We can not discuss if 'ChipMixer is a honeypot or not' outside their own thread?

[OgNasty]

Really the defense of ChipMixer by its sig campaigners has been far stronger than for any other entity that has ever advertised in such a manner on the forum. Its getting a bit embarrassing TBH.

Indeed.  You can tell these people don't give a shit about how their activities negatively effect the community or Bitcoin, so long as they get some easy money.  The funny part is a lot of them act like they're the morality police around here, while being some of the worst actors on the forum with their activities, boosting scammer's reputations on the trust network to help troll those who point out their behavior or harassing those who try to build real projects here while they're actively helping scammers launder stolen funds.  Granted, these people would just join other campaigns when mixing sites get banned here for promoting money laundering, but they don't want to take the pay cut to do what's right and would rather pretend their behavior is honest until regulators step in.  I prefer to be on the right side of history (like always) which is not usually the popular position around here.

[1715008685]

1715008685

[1715008685]

1715008685

[1715008685]

1715008685

[1715008685]

1715008685

[suchmoon]

when mixing sites get banned here for promoting money laundering

Will that happen before or after the ban on promoting illegal gambling?

Feel free to wait until someone quotes this post so that you can double quote.

[PowerGlove]

[...] You can tell these people don't give a shit about how their activities negatively effect the community or Bitcoin, so long as they get some easy money. [...]

That's not really fair, I think. I'm pretty sure you're oversimplifying other people's positions and ignoring some of the ideology behind being in favor of mixers.

For me, being for fungibility necessarily means being for mixers. "Taint" is an idea that needs to be stopped before it takes root too deeply, and mixing is the only way I know of to frustrate attempts at creating UTXO blacklists.

Either you let criminals get away with stolen funds (which I agree is not ideal), or you impose a vast draconian infrastructure on everyone (which decimates any semblance of financial freedom). I know which side I choose.

[nutildah]

Really the defense of ChipMixer by its sig campaigners has been far stronger than for any other entity that has ever advertised in such a manner on the forum. Its getting a bit embarrassing TBH.

I'm not ashamed of anything I've done on this forum, not even that I reported that thread like hundreds of others from the Bitcoin discussion. The fact is that a discussion on the same topic already existed, and that the OP (who is actually the alt account of a well-known member) posted that thread in a board that is not appropriate for such a discussion.

In the quote above about "getting embarrassing" I was thinking of ridicule of FatManTerra in the ChipMixer ANN thread as the most recent example, though there have been several previous instances. Obviously its OK that there be a separate thread dedicated to discussion of that topic, although yes perhaps "Service Discussion" is a better home for it.

Your implication that I defend CM for financial reasons is more than ridiculous - especially since I might be the only one who hasn't spent a single satoshi since I joined that campaign.

To those on the outside looking in its pretty obvious that's what you're doing.

I admit that part of my defense for ChipMixer is to have it continue operating, which first of all ensures the operation of an excellent service, and second, secures me income.

Kudos for your honesty.

[Poker Player]

Your implication that I defend CM for financial reasons is more than ridiculous - especially since I might be the only one who hasn't spent a single satoshi since I joined that campaign.

I don't see the logic of your argument. Whether you don't spend the money, spend it on food or spend it on hookers and cocaine doesn't change the fact that Chip Mixer brings you a good income.

when mixing sites get banned here for promoting money laundering

Will that happen before or after the ban on promoting illegal gambling?

Feel free to wait until someone quotes this post so that you can double quote.

Good point. As if there were no questionable issues about crypto casinos.

I don't know what OgNasty's obsession about CM is. Did he appy for the sig campaign and got rejected?

As for the OP, I saw the thread in question, commented on it, and then realized that it had been moved. It makes more sense for it to be in Service Discussion, and there is no censorship on the subject, so I think this thread should be locked.

[Lucius]

To those on the outside looking in its pretty obvious that's what you're doing.

I know that you are very sensitive to when threads are moved and that because of one such case you left the forum for a while - but my reaction to the OP thread in the Bitcoin discussion was not motivated by defending CM, but exclusively by moving the thread to the appropriate board. It's a bit sad for me when I see old members who used to be pro-Bitcoin attacking everything that has to do with Bitcoin, and at the same time promoting things that are at least dubious and questionable.

I prefer to be on the right side of history (like always) which is not usually the popular position around here.

You have been on the wrong side of history for a long time, you just haven't realized it yet.

[suchmoon]

I don't know what OgNasty's obsession about CM is. Did he appy for the sig campaign and got rejected?

He has a grudge against some people in the campaign and seems to be trying these chickenshit indirect attacks to discredit them.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

I don't know what OgNasty's obsession about CM is. Did he appy for the sig campaign and got rejected?

OgNasty is on the thread and you could directly ask him about it. Why are you asking it to someone else who you know have conflict of interest with him. You are also using a loud voice that you have some personal problem with him.

I prefer to be on the right side of history (like always) which is not usually the popular position around here.

You have been on the wrong side of history for a long time, you just haven't realized it yet.

From my observation all started from VOD vs OgNasty conflict. VOD is resting and OgNasty changed since then.

[nutildah]

I know that you are very sensitive to when threads are moved and that because of one such case you left the forum for a while - but my reaction to the OP thread in the Bitcoin discussion was not motivated by defending CM, but exclusively by moving the thread to the appropriate board.

If you notice in my previous post I agreed that the thread shouldn't be kept in Bitcoin Discussion necessarily. And you've now dropped the part about how "a discussion on the same topic already existed" which is a lame rationale for locking the thread as it goes against any precedent of moderation on the forum.

It's a bit sad for me when I see old members who used to be pro-Bitcoin attacking everything that has to do with Bitcoin

This is a pretty clumsy reach. If I was "attacking everything that has to do with Bitcoin" on the forum, I'd never be finished posting. And for the record I've always been pro-bitcoin and I still am.

and at the same time promoting things that are at least dubious and questionable.

Not sure what you're talking about exactly, and not that it matters to this discussion whatsoever, but its not like you don't have any experience with that  

[suchmoon]

OgNasty is on the thread and you could directly ask him about it. Why are you asking it to someone else who you know have conflict of interest with him.

As if asking Og directly would yield an unbiased answer.

From my observation all started from VOD vs OgNasty conflict. VOD is resting and OgNasty changed since then.

Not really, or not only that. Vod was never in the CM campaign. Og had issues with some CM signature users (myself included) from way before the conflict with Vod. IIRC he had a relatively recent run-in with LoyceV for reasons unrelated to the conflict with Vod. Et cetera.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

As if asking Og directly would yield an unbiased answer.

He would be able to give a better answer of the question because it's about him. If I find something not usual about you then I will ask you without asking it to CH or someone else who does not go well along with you. Asking an opponent does not really give the accurate answer. Whatever you will reply with Og will not like, on the other hand when Og will say something about it you will give the same attitude. Result will make the situation even worse.

Not really, or not only that. Vod was never in the CM campaign. Og had issues with some CM signature users (myself included) from way before the conflict with Vod. IIRC he had a relatively recent run-in with LoyceV for reasons unrelated to the conflict with Vod. Et cetera.

I was meaning the whole Og not only about his conflicts with CM or CM campaigners

[suchmoon]

I was meaning the whole Og not only about his conflicts with CM or CM campaigners

Still, he's been like that way before Vod conflict if not forever. Peruse his trust feedback, both sent and received, and you'll see.

[dkbit98]

For me, being for fungibility necessarily means being for mixers. "Taint" is an idea that needs to be stopped before it takes root too deeply, and mixing is the only way I know of to frustrate attempts at creating UTXO blacklists.

I think it's to late for that already, and all we can do is try to make protocol base protocol changes that would include privacy and maybe inbuilt mixing.
We can pretend that concept of tainted coins doesn't exist and close or eyes, but reality is sadly different thanks to scammers like ftx ceo Scam Bankman, Binance CZ and others.
Alternative option is for us to develop separate services that would accept all Bitcoin transactions without checking address history, but I doubt regulators will tolerate that much longer.
They want to limit and cancel cash soon, so I don't see why Bitcoin would be in better position for them  

I prefer to be on the right side of history (like always) which is not usually the popular position around here.

Most money in the world is probably laundered with gambling, so I don't understand how your ''right'' side of history is allowing promotion of that.
I guess double standards is allowed for some people, and coinjoin, privacy, mixers this are all ''evil'' tools in your ''right'' side of history

It's really interesting how some people suddenly started to care about money laundering...  usually the same people think they are going to ''save earth'' by driving their Tesla's  

[PowerGlove]

I think it's to late for that already, and all we can do is try to make protocol base protocol changes that would include privacy and maybe inbuilt mixing.

Yep. It's sad, but I think you're probably right. At this point, too many people have been scared into believing that fungibility is a bad thing. Which is completely backwards, but it wouldn't be the first time that people have been coerced into abandoning their own long-term interests out of short-term fear. An eventual protocol change is likely the only realistic way to properly restore fungibility.

We can pretend that concept of tainted coins doesn't exist and close or eyes, but reality is sadly different thanks to scammers like ftx ceo Scam Bankman, Binance CZ and others.

I agree, but (to be clear) my position is not that we should pretend it doesn't exist. My position is that we should be making "taint analysis" as unreliable as possible, by convincing people that being frightened into never mixing their coins is tantamount to them giving up on the concept of fungibility. What I think a lot of bitcoiners don't realize, is that by giving up on fungibility they're unwittingly opening the door to a slew of nightmarish infractions on their financial freedom. By the time they realize the extent of the damage, it will be too late to effectively fight back against (other than by altering Bitcoin itself).

Alternative option is for us to develop separate services that would accept all Bitcoin transactions without checking address history, but I doubt regulators will tolerate that much longer.

Yeah, I've got some (long-term) plans to develop a few bitcoin-accepting services, and I can promise you that I won't be participating in any "mandated" checking/flagging of deposits. I'm a fungibility nut, so I simply don't care [1] where funds originate from, I'll accept them without bias and likely mix them on withdrawal, too.

They want to limit and cancel cash soon, so I don't see why Bitcoin would be in better position for them 

Yup. Long live Tor, long live onion services and long live anonymous clearnet web hosting. As long as those remain viable, I'll thumb my nose at the regulators.

[1] When I say I don't care, I don't mean morally, I mean practically (i.e. I don't believe that any organization with the authority to issue a list of "bad" UTXOs wouldn't end up abusing that same power).

[dkbit98]

Yeah, I've got some (long-term) plans to develop a few bitcoin-accepting services, and I can promise you that I won't be participating in any "mandated" checking/flagging of deposits. I'm a fungibility nut, so I simply don't care [1] where funds originate from, I'll accept them without bias and likely mix them on withdrawal, too.

Good to hear you are working on that project, and I don't doubt it's going to be something interesting, judging by your recent forum contribution and suggestions for improevement.
If I want to be honest, all current centralized exchanges are acting like a mixers, more or less, but I guess they are intended more for high-profile customers.
They invented their own detection systems, and my theory is that they conveniently hacked themselves more than once, if you know what I mean.
It's much easier for them to blame some unknown evil hackers for everything.

[AliErkic]

Either you let criminals get away with stolen funds (which I agree is not ideal)

It is not ideal, indeed!
But it's ideal for scammers, criminals, terrorists and enables narcotraffic!
Maybe we'll realize very soon: mixers are very damaging for Bitcoin because scams and crime is enabled on a large scale. Should scammers be left alone on Bitcointalk, too? Is negative trust also bad if it's affecting Bitcointalk account fungibility for scammer accounts negatively? LOL
Yes, let all scammers get away and don't paint scammer accounts red, don't call scammer coins tainted.
Maybe an approach similar to DT as WasabiWallet is figuring out can help but it's ChipMixer paying tons of money every week here. 
Wasn't using centralized services discouraged? But "mUh fuNgiBiliTy".

I would not mix my coins in a mixer known for facilitating coins used in crimes. Still, everyone is free to do it. But don't complain if nobody wants to receive your tainted coins.
Stop enabling scammers, criminals, terrorists and narcotraffic!

We get it, ChipMixer, probably a honeypot, is paying handsomely and most members here don't care. ChipMixer is enabling all kind of shady behaviour, nobody cares as well, so consequences (like getting tainted coins) are on you if you are using it.

Yeah, I've got some (long-term) plans to develop a few bitcoin-accepting services, and I can promise you that I won't be participating in any "mandated" checking/flagging of deposits. I'm a fungibility nut, so I simply don't care [1] where funds originate from, I'll accept them without bias and likely mix them on withdrawal, too.

Your approach is similar to lazy campaign managers letting red-painted accounts into singature campaigns.
1xbet and friends.
Not beneficial at all.

1xbet and friends are also Bitcointalk account fungibility nuts.
What an idiocy. 



Looks like OgNasty is right once again!

[ChipMixer]

But it's ideal for scammers, criminals, terrorists and enables narcotraffic!
Maybe we'll realize very soon: mixers are very damaging for Bitcoin because scams and crime is enabled on a large scale.

Nothing new.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse

The term was coined by Timothy C. May in 1988. May referred to "child pornographers, terrorists, drug dealers, etc.".[2] May used the phrase to express disdain for what he perceived as "Think of the children" argumentation by government officials and others seeking to justify limiting civilian use of cryptography tools.

[PowerGlove]

@AliErkic: Either you're arguing in bad faith, or you've misunderstood my position.

The first half of your post reads to me like you're saying: "Oh, so you're okay with facilitating criminal activity!?"

The second half of your post reads to me like you're saying: "Oh, so it's just like with a shady signature campaign then, you're happy to turn a blind eye, if it serves you!?"

Those are two paper-thin takes which in each case are already addressed either by footnote or the text immediately adjacent to what was quoted.

I'll try one last time (in this thread) to clarify my position, by way of analogy:

Analogy (Sockpuppet Accounts)

Imagine the problem you're trying to solve is secret alt accounts on Bitcointalk. How would you do it? One way would be to enforce a KYC procedure on the forum (both retroactively and moving forward). To prevent people from selling pre-KYCed accounts, the procedure would have to be periodic, so every few weeks/months you'd have to go through it again, with a fresh photograph of you holding a written-out security phrase, or maybe a (recorded) video chat with a staffer. It might also involve the sharing of other personal information and a few documents, for good measure. Bitcointalk would offer to keep all of this data completely safe on a "best effort" basis.

Here's my position: I'm against sockpuppet accounts and would like to find ways to reduce/eliminate them, but I'm even more against adding KYC to Bitcointalk; the cure is worse than the disease.

Analogy (The Old West)

Imagine the problem you're trying to solve is bank robberies and cash-carrying train heists. How would you do it? One way would be to pass a law that from now on every cash-accepting establishment (the saloon, the general store, etc.) needs to have a government-appointed security clerk standing next to the cashier. Whenever a customer hands over a banknote, the security clerk looks up its serial number in his little black book and sees if there are corresponding instructions (e.g. "confiscate", "detain for questioning", "accept, but ask for identification", etc.)

Here's my position: I'm against bank robberies and train heists and would like to find ways to reduce/eliminate them, but I'm even more against having every cash transaction run through an opaque process that could/would be misused; the cure is worse than the disease.

You see the pattern? Now, imagine the problem you're trying to solve is Bitcoin being used for criminal activity...

[AliErkic]

But it's ideal for scammers, criminals, terrorists and enables narcotraffic!
Maybe we'll realize very soon: mixers are very damaging for Bitcoin because scams and crime is enabled on a large scale.

Nothing new.

Indeed! Criminals will always take advantages. But we should not enable it too much! Even Bitcointalk is giving scammers a hard time from DT.

The first half of your post reads to me like you're saying: "Oh, so you're okay with facilitating criminal activity!?"

The second half of your post reads to me like you're saying: "Oh, so it's just like with a shady signature campaign then, you're happy to turn a blind eye, if it serves you!?"

It's somehow all of it. You and I know mixers are loved by criminals and you are NOT a criminal by using it. But it's providing criminals liquidity and personally I would appreciate it to keep me an option how to reject such tainted coins.

Analogy (Sockpuppet Accounts)

Imagine the problem you're trying to solve is secret alt accounts on Bitcointalk. How would you do it? One way would be to enforce a KYC procedure on the forum (both retroactively and moving forward). To prevent people from selling pre-KYCed accounts, the procedure would have to be periodic, so every few weeks/months you'd have to go through it again, with a fresh photograph of you holding a written-out security phrase, or maybe a (recorded) video chat with a staffer. It might also involve the sharing of other personal information and a few documents, for good measure. Bitcointalk would offer to keep all of this data completely safe on a "best effort" basis.

Here's my position: I'm against sockpuppet accounts and would like to find ways to reduce/eliminate them, but I'm even more against adding KYC to Bitcointalk; the cure is worse than the disease.

If such accounts don't scam, where's any issue?
As long as an account does not scam or abuse Bounty, it doesn't do any damage.
If it does damage = sent out red paint. Account will be useless.
Easy, like taint coins.

Analogy (The Old West)

Imagine the problem you're trying to solve is bank robberies and cash-carrying train heists. How would you do it? One way would be to pass a law that from now on every cash-accepting establishment (the saloon, the general store, etc.) needs to have a government-appointed security clerk standing next to the cashier. Whenever a customer hands over a banknote, the security clerk looks up its serial number in his little black book and sees if there are corresponding instructions (e.g. "confiscate", "detain for questioning", "accept, but ask for identification", etc.)

Usually, banks are protected by security.
Criminals are caught and arrested.
Bukele did some raids against criminals recently.
Money transport are usually heavily weaponized and armored.
Good luck trying to rob a cash transporter today. 
Or Fort Knocks is also protected.

It's not like wild, wild west like saloon, where a sheriff is overworked and understaffed, where houses shortly build after moving west made out of weak wood have lousy locked door security or where a Dallas Cowboy is hunting down a Denver Bronco (joke). We are modern socienty right now.
Modern problems require modern solution, SIR!

[OgNasty]

[...] You can tell these people don't give a shit about how their activities negatively effect the community or Bitcoin, so long as they get some easy money. [...]

That's not really fair, I think. I'm pretty sure you're oversimplifying other people's positions and ignoring some of the ideology behind being in favor of mixers.

For me, being for fungibility necessarily means being for mixers. "Taint" is an idea that needs to be stopped before it takes root too deeply, and mixing is the only way I know of to frustrate attempts at creating UTXO blacklists.

Either you let criminals get away with stolen funds (which I agree is not ideal), or you impose a vast draconian infrastructure on everyone (which decimates any semblance of financial freedom). I know which side I choose.

It doesn't have to be that way.  You don't have to either promote money laundering or force everyone to operate in a vast draconian infrastructure.  That's ridiculous.  There is also a third option.  Don't promote money laundering.  The fact that so many users are willing to openly promote money laundering for a couple hundred bucks a week while trying to maintain some level or authority over other users here is being a hypocrite on a level you can only describe as being a sellout.  Now I see people are personally attacking me and going after my signature sponsor?  I wonder why...  This is what they do.  Try to villainize anyone who shines a light on their bad behavior.  Stake is perfectly legal though, operating sites for use in many countries including my own.  There is nothing illegal about it and while more and more laws are being passed to support online gambling being legal in more and more states/countries (including my own), you'll find these same places moving forward with regulation against money laundering "mixers" and the like.  I don't expect any apologies when mixers do become illegal and aren't allowed to run signature campaigns here anymore, but remember those who were supporting organizations that launder funds for members who defraud others here.  Similar to those who supported extortion attempts (shocker, they're mostly the same individuals).

Looks like OgNasty is right once again!

You mean the members who support money laundering and extortionists might not be good people?  Absolutely shocking.