Bitcoin mixing is NOT money laundering, per se

[Who is John Galt?]

In a recent article about how the brother of the creator of one of the mixers stole funds already under arrest from him, they talk about two mixers against which law enforcement agencies took action. In both cases, they are talking about the connection of mixers with criminals.

According to them, Helix (exactly the mixer whose founder's brother stole the money) partnered with several shops from the dark web. And Tornado Cash worked with the hacker organization Lazarus Group.

Perhaps not every mixer has partnerships with criminal organizations, but mixers are closed precisely for this.

[Synchronice]

The problem is that people aren't as smart as you think. If people were smart, they wouldn't believe lies from government but people are dumb, majority of them, so, don't expect dumb people to understand the importance of privacy. I've actually met a lot of people who say, why do you need privacy if you don't do something illegal? So, government knows what I do and then what? What can say do? Will they arrest me, kill me? I'm clear. This is definitely a wrong approach, people ignore that every information they gave away, including their transactions, strengthens the power of governments and strengthens the power of companies like Apple, Google, Walmart, they understand your behavior, know what you do and when, you are just in their claws. Because of that, it's getting almost impossible to compete with these firms and soon, I think, there will be a total monopoly in many business niches.

Now, it's pretty clear for me that majority of people think that bitcoin mixing is only for money laundering, because government tells them so and that's what they learnt from people around them. Should we try to talk again about this task? Definitely, the more we let the light shine, the more people will see it in the dark but so many people still don't learn basics like not your keys, not your wallets, I'm sad.

if cops are on the lookout for people in pink hoodies and your wearing a pink hoody. expect to be highlighted as someone to look into and question when seen
and if you learn that cops are on the watch out for someone in a pink hoody. you might want to choose to change your clothes

If cops say it's crime to wear pink hoody, should we all agree about that without asking a logical question, what's wrong with pink hoodies?
They say that bitcoin mixing is an illegal act but how the hell is it legal act to track me and learn and analyze my every activity? How legal is it to read all of my messages and track all of my phone calls? Oh, it's done to prevent crime and illegal activities? C'mon man, that's not true and you can see it in everyday life. Government it self is a huge group of criminals that don't let other criminals to step in their game. They are brainwashing people and only adjust attention on one specific thing, that they want.

in short.. use a mixer. expect to be watched closer.. use a anonymity enhanced currency expect to be watched closer

pretending using a mixer/aec hides you better is the opposite of what happens. it reveals you and highlights you better.. not hide

You are watched anyway! Let's make it more difficult for them. If you are partly anonymizing yourself, like using a mixer to receive coins on your main exchange wallet, log-in in your bank account via ProtonVPN and ProtonMail, then yeah, you are watched but if you do things a little bit different, you won't be their main target.

[PrivacyG]

They say that bitcoin mixing is an illegal act but how the hell is it legal act to track me and learn and analyze my every activity? How legal is it to read all of my messages and track all of my phone calls? Oh, it's done to prevent crime and illegal activities? C'mon man, that's not true and you can see it in everyday life. Government it self is a huge group of criminals that don't let other criminals to step in their game. They are brainwashing people and only adjust attention on one specific thing, that they want.

As much as I want to agree with you here, I have to disagree.  Most of the tracking has been accepted by you once you agreed to all sorts of Terms and Conditions when setting up your phone.  Or your computer.  Or, when you bought a SIM card.  We blindly agree to so many Terms and Conditions almost every day.  Open up a web page and you have to click 'I Consent' or read a 10 minute long text to understand what you have to consent for proper functioning of the Website.  No body ever reads this for every single website they go on.

Of course.  Most of these Terms are overwhelmingly long for the average human to read, comprehend and link together.  But it all lays down there in the Terms.  One Google app records your voice (Assistant) continuously.  The other (Photos) stores your gallery stuff.  Another one (Messages) stores SMS.  Most of them do not work without the weird GSF and the other apps required by these apps to work.  You download other apps to identify unknown phone numbers.  WhatsApp has your contacts.  Tinder knows what kind of people you like and how you flirt.  Et cetera.  They have it all and when it is all linked to a single business owner (say Google which knows most of the stuff about you), it is so easy to analyze your person and monitor you.

Then you have a lot of apps mentioning in some way they will sell information to Third Parties.  Here is where the thing links all together.  Either they work directly with the Government or Third Parties buy and sell information to them if needed, indirectly making these corporations work with the Governments.  Because what is easier to do, pay/ask Google for some information about Synchronice or find, collect and analyze the information by yourself?

The door to Governments is open as soon as there is a 'we will report to the Government if there is a suspicious action or we will hand them out the information in case they ask us for it' clause in the Terms.  Same goes with Centralized Exchanges.  As soon as there is this clause that your money will be frozen and seized if they think something is suspicious about you.  There are SO many things that can go wrong.  Free Wallet uses this clause to seize your money and ask for so many personal documents with the promise that your money will be handed back to you if you send it, but this never actually happens.  You end up sending them all you got on you and they keep asking for more.  They now have your money and an unimaginable amount of your personal documents.  So there is theft for one and a potential for identity theft in the future.

So if you start being MUCH more cautious about the way you handle things.  And start de Google-ing your phone, get rid of Windows, use a dumb phone with removable battery for your mobile carrier interactions, use Mixers to break links, use an encrypted e-mail provider for e-mail communication, use Open Source encrypted communication applications instead of WhatsApp, remove your Facebook and Instagram accounts et cetera.  Once you do that, maybe they will try to watch you closer.  But there is not much they can watch any more.  What will they do if they are now unable to collect much on you anyway.

Now start arguing that crime will be on All Time High levels if every body did this.  Do we all forget the things I mentioned in the above paragraph did not really even exist 50 to 100 years ago and crime was still a thing.  I do not see crime going into inexistence thanks to severe monitoring of humans.

You are watched anyway! Let's make it more difficult for them. If you are partly anonymizing yourself, like using a mixer to receive coins on your main exchange wallet, log-in in your bank account via ProtonVPN and ProtonMail, then yeah, you are watched but if you do things a little bit different, you won't be their main target.

What franky does not get is that I am in the highlights for using Mixers BECAUSE every body else is scared of using them.  Had Mixing, using Proton Mail and encryption at every single corner been the common way of using technology, not only would they not be a highlight any more but Governments would have a very hard time keeping up with controlling and monitoring.

Am I criminal for using Cash at a store?  Why, if my bank note can not be traced down to the source.  If I am not, then why is Mixing money laundering.  Some body above my post posted the definition of Mixing as obscuring the trail back to the source of funds.  Cash is the same, is it not.  Intentionally or not, you are obscuring the trail back to the source of funds by using it.  In fact.  You are obscuring the trail so much better by using a bank note than by using a Mixer.  I can go to a self paying checkout point in a store with a large bill and buy the cheapest thing in the store.  I now have a new set of bank notes, minus a 'fee' (the thing I bought).  How does the Government keep up with this kind of 'money laundering'?

To me it is also a sort of psychopathic pleasure to know that a Government has a hard time keeping up with the monitoring of my person.  I really dislike being watched like I was in a cage at a Zoo they were visiting for some weird study.

[KiaKia]

Not all Bitcoin mixer users are into money laundering, there are many people that take privacy very seriously and nobody can stop such people from using mixers for their transactions, they believe this is the real way to be two steps away from the government and powerful centralized commodities, I can't blame them but, indeed, there are also some people that are using Bitcoin mixers to move illegal funds and launder money, this is also a fact.

I don't want to be caught up between what's good and what's bad but whatever we use for the good purposes can also be use by bad people, the government have every right to try stopping this, terrorists around the world can benefits a lot from mixers, they can move illegal money around with mixer to purchase weapons and bombs, they are going to use this to take lives of innocent people.

Mixers are beneficial for the good and the bad but I don't know what to say or do about it because there is no way to stop bad people from using Bitcoin mixers.

[Abiky]

All countries even those who are crypto friendly are most likely to be against Mixing , those countries who are crypto friendly are largely partners with centralized platforms that's to say they want to know how their citizens make use of crypto currency no privacy protection at all.

So using Mixing service will not allow them achieve their goal and as such they will definitely be against the service which they can't render a direct attack to any mixing platform since they are not registered or licensed by any regulatory authority, all they just want it a reason to attack mixing platform and that reason is to link it to money laundering and if they can validate any proof that a crime was committed using the platform then they have all they need to attack.  

Which is why most people are seeing mixing as money laundering platform because of the Fud the Fed's and others Bitcoin haters are spreading regarding Bitcoin.

A real Bitcoiner will definitely know that mixing primary goal is to protect holders privacy, and has nothing to do with money laundering.

Tell that to mainstream governments who usually come up with excuses to stop people from getting true financial freedom. They make everyone believe mixers are used for money laundering and tax evasion just to keep Fiat currencies afloat. We should expect more crackdowns on crypto mixers and privacy coins as crypto/Blockchain tech becomes more popular.

I'm glad there are decentralized (non-custodial) mixers aimed to give people the financial privacy they need without fear of censorship from the government. You can see how Tornado.Cash is still being used, despite the US sanctions. Now there's a new alternative called Privacy Pools using the same tech as Tornado.Cash. The revolution simply can't be stopped. Who knows if all centralized mixers disappear for good due to fierce government crackdowns? Just my opinion

[Similificator]

Indeed, Bitcoin mixing and money laundering are two different things. But the problem here is that the line that separates both is very thin. Plus the fact that the goal of these two are somewhat the same which is hiding traces or origins of the funds through a variety of ways. Thus, giving the government and authorities the sweet excuse to pin down such services as much as they can. It doesn't even matter whether the reason is just or only for the sake of personal gain of certain individuals. As long as there is a chance for it to be used by criminals, the authorities and government will always take advantage of their justification of protecting the people to give Bitcoin mixing service providers a hard time in every way possible. The only thing we ordinary people can do is to support these type of services in our own ways and look for workarounds that would help us keep as much as we can of whatever control and privacy there is that we still have left.

[Abiky]

Indeed, Bitcoin mixing and money laundering are two different things. But the problem here is that the line that separates both is very thin. Plus the fact that the goal of these two are somewhat the same which is hiding traces or origins of the funds through a variety of ways. Thus, giving the government and authorities the sweet excuse to pin down such services as much as they can. It doesn't even matter whether the reason is just or only for the sake of personal gain of certain individuals. As long as there is a chance for it to be used by criminals, the authorities and government will always take advantage of their justification of protecting the people to give Bitcoin mixing service providers a hard time in every way possible. The only thing we ordinary people can do is to support these type of services in our own ways and look for workarounds that would help us keep as much as we can of whatever control and privacy there is that we still have left.

Centralized mixing services don't stance a chance against the government. But with non-custodial (decentralized) mixers, that's another story. These will be the ones that will ultimately survive as governments will be unable to take them down for good. But be aware that you can still get targeted by the government if it discovers you are using a decentralized mixer.

After all, governments don't want you to gain true privacy and finacial freedom. Therefore, we should expect tougher days ahead for crypto mixers and privacy coins alike. As long as decentralization wins, there should be nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts

[karmamiu]

Indeed, Bitcoin mixing and money laundering are two different things. But the problem here is that the line that separates both is very thin. Plus the fact that the goal of these two are somewhat the same which is hiding traces or origins of the funds through a variety of ways. Thus, giving the government and authorities the sweet excuse to pin down such services as much as they can. It doesn't even matter whether the reason is just or only for the sake of personal gain of certain individuals. As long as there is a chance for it to be used by criminals, the authorities and government will always take advantage of their justification of protecting the people to give Bitcoin mixing service providers a hard time in every way possible. The only thing we ordinary people can do is to support these type of services in our own ways and look for workarounds that would help us keep as much as we can of whatever control and privacy there is that we still have left.

Centralized mixing services don't stance a chance against the government. But with non-custodial (decentralized) mixers, that's another story. These will be the ones that will ultimately survive as governments will be unable to take them down for good. But be aware that you can still get targeted by the government if it discovers you are using a decentralized mixer.

After all, governments don't want you to gain true privacy and finacial freedom. Therefore, we should expect tougher days ahead for crypto mixers and privacy coins alike. As long as decentralization wins, there should be nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts

Is what I wanted to say just like how @Similificator described, the difference between those two are so thin that it is enough to be mistaken as what we commonly call illegal by government standards. We arr all aware that mixing wasn't made by the purpose of doing something illegal, but it has to be expected that it can be exploited due to its nature or the process as how it works. We are also aware that those who had bad records before mixing are the ones causing massive problems while dragging those innocent users on their way.

I still believe that it all depends on how the user wanted to use the platform not that a platform was initially like that, and to be more precise their major customers like what happened at CM are the ones doing those laundering activities, and even if they will revise their own rules, they will probably lose credibility since what they had promised is different than what they can afford to deliver.

[jokers10]

Centralized mixing services don't stance a chance against the government. But with non-custodial (decentralized) mixers, that's another story. These will be the ones that will ultimately survive as governments will be unable to take them down for good. But be aware that you can still get targeted by the government if it discovers you are using a decentralized mixer.

After all, governments don't want you to gain true privacy and finacial freedom. Therefore, we should expect tougher days ahead for crypto mixers and privacy coins alike. As long as decentralization wins, there should be nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts

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.

[be.open]

With the development of blockchain analyzers, including the use of artificial intelligence technologies, and the general development of the digitalization of society, bitcoin may in the foreseeable future be divided into three large clusters:
1. Bitcoins on verified bitcoin addresses that are uniquely associated with the identity of the owner, let's call them "white" bitcoins for definiteness.
2. Bitcoins without any history of miner rewards, let's call them "gray" bitcoins for definiteness.
3. Bitcoins with a dubious history, including those that have passed through the mixer, let's call them "black" bitcoins.

I think every member of the bitcoin community should ask themselves the question, what color is their current bitcoins, and what color bitcoins would they like to own when the difference between bitcoins of different colors becomes really significant?

Because the prospect is quite real when it may suddenly become clear that one bitcoin is not equal to one bitcoin. The favorite mantra of bitcoin maximalists "1btc = 1btc" does not work because the coins in the open blockchain are not fungible.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I think every member of the bitcoin community should ask themselves the question, what color is their current bitcoins

I think every Bitcoin user should have color blindness in that matter.

The favorite mantra of bitcoin maximalists "1btc = 1btc" does not work because the coins in the open blockchain are not fungible.

I strongly disagree. There are abundant bitcoin buyers and sellers who are willing to exchange bitcoin without questioning the coin history at all. That alone should be enough to consider it fungible. The fact that some companies enforce a view in which some coins are worth less, doesn't mean they really do, because there are people who don't buy this view, and still are willing to buy / sell them for the same price.

[be.open]

I think every member of the bitcoin community should ask themselves the question, what color is their current bitcoins

I think every Bitcoin user should have color blindness in that matter.

The favorite mantra of bitcoin maximalists "1btc = 1btc" does not work because the coins in the open blockchain are not fungible.

I strongly disagree. There are abundant bitcoin buyers and sellers who are willing to exchange bitcoin without questioning the coin history at all. That alone should be enough to consider it fungible. The fact that some companies enforce a view in which some coins are worth less, doesn't mean they really do, because there are people who don't buy this view, and still are willing to buy / sell them for the same price.

If this is the case now (due to the imperfection of automatic blockchain analyzers, gaps in the legislation of different jurisdictions and local weaknesses of regulators) - this does not mean that it will always and everywhere be like this. Of course, there will always be more loyal jurisdictions that will be color blind in the matter of bitcoin color differentiation. And I'm talking more about the real risk of such a separation in the future than about a fait accompli in the present.

Although it seems that some centralized exchanges even today will automatically block your deposit if the incoming bitcoin had traces of passing through the mixer in its history. The deposit will be unblocked after you document the legality of the origin of the funds, show a certificate of income.

[BlackHatCoiner]

this does not mean that it will always and everywhere be like this.

There will always be decentralized exchanges, which are superior in terms of enforcing arbitrary coin criteria, because they cannot be shut down. So you will always have the option to go and buy / sell this way.

Although it seems that some centralized exchanges even today will automatically block your deposit if the incoming bitcoin had traces of passing through the mixer in its history.

Great, so don't use a centralized exchange. You will never have your coins treated unequally in Bisq.

[be.open]

this does not mean that it will always and everywhere be like this.

There will always be decentralized exchanges, which are superior in terms of enforcing arbitrary coin criteria, because they cannot be shut down. So you will always have the option to go and buy / sell this way.

Although it seems that some centralized exchanges even today will automatically block your deposit if the incoming bitcoin had traces of passing through the mixer in its history.

Great, so don't use a centralized exchange. You will never have your coins treated unequally in Bisq.

You contradict yourself. First say that the history of a particular bitcoin does not matter, and then admit that this is only true until you use centralized exchanges, otherwise you will have problems freezing funds. And problems with freezing funds will also arise for someone who buys bitcoins from you that have passed through a mixer on a decentralized exchange, and then wants to bring them to a centralized exchange. For you it doesn't matter, but for someone it can be a serious limitation in the freedom to manage their funds. So don't tell me that the history of a particular bitcoin is unimportant, because it isn't. Conditional freedom is a kind of non-freedom.

[BlackHatCoiner]

You contradict yourself. First say that the history of a particular bitcoin does not matter, and then admit that this is only true until you use centralized exchanges, otherwise you will have problems freezing funds.

I'm not contradicting myself. Just because there exist services which enforce arbitrary rules, it doesn't mean the coins are the problem. Just as if there would be a merchant in real life, who would not accept your cash because he thinks you're not trustworthy, and asked for further info like bank transactions, passport, phone number etc., it doesn't mean your cash are problematic; the merchant is.

And problems with freezing funds will also arise for someone who buys bitcoins from you that have passed through a mixer on a decentralized exchange, and then wants to bring them to a centralized exchange.

Notice that you repeat the usage of centralized exchange as if it was an indivisible part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. It's not. I have not used a centralized exchange in my life that enforces such nonsense. I trade peer-to-peer using decentralized, trustless exchanges*, just as bitcoin was designed to be.

Conditional freedom is a kind of non-freedom.

Depends on the conditions. If the only condition is "don't use such services", I don't think you have much freedom encroached.

* with this exception.

[be.open]

You contradict yourself. First say that the history of a particular bitcoin does not matter, and then admit that this is only true until you use centralized exchanges, otherwise you will have problems freezing funds.

I'm not contradicting myself. Just because there exist services which enforce arbitrary rules, it doesn't mean the coins are the problem. Just as if there would be a merchant in real life, who would not accept your cash because he thinks you're not trustworthy, and asked for further info like bank transactions, passport, phone number etc., it doesn't mean your cash are problematic; the merchant is.

And problems with freezing funds will also arise for someone who buys bitcoins from you that have passed through a mixer on a decentralized exchange, and then wants to bring them to a centralized exchange.

Notice that you repeat the usage of centralized exchange as if it was an indivisible part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. It's not. I have not used a centralized exchange in my life that enforces such nonsense. I trade peer-to-peer using decentralized, trustless exchanges*, just as bitcoin was designed to be.

Conditional freedom is a kind of non-freedom.

Depends on the conditions. If the only condition is "don't use such services", I don't think you have much freedom encroached.

* with this exception.

If you don't like the example of centralized exchanges, I can cite a number of others to support the generally self-evident point that bitcoins are not the same.
1. One bitcoin in an address with multiple inputs is not equal to one bitcoin in an address with one input. You can consolidate many inputs into one by making a transaction to your own address, but this will require additional effort, time, and miner fee overhead from you.
2. One bitcoin on a legacy address is not equal to one bitcoin on a segwit address or one bitcoin on a taproot address. You can transform address types by transacting to your own address, but this will also require you to add extra effort, time, and miner fee overhead.
3. There is a number of evidence that investors of a certain class prefer to buy bitcoins not on the exchange, but directly from mining companies, and even pay an additional premium to the market price for owning bitcoins with zero history.
4. Bitcoins from the earliest period of history (about a year after the genesis block) are under close scrutiny by blockchain analyzers, and their transition from a quiescent to an active state can lead to significant consequences. One bitcoin from this period of early history is not equal to one bitcoin from a more modern period of history.


I respect your right to confidentiality, anonymity and privacy, but it seems to me a rather stupid idea to use for this purpose a completely open and transparent bitcoin blockchain, which does not have the native fungibility of coins. I am not against the use of bitcoin mixers, but you should be aware of the possible negative consequences of their use in the present and in the future, which I mentioned above. The spread of bitcoin adoption could lead to the segmentation of the single bitcoin space into partially isolated fragments, some of which may be significantly affected by the efforts of regulators. If you live in an anarchist commune and use bitcoin as your only payment instrument, never touch fiat money, then you have nothing to worry about. If you live in a normal society and continue to use fiat gateways, then you should be aware that the use of bitcoin mixers increases your privacy and at the same time increases the risk of your deanonymization. Because you can mix well, but you can't hide the fact of mixing.

[franky1]

You are watched anyway! Let's make it more difficult for them. If you are partly anonymizing yourself, like using a mixer to receive coins on your main exchange wallet, log-in in your bank account via ProtonVPN and ProtonMail, then yeah, you are watched but if you do things a little bit different, you won't be their main target.

What franky does not get is that I am in the highlights for using Mixers BECAUSE every body else is scared of using them.  Had Mixing, using Proton Mail and encryption at every single corner been the common way of using technology, not only would they not be a highlight any more but Governments would have a very hard time keeping up with controlling and monitoring.

firstly governments do not watch everything everyone does in the first place.
they dont have enough politicians agents to watch screens for everyones daily activities
put it this way the IRS has 80k employees meaning 1 employee per 3125 working age american
with weekends off and 4 weeks vacation thats 13 people they would have to audit in 8-10 hours for each persons whole year of activity if they were to watch everyone.
meaning without leaving the office all employees would only have about 30 minutes to audit every working age person

instead they delegate that task to NON-government entities, like centralised exchanges, money services, and financial institutions.
where by governments only receive data about suspect transactions that meet a threshold target of suspicion, because it takes hours to investigate someone properly

and for the multiple time the thing which you want to ignore, but shouldnt.. is that using a mixer adds points to your suspicion rating with all financial services who do share data with each other and do report suspect behaviour which mixing is listed as suspect

so if your concern is "government overwatch" you are i will say this again much more likely to be on a government watchlist by using a mixer. you are much more likely to have data shared by using a mixer

and yes when you buy coin. and buy produce. they can find out info about you. then when you put the remaining change through mixers..  and then put that mixed coin into a financial service. they see the before and after traces of you and link it together

where as regular folk wont get reported to a government agency. because they didnt use a mixer to even flag a suspect threshold to even be invested by financial services to then not be reported to government

oh and by the way the couple that done the social engineering hack on bitfinex and stole 120k coins and then used mixers and AEC. they got caught
and those involved in silk road got caught too even when their coins went through mixers.

so although mixers are promoted to offer privacy. they in actual fact highlight people to be put on watch lists and be found out more than someone that just buys furniture or electronics without using a mixer

learn what the regulations actually do mention to atleast know what to avoid if you want to stay off watch lists. stop relying on what you hope and dream the systems should be, and whats told to you by sponsored idiots just wanting a pay day.. . and actually learn what is actually happening away from idiot sales pitches. learn the good and bad. find out how things actually work outside of sponsored snake oil sales pitches. and then learn how to evade being highlighted

the sponsored promoters of mixers dont care about end user security. they just care about making money out of selling an idea

[BlackHatCoiner]

One bitcoin in an address with multiple inputs is not equal to one bitcoin in an address with one input.

Incorrect. One input is not the same as ten. But one bitcoin is exactly the same quantity regardless the number of inputs. This is the same as arguing that ten euro coins can have different value than a 10-euro banknote. They have exactly the same value, it's just the weight that changes.

One bitcoin on a legacy address is not equal to one bitcoin on a segwit address or one bitcoin on a taproot address.

Incorrect. Legacy address is not equal to Segwit address. But one bitcoin is exactly the same quantity regardless the script used. Similar analogy applies here as well.

There is a number of evidence that investors of a certain class prefer to buy bitcoins not on the exchange, but directly from mining companies, and even pay an additional premium to the market price for owning bitcoins with zero history

Please point me to one such case.

Bitcoins from the earliest period of history (about a year after the genesis block) are under close scrutiny by blockchain analyzers, and their transition from a quiescent to an active state can lead to significant consequences. One bitcoin from this period of early history is not equal to one bitcoin from a more modern period of history.

Again, bitcoins are equal. I can acknowledge that the owners of those particular coins need privacy, but the bitcoins per se are no different to "modern" coins.

Because you can mix well, but you can't hide the fact of mixing.

You have fundamentally misunderstood mixing. You're not supposed to hide the fact that you mixed. You're supposed to obfuscate your coins' origins. You pretty much want from the rest to know that your coins come from a mixer.

[be.open]

One bitcoin in an address with multiple inputs is not equal to one bitcoin in an address with one input.

Incorrect. One input is not the same as ten. But one bitcoin is exactly the same quantity regardless the number of inputs. This is the same as arguing that ten euro coins can have different value than a 10-euro banknote. They have exactly the same value, it's just the weight that changes.

One bitcoin on a legacy address is not equal to one bitcoin on a segwit address or one bitcoin on a taproot address.

Incorrect. Legacy address is not equal to Segwit address. But one bitcoin is exactly the same quantity regardless the script used. Similar analogy applies here as well.

There is a number of evidence that investors of a certain class prefer to buy bitcoins not on the exchange, but directly from mining companies, and even pay an additional premium to the market price for owning bitcoins with zero history

Please point me to one such case.

Bitcoins from the earliest period of history (about a year after the genesis block) are under close scrutiny by blockchain analyzers, and their transition from a quiescent to an active state can lead to significant consequences. One bitcoin from this period of early history is not equal to one bitcoin from a more modern period of history.

Again, bitcoins are equal. I can acknowledge that the owners of those particular coins need privacy, but the bitcoins per se are no different to "modern" coins.

Let's stop this dialogue if the above arguments are not enough for you. I'm willing to admit that bitcoin coins are fungible enough these days to not worry too much about it. 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.

Because you can mix well, but you can't hide the fact of mixing.

You have fundamentally misunderstood mixing. You're not supposed to hide the fact that you mixed. You're supposed to obfuscate your coins' origins. You pretty much want from the rest to know that your coins come from a mixer.

I guess I really don't understand the meaning of mixing. Why would I want to advertise the fact of mixing my coins? What do I benefit from this to offset the potential problems associated with the common use case for mixers to launder "dirty" money?

[BlackHatCoiner]

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.

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.