to covered VA activities and VASPs, including by amending national laws, where applicable, in their respective jurisdictions in order to address the ML/TF risks associated with covered VA activities and VASPs.

So no, you are wrong. The advice is to countries and national agencies about all VA activities. It is neither advice exclusively to VASPs or exclusively about VASPs.

.. you are then trying to divert and ignore that the FATF have called out services like mixers directly and undeniably.. and also layer networks promoted as scaling solutions (LN) which also were directly mentioned. aswell as AEC(liquid/monero)

And you are ignoring the direct quotes I gave you which show the FATF have called out unhosted wallets and peer to peer trading directly and undeniably, which involves literally every single person who doesn't interact with bitcoin exclusively through a KYCed account on a centralized exchange. So if you want to call out mixers based on the FATF rules, then you also need to call out every DEX, every merchant who accepts bitcoin, every personal wallet and indeed Bitcoin Core itself.

[franky1]

hey IDIOT

while you want to create drama about "i need to fight franky" to distract topics about mixers being part of regulated tools.. (yep you keep doing it)

you need to actually do some research beyond the confirmation bias crap snippets you want to push about how you want to call all of bitcoin bad.. and how mixers/ln is good..

if you truly liked bitcoin and actually cared about privacy.. you would not turn this into a "fight franky"
you would instead take your confirmation bias hat off.. realise this topic(not created by/about franky) is about mixers. and then you would find that parts about mixer..
you should stop trying to AVOID any regulatory discussion about mixers or any talk about mixers. and then when you have learned everything you can about how mixers are involved in regulation(this topic) you can stop being an idiot who promotes that people should use mixers more.

so now go read the parts about mixers(this topic) and your favourite privacy tools and realise the facts of life about using privacy tools

now grow up

as for your snippets 3 pages ago. every single one of them are about VASPS interactions with other VASPS and customers of vasps who do certain suspicious activities. that are SAR worthy.

.. they are not about peer-to-peer being SAR and neither are your quotes on this page about creating a SAR

read the stuff properly. full context. dont try finding the little snippets that exclude talking about SAR and then pretend it must be about SAR. and dont find snippets that dont mention mixers to pretend the guidence doesnt mention mixers. . actually real the whole thing and learn what it actually describes

[BlackHatCoiner]

you would instead take your confirmation bias hat off..

Ironically, you're the one wearing that hat. You're the one who's biased towards everyone who doesn't go well with your pro-censorship and anti-bitcoin perspective. Is it about Lightning? SegWit? Bitcoin Core developers? Mixers? You're just right, and everyone else is wrong, arguments asides. Admit it. Admit that you're the only person in this room who fights against these things, no matter the times we've exposed the shit out of your obnoxiousness and incompetence to produce valid arguments. You're just right, and can't stand reading this garbage, can you?

"Drama queens", "altnet fangirls", "ass kissers"; isn't it just the way you'd describe the members of this community? Besides fundamentally wrong in the way they understand the subject, of course.

[franky1]

yawn

ill leave you lot to go play utopian dream and tell each other what silly services to go play with each other in, just to cause each other to create more dirty taint for yourselves to swap between each other in your endless swamp of ignorant club house swaps

you had your chances to learn
enjoy your ignorance.

have fun swapping your coins between each other

lil babies dont like it when people tell them to not play with a boiling hot water saucepan. even when they dont realise that they will cry more when getting burned for playing with a hot saucepan.. and thats why i call you idiots. you cannot see the risks beyond your own desires

[BlackHatCoiner]

ill leave you

Please do. Get the hell out of here, and I'll owe you. Take a step forward: Logout. Remove franky1 from the board. I'm sure you won't be missed.

[16xypjnxlrew]

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...

These are conspiracy theories! Who needs to know about the data who paid, no one! Who are you hiding from? Are you a trillionaire to hide from everyone? Michael Saylor hiding, Elon Musk? You don't have trillions in BTC, then why don't you have more money in your bank account than in BTC, are you hiding from the bank? Do you have a car? Do you have a home? Calculate how much money was spent on this, more than buying 0.10 BTC. Are you not afraid that the neighbors will take away your house and car, because they can calculate how much money they can get from the sale of your property? Mixers are only for scammers!

[n0nce]

What I don't understand franky: first you say we can use something that enhances our privacy but isn't called 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 the fail their purpose

But then you say that any type of obfuscation is forbidden.

the FATF (financial action task force) mentions:
anonymity-enhancing technologies or mechanisms
including but not limited to:
AECs, mixers, tumblers, privacy wallets
and other technologies that obfuscate the identity of the sender, recipient, holder,
or beneficial owner
(aec) anonymity enhanced currencies
anonymity enhancing tools and service
and yep wait for it       look at what its describing:
the use of embedded layering or other scaling solutions
virtual-to-virtual layering schemes that attempt to further obfuscate transactions in a comparatively easy, cheap, and secure manner.

if you care about your privacy its in your best interest to do your own research and not play ignorant cry baby when someone tells you the harsh truth.
dont cry about me being harsh.. instead think about the reality of life and facts. do your own research and realise what happens in the real world outside the utopian dreams you want to tell each other.

I'll ignore all the rambling and capslock-shouting and ask: what do you recommend, then? What were the findings of your research that let people use their money freely without being flagged criminals?
Did your research show that there is no such way and that we're forced to accept being surveilled nonstop?

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...

These are conspiracy theories!

They're absolutely not; this is what is technically possible in Bitcoin. And you can bet that what is technically possible, is also done to a smaller or larger extent, sooner or later.
When satoshi and other cypherpunks developed Bitcoin in the beginning, before the 'to the moon' craze and everything, there was this dream to have anonymous, freely usable and uncensorable money, governed by no one. The problem is that we didn't know how to make it anonymous back then, so satoshi settled for pseudonymous at first. It was a little deficit, a weakness, from the start. We learned to work around this limitation; but anonymity was always a main goal of cryptocurrency.

Who needs to know about the data who paid, no one!

I must correct you: 'nobody should be able to know about the data who paid'. There are various reasons why people do track and log this type of information.

Who are you hiding from?

I can't tell you whether or who I am hiding from now, or may want to hide from, in the future. But it's my right to want to be able to do so, don't you think? If I litter data around today, it can bite me in the ass 10 years from now.
You should read about this topic (not only this article - read until you understand): https://spreadprivacy.com/three-reasons-why-the-nothing-to-hide-argument-is-flawed/

Are you a trillionaire to hide from everyone? Michael Saylor hiding, Elon Musk? You don't have trillions in BTC, then why don't you have more money in your bank account than in BTC, are you hiding from the bank?

You don't know that. But again; do refer back to the 'nothing to hide argument' and learn why it is indeed flawed. Even if you're a nobody, you should want to have privacy. It's not hard to understand, but I know that a large portion of the population has been brainwashed into the 'nothing to hide' fallacy by now.

[franky1]

I'll ignore all the rambling and capslock-shouting and ask: what do you recommend, then? What were the findings of your research that let people use their money freely without being flagged criminals?

you are not flagged criminal (to be arrested).
you are flagged suspicious.. IF.. IF.. IF you use things like mixers. (to be watched)
this flag then triggers your use of a mixer as a reason out of all +/-10,000tx a day, only yours/those that use a mixer puts those utxo on a watch list. (way way way under 10k a day, very small percentage)

in regulations there is this thing.. and its real.. it is called a human compliance officer.
yep human eyes. watching. which then decide what is suspicious to raise a red flag and a human brain to decide to investigate by raising a SAR to give that info to authorities

Did your research show that there is no such way and that we're forced to accept being surveilled nonstop?

firstly read the * at the end of this post.. then start reading everything else below this sentence(it will reset your mindset away from a certain conspiracy your buddies have indoctrinated into you)


authorities do not get 3.65m+/- SAR reports about all transactions of all blocks per year
they only get a small percentage.
not all blockchain activity reaches authorities
they do not have time to watch and investigate everything.

you are not forced to be surveilled all  the time just by using bitcoin(though your buddy group wish to tell you differently).
the silly notion your buddies are conspiring to tell you to put fear in you that bitcoin is broke and not fit for purpose(has a hidden agenda behind their mantra about their conspiracy crap to try to offramp you away from using bitcoin, or get you to use one of their services that comes with using a fee/middleman/locking funds up into giving someone else some level of co-duel signee control of your funds)

you are pushed into being surveiled IF you use the things listed that are things that cause you to be surveilled. (i told you the list of things.. yep mixers, aec and layered networks described as scaling solutions )

learn how other industries got around regulations
if you want to drive people around for profit..  
dont call yourself a taxi company.
oh wait uber done this and they are still not regulated by the taxicab licencing/regulations

if you want to advertise that you offer food delivery for a fee..
dont call yourself a restaurant
oh wait just-eat(uk/eu) uber-eats do this.
and they dont have to be regulated by the food standards industry regulations

air-bnb not regulated by hospitality, public health
.. see where i am going with this

if you want to do something . dont use something thats promoted as the thing that is regulated

also shouting "privacy" is a nonsense term in regards to financial protections. because financial privacy is guess what. protected by the bank secrecy act. which is the very regulation that allows regulators to obtain information about you if you are doing the suspicious activities they list.

using mixers means you give up your perceived protections..

its the same as if a street has clearly put up signs saying. CCTV operating in this area.
by walking down the street. you are pretty much agreeing to then be watched on camera
giving up any perceived notion that you think you deserve to not have your face recorded

so by using a mixer you are giving up any perceived protection that you think you have about authorities watching your financial trades/movements

meaning if you ever dared to legally challenge your "privacy" you then end up first having to explain your suspicious activity that got you on their radar. thus you end up having to reveal more about yourself before you even get to challenge fight for "privacy" invasion

by walking into their jurisdiction you then become a subject f their jurisdiction. thus then cant fight or pretend their jurisdiction doesnt matter because its too late, you are in it

however by using things that are "property right protection" tools
property rights is a higher law that supersedes any fantasy privacy you think  you are entitled to. yep property right protection actually does protect you and gives you better rights

property rights protection is about allowing you to do as you please with your assets unencumbered by regulators. unless they can prove criminal activity

financial privacy is about not watching you unless you do something suspicious they list((doesnt have to be criminal) where they can then watch you
thus property rights gives you a defense as long as you are then not foolish to use the things the financial regulations lists as suspicious

its like having two houses
if you enter a house thats called a property right house. you can do as you please in that house and its up to regulators to try to find a warrant to have a reason to then enter the door to then find something suspicious.. to then watch you

if you enter a house that is called a privacy/anonymity enhancing house you are entering a house that has authority camera's installed already and a court ready to sign warrants to enter without knocking to grab the footage where you are being watched

so..
simple
stop using things that are advertised as the key worded red flags of financial regulations

use something else thats not advertised as "privacy enhanced"(LN/monero/liquid, etc)
mixers tumblers, non compliant VASPs, etc
invent new tools that are described differently

have a good read of the regulations, without the conspiracy hat, without the silly mantra that people tell you bitcoin is already broke.
and think smart about the loopholes to get around the regulations
..

take the silly people that think that free speach is protected by the US constitution.. for the silly people that dont live in america
for them to gain US constitutional protections they have to move into Us jurisdiction which then makes them a subject of us law which can then mess them up in other ways because then US law applies. which the person living outside of the US originally did not have to worry about

so by spouting out you have a financial privacy right. is you announcing you are entering the jurisdiction of the bank secrecy act which then means they can apply their polices on you if you do activities that they describe as suspicious

.
again
its like having two houses
if you enter a house thats called a property right house. you can do as you please in that house and its up to regulators to try to find a warrant to have a reason to then enter the door to then find something suspicious.. to then watch you

if you enter a house that is called a privacy/anonymity enhancing house you are entering a house that has authority camera's installed already and a court ready to sign warrants to enter without knocking to grab the footage where you are being watched

* in california where there are a few bitcoin MSB(exchanges) such as coinbase, kraken, ftx to name jsut a few.
there are also alot of other MSB like fiat remitters, forex services, travel/foreign vacation money services. etc etc
so out of all MSB fiat/bitcoin in 2017 only 204k SAR were generated
https://www.fincen.gov/fcn/SARStats_Maps/SARStats-Maps-MSB.html#aUSMSB17
so out of all MSB fiat/bitcoin in 2018 only 217k SAR were generated
https://www.fincen.gov/fcn/SARStats_Maps/SARStats-Maps-MSB.html#aCAMSB18

this shows that out of the hundreds of fiat AND bitcoin MSB in california if the amount combined is under 220k a year.. then the amount of SAR related just to bitcoin MSB is far far far less than 220k a year

so when bitcoin is doing about 10k tx a day = 3/65m a year tx.. they are not all ending up as SAR reported data to authorities to be watched as suspicious

[philipma1957]

try and show me anywhere on the blockchain where by it shows in raw transaction/block data. the products you have bought at any time

.. hmm.. you cant?
then the blockchain is not the problem

the problem is services/businesses..
it doesnt matter if you bought a sex doll or a candy bar, drugs or a office chair. by using certain services that are red flagged as suspicious. you will be red flagged and put on a watch list

these regulated services are not tracking you because of what you bought or announcing to the world what you bought. they are putting people onto watchlists because they are doing suspicious things.

i have not used LN or liquid or mixers with my stash. and i am not on any watchlist.
yep. 10 years and thousands of transactions later.. im still not on a watch list..

so dont pretend that just buying a office chair or a sex doll or candy or other things is going to get people put onto watch lists simply because they didnt use a mixer.. the actual fact is the opposite. by using a mixer no matter what you bought previous to its use. will put you on a watch list.

you or i, dont have to like their rules. but to atleast understand the rules you can learn how to avoid being on a watch list even if you use funds innocently

as for the services that do share information(something else to be angry about). dont cry that they do it and pretend they shouldnt. realise the reality.. they are regulatory required to do it. so knowing you are friends with a group of people that you share a certain mindset with at many exampled times.. look who their idols are
and look who is paying their idols.
and you will find DCG.. who own things like LN liquid.. but also own chain analysis and several prominent exchanges
so while your buddies are pointing fingers in all other directions trying to blame others.. look at the route of the problem.

the crowd that are advertising mimblewible(tumblers), mixers, AEC(liquid,ln,monero) de-fi, and other things.. are the same group that are advertising to use those suspect services which end up generating profits for other services their idols own

yep by using a mixer gets you watchlisted by chainanalysis that sells that info to exchanges and passes info to them who pass it onto regulators. and also at the exchange level the exchanges then share your info with other exchanges at a profit.

understand the games being played against you under the false guise of "privacy" when the actual adjective is "profit"

as for the exaggeratiosn that "government watches everyone 24/7"
i said this many times before in topics whree scertain people use scare tactics to advertise services..
the governmetn does not have millions of employees to watch hundreds of millions of citizens 24/7. they instead delegate businesses to watch over their own customers..
take just coinbase with over 60million customers.. take kraken, and other crypto services all situated in san fransisco county..
there are reports and studies done that show only 200k SAR's were sent to government in 2021
less than 0.3% of just coinbase customers thus about 0.1% over all for all MSB in SFC

but guess what was the main red flag trigger of them 0.1% .. yep using tools known to be red flag triggers
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5409206.msg60729993#msg60729993
yep using anonymising tools even if funds were not criminal used

My mom worked for the IRS
My wife worked for the IRS
I worked for the IRS

The IRS has algorithms that will trigger audits.

I know more than a dozen people in btc using a cpa that report everything.

No audits.
No mixers.

I do not know people using mixers so I don’t know how successfully they avoid audits.

I have always recommended report the earnings and don’t worry.

So it makes me anti mixer.

And so far my guess is LN is not good for BTC.

Not sure 🤔 so I won’t damn franky1 or praise him for being anti LN.

I will say this I fear LN so much I stack Doge I stack LTC and I stack BTC

and I can show where I get the coins so I do not fear tainted coins.

[franky1]

yep philipma1957 is correct
there are algo's that set thresholds of tx. but this is not a "watchlist/investigation"
no human eye is making decisions or viewing or caring about all the random data

all data is not passed to a authority note the * in the bottom of my last post

not all data is put onto a list where by a human decides that something is a certain level to then request a court order to then ask a MSB for all of the rest of the info related to the person/account/user/ activity related to the transaction that is not flagged but related to the flagged tx so that they can scrutinise and watch closer certain people/activity from start to end


take banking. the IRS is not watching everything. they get SAR reports in the form of amounts exceeding $10k. and other things(specific to the criteria of IRS)
not all small payment records, not all transactions
if they details they get on the $10k tx lead to a suspicion that the person should not have $10k floating around(EG records show they are unemployed or the MSB KYC had the user registered as unemployed) then the IRS can ask for a court order to get the MSB to comply to sent any extra data they have about all activity so that the IRS can truly watch/scrutinise a user.

in short
the triggers(like using mixers in the case of bitcoin MSB(VASP)) then puts you onto a watch/audit list at the authority level. where humans like philipma1957 family then investigate and audit. and watch the money flows and try linking them to any (in philipma1957 family case) tax avoidance
the amount of cases/records that authorities look at is a very very small subset of all transactions ever made

if you are not causing a trigger you dont get on a audit/watchlist to be scrutinised/suspected/investigated
..
here is the other thing
to watch/scrutinise/audit/investigate is not something that takes a human
3tx a second to do. so its not like 1 compliance officer at coinbase is churning through every tx
 
authorities do not have the manpower to scrutinise/watch/investigate/audit everything bitcoin/fiat

that is why they only concentrate on the suspected/redflagged stuff
..

[o_e_l_e_o]

You're just right, and everyone else is wrong, arguments asides.

Same old story with franky1. You might remember last year when the US passed new laws which said that anyone who was responsible for providing any service which makes transfers on behalf of another person was now classed as a broker and would be held to the same standards as a broker, i.e. needing to file the name, address, taxpayer details, amount, date, and nature of every party and every transaction, or be suspected of money laundering. Despite everyone on this forum, all of crypto Reddit and Twitter, the CEOs of various exchanges platforms, many prominent crypto media sites and personalities, and sitting Members of Congress saying that the scope of this wording was too broad and could be applied to anyone the government liked, from miners to developers, franky1 ranted long and hard about how we were all stupid and just scaremongering and hadn't read the law and didn't know what we were talking about, and he and he alone knew the one real interpretation of it and developers would never be targeted by the government. Fast forward and a Tornado Cash developer is arrested simply for writing code.

I'm sure franky1 will have some wildly convoluted reasoning as to why he is still right despite this and that these two things are definitely not linked in any way, just like he has some wildly convoluted reasoning which allows him to pick the one or two paragraphs from the FATF guidance which mention mixers while conveniently ignoring the pages and pages of the rest of the documents I've extensively quoted in this thread which mention every transaction which isn't on a KYCed account on a centralized exchange.

What I don't understand franky: first you say we can use something that enhances our privacy but isn't called a mixer.

Which is frankly (pun intended) a hilarious assertion. He thinks the FATF are surveilling every transaction which uses a mixer, but if you deposit coins to any other non-KYC platform and then withdraw some different coins, they'll just throw up their hands and say "Well, that's not a mixer, so nothing we can do here! Damn, these guys are clever. Back to the drawing board I guess." Lol.

[Wind_FURY]

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

No, I believe some people just miss the point, or doesn't try to see it in the context of other people. It's like our long debates before, I post the things that are from my limited knowledge in reply to you during that time, but I would later learn some of your points are valid/correct.

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.

I believe they shouldn't. Whether to use them or not are trade offs taken if the user thinks it's worth keeping his/her privacy, but risk being "reprimanded" by the government. For ordinary users, probably not worth it, or just use WasabiWallet, less risk.

[franky1]

I believe they shouldn't. Whether to use them or not are trade offs taken if the user thinks it's worth keeping his/her privacy,

people have certain constitutions (u.s) and human(international) protections for certain forms or privacy and freedoms

however when it comes to finances.. well ..
you are not by default granted a human right to any financial privacy.
there are laws such as the bank secrecy act that tells financial firms to not share your data unless there is a suspicion of something the regulations find suspicious

so when people are shouting "i have rights" they are pointing to wanting to use the jurisdiction of the bank secrecy act..

which. then makes them at risk of the clauses of said act.
EG you cant claim you have a constitutional(U.S) right to free speach, unless you fall under the jurisdiction of america to claim that right. however by then being in that jurisdiction your then at risk of the other US laws.

..
i personally dont shout out some law/act regulation as my proof of ability of free speach.. i simply say, its my mouth, my tongue and my brain that tells it what it can or cannot say and no other brain or person can control it.. that is my freedom. only i can control my tongue. i do not rely on a law to protect my tongue. my teeth do that

anyways back to the subject,
becasue bitcoin was just a good/service/asset 2009/2014 whereby it was not classified by authoirities(governments/courts regulators) as a currency. bitcoin was free from currency regulations

but things changed when bitcoin became mainstream and became recognised as a currency legally. thus currency rules/regulations then appiled to services that wanted to operate with the currency under their licence.
yep if you were a fiat licenced service(MSB) and you wanted to accept/service bitcoin. you had to become a VASP(virtual asset service provider) and work under the extended policy terms of such.

where by if you want financial privacy(as granted by the banking secrecy act) you have to then take the advantages of their protections.. but. yes but. also have to live under their clauses.

so shouting you have some financial privacy right. is saying you are living and accepting of the bank secrecy act and all its clauses.  

..
so lesson to learn. stop using the rules that end up playing against you by using a privacy tool which the privacy protection act deems as suspicion to break the clause of privacy and allow services to share information..

take this example
constitution 4th ammendment
some people snip this:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,"

and claim that snippet is their right to not have their financial (papers and effects) privacy invaded..
yet by allowing acceptance of the rules of constitutional rules.. they forget the rest of the amendment
" shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

this clause then allows the regulators to describe the probable cause, where they then set out when its allowable to search


..
..
so instead of using laws you think protect you which have clause that do the opposite iff you trigger the clauses..  create a new tool thats not listed as a trigger. a new network for the side/niche/temporary things you want to do. and call it and describe it as something totally unrelated to anything that invokes the jurisdiction of the bank secrecy act sharing data triggers

one example is call this new tool/sidenet/sub/altnet.. a property protection tool
which comes with more protections than a "privacy" related thing ever could

[n0nce]

if you want to do something . dont use something thats promoted as the thing that is regulated
[...]
however by using things that are "property right protection" tools
property rights is a higher law that supersedes any fantasy privacy you think  you are entitled to. yep property right protection actually does protect you and gives you better rights

property rights protection is about allowing you to do as you please with your assets unencumbered by regulators. unless they can prove criminal activity
[...]
use something else thats not advertised as "privacy enhanced"(LN/monero/liquid, etc)
mixers tumblers, non compliant VASPs, etc
invent new tools that are described differently

So if I built a copy of ChipMixer's website and service but just call it 'not privacy enhancing UTXO exchange service' or 'Chip property right protection tool 9000', then it's fine?
Or take Lightning / off-chaining: its main advantage is scaling: faster and cheaper transactions. If we stop saying that it also can improve privacy, it's good in your eyes?
What if I fork Wasabi 1.0, spin up my new coordinator and call it 'worlds first non-privacy-enhancing CoinJoin coordinator'?

Basically:
[1] Build a privacy tool
[2] Don't say it improves privacy
[3] Profit?

I'm not sure this is how stuff works...

What I don't understand franky: first you say we can use something that enhances our privacy but isn't called a mixer.

Which is frankly (pun intended) a hilarious assertion. He thinks the FATF are surveilling every transaction which uses a mixer, but if you deposit coins to any other non-KYC platform and then withdraw some different coins, they'll just throw up their hands and say "Well, that's not a mixer, so nothing we can do here! Damn, these guys are clever. Back to the drawing board I guess." Lol.

Exactly. Imagine someone uses my new 'anti-privacy' CoinJoin coordinator (to be clear this would be a pure, legitimate coordinator without privacy holes or censorship), then FATF say: 'oh well, this is not a privacy service, it clearly states so on the front page, so we'll let it pass'!

[franky1]

So if I built a copy of ChipMixer's website and service but just call it 'not privacy enhancing UTXO exchange service' or 'Chip property right protection tool 9000', then it's fine?

if your going to play the naive 5yo silly talk.. and not think smart.. then if you make a silly tool in the silly way you describe will still end up being caught up in the same regulatory crap you say you want to avoid.

if you really need to be spoonfed every little detail.. then you will never succeed.

i didnt say copy chip mixer or just rename it.. so dont play silly
i said make a new tool...

you lot really seem to have trouble thinking about things in great detail..
if you cant work out the detail. then just dont even get into conversations which requires actual thinking.

if you think its as simple as just renaming something.. you really are not trying to exercise the braincells

im not going to spoon feed you swamp stirrers. i gave you all the hints i pointed you in the right direction of what to avoid and what to be aware of. if you cant then realise that you need to do something and it requires effort and thought and actually doing something beyond silly name changing.. . thats on you

work it out. think for once. or just continue your silly games

[franky1]

You're just right, and everyone else is wrong, arguments asides.

Same old story with franky1. You might remember last year when the US passed new laws which said that anyone who was responsible for providing any service which makes transfers on behalf of another person was now classed as a broker and would be held to the same standards as a broker, i.e. needing to file the name, address, taxpayer details, amount, date, and nature of every party and every transaction, or be suspected of money laundering. Despite everyone on this forum, all of crypto Reddit and Twitter, the CEOs of various exchanges platforms, many prominent crypto media sites and personalities, and sitting Members of Congress saying that the scope of this wording was too broad and could be applied to anyone the government liked, from miners to developers, franky1 ranted long and hard about how we were all stupid and just scaremongering and hadn't read the law and didn't know what we were talking about, and he and he alone knew the one real interpretation of it and developers would never be targeted by the government. Fast forward and a Tornado Cash developer is arrested simply for writing code.

HE WAS NOT ARRESTED FOR "JUST" WRITING CODE
HE WAS ARRESTED FOR... "involvement in concealing criminal financial flows and facilitating money laundering"


you want to say he was arrested for just writing code. because it sets your agenda that writing code for bitcoin is illegal(your agenda of saying bitcoin is bad, doesnt work, not fit, and any dev is at risk of arrest if they do anything for bitcoin)

as for the other part..
you lot were not saying "too broad" you lot were insinuating that bitcoin was broke because in your views YOU were saying that law directly implied miners, devs and node users had to register. you lot were not implying too broad thus has no meaning.. you were saying it was directed expressly at devs, miners, users.
and thats when i said you were wrong multiple times because it was not about implying that devs. miners, node users were now required to register.
thats the difference

the funny part was you were happy to shout all bitcoin users were at risk... but you avoided how the wording actually sounded closer to implicating LN routers.. yep you completely avoided any LN implications, but were happy to exaggerate bitcoin implications to the max

I'm sure franky1 will have some wildly convoluted reasoning as to why he is still right despite this and that these two things are definitely not linked in any way, just like he has some wildly convoluted reasoning which allows him to pick the one or two paragraphs from the FATF guidance which mention mixers while conveniently ignoring the pages and pages of the rest of the documents I've extensively quoted in this thread which mention every transaction which isn't on a KYCed account on a centralized exchange.

your quotes were snipped where you had not understood the full context.
take the one where you thought it meant that vasps sending or receiving where kyc was weak or non existing should be suspect.. (how you perceived it)

the actual snipped was guidelines where a regiglated vasp thats complient sends or receives funds from aother vasp who is not providing KYC(but should) should treat any VA from that weal/non complient vasp as suspicious..
you doubled down to pretend it was about all virual currency transactions because transactions from wallets dont include KYC.. yet you didnt read the full context to realise it was about a complient VASP reading and following the guidelines is noticing another VASP that has weak or no CDD/KYC and that snippet had absolutely nothing to do with private wallets. normal users with their own nodes or other things that are not MSB

What I don't understand franky: first you say we can use something that enhances our privacy but isn't called a mixer.

Which is frankly (pun intended) a hilarious assertion. He thinks the FATF are surveilling every transaction which uses a mixer, but if you deposit coins to any other non-KYC platform and then withdraw some different coins, they'll just throw up their hands and say "Well, that's not a mixer, so nothing we can do here! Damn, these guys are clever. Back to the drawing board I guess." Lol.

ha ha ha.. you are so delusional that you got your wires mixed up and forgot who said what about which
it was YOU that has been saying that due to the snippet you think meant something else that all transactions are sent as a SAR..
YOU kept saying the authorities are getting huge amount of SAR

i just said. and said before.. (check post history)
if a VASP is sending or receiving from or to another VASP that has weak or lacks CDD/KYC they will treat that as suspicious

yep you forgot that your snippet where you want to think was about private walets, users own nodes(every TX) was not about every TX ever on the blockchain.. it was infact as said many times by me correcting you.. about when a non complient platform that should be complient is not complient then treat that as suspicious

you are so warped and forgetful you truly cant even remember that basic correction for more than a day.

need a reminder??
where you (facepalm) thought that the snippet meant it covered all coins of al circumstances coming from every there AKA the while blockchain (in your view)(facepalm)

and where i corrected you.. well here it is yet again.. just to remind you

and please. stop being a pedantic idiot and actually take the time to learn things

Receiving funds from or sending funds to VASPs whose CDD or know-your-customer (KYC) processes are demonstrably weak or non-existent.

Pretty sure that covers all the examples I gave above.

you want to pretend this means all coins are suspect(facepalm)
no its not about saying all utxos are suspect.
its a guidance for vasps.. where a vasp reading it and sees that it is receiving funds from a vasp...
its a guidance for vasps.. where a vasp reading it and sees that it is sending funds to a vasp...
where that vasps CDD or KYC processes are demonstrably weak or non-existent.

it means when funds are moved between vasps if one vasp is not following its CDD/KYC processes or doesnt comply at all even when it should. then treat funds coming from them as suspicious.

oh and this suspicious is not the government finding it suspicious because the government is watching for this..
its where the VASP that is compliant finds it suspicious where the VASP then watches and does a investigation to see what threshold level it meets to be worthy or not of a SAR

this is where you need to learn about the thresholds.. i mentioned it many times.. and you really ned to learn this stuff if you want to learn whats risky or safe to do.. seeing as you pretend to care so much about avoiding risks to your privacy..

yep if you actually care about your privacy you would want to learn. rather that find silly things to mis understand just to cause some social drama to stay ignorant that you can do as you please and laws dont apply to you..

now go do some proper research and think about things you could be doing. think for once
yea i know how you silly people do anything to avoid doing actual independent thinking and instead try to just twist words to get out of thinking

use your cognition not your ignorance and no playing silly games that they are the same thing if you swap out tio for rae and move a few letters around..
.. they are different things learn things.

use your brains, not your blinds and no swapping a for d to pretend its the same
.. they are different things. learn things

dont wastes more days or weeks to finds silly ways to avoid making new tools or learning how regulations and VASPS operate.. learn and then you may realise what is a risk and not a risk for you to learn how to work around them

now go learn