Bitcoin mixing is NOT money laundering, per se

[Z-tight]

You probably don't realise that this is starting to happen at pool level . If pools decide to ban addresses or reject blocks from pools that contain those , things will start to get rough .

I am aware, but again, for this to escalate into a major problem, the censoring mining pools have to control 51% of the hashrate to totally blacklist tx's from being mined, and if they don't have that much control, other pools that do not censor tx's will pick up the tx's that they rejected and add it into their own block to be mined. Take note too that when a mining pool goes down the censoring lane, individual miners would leave such pools and their hashrate would drop.

[1714294249]

1714294249

[1714294249]

1714294249

[1714294249]

1714294249

[BlackHatCoiner]

If you think that tainted coins and addresses will have the same value with clean coins then i don't know what to say .

There are decentralized exchanges which don't enforce this nonsense, and where you can exchange any bitcoin with fiat or other cryptocurrencies. All bitcoin are equal in value.

It would be like accepting to exchange your cash for cash with blue paint ( not a good idea , don't try it ) .   

Except that the bitcoin cannot be counterfeited.

If someone offered you to buy all the usdt that's in banned addresses would you buy it at 1/100 of it's real value ? or would you consider those wasted money ?

Except that the bitcoin is not a centralized shitcoin under the control of one company.

You probably don't realise that this is starting to happen at pool level . If pools decide to ban addresses or reject blocks from pools that contain those , things will start to get rough .

If a pool decides to censor a transaction, then another pool will sooner or later mine it. If lots of them start censoring, then miners will begin migrating elsewhere for the sake of the profit.

[apogio]

If a pool decides to censor a transaction, then another pool will sooner or later mine it. If lots of them start censoring, then miners will begin migrating elsewhere for the sake of the profit.

This absolutely true and exactly my point in this post:

What I do know is that 1ECeZBxCVJ8Wm2JSN3Cyc6rge2gnvD3W5K successfully moved to 16r7U7GqbVPeKukgfd3mUN9LCkuoKbfpXM in this block https://mempool.space/block/00000000000000000001bae714c1fbc509fcc40dac3ade7becff09ccd772a3f6 on ‎2023-09-21 06:59

The address 1ECeZBxCVJ8Wm2JSN3Cyc6rge2gnvD3W5K paid 16r7U7GqbVPeKukgfd3mUN9LCkuoKbfpXM again in this transaction https://mempool.space/tx/34e962671a1da560ada50c453e4f41443ca44cb084dda0d45799e2fbc7a84128 on 2023-10-12 05:07

Bitcoin is ok after all. Let them try harder!

[cryptosize]

BSV doomsayers... how cute! 

Plz don't bite their bait...

[franky1]

if all the people in this topic truly believed all btc was fungible and there was no difference between one bitcoin vs one bitcoin... they would not be also trying to promote that people should use mixers

if the coin you have had nothing bad about it and was no difference. why need to change it

again the real reason is.. those promoting other should use a mixer is because the ones already using it are noticing their cauldron of coins in the mixer are more dirtier, than previous years. they want fresh coin in the mix. they want the clean coin and leave new people with the dirty coin
for years they have seem people mixing the same coins over and over and over again. with less fresh clean coin coming in to swap with

they pretend no coin is dirty to fake trust that people are not going to be harmed when handed dirty coin.. but if no coin was dirty. there would be no need to do these swaps

different bitcoins are treated differently
coins in a custodian are treated differently then coins on someones own private key
satoshis stash of coins is treated differently then an equal 1.1m coins in a CEX
satoshis stash of coins is treated differently then any other coin
mixed coin is treated differently than unmixed fresh mined coin

the mixer fanatics will want to tell you its 1:1 because they dont want to free market their de-valued crap. they want 1clean coin for 1 of their dirty coins. even though a freemarket would want a premium to take a dirty coin for a clean coin

if you realised the coin you receive if you used a mixer with your clean coin. that what you get could trigger services to deny you access to  services. you would want to charge them a extra for the risk. EG 1.2 dirty coin for 1 clean coin

[BlackHatCoiner]

I don't like deleting posts, but you've fundamentally misunderstood fungibility. If you continue derailing this with this false perspective, expect deletion.

Privacy ≠ fungibility.

[apogio]

if all the people in this topic truly believed all btc was fungible and there was no difference between one bitcoin vs one bitcoin... they would not be also trying to promote that people should use mixers

if the coin you have had nothing bad about it and was no difference. why need to change it

Because I want nobody to know how many coins I own. Simple as that.

Mixers don't erase history. Mixers make it impossible to tell for sure which input is linked to Which output.

[franky1]

if all the people in this topic truly believed all btc was fungible and there was no difference between one bitcoin vs one bitcoin... they would not be also trying to promote that people should use mixers

if the coin you have had nothing bad about it and was no difference. why need to change it

Because I want nobody to know how many coins I own. Simple as that.

Mixers don't erase history. Mixers make it impossible to tell for sure which input is linked to Which output.

mixers dont make you private.
read regulations. just using a mixer makes you get higher recognition. services actually then go and seek out more information about the inflows and outflows of mixers to gain more information about mixer users and where they get their funds from and where those funds end up

as for blackhatcoiner
fungibility not about privacy.. true and false
but why try to talk about fungibility in a mixer topic if you think they have nothing to do with the "purpose of mixing"

fungibility. is not also limited to 'blacklisted' its linked to many many things that alter the perception of uniqueness or exactness, including tax treatment and other things.. its not a simple yes no answer

yes you might find someone that does 1:1 but someone else may see differences. welcome to the world of speculation

[jokers10]

if you realised the coin you receive if you used a mixer with your clean coin. that what you get could trigger services to deny you access to  services. you would want to charge them a extra for the risk. EG 1.2 dirty coin for 1 clean coin

Basing on different payment freezes and account bans made by centralized services I can say that they don't really need a significant trigger to do so. They don't like p2p in general. They prefer you to use their service and only their service and even that will not prevent them to act against you. If not that bitcoin hardly ever was anyhow popular. So it is not a surprise that interacting with any centralized service is a risk each time. If you use centralized services you should take that risk into account. And as long as they don't disclose the way they evaluate the "dirtiness" of the translation, you can only guess what will trigger them. Most people use mixers don't complain on any further problems. Many who complain about centralized services never use mixers. So you can never be sure anyway.

[franky1]

Basing on different payment freezes and account bans made by centralized services I can say that they don't really need a significant trigger to do so. They don't like p2p in general. They prefer you to use their service and only their service and even that will not prevent them to act against you. If not that bitcoin hardly ever was anyhow popular. So it is not a surprise that interacting with any centralized service is a risk each time. If you use centralized services you should take that risk into account. And as long as they don't disclose the way they evaluate the "dirtiness" of the translation, you can only guess what will trigger them.

its actually written in regulations, which money service businesses(MSB) and virtual asset service providers(VASP) follow, which says those services should look out for mixer users and flag them as risk/suspicious .. end of story.. no ifs or buts

mixer mixer promoters want to pretend regulation dont exist or regulations dont state to treat mixed coins differently.. but REAL WORLD FACT regulations do exist and do apply to specifically want to flag mixer used funds.. no if's or but's about it.

the guys in this topic deny it because it hurts their affiliate income if they cant recruit users, the people in this topic in denial are not posting using common sense or logic or stating facts that would help users avoid being flagged/monitored. all they care about is lulling people into a false narrative that mixing is harmless.. trying to recruit more victims to cause those victims more trouble just so the promoters can get paid or use victims clean coins while stinging the victims with the promoters dirty coin

if these promoters actually cared about REAL PRIVACY they would actually want to read the regulations. learn what is and isnt described and think outside the box for solutions not even using the word "mixer" "obfuscation" "anonymity" and instead be creative with a new service that gives the privacy end result but in a way thats not stipulated in regulations

its like uber doesnt call itself a taxi service, to get around taxicab regulations
its how homoeopaths and nutritionists get to play doctor selling snake oil without needing a doctorate, because they are creative with the description of their service
its how supplements can get away with health claims without needing FDA approval, because they are creative

if even now after so much time of mixers knowing their service is on a list. if they just continue as they are just trying to promote they are mixers. they dont care about their customers privacy they just want the commission

there are many many many things in many regulations about mixers, ill give a short example

https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/guidance/Updated-Guidance-VA-VASP.pdf  (made in 2021, so plenty of time to read)

Risk factors relating to VAs and VASPs
42
Elements relating to VASPs
j. The specific types of VAs that the VASP offers or plans to offer and any unique
features of each VA, such as AECs, embedded mixers or tumblers, or other
products and services that may present higher risks by potentially obfuscating
the transactions or undermining a VASP’s ability to know its customers and
implement effective CDD and other AML/CFT measure

85. AML/CFT regulations will apply to covered VA activities and VASPs, regardless of
the type of VA involved in the financial activity (e.g., a VASP that uses or offers AECs
to another person for various financial transactions), the underlying technology
(e.g., whether it uses mainnet or the use of embedded layering or other scaling
solutions), or the additional services that the platform potentially incorporates
(such as a mixer or tumbler or other potential features for obfuscation)

174. In the context of VA and VASP activities, countries should ensure that VASPs
licensed by or operating in their jurisdiction can manage and mitigate the risks of
engaging in activities that involve the use of anonymity-enhancing technologies or
mechanisms, including but not limited to AECs, mixers, tumblers, privacy wallets
and other technologies that obfuscate the identity of the sender, recipient, holder,
or beneficial owner of a VA. If the VASP cannot manage and mitigate the risks posed
by engaging in such activities, then the VASP should not be permitted to engage in
such activities.

Mitigating the ML/TF Risks
240. The FATF Recommendations require supervisors to allocate and prioritize more
supervisory resources[/u] to areas of higher ML/TF risk. This means that supervisors
should determine the frequency and intensity of periodic assessments based on the
level of ML/TF risks to which the sector and individual VASPs are exposed.
Supervisors should give priority to the potential areas of higher risk, either within
the individual VASP (e.g., to the particular products, services, or business lines that
a VASP may offer, such as particular VAs or VA services like AECs or mixers and
tumblers that may further obfuscate transactions or undermine the VASP’s ability

304. Further information on red-flag indicators for VAs that could suggest criminal
behaviour are set out in the FATF’s Virtual Asset Red Flag Indicators of Money
Laundering and Terrorist Financing. These indicators help VASPs and other obliged
entities to detect and report suspicious transactions involving VAs. Key indicators
include:
a. Technological features that increase anonymity - such as mixers, tumblers or
AECs;

they are not saying "mixing is illegal" they are saying that mixing is a higher risk that requires a higher amount of supervision and flagging it as suspicious

notice 85.. it also talks about subnetworks like LN. so LN is on the list too. just not as big a supervisory risk as mixers

if privacy service operators want to stay in business and not cause issues for their customer. they need to become more creative or find out that they and their customers get blacklisted/flagged/supervised at best or banned from other services at worse

[jokers10]

if these promoters actually cared about REAL PRIVACY they would actually want to read the regulations. learn what is and isnt described and think outside the box for solutions not even using the word "mixer" "obfuscation" "anonymity" and instead be creative with a new service that gives the privacy end result but in a way thats not stipulated in regulations

its like uber doesnt call itself a taxi service, to get around taxicab regulations
its how homoeopaths and nutritionists get to play doctor selling snake oil without needing a doctorate, because they are creative with the description of their service
its how supplements can get away with health claims without needing FDA approval, because they are creative

if even now after so much time of mixers knowing their service is on a list. if they just continue as they are just trying to promote they are mixers. they dont care about their customers privacy they just want the commission

Main problem is, as I said, that you can't be sure that you'll get no problems if you'll try to stay in unclear boundaries. Detecting mixing usage is a matter of probability: maybe some transaction is a result of mixing and maybe not. You can think that you reduce your risks in interacting with a centralized service and in fact they will react the opposite. If the rules and criteria were clear, it probably helped real criminals, but it could ease the life for law-abiding users as well. But many who get blocked accounts sometimes for a single p2p transaction or payment in address of some small shop, show that any interaction with a centralized financial (and not only) service is risky. Any. And everyone should think by himself how to reduce his own risks.

Saying that you didn't interact with some exact names of services probably can help if you'll get to the court, but I guess you'll can provide all data in there to show you have nothing illegal in your transactions. But many problems with centralized services appear when you have no plans on spending your time to go to court. And they don't really care... They use other criteria, which they don't disclose to us.

if privacy service operators want to stay in business and not cause issues for their customer. they need to become more creative or find out that they and their customers get blacklisted at best or banned from other services at worse

Improving service for the benefit of a customer is always good, I see no reason to dispute that.

[JunaidAzizi]

This is not part of what we are discussing, but why Wikipedia is referring gambling as an illegal activity? If gambling is not legalized in some countries, that does not mean that many countries do not support gambling. In fact, there are some countries that see bitcoin and other crypto to be illegal, but that does not mean cryptocurrencies are not legal. Most countries support Bitcoin and many countries are supporting gambling. Gambling is legal.

The first thing is that Wikipedia is not an authentic source of information because every person can upload their suggestion or views on Wikipedia and that does not mean that a thing that is prohibited for them would be illegal for all the persons and in every state. There is a religion where gambling is prohibited but it's only for the belivers of that religion,  the rest can do it.

That is why some criminals that know about mixers are using it. But the point is that not only criminals are using mixers. Even some people that are using mixers took their bitcoin from a platform that is centralized and mix it before sending it to their wallet. Some people may prefer to use a mixer after dust attack. There are also several good reasons people are using mixers. Some people do not just take their privacy to play. Some people do not play with privacy because they see it as a way of having full freedom.

This is a mentality that shows how much they are in opposition to Bitcoin. Bitcoin mixing is a tool that some people use just to hide their identity. There are some illegal activities but that does not mean that it is spreading allowing criminal activities.  The ratio of money laundering and bitcoin mixing is like 3/100 which is very rare and more activities are occurring in government affairs than this money laundering using bitcoin,  but the Thing is that they want to find a route to ban bitcoin on the wish of the elite classes bankers.

[jokers10]

Well, with the recent events with Sinbad mixer, we've got a statement of the Fiscal Information and Investigation Service of the Netherlands in which they supported what is written in a topic title: Bitcoin mixing is not a criminal activity per se:

Cryptocurrency mixing
A cryptocurrency mixing service is not necessarily illegal. It is an online service that allows users to disguise the origin and destination of cryptocurrencies. With this service, cryptocurrencies are mixed with other users' cryptocurrencies for a fee. Because these transactions are kept in a public record (known as a blockchain), without using a mixer, the origin of the cryptocurrency can be traced using blockchain analytics. For this reason, some users, including criminals, choose to employ a mixer to disguise the origin of their cryptocurrency. Mixing criminal assets and concealing the origin of criminal funds is a criminal offense. In the case of Sinbad.io, more than 50 percent of all mixed cryptocurrencies were found to have a criminal origin. In the case of Sinbad. io, there are no measures in place to implement and enforce a Know Your Customer (KYC) or Know Your Transaction (KYT) policy.

So we can suppose that the government of the Netherlands sees the difference between mixing bitcoins for own security and safety and mixing bitcoins for some criminal purposes.

[franky1]

Well, with the recent events with Sinbad mixer, we've got a statement of the Fiscal Information and Investigation Service of the Netherlands in which they supported what is written in a topic title: Bitcoin mixing is not a criminal activity per se:

Cryptocurrency mixing
A cryptocurrency mixing service is not necessarily illegal. It is an online service that allows users to disguise the origin and destination of cryptocurrencies. With this service, cryptocurrencies are mixed with other users' cryptocurrencies for a fee. Because these transactions are kept in a public record (known as a blockchain), without using a mixer, the origin of the cryptocurrency can be traced using blockchain analytics. For this reason, some users, including criminals, choose to employ a mixer to disguise the origin of their cryptocurrency. Mixing criminal assets and concealing the origin of criminal funds is a criminal offense. In the case of Sinbad.io, more than 50 percent of all mixed cryptocurrencies were found to have a criminal origin. In the case of Sinbad. io, there are no measures in place to implement and enforce a Know Your Customer (KYC) or Know Your Transaction (KYT) policy.

So we can suppose that the government of the Netherlands sees the difference between mixing bitcoins for own security and safety and mixing bitcoins for some criminal purposes.

you quoted a section to make it look like mixing is fine.. but you missed a crucial part


they also said

Dutch investigative agencies such as the FIOD will continue to crack down on this. This action aimed at Sinbad.io is a heavy blow to organized crime and also also serves as an example and warning to founders and users of users similar services.

[HmmMAA]

Well, with the recent events with Sinbad mixer, we've got a statement of the Fiscal Information and Investigation Service of the Netherlands in which they supported what is written in a topic title: Bitcoin mixing is not a criminal activity per se:

Cryptocurrency mixing
A cryptocurrency mixing service is not necessarily illegal. It is an online service that allows users to disguise the origin and destination of cryptocurrencies. With this service, cryptocurrencies are mixed with other users' cryptocurrencies for a fee. Because these transactions are kept in a public record (known as a blockchain), without using a mixer, the origin of the cryptocurrency can be traced using blockchain analytics. For this reason, some users, including criminals, choose to employ a mixer to disguise the origin of their cryptocurrency. Mixing criminal assets and concealing the origin of criminal funds is a criminal offense. In the case of Sinbad.io, more than 50 percent of all mixed cryptocurrencies were found to have a criminal origin. In the case of Sinbad. io, there are no measures in place to implement and enforce a Know Your Customer (KYC) or Know Your Transaction (KYT) policy.

So we can suppose that the government of the Netherlands sees the difference between mixing bitcoins for own security and safety and mixing bitcoins for some criminal purposes.

So , what is in bold shows that there are on the one side criminal funds and on the other side their exit liquidity from "privacy seekers" .
Good luck to the second group proving who they actually are and that they've done this just to enhance their privacy . By anonymizing transactions you just flush to the toilet any evidence you have to prove your innocence .  

[cryptosize]

Well, with the recent events with Sinbad mixer, we've got a statement of the Fiscal Information and Investigation Service of the Netherlands in which they supported what is written in a topic title: Bitcoin mixing is not a criminal activity per se:

Cryptocurrency mixing
A cryptocurrency mixing service is not necessarily illegal. It is an online service that allows users to disguise the origin and destination of cryptocurrencies. With this service, cryptocurrencies are mixed with other users' cryptocurrencies for a fee. Because these transactions are kept in a public record (known as a blockchain), without using a mixer, the origin of the cryptocurrency can be traced using blockchain analytics. For this reason, some users, including criminals, choose to employ a mixer to disguise the origin of their cryptocurrency. Mixing criminal assets and concealing the origin of criminal funds is a criminal offense. In the case of Sinbad.io, more than 50 percent of all mixed cryptocurrencies were found to have a criminal origin. In the case of Sinbad. io, there are no measures in place to implement and enforce a Know Your Customer (KYC) or Know Your Transaction (KYT) policy.

So we can suppose that the government of the Netherlands sees the difference between mixing bitcoins for own security and safety and mixing bitcoins for some criminal purposes.

So , what is in bold shows that there are on the one side criminal funds and on the other side their exit liquidity from "privacy seekers" .
Good luck to the second group proving who they actually are and that they've done this just to enhance their privacy . By anonymizing transactions you just flush to the toilet any evidence you have to prove your innocence .

Why should people have to prove their innocence to corrupted state officials?

You remind me of COVID fanatics: everyone is guilty (virus transmitter), unless proven innocent (via a COVID test).

No, fuck them, I have nothing to prove (I don't even use mixers, but I don't care if people wanna use them or not).

Hell, some people even pay exorbitant fees (up to 83 BTC) to clear the money trail. Would I do it? No. Is it risky in case it goes to a pool you don't control? Yes (unless you control the majority of the hashrate).

People can do whatever they want, as long as it follows BTC mainnet rules. Deal with it.

[barto123]

Mixing BTC is NOT money laundering - you're trying to gain privacy, this is perfectly ethical. You're not harming anyone.

They've simply used these terms to make you feel like a criminal.

Ironically, they're the ones laundering & counterfeiting our money. That is harming all of us.

The right thing to do is stop supporting these crimes by using fiat, paying taxes, using their smart tech - phones, credit cards etc. Most won't do it, but they should.

The hidden hand behind government is the leading cause of death, they are committing every crime imaginable under the sun. The conspiracy is so large & so vast that most can't comprehend it.

They're basically lying about everything. Only you can figure it out though, no one can tell you. Like Morpheus said: No one can tell you what the Matrix is.

[HmmMAA]

Mixing BTC is NOT money laundering - you're trying to gain privacy, this is perfectly ethical. You're not harming anyone.

They've simply used these terms to make you feel like a criminal.

Ironically, they're the ones laundering & counterfeiting our money. That is harming all of us.

The right thing to do is stop supporting these crimes by using fiat, paying taxes, using their smart tech - phones, credit cards etc. Most won't do it, but they should.

The hidden hand behind government is the leading cause of death, they are committing every crime imaginable under the sun. The conspiracy is so large & so vast that most can't comprehend it.

They're basically lying about everything. Only you can figure it out though, no one can tell you. Like Morpheus said: No one can tell you what the Matrix is.

I don't know from where to start and where to end . But i will say only this , the criminals using the bank system to hide their money do something completely ethical as they're trying to gain privacy according to your logic . Correct ?
And you will say to protect your position that many are not criminals and are just trying to protect their privacy . My question to that is , how you can prove that you do this just to increase your privacy ? And how it feels to be exit liquidity to those laundering criminal money ?
Laundering money as far as i know involves a high fee , as launderers may face criminal charges . So , they do it for profit . You guys are just handing them your clean money for free and may face charges . Good for you , keep it going . I'll stay on the sidelines with my four hands .

[Medusah]

Ironically, they're the ones laundering & counterfeiting our money. That is harming all of us.

They are literally taking half of our paycheck and using it to bomb children in Palestine.  

My question to that is , how you can prove that you do this just to increase your privacy ?

Please tell us your full name, phone number, where you live, how much money you have and share us your transaction history.  If you do not because you consider this information private, can you please prove to us you are innocent?

No.  You do not have to.  The default position is innocence.  You are not guilty until proven guilty.

[philipma1957]

Ironically, they're the ones laundering & counterfeiting our money. That is harming all of us.

They are literally taking half of our paycheck and using it to bomb children in Palestine.  

My question to that is , how you can prove that you do this just to increase your privacy ?

Please tell us your full name, phone number, where you live, how much money you have and share us your transaction history.  If you do not because you consider this information private, can you please prove to us you are innocent?

No.  You do not have to.  The default position is innocence.  You are not guilty until proven guilty.

 Not in every country just some.