Bitcoin mixing is NOT money laundering, per se

[franky1]

putting privacy enhancing tools into main wallet apps and even the main core node software will cause more legal issues, because coin join/mixers  requires a central manager and would effectively turn bitcoin from an open source software and turn it into a service. which then allows authorities to grab further jurisdictional footing into the bitcoin ecosphere

so no thanks. leave it as a separate service instead of making it part of node/wallets by default

what people that operate or use privacy tools need to do is think smarter.. rather then ruin bitcoin just for an idiots greed/laziness of actually doing nothing to preserve his own privacy using his own actions in a smarter way.. just hoping bitcoin will do it all for them even at the demise of bitcoins open utility,

[1714873785]

1714873785

[1714873785]

1714873785

[1714873785]

1714873785

[1714873785]

1714873785

[Abiky]

It also doesn't really solve any problem if they ban mixers. There are so many services that essentially allow users to break traceability by going back and forth between different cryptocurrencies, or of course use Monero. And for as long as there is a need and a marktet for mixing services, there will be mixing services. They can maybe shut down one of those services every few weeks or so, but that doesn't stop anyone from setting up the next one. I was wondering if authorities should run their own mixing services as that would be an effective way to gather as much data about people as possible.

Mixers cannot be banned. Especially non-custodial/decentralized ones. Those who care about privacy will move on with their lives by using another mixer that's truly censorship-resistant. We knew from day one that centralized mixers were going to be scrutinized by mainstream governments. After all, they don't want people to enjoy true financial privacy. The more people obfuscate their transactions, the less power/control the government will have.

With DEXs, atomic swaps, and privacy-oriented cryptocurrencies (eg: Monero), we'll never have to worry about government surveillance ever again. Let's hope BTC devs integrate a privacy mechanism into the protocol (Zero Knowledge Proofs?) for complete peace of mind. If they do this, expect constant opposition from governments in the long run. Satoshi never intended to please the government in the first place, so why should the community do otherwise? Just my opinion

[Gormicsta]

If we're to choose over and over again I'd still choose anonymity and this is what Bitcoin mixers brings to the table. There's absolutely nothing wrong with me deciding to hide and conceal my business from the rest of the world,  I really didn't like the idea that anyone would be able to track my transactions  and trace it back to you so Bitcoin mixers partially solved that problem for me.

Now we all know that there are and will always be people who abuse anything and everything,  there are people who take advantage of this opportunity and use it for their selfish interest but it would be wrong to term mixers and Bitcoin mixing as money laundering because all it has done is increase anonymity in the use of Bitcoin

[Kryptowerk]

It also doesn't really solve any problem if they ban mixers. There are so many services that essentially allow users to break traceability by going back and forth between different cryptocurrencies, or of course use Monero. And for as long as there is a need and a marktet for mixing services, there will be mixing services. They can maybe shut down one of those services every few weeks or so, but that doesn't stop anyone from setting up the next one. I was wondering if authorities should run their own mixing services as that would be an effective way to gather as much data about people as possible.

Mixers cannot be banned. Especially non-custodial/decentralized ones. Those who care about privacy will move on with their lives by using another mixer that's truly censorship-resistant. We knew from day one that centralized mixers were going to be scrutinized by mainstream governments. After all, they don't want people to enjoy true financial privacy. The more people obfuscate their transactions, the less power/control the government will have.

With DEXs, atomic swaps, and privacy-oriented cryptocurrencies (eg: Monero), we'll never have to worry about government surveillance ever again. Let's hope BTC devs integrate a privacy mechanism into the protocol (Zero Knowledge Proofs?) for complete peace of mind. If they do this, expect constant opposition from governments in the long run. Satoshi never intended to please the government in the first place, so why should the community do otherwise? Just my opinion

I couldn't agree more with this statement (marked in bold). If privacy is the default, then there is no way to flag/cencor certain coins and we have a fully fungible system, even better than cash in many ways.

putting privacy enhancing tools into main wallet apps and even the main core node software will cause more legal issues, because coin join/mixers  requires a central manager and would effectively turn bitcoin from an open source software and turn it into a service. which then allows authorities to grab further jurisdictional footing into the bitcoin ecosphere

so no thanks. [...]

Is that so? I thought there are already decentralized versions of mixing protocols available - or is this indeed something technically impossible: A decentralized mixing solution? Source for your statement please.

[franky1]

to mix or coinjoin different peoples funds. needs a coordinator..

otherwise your just moving your own coins into new addresses you own.. which is "tumbling" /"hopping"
which is not mixing nor coinjoin

when middlemen coordinators are deciding whos coins go to who to ensure coins dont go back to the funder.. it changes from being a software feature and becomes a service aka (VASP). especially if said middleman takes a fee..
if you read regulations and look at what they get services to do. you soon learn why we dont want bitcoin nodes to suddenly become "money services/vasps" because its letting in the regulators jurisdictions to set rules for node operations

Anything that requires a central coordinator is a non-starter for the Bitcoin Core wallet.

core already allows things like partially signed transactions to aid in mixing/coin joins of multiple parties.. but requires separate scripts or human co-ordinators to actually perform the service...
the minute the core or its user starts co-ordinating such things the user becomes a service or if core does it built in/automatically and fully, the software becomes a service.. and making core become a money service is a big legal no no for many many legal implications

[elevates]

Currently, after the Sinbad issue, Bitcoin is being considered a laundering coin. The government would try its best to make it look like Bitcoin was the reason NK getting funds for their successful test of a missile. What I feel bad about is blaming Bitcoin and other crypto, what I think is the government lacked abilities to track the NK.

The original culprit was always China and its CCP regime but, the US ignored it as usual. They were doing it before Bitcoin even came into existence, for now, they found a way to blame everything on Bitcoin without even noticing the past. As for my understanding, it is nothing by hypocrisy and it would stay on as we progress to 2024.

[franky1]

Currently, after the Sinbad issue, Bitcoin is being considered a laundering coin. The government would try its best to make it look like Bitcoin was the reason NK getting funds for their successful test of a missile. What I feel bad about is blaming Bitcoin and other crypto, what I think is the government lacked abilities to track the NK.

The original culprit was always China and its CCP regime but, the US ignored it as usual. They were doing it before Bitcoin even came into existence, for now, they found a way to blame everything on Bitcoin without even noticing the past. As for my understanding, it is nothing by hypocrisy and it would stay on as we progress to 2024.

no
governments recognise bitcoin as a currency. they are going after the SERVICES that use bitcoin maliciously
as for you narrative about china.. please turn off fox news, its not good for your mental heath and teaching you bad politics

[Dump3er]

It also doesn't really solve any problem if they ban mixers. There are so many services that essentially allow users to break traceability by going back and forth between different cryptocurrencies, or of course use Monero. And for as long as there is a need and a marktet for mixing services, there will be mixing services. They can maybe shut down one of those services every few weeks or so, but that doesn't stop anyone from setting up the next one. I was wondering if authorities should run their own mixing services as that would be an effective way to gather as much data about people as possible.

Mixers cannot be banned. Especially non-custodial/decentralized ones. Those who care about privacy will move on with their lives by using another mixer that's truly censorship-resistant. We knew from day one that centralized mixers were going to be scrutinized by mainstream governments. After all, they don't want people to enjoy true financial privacy. The more people obfuscate their transactions, the less power/control the government will have.

With DEXs, atomic swaps, and privacy-oriented cryptocurrencies (eg: Monero), we'll never have to worry about government surveillance ever again. Let's hope BTC devs integrate a privacy mechanism into the protocol (Zero Knowledge Proofs?) for complete peace of mind. If they do this, expect constant opposition from governments in the long run. Satoshi never intended to please the government in the first place, so why should the community do otherwise? Just my opinion

I agree with you and this is why the bans are worthless the same way it was worthless for China to ban BTC back in the early days (and the several times they did afterwards ).

But they still have some potential tweaks up their sleeves in terms of laws and regulations. I think the most powerful they could implement and harshly enforce is the proof of origin of funds.

I am not fully away of the newest mixing services available, but is it possible for the user of a mixer to prove after the process to authorities that funds received from such a service are legally obtain funds sent to the service? Because if someone legally obtains an amount of BTC and then obfuscates all transactions, then sells and makes a profit and wants to declare gains appropriately at some point in the future, authorities could perhaps still decline the declaration of origin of funds? Do you have any opinion on that? Let me know if I should further elaborate on my question.

[franky1]

I agree with you and this is why the bans are worthless the same way it was worthless for China to ban BTC back in the early days (and the several times they did afterwards ).

But they still have some potential tweaks up their sleeves in terms of laws and regulations. I think the most powerful they could implement and harshly enforce is the proof of origin of funds.

the reason governments prohibit/ban/make something illegal. is because things before the bans were not illegal nor prohibited.. but by putting in bans. they can later come back with rules to permit accepted use under some licence, which comes with conditions. and thats how they gain jurisdiction
in short a permit/licence is: "its banned unless you follow our rules, meet our conditions"

we seen it happen literally overnight (in minutes) when the NY bitlicence activated.. before the date businesses could open bitcoin services in NY
now if your in NY and you want to operate a bitcoin business. its banned to you unless you register for their licence and conform to their conditions

same happens in many countries.. and china is just taking a very long time between the ban->licence to write out regulations to later permit bitcoin use

they done it with alcohol, driving, opening certain business over the centuries

[Abiky]

Currently, after the Sinbad issue, Bitcoin is being considered a laundering coin. The government would try its best to make it look like Bitcoin was the reason NK getting funds for their successful test of a missile. What I feel bad about is blaming Bitcoin and other crypto, what I think is the government lacked abilities to track the NK.

The original culprit was always China and its CCP regime but, the US ignored it as usual. They were doing it before Bitcoin even came into existence, for now, they found a way to blame everything on Bitcoin without even noticing the past. As for my understanding, it is nothing by hypocrisy and it would stay on as we progress to 2024.

You got that right. The US government treats crypto as it were mainly used by criminals, when it's all of the contrary. Fiat currencies (particularly the US Dollar) are the ones used mostly for money laundering and tax evasion. The main reason why the US and other countries are targeting mixers is because they don't want people to obtain true financial privacy and freedom. They want to have a full scope of what you do with your money.

With privacy, governments have no control over what you do with your financial life. This will be a never-ending battle between privacy/crypto advocates and mainstream governments. What matters is that crypto stays decentralized so it could render governments' efforts worthless. With non-custodial mixers in the game, I doubt privacy will cease to exist in the future.