Bitcoin mixing is NOT money laundering, per se

[cydrix]

According to what I understand, while Bitcoin mixing itself may not be unlawful or used to launder money, it can be utilized for those things. The most crucial factor in financial transactions is privacy, so everyone should be allowed to utilize tools like Bitcoin mixer if they are preserving their personal data.
Additionally, as the OP clarified, it is not the same as money laundering. Therefore, there is no reason to combine the two. Only when we choose to view something negatively do we declare it to be bad.

[1714895401]

1714895401

[1714895401]

1714895401

[1714895401]

1714895401

[franky1]

oh blackhatcoiner. missing the point

if you dont want businesses keeping tabs on you. and by that i mean risking then being on a government list..  you simply stop using things that wave a large neon red flag saying please look closer at me, please share what data you gather before a mixer and after a mixer with other businesses because im doing something that is by regulation deemed suspicious

you keep pretending that there is no policy to watch those entering and exiting mixers more carefully... but there is


thus when they find details about you when you get bitcoin and buy things .. which go to a mixer
but then after the mixer you do other things that note details about you..

it doesnt matter that you think you mixed it in the middle. they find you out by joining the two ends together. making the utility of mixing in the middle redundant as a feature. becasue the simple use of a mixer makes them fid the two ends of the ins and outs of your transactions

they put the two together and join up the two activities even if they cant link in the mixer middle initially.
you keep thinking that if you break the connect in the middle you become lost. but forget that the start and ends can be found

in short your thinking is
>     >>>        >
if you break the red connect, you are(in your mind) safe because you think they cant link your blue to your purple

reality is:
>     >>>        >
because there is a red. they follow back and follow forward to find the blues that are you. they are watching both the blues BECAUSE OF THE RED
they simply find the two ends. because the middle is what triggered them to look at the two ends

they are not spending time looking at everyone elses natural non mixed blues
>    >    >
because the non mixed blues have not triggered a watch warning/suspicious activity threshold to spend time watching all the normal blues

its because of the mixer in the middle that they are looking at the first and last parts.
they find you by the beginning and end parts.. because the middle part caused them to highlight each part.

example:
if they honeypot trap you by running lots of DEX traders to get your bank name linked to a bitcoin address
and thats seen going to a mixer. boom. your on a watch list

then after the mixer you do things like buy giftcards delivered to emails or home addresses they know of you. the giftcard merchant gets told to flag you becasue your names on a list.

where as someone that didnt use a mixer is not on a list where they are spending the extra time to look at you to try to find links

the sillier part is that you blackhatter have actually been giving out examples of how mixers work. revealing the allotment amounts that mixers use thus making it easier for those scoping the blockchain to recognise mixer transactions. thus flag coins that go in and coins that come out. thus also making it easier to put peoples movements onto watch lists.

heres the thing
regulators learned which coins got deposited into things like silk road. after seizing silkroad they learned some usernames and delivery addresses of its users. and sellers
then coins on the outs of a mixer. if they find similar usernames, addresses. they join them together
(same with the bitfinex hack)

all because those coins going in and coins coming out had been highlighted for extra scrutiny.

[BlackHatCoiner]

please share what data you gather before a mixer and after a mixer with other businesses because im doing something that is by regulation deemed suspicious

"Suspicious" doesn't tell me much. Earning bitcoin from someone who's involved in child porn can also happen incidentally, without using any privacy-enhancing tool, because people don't study the coins' history prior they accept them. Also, there is no law that prohibits mixing. There is only law about unregistered money transmitters. Mixing is more broad than that.

because there is a red. they follow back and follow forward to find the blues that are you. they are watching both the blues BECAUSE OF THE RED

Watching both the blues and the reds doesn't tell me much either. The result is that we've all mixed coins together, and there is no direct path to match the blues. I don't argue they provide absolute privacy, but it's definitely not how trivial you imagine it to be.

they are not spending time looking at everyone elses natural non mixed blues

Yes. They don't have the time to de-anonymize everyone else's coins (which is far easier to do btw). They are funded with millions by the American government, but they... don't find the time.  

[Weezenhofnar]

It's important to clarify that Bitcoin mixing does not necessarily equate to money laundering.

While it can be used to conceal the origins of money obtained through illegal activities, mixing is not a money laundering service in and of itself. Mixing coins can be a conscious decision made by individuals who value their privacy, whether they are involved in criminal activities or not.

It's crucial to respect individuals' privacy and recognize the importance of privacy-enhancing techniques. Remember that privacy and money laundering are not synonymous, and privacy is a fundamental human right.

[be.open]

The risks of losing the fungibility of coins in the open blockchain in the future may differ from different points of view, depending on future development scenarios and on individual risk tolerance.

There are no associated risks as long as you use bitcoin peer-to-peer. Such risks only arise if third parties, which are prone to regulation, are the backbone of the ecosystem. I don't recognize any third party which, if shut down or regulated, would take the entire currency with it.

You do not live in a vacuum, but in real life. If necessary, you will be deanonymized not by the peer-to-peer payment passed through the mixer, but by the context of the payment. And using a mixer, you only attract additional attention to yourself, advertising that you are hiding something. You can deceive yourself as much as you like, but anonymity and privacy are a myth in the modern world.

Why would I want to advertise the fact of mixing my coins?

I don't argue you advertise such thing; I'm just saying that if someone tries to trace you on-chain, it's good for you to have them known you've used a mixer. That clarifies you are not the owner of all mixer's outputs, and that the history prior mixing is not important.

If you want to make an anonymous payment, it's much more reasonable to use a monero-type blockchain that was initially closed than to try to obfuscate the trail in a public ledger like bitcoin. Mixing in a mixer gives the illusion of privacy, which, like any self-deception, is sometimes much more dangerous than its complete absence.

[BlackHatCoiner]

If necessary, you will be deanonymized not by the peer-to-peer payment passed through the mixer, but by the context of the payment.

I don't want to reveal the origins of my coins, some of which come from this very forum, and this is enough to have them sent to a mixer. I don't understand for what context are you talking about.

And using a mixer, you only attract additional attention to yourself, advertising that you are hiding something.

But I am hiding something. The origins of my coins. It's information I don't feel confident to have it publicly available at any time.

You can deceive yourself as much as you like, but anonymity and privacy are a myth in the modern world.

You either accept that, and let everyone scrutinize your life, or you live normally, obviously with part of your privacy violated by big corps, but not by every individual who has access to the blockchain. Do I need to remind you we're talking about public ledger here?

If you want to make an anonymous payment, it's much more reasonable to use a monero-type blockchain that was initially closed than to try to obfuscate the trail in a public ledger like bitcoin

No, it's exactly the same thing. Using Monero means you want on-chain privacy. It not reasonable to distinguish it, as it's essentially a protocol with continuous and mandatory mixing, similar to making coinjoins.

[be.open]

If necessary, you will be deanonymized not by the peer-to-peer payment passed through the mixer, but by the context of the payment.

I don't want to reveal the origins of my coins, some of which come from this very forum, and this is enough to have them sent to a mixer. I don't understand for what context are you talking about.

I think you don't usually make a payment for the sole purpose of "make a payment". For this payment, you want to receive something in return - a specific product or service. The weak point of your privacy strategy is that the full cycle of interaction "money-goods" or "money-services" is only partially performed in a decentralized peer-to-peer network, and the other part is performed in real life or on the Internet, where, generally speaking, it is much more difficult to protect yourself from deanonymization, especially if you voluntarily and knowingly display a "red flag" when making a payment using a mixer. The context can be almost anything - an unclosed adjacent browser tab, a smartphone’s geolocation not turned off, a voluntarily filled in postal address for a delivery service, a gait identification system through an outdoor surveillance camera at a pharmacy in a neighboring house, and you never know what else.

If you want to make an anonymous payment, it's much more reasonable to use a monero-type blockchain that was initially closed than to try to obfuscate the trail in a public ledger like bitcoin

No, it's exactly the same thing. Using Monero means you want on-chain privacy. It not reasonable to distinguish it, as it's essentially a protocol with continuous and mandatory mixing, similar to making coinjoins.

These are different things. In the case of Monero, not only the content of your payment is hidden from prying eyes, but the very fact of the payment is also hidden. Without a key to read a particular transaction, you won't even be able to know that it actually happened.

Do I need to remind you we're talking about public ledger here?

Yep. We're really talking here about a public ledger that you're trying to misuse by mixing - and in doing so, claim that "it's okay, it's definitely not for dirty illegal business like money laundering."

[BlackHatCoiner]

The weak point of your privacy strategy is that the full cycle of interaction "money-goods" or "money-services" is only partially performed in a decentralized peer-to-peer network, and the other part is performed in real life or on the Internet, where, generally speaking, it is much more difficult to protect yourself from deanonymization

Correct. But I don't want to go full privacy. Again, I don't want from the merchant I exchange stuff everyday to know I have an account here on bitcointalk, which makes me an extra income. I am fully aware that I can be de-anonymized in real life, but my goal is to retain part of my personal life private; specifically, this business in this forum.

These are different things. In the case of Monero, not only the content of your payment is hidden from prying eyes, but the very fact of the payment is also hidden. Without a key to read a particular transaction, you won't even be able to know that it actually happened.

This only strengthens my argument, which is that I want financial privacy on the Internet. What you just described is the reason most privacy experts advocate for Monero. It serves better privacy. According to your reasoning, we should neither use Monero because it makes us look suspicious. Why would I want to use a currency which completely hides my financial activity? Isn't that correct?  

Yep. We're really talking here about a public ledger that you're trying to misuse by mixing - and in doing so, claim that "it's okay, it's definitely not for dirty illegal business like money laundering."

So, utilizing privacy-respecting tools for bitcoin with limited privacy gained is "bad", "for criminals only", but using monero which is the most completed black-box cryptocurrency to this date is "good", "for every person who wants some privacy". Okay.  

BTW, I hope you know that it's entirely possible to receive coins which were used for illicit activity prior X transactions; and that X is arbitrarily marked as "good" and "bad" from mass surveillance corps which analyze the chain and create this "taint" perception.

[gunhell16]

For my own understanding bitcoin mixing is not money laundering. If the chip mixer is closed, it is probably because the chip mixer did not properly comply with the concern which caused it to be closed.

Because if this is a way for money laundering, no more than the Chipmixer took longer to operate. The only sad thing is that Bitcoin mixing is open to anyone who will use it, and there is no doubt that it can be used by someone with bad intentions. So no one is saying that Bitcoin mixing is bad, is there?

In addition to that, Bitcoin mixing only hides its true identity via the addresses used by Bitcoin holders who make transactions, that's the only thing I know why it works as a Bitcoin mixer.

[be.open]

The weak point of your privacy strategy is that the full cycle of interaction "money-goods" or "money-services" is only partially performed in a decentralized peer-to-peer network, and the other part is performed in real life or on the Internet, where, generally speaking, it is much more difficult to protect yourself from deanonymization

Correct. But I don't want to go full privacy. Again, I don't want from the merchant I exchange stuff everyday to know I have an account here on bitcointalk, which makes me an extra income. I am fully aware that I can be de-anonymized in real life, but my goal is to retain part of my personal life private; specifically, this business in this forum.

These are different things. In the case of Monero, not only the content of your payment is hidden from prying eyes, but the very fact of the payment is also hidden. Without a key to read a particular transaction, you won't even be able to know that it actually happened.

This only strengthens my argument, which is that I want financial privacy on the Internet. What you just described is the reason most privacy experts advocate for Monero. It serves better privacy. According to your reasoning, we should neither use Monero because it makes us look suspicious. Why would I want to use a currency which completely hides my financial activity? Isn't that correct?  

Yep. We're really talking here about a public ledger that you're trying to misuse by mixing - and in doing so, claim that "it's okay, it's definitely not for dirty illegal business like money laundering."

So, utilizing privacy-respecting tools for bitcoin with limited privacy gained is "bad", "for criminals only", but using monero which is the most completed black-box cryptocurrency to this date is "good", "for every person who wants some privacy". Okay.  

BTW, I hope you know that it's entirely possible to receive coins which were used for illicit activity prior X transactions; and that X is arbitrarily marked as "good" and "bad" from mass surveillance corps which analyze the chain and create this "taint" perception.

You are wrong to attribute to my messages a moral coloring in the style of "good" and "bad", I condemn only the misuse of tools. My extensive experience and diverse background in the field of information and physical security allows me to argue that partial and unsystematic efforts to preserve confidentiality are a waste of resources, and it would often be better if they did not exist at all, because the harm is greater than the benefit. It's like building a house with three walls and leaving a huge gaping hole instead of a fourth. You will be protected from idle prying eyes from three sides, but do not be fooled by the illusion that you are safe in such a house.

[mejarm]

As long as the transaction's source is hidden, the only distinction between bitcoin mixing and money laundering is whether or not this qualifies as money laundering. very essentially encircles the transaction's legal aspect. Whatever the case, it is difficult to define money laundering in this context because cryptocurrency by its very nature has an element of secrecy and the country of origin of the coins doesn't matter as much.

[BlackHatCoiner]

If the chip mixer is closed, it is probably because the chip mixer did not properly comply with the concern which caused it to be closed.

ChipMixer absolutely didn't comply with regulations. It wasn't a registered money transmitter service. No centralized mixer can comply with regulations due to its nature.

You are wrong to attribute to my messages a moral coloring in the style of "good" and "bad"

How so? You're the one who used the phrase "dirty illegal business" above.

You will be protected from idle prying eyes from three sides, but do not be fooled by the illusion that you are safe in such a house.

I'm in no illusion that I have absolute anonymity. As I said, I just don't want from the merchants I interact with, online and offline, to let them know what I'm doing in this forum. And I'm pretty much accomplishing this since the day I joined a signature campaign, through the use of mixers. I'm really having a hard time comprehending your argument. Do you imply that unless we have absolute anonymity, we should have zero privacy?

[Abiky]

If a government doesn't ban bitcoin usage at all I see no worries if it can see any transactions. Why I see bitcoin mixing important is to hide my transactions from different kind of bad actors who can trace my transactions and take bad action against me. Even if now all I have is very few to have an interest in me bitcoin can go up and situation can change. I prefer less people know anything about my money. But I don't think any can hide their money from gov as gov has enough resources to trace everything in blockchain if they want.

Governments can't trace everything in a Blockchain, especially if the same is private by design. Up to this date, Monero transactions haven't been revealed by the government using available analytics software (as far as I know). You think that will change anytime soon? Developers will keep improving privacy/anonymity techniques to prevent governments from gaining advantage in the future. Just because "you don't have nothing to hide", doesn't mean you should allow governments to take control of every aspect of your life. Privacy/anonymity = freedom.

I see crypto mixers as a way to escape government surveillance in a good way. They're not meant to be used for illegal activites, though. But emerging technologies are a double-edged sword, so there's nothing we can do to prevent some people from using mixers in a bad way. Things are heating up for the crypto industry lately, so it should only be a matter of time before all centralized mixing services disappear for good. Just my thoughts

[jokers10]

If a government doesn't ban bitcoin usage at all I see no worries if it can see any transactions. Why I see bitcoin mixing important is to hide my transactions from different kind of bad actors who can trace my transactions and take bad action against me. Even if now all I have is very few to have an interest in me bitcoin can go up and situation can change. I prefer less people know anything about my money. But I don't think any can hide their money from gov as gov has enough resources to trace everything in blockchain if they want.

Governments can't trace everything in a Blockchain, especially if the same is private by design. Up to this date, Monero transactions haven't been revealed by the government using available analytics software (as far as I know). You think that will change anytime soon? Developers will keep improving privacy/anonymity techniques to prevent governments from gaining advantage in the future. Just because "you don't have nothing to hide", doesn't mean you should allow governments to take control of every aspect of your life. Privacy/anonymity = freedom.

I see crypto mixers as a way to escape government surveillance in a good way. They're not meant to be used for illegal activites, though. But emerging technologies are a double-edged sword, so there's nothing we can do to prevent some people from using mixers in a bad way. Things are heating up for the crypto industry lately, so it should only be a matter of time before all centralized mixing services disappear for good. Just my thoughts

We are talking about bitcoin mixers so I'm talking about bitcoin as well. If I'm saying that I'm not worried about that gov will anyway trace any my transactions in bitcoin blockchain, it's because they can do it anyway and bitcoin mixers won't prevent it. Right, it doesn't mean we should allow to trace our fair transactions, the presumption of innocence should work. But even if I don't give a special permission to gov to trace my transactions, bitcoin blockchain is transparent to anyone and everyone including gov. I keep it in mind. And it doesn't fear me that gov will see, main problem is that some bad actor can see. Gov should stay in boundaries of law and it shouldn't look if it wasn't allowed (even if it can), but a criminal is not bound by the law. So it's not about hiding anything from the gov, it's about hiding it from different bad actors.

[be.open]

You are wrong to attribute to my messages a moral coloring in the style of "good" and "bad"

How so? You're the one who used the phrase "dirty illegal business" above.

I'm not entirely sure if my sarcasm is too good, or my English is too bad, or both. In any case, I'm definitely not one of those narrow-minded fanatics who run around the section and spam about their jihad declared to spam. Although a mixed transaction in a public blockchain from some point of view also looks like spam. But you can expect me to be free of any kind of moral condemnation, no matter what purpose you use the mixer for. I am glad that sometimes we seem to understand each other quite well, although each of us is conducting a dialogue not in our native language.

[franky1]

there is no law that prohibits mixing. There is only law about unregistered money transmitters. Mixing is more broad than that.

he says....
.. then debunks himself the same day with

ChipMixer absolutely didn't comply with regulations. It wasn't a registered money transmitter service. No centralized mixer can comply with regulations due to its nature.

so you admit chipmixer broke the law.. which you think there are no laws ..

again i need to reiterate this to you..

bitcoin 2009-2013 was private property. thus escaped financial laws and regulations as it was not deemed currency
bitcoin 2014-now is deemed currency thus financial laws do apply and regulating of financial services.. and i must emphasise this
DEX operators, mixer operators AND YES LN routers are all deemed as financial services.. so do check all the regulations and find out whats actually included and not included so you can learn the pitfalls and the loop holes

stop wasting pages trying to say what you hope things are. and instead actually look at the data and information easily accessible to determine how things are

learn and evolve. actually take the time you usually spend promoting things that get people noticed more. and instead do the smart thing
if you want to be chummy with developers of anonymous services. look at the laws and regulations and realise whats said and then learn the traps to avoid

again for instance
by blatantly calling it a mixer where regulations literally say MIXERS are a red flag of suspicion and require extra monitoring of users of such. learn from it

create new services not advertised or described as such.
another for instance. if a services sole function  is to be a mixer. then there is no get-out clause. its a mixer
but if there were a service that does several things. maybe legal gambling or random luck lotto where everyone wins(their funds back) where it also does other things but a unspoken side effect is the funds deposited are not the same taint as the funds withdrawn. then you have a more compelling option/service

think about it. stop playing dumb just to endlessly promote something that is actually written into regulations.
yes the word mixer is actually written in regulations as a red flag of suspicion

[tygeade]

Governments can't trace everything in a Blockchain, especially if the same is private by design. Up to this date, Monero transactions haven't been revealed by the government using available analytics software (as far as I know). You think that will change anytime soon? Developers will keep improving privacy/anonymity techniques to prevent governments from gaining advantage in the future. Just because "you don't have nothing to hide", doesn't mean you should allow governments to take control of every aspect of your life. Privacy/anonymity = freedom.

I see crypto mixers as a way to escape government surveillance in a good way. They're not meant to be used for illegal activites, though. But emerging technologies are a double-edged sword, so there's nothing we can do to prevent some people from using mixers in a bad way. Things are heating up for the crypto industry lately, so it should only be a matter of time before all centralized mixing services disappear for good. Just my thoughts

I do not really know if it is going to be that clear black/white situation at all. I understand that mixing could be a complicated issue but at the end of the day if it can be used for money laundering, then whatever else people use it for will not matter. However, we also have knives at home, we all have it, and we can kill someone with it if we want to right? Do we? I mean some do obviously but mostly we don't and knives are not banned, you can legally acquire guns too. So that means, just because some people may use it for bad purposes, it shouldn't be banned, or illegal.

There are so many things that would be bad for people to use it in a bad way, but we don't and that's why freedom to choose ourselves and only jail people who use it bad way should be punished, people who do not use it for illegal purposes should be left alone.

[BlackHatCoiner]

so you admit chipmixer broke the law.. which you think there are no laws ..

Since it's illegal in both Germany and US to run an unlicensed money transmitter service, and ChipMixer was running in just about both countries, it's pretty much certain that it did break the law.

I have nowhere stated that there are no laws that prohibit such activity. I have merely argued there is no law that prohibits mixing, which is true as far as I'm concerned. In no court have I ever seen mixing being equated to some unlicensed money transmitting service's product. You can practically mix coins yourself, with absolutely no other users, even though it's not recommended for your privacy. But it is, and can obfuscate in an extent. Coinjoining is neither money transmitting.

[Obari]

I love the fact that you were so plain and just in your explanations and no matter how people try to picture, I think at some point, this is business and the sole purpose is to create a decentralized form of  holding money where one can confidently spend their money without been monitored or tailed and that is simply the work mixers are doing perfectly well since most of these centralized  exchanges has made bitcoin  transactions very porous  and easily traceable.

I also understand  that judging  from some perspective,  mixing might be seen as aiding some criminal activities maybe consciously or not and since I'm not sure if mixers have to bother over the source of the funds of their clients before mixing don't we think that in other to keep this mixers at a safer side, she they go ahead to seek the source of fund before mixing?

[franky1]

so you admit chipmixer broke the law.. which you think there are no laws ..

Since it's illegal in both Germany and US to run an unlicensed money transmitter service, and ChipMixer was running in just about both countries, it's pretty much certain that it did break the law.

I have nowhere stated that there are no laws that prohibit such activity. I have merely argued there is no law that prohibits mixing, which is true as far as I'm concerned. In no court have I ever seen mixing being equated to some unlicensed money transmitting service's product. You can practically mix coins yourself, with absolutely no other users, even though it's not recommended for your privacy. But it is, and can obfuscate in an extent. Coinjoining is neither money transmitting.

firstly mixing is a financial service. but it cannot register as a licenced money service because its a red flag service.
(catch 22 event)

...
mixing with no other users is not mixing.. because your coins are still yours so its all the same junk(you confuse mixing with tumbling.. and yet tumbling is also a red flag event with regulators).. heck even you know this when your sober.. .. thats the whole point of you wanting to recruit innocent people into mixing instead of just advertising tumblers. you NEED to recruit clean money people(innocents) so that you can get rid of your dirty coins onto such innocents to take their clean coins. because thats how it works.

if it was so simple for dirty money to be mixed with itself there would be no point in needing other people recruited and palmed off with the dirty money
..
also a few other hints about your so called privacy lack of knowledge
when you do wire transfer to some stranger(s). your bank knows who that money went to, so their bank could ask that person for more details about the purpose of that receipt and get your address they sent coins to.
becasue they as wire transfer recipients of alots of payments makes them a money service business. which if they are using a personal account instead of a licenced business can cause them to be pushed into court.. yep DEX is not a saviour just like localbitcoins was not for the popular providers .. learn from this

if all of your coins have information that links to you where you are, at the end points doing wire transfer in and out guess what.. they find you via the end points. then when those addresses are flagged as being mixed. your then highlighted and flagged. and further scrutiny is on you..
you are no longer a random gorilla in the mist, not thought about or seen. you are suddenly kingkong, seen as something that should get the authorities targetting

if you want to stay off authorities radar. dont be kingkong, dont popularise yourself or highlight yourself

..
as for the other points of your post.
again you make a statement then say the opposite after of the same post.
for instance

you just admitted chip mixer was braking the law [not just] for being an unregistered money transmitter service, [but also doing laundering.]
you then pretend to say you have never seen in any court mixing equated to some unlicensed money transmitting service product.. yet chip mixer (your own example you do know about) is in court for BOTH crimes

chip mixer got shut down because of laundering. the owner got slapped with a lawsuit due to financially gaining from it which is the test of being a payment facilitator/financial transmitter service (Money Service Business / Payment Facilitator)

if you want to set up a service. learn from these things. dont pretend they didnt happen(while foolishly mentioning them in the same breath)

just because you plead ignorant by not doing research or ignoring anything you have seen to pretend you did not see it. actually read stuff and learn from it.

regulations do mention that mixing is a red flag that will get you noticed.
ill say it 5 more times
regulations do mention that mixing is a red flag that will get you noticed.
regulations do mention that mixing is a red flag that will get you noticed.
regulations do mention that mixing is a red flag that will get you noticed.
regulations do mention that mixing is a red flag that will get you noticed.
regulations do mention that mixing is a red flag that will get you noticed.

let that thought rattle around in your head for a while


so one last time

when mixing is the bad word of regulation.. be smart.. invent something new that does not sound like the word mixer. offers a different feature as its advertised service. where the unspoken side effect is the taint of deposits is not the same as the taint of withdrawals..

get the hint yet?? or is your mixer advertising contract so strict that you cant escape just advertising mixers

and no i dont mean just rebrand the service "blender" or "shaker" or "stirrer" or "tumbler" and carry on as usual,
be smarter then that

screw it.. one more time. just for you becasue it takes a while for you to learn things

MIXERS. do appear in real world regulations(yep REAL legislation) that mixers are a red flag requiring more monitoring/scrutiny of users of such

if you dont want to be monitored scrutinised to a higher level than 99% of normal people. dont use something thats actually mentioned in regulations

i do hope you understand this simple hint.. or admit to it when your contract expires