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

[BlackHatCoiner]

You don't have to either promote money laundering or force everyone to operate in a vast draconian infrastructure.

No, you do. You can't have it both ways. You either promote money laundering privacy enhancing tools or you operate in draconian manner. What have you been taught by Orwell anyway? The fact that some such tools are not decentralized doesn't mean they don't protect your privacy, and that's probably where you've confused it. As far as I can tell, you're in favor of CoinJoin, MimbleWhimble, ring signatures, confidential transactions etc., which can obviously be used to obfuscate outputs and therefore launder money, but you're opposed to methods that require you to hand over custody. (which isn't even relevant)

[1714660665]

1714660665

[1714660665]

1714660665

[OgNasty]

You don't have to either promote money laundering or force everyone to operate in a vast draconian infrastructure.

No, you do.

I guess we can agree to disagree.  I'll continue not promoting money laundering and advocating for protocol level fungibility, not fungibility that depends on a 3rd party breaking the law and users being participants in that choice to break the law by using said third party.  That is not the vision I had (not that anyone gives a fuck) for blockchain privacy.  It will only lead to more regulation and honeypot attacks on community members just trying to have privacy, who like you, thought this was a legal and reasonable option to use because the moral police on bitcointalk were promoting it. 

[BlackHatCoiner]

I guess we can agree to disagree.

Do we agree on the last part? The one which you don't have problem with privacy protection, in and of itself, but with the manner you'll protect it? Isn't your problem with centralized mixers? Would you be fine if somehow we could acquire the same protection ChipMixer provides if there was a decentralized manner to do it? If so, can you justify what's the moral or legal problem if some choose to accomplish in a centralized manner?

not fungibility that depends on a 3rd party breaking the law

Mixing isn't illegal. What's illegal is to mix stolen funds-- and not because you mix them, but because you stole them.

[PowerGlove]

[...] 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. [...]

That's the point that made me post in the first place. I don't understand where your confidence for that assertion comes from. Why are you so convinced that everyone in the ChipMixer campaign is some kind of sellout? Has it occurred to you that people might have taken an ideological stance?

[...] I'll continue not promoting money laundering and advocating for protocol level fungibility, not fungibility that depends on a 3rd party breaking the law and users being participants in that choice to break the law by using said third party. [...]

That seems like a pretty minor thing to hang all of your gripes on. You're okay with protocol-level fungibility? But you're not okay with trying to accomplish the same thing (in the meantime) with third-party tools?

I mean, your position then seems (to me) to be: "I'm okay with making life difficult for AML initiatives, but only if it's built into the protocol."

[suchmoon]

I'll continue not promoting money laundering and advocating for protocol level fungibility

Protocol-level fungibility can be used to launder money so by your own logic you're promoting money laundering.

not fungibility that depends on a 3rd party breaking the law and users being participants in that choice to break the law by using said third party.

Fungibility on its own is not against the law, at least not where I am, and if it ever is outlawed then it would likely make protocol-level fungibility (or usage thereof) unlawful as well. For example some exchanges delisted Monero etc for "compliance reasons", which is a good indication of how this would play out.

[dkbit98]

Protocol-level fungibility can be used to launder money so by your own logic you're promoting money laundering.

Didn't you saw latest US news?!
There was OG complaining and protesting every day about money laundering of US dollars.  
If Elon Musk laundered money with his DOGE scheme than people shouldn't drive Tesla because they are supporting money laundering.
Anyone who sent deposit to buy Tesla is supporting money laundering, drug trafficking and illegal surveillance.
Don't buy a knife because knife can be used to kill people, and in some countries knife is already illegal believe it or not.

Fungibility on its own is not against the law, at least not where I am, and if it ever is outlawed then it would likely make protocol-level fungibility (or usage thereof) unlawful as well. For example some exchanges delisted Monero etc for "compliance reasons", which is a good indication of how this would play out.

I have to agree with him on one thing, it would be much better to have protocol based privacy for Bitcoin.
We can compare this with Monero, but Bitcoin is much bigger and it would be much harder if not impossible to make it illegal at this point.

[suchmoon]

I have to agree with him on one thing, it would be much better to have protocol based privacy for Bitcoin.

Absolutely. And there are kinda-sorta-usable workarounds like CoinJoin. The point is that I don't get him cheering for centralized mixers to be outlawed... if that happens we're in deep shit because the gubbermint won't just leave us a nice shiny loophole in the protocol.

We can compare this with Monero, but Bitcoin is much bigger and it would be much harder if not impossible to make it illegal at this point.

Just look at this: https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DAAML%20Act%20of%202022.pdf

Among all sorts of crazy shit, it defines mixers and "privacy coins" (i.e. anything that has protocol-level obfuscation) in the same category, and would basically outlaw it. If a law like that gets passed I don't see how Bitcoin gets an exception. At the very least any part of the Bitcoin ecosystem that provides privacy tools (be it CoinJoin, LN, Taproot, etc) would fall under that. But hey, at least Og would get his petty grudges settled so I'm sure he's rooting for Warren to push this through.

[OgNasty]

Watching the Department of Justice live stream about their recent International Cryptocurrency Enforcement Action. It seems directed at those who try to launder funds or use the blockchain for financial anonymity. They’ve stated that being offshore will not provide protection while enabling financial anonymity.

This is why I say financial privacy should be done at the protocol level. They stated their battle, “is just getting started.”

I recommend watching the announcement if you are a user or promoter of any coin mixing activities. You’re wearing a target and they’re taking aim.

https://www.justice.gov/live

[NotATether]

This is why I say financial privacy should be done at the protocol level. They stated their battle, “is just getting started.”

Tornado Cash tried that, and they were shot dead.

Also the DOJ won't care whether it's done at the blockchain or the smart contract level. It's all the same to them. The justice department aren't privy to blockchain schematics.

[OgNasty]

You don't have to either promote money laundering or force everyone to operate in a vast draconian infrastructure.

No, you do.

I guess we can agree to disagree.  I'll continue not promoting money laundering and advocating for protocol level fungibility, not fungibility that depends on a 3rd party breaking the law and users being participants in that choice to break the law by using said third party.  That is not the vision I had (not that anyone gives a fuck) for blockchain privacy.  It will only lead to more regulation and honeypot attacks on community members just trying to have privacy, who like you, thought this was a legal and reasonable option to use because the moral police on bitcointalk were promoting it. 

Well, this is awkward. Can’t say I didn’t see it coming and try to steer people in the right direction. I got a bunch of trust exclusions for my efforts. If anyone feels like apologizing feel free.

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/03/15/germany-and-us-seize-over-46m-crypto-tied-to-chipmixer-investigation-europol/

I guess maybe I wasn’t a crazy person sounding off about the dangers of Chipmixer and how those advertising for it were maybe not the most upstanding members of our community. Signature campaign managers are about to be flooded with requests…

[BlackHatCoiner]

Nobody ever told you ChipMixer isn't used for illicit activity. It's just that you can't prevent someone from gaining privacy, just because some do use it illegally.

You're crazy to me, when you're in favor of decentralized privacy enhancing techniques but go completely against centralized. It makes no sense.

[OgNasty]

You're crazy to me, when you're in favor of decentralized privacy enhancing techniques but go completely against centralized. It makes no sense.

You think that’s crazy, you should hear my thoughts about currency. That will really make you think I’ve lost my mind. I actually believe decentralized currencies are better than centralized ones as well and that people should be focusing on decentralized services over centralized always.

Decentralize all the things. Crazy I know. Pushing decentralization on a Bitcoin forum. Truly my most controversial act.

P.S. You can probably remove your signature and stop defending illegal activity now.

[BlackHatCoiner]

You think that’s crazy, you should hear my thoughts about currency. That will really make you think I’ve lost my mind.

You know, decentralizing things doesn't eliminate responsibilities. Only unreliable actors. Now that these criminals are heading to JoinMarket, I want to see who you will blame.

P.S. You can probably remove your signature and stop defending illegal activity now.

No, thanks. I want to inform our forum users on how to earn bitcoin honestly. Lol, what a scum.

[TryNinja]

You're crazy to me, when you're in favor of decentralized privacy enhancing techniques but go completely against centralized. It makes no sense.

Decentralize all the things. Crazy I know. Pushing decentralization on a Bitcoin forum. Truly my most controversial act.

Could you make yourself clear that you are in favor of money laundering if it's decentralized money laundering?

[OgNasty]

You're crazy to me, when you're in favor of decentralized privacy enhancing techniques but go completely against centralized. It makes no sense.

Decentralize all the things. Crazy I know. Pushing decentralization on a Bitcoin forum. Truly my most controversial act.

Could you make yourself clear that you are in favor of money laundering if it's decentralized money laundering?

I am not in favor of money laundering in any form. I am in favor of privacy being added to Bitcoin’s protocol. What I’m vehemently opposed to is users here advertising money laundering services to scammers to help them get away with scamming users here all so they can get a piece of the pie in the form of signature campaign payouts. Seems dishonest to me and against my decade plus long mission of making sure users can trade safely here.

[BlackHatCoiner]

What I’m vehemently opposed to is users here advertising money laundering services to scammers to help them get away with scamming users here all so they can get a piece of the pie in the form of signature campaign payouts.

Would you feel better if we advertised decentralized money laundering services to scammers to help them get away with scamming users to get a piece of the pie in the form of signature campaign payouts?

Why do I ask? It's crystal clear that this would be the morally correct thing to do.

[OgNasty]

What I’m vehemently opposed to is users here advertising money laundering services to scammers to help them get away with scamming users here all so they can get a piece of the pie in the form of signature campaign payouts.

Would you feel better if we advertised decentralized money laundering services to scammers to help them get away with scamming users to get a piece of the pie in the form of signature campaign payouts?

Why do I ask? It's crystal clear that this would be the morally correct thing to do.

You do you. Feel free to advertise whatever illegal thing you want. I may even do you the favor of letting you know when the government is targeting said services so you can do the honorable thing and leave before you have egg on your face. You still have a signature of an illegal money laundering service even after it’s shut down in the hopes you can still get a few dollars out of it, so I’m guessing you won’t be too thankful for my warnings. I’d remove it though, as it is possible people will start tagging accounts promoting this confirmed illegal activity.

What you mean to say is a thank you to me for calling this out before regulators acted and apologies for your misguided promotion and way of thinking, as it is very clearly wrong now and that has now been legally proven.

[NotATether]

Well, this is awkward. Can’t say I didn’t see it coming and try to steer people in the right direction. I got a bunch of trust exclusions for my efforts. If anyone feels like apologizing feel free.

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/03/15/germany-and-us-seize-over-46m-crypto-tied-to-chipmixer-investigation-europol/

I guess maybe I wasn’t a crazy person sounding off about the dangers of Chipmixer and how those advertising for it were maybe not the most upstanding members of our community. Signature campaign managers are about to be flooded with requests…

The very fact that the website was seized by 6+ law enforcement agencies and a guy was arrested by the Feds for running ChipMixer indisputably confirms that it was not a honeypot to begin with, no matter what people like FatManTerra claimed otherwise.

[OgNasty]

Well, this is awkward. Can’t say I didn’t see it coming and try to steer people in the right direction. I got a bunch of trust exclusions for my efforts. If anyone feels like apologizing feel free.

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/03/15/germany-and-us-seize-over-46m-crypto-tied-to-chipmixer-investigation-europol/

I guess maybe I wasn’t a crazy person sounding off about the dangers of Chipmixer and how those advertising for it were maybe not the most upstanding members of our community. Signature campaign managers are about to be flooded with requests…

The very fact that the website was seized by 6+ law enforcement agencies and a guy was arrested by the Feds for running ChipMixer indisputably confirms that it was not a honeypot to begin with, no matter what people like FatManTerra claimed otherwise.

I guess it depends on your definition of honeypot and what information has been obtained by authorities. If there are records of every transaction and all those records are now in the hands of authorities as a result of it existing… Then I think you could make the argument, intentionally or not, the site functioned as a honeypot for authorities to gather information. If they got no information, then it would be difficult to make that argument.

[AliErkic]

Turned out OGnasty was right...

It will be really interesting to observe how much ShitMixer Signature Campaign participants will post overally after 50 paid post per week are no more because ShitMixer money laundering got busted.
Will we hear from ShitMixer apologists how ShitMixer obviously lied about not keeping logs and suddenly, we know about stolen coins from ShitMixer payouts because ShitMixer stored ALL data?

And: mixing your money in shit won't make it clean. Any intelligent person should know.
Happy learning procedure @everyone!