Should the forum stop advertising mixers?

[Saisher]

Bitcointalk is not here to stop or ban Mixers companies. If bitcointalk forum would ban companies for money laundering, or scamming, 1Xbit would have been the first company to be ban or stop operating in in the forum but bitcointalk forum can only give warning to all my sees to stay away from such company services provided by them and if anyone involved that is the person's cup of tea.

And not all the Mixers are bad and have the intention of doing bad thing. You can't use one man's bad character to generalize others. Chipmixer is bad does not mean that others are bad.

I always cite section 230 when it comes to platform and content issues, Bitcointalk upholds the decentralization of thinking, and mixers advertise themselves primarily for privacy purposes something that we are losing because of the authorities imposing rules and compliance, it's up to authorities to prove that it's being used to money laundering.
Cryptocurrency supporters will always find a way to anonymize and free themselves of the hold of traditional banking

[1714787440]

1714787440

[1714787440]

1714787440

[1714787440]

1714787440

[FatFork]

At the same time, the signature promoters aren't responsible for the means in which the platform they promote are been used.

It depends. Signature promoters are being red trusted if they're aware the business they're promoting is scamming its clients, are they not? So, forum members actively work against fraudulent businesses. I'm not against mixers, on the contrary, but I feel like we've drawn a line in the sand when it comes to deciding what is fair and what isn't. IMO, if it's proven that Chipmixer wasn't deleting data as promised, it should be red trusted. Not that anybody cares at this point. It's not coming back.

I see it differently. Generally, DT members tag other members who are aware of and actively promote fraudulent schemes and businesses that have the tendency to scam their customers (or at least have strong indications that it could be so). In my opinion, CM does not fit into that classification, and I'm not aware of any intention on their part to deceive their customers.

Also, where is it proven that CM wasn't deleting data as promised? As of now, all we know is that authorities have allegedly seized 7TB of data, but the contents of that data remain unknown. All other investigations detailed in the document, specifically those related to the mixer's source of use, rely on the analysis of public blockchain data.

Will you hold a casino signature promoters responsible for the addict problem gotten from gambling, NO so as such they shouldn't be be held liable for the fraudulent activities carried out by the money launders that use their promoted platform chipmixer.

It's a bit different because casinos are legal in most jurisdictions, until they start cheating clients. There's a number of bookies in my area and I could go there and place my bets, so promoting a casino in my country isn't illegal, even if someone gets addicted. Casinos are not held responsible for people's mental health, just as liquor stores aren't responsible for people getting drink, car sellers are not responsible for accidents and people driving their cars without a license.

Mixers on the other hand are in the gray area. They aren't illegal, but if people use them to launder stolen coins, the situation changes.

Where is the difference? Online casinos also operate in a grey area since they are prohibited in numerous jurisdictions and can serve as a means for money laundering, particularly if they lack proper regulation (which is the case for many). Moreover, the use of privacy-focused cryptocurrencies like Monero is illegal in some jurisdictions, and even Bitcoin is illegal in certain parts of the world. Should we consider banning them as well?

[coolcoinz]

I see it differently. Generally, DT members tag other members who are aware of and actively promote fraudulent schemes and businesses that have the tendency to scam their customers (or at least have strong indications that it could be so). In my opinion, CM does not fit into that classification, and I'm not aware of any intention on their part to deceive their customers.

So, according to you, the main reason is knowing about a scam vs not knowing about it? So, a person who promoted bitconnect not knowing that it's a scam is OK, but a person who had their suspicions and still did that is semi-OK? No sarcasm, I'm interested where the line is.

Also, where is it proven that CM wasn't deleting data as promised? As of now, all we know is that authorities have allegedly seized 7TB of data, but the contents of that data remain unknown. All other investigations detailed in the document, specifically those related to the mixer's source of use, rely on the analysis of public blockchain data.

That's why I said that IF it is proven. I have no idea what was seized.

Where is the difference? Online casinos also operate in a grey area since they are prohibited in numerous jurisdictions and can serve as a means for money laundering, particularly if they lack proper regulation (which is the case for many).

What's the percentage of regulated mixers vs regulated casinos? Are there even mixers that are registered as legal businesses and pay taxes?

Another difference is that most casinos should obey AML rules in their jurisdiction. People with large deposits have to go through KYC procedure and laundering through a casino is risky since they can take your money and claim whatever, like you've had more than 1 account, there was another connection from the same IP, you breached ToS because you used VPN, you haven't wagered enough to be able to withdraw, and so on. There are black sheep of the industry like 1xbit, but the majority of online casinos are licensed and try to be fair both ways, towards the client and the government.

Moreover, the use of privacy-focused cryptocurrencies like Monero is illegal in some jurisdictions, and even Bitcoin is illegal in certain parts of the world. Should we consider banning them as well?

The difference here is that money laundering is illegal everywhere. Bitcoin is illegal only in about 2% of the world (correct me if I'm wrong about the number) and I'd argue that no sane person would like to move to these countries, because they're either deep in debt and poverty (Nepal), or strict Muslim countries that believe in the narrative that bitcoin is haram. I'm sure you've noticed that bitcoin is currently banned in Iraq, Qatar, Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Bangladesh, and Tunisia and there's one thing all this countries have in common - religion.

[FatFork]

I see it differently. Generally, DT members tag other members who are aware of and actively promote fraudulent schemes and businesses that have the tendency to scam their customers (or at least have strong indications that it could be so). In my opinion, CM does not fit into that classification, and I'm not aware of any intention on their part to deceive their customers.

So, according to you, the main reason is knowing about a scam vs not knowing about it? So, a person who promoted bitconnect not knowing that it's a scam is OK, but a person who had their suspicions and still did that is semi-OK? No sarcasm, I'm interested where the line is.

I think you already answered that question yourself. "Signature promoters are being red trusted if they're aware the business they're promoting is scamming its clients, are they not?"

There is no evidence to prove that CM scammed their users, and there's my line.

[dzungmobile]

Please read my previous post in this thread and keep the discussion relevant.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5445038.msg61927868#msg61927868

Discussion about CM, gambling should be in other topics. Else if discussion continues to derail, I will lock this one.

Thanks guys!

[JollyGood]

The issue is chipmixer has been accused of breaking multiple laws in multiple countries.

People rented signature space.

bitcointalk did not stop it.

Do I think this means action against bitcointalk no.
do i think this means action against signature campaigners no.

But do I think it could happen yes it could.

Hope it does not. As I do not begrudge people that did it.

We hope for the best when it comes to the forum, I hope there will be no issues facing it. Apart from a minority of people that use the forum for nefarious purposes, by far the majority of us all use the forum for legitimate use.

[yhiaali3]

Unfortunately, there are many secrets and subtleties that go on behind the scenes. I feel like the CIA is here on the forum.

In any case, caution is always required. There is nothing to prevent the US government from taking legal action against the forum in the event of any violation of the law, but as far as I know, campaigns promoting mixers do not violate the law.

We all wish the best for the forum, I am sure that the forum management knows what to do.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

ChipMixer has been in operation for years now, and if the company was in violation of any rule, that should have been ironed out long ago. The issue of ChipMixer should not be a reason to end mixer's campaign in this forum; we just advertise their projects and are not direct employees of the company. Perhaps mixing is not bad at all; it is just to protect one's security. If a grocery store sells the product of a company that started their company from a theft fund and the government gets to find out that the money used to start the company was stolen, does that mean that the grocery store sellers who sold the product should be arrested? I think that's a no.

[JollyGood]

This is not directed at any member in particular but if there are members here that begrudge the manner in which some of those wearing particular signatures have behaved in the past, it is understandable from their perspective why they would find it difficult to feel any remorse for them at losing what has been a lucrative signature income over many years. Sadly, maybe some here would even raise a smile at the demise of Chipmixer and subsequent loss of signature campaign income for some participants (which is quite an awful thing to do in my opinion) but that is the nature of the forum. There are varying opinions across the boards and they all have a right to their opinion.

About your warnings to the community about Chipmixer, I did not know about you making them but if you sounded the alarm and it was ignored what more could you do? By what you are saying it seems you tried your best but others were not convinced. I do not know what happened in your circumstance related to warning others about Chipmixer but from what I have seen elsewhere it is not easy to bring forward a differing point of view in any subject/capacity when opposition is strong, especially if they are driven by financial greed to oppose.

You also have to accept some members that participated in the Chipmixer signature campaign thought they were promoting a privacy service and were shocked that money laundering allegations have been made against a service they promoted.

The issue is chipmixer has been accused of breaking multiple laws in multiple countries.

People rented signature space.

bitcointalk did not stop it.

Do I think this means action against bitcointalk no.
do i think this means action against signature campaigners no.

But do I think it could happen yes it could.

Hope it does not. As I do not begrudge people that did it.

I begrudge them a little bit. Ignoring that many of them have attacked me for years for donating funds to NastyFans, claiming it was all sorts of things, meanwhile they’ve been promoting an illegal money laundering service for scammers here to clean their stolen funds for their own profits. Adding insult to injury, when I warned them the DOJ was closing in on Chipmixer, many responded by distrusting me on the forum’s trust network for sounding the warning about their promotion of illegal activity. Now that I was right and they were wrong, any apologies for their attacks or levied punishments against me for being right? Nope, just more insults. At the very least these people had bad judgement and sold out for money, assisting scammers on a site they claim to be trying to make safer.

[Timelord2067]

there's one thing all this countries have in common - religion.

I beg to differ.

Have you noticed two fire and brimstone threads from a couple of years ago started by a certain member of the Turkish community decrying there were no Turkish chosen to join the ranks of Chipmixers signature Troll fest have been necrobumped in the last couple of days.

Funny thing though - like with @OgNasty's warnings of CM, I warned about that group desperate to reap the mana from heaven wanting a share of the chipmixer profits and, over time, they've all ended up with negative trust feedback for one reason or another.

Greed. Pure and simple.

[macson]

Do you know the number of scam ads that google may have? Ads can be for scammers.

Stop posting shit please. Don't teach me about theory, things on paper.

I am talking about prevention, not want to see the forum seize.

hey buddy, i think what charles said is true, why did you attack the mixer when it became one of the needs of bitcoin users, do you support the government which only claims the bad side of the mixer without recognizing how important it is user data privacy.  if this forum is seize just because it is one of the marketing media mixers then it has happened a long time ago.