staff were asked to stop advertising mixing services

[LeGaulois]

Howdy Theymos

We (staff) were asked to stop advertising mixing services.

What's the reasonning behind? Or you prefer anticipate?


I suppose if HSBC create a signature campaign, it won't be a problem  

If there is freedom of speech, I create freedom of advertising

[1714259220]

1714259220

[1714259220]

1714259220

[1714259220]

1714259220

[RapTarX]

I suppose if HSBC create a signature campaign, it won't be a problem 

What about Silicon Valley Bank  Well, I guess they can't afford it now LOL.

[mindrust]

Howdy Theymos

We (staff) were asked to stop advertising mixing services.

What's the reasonning behind? Or you prefer anticipate?


I suppose if HSBC create a signature campaign, it won't be a problem  

Who exactly said this? I'd like to see the source of this quote if you don't mind. Was this a private message?

If theymos really said this, it is easy to guess his reasoning. You don't need to ask him.

1- Staff endorsing mixers might get the forum in trouble.
2- Mixers can't guarantee your privacy even though they say they do. That's possibly false advertisement.

[RapTarX]

Who exactly said this? I'd like to see the source of this quote if you don't mind. Was this a private message?

If theymos really said this, it is easy to guess his reasoning. You don't need to ask him.

1- Staff endorsing mixers might get the forum in trouble.
2- Mixers can't guarantee your privacy even though they say they do. That's possibly false advertisement.

A staff-

We (staff) were asked to stop advertising mixing services.

As for gambling services, then that's simply because of my religious beliefs.

I can't imagine anyone else asking staff to stop advertising mixing services. theymos is the only one.
I guess it's the first reason you shared. The second one seems not true all the time. It can or can't be true. It's better to stop an advertising mixer if the forum gets in trouble.

[dzungmobile]

How about this in future?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5445038.msg61918743#msg61918743

I saw some solid opinion but also some derailed one in that topic and decided to lock it, to avoid spam.

Anyway I really think that if things go bad, disable advertisements on mixers will have to be done. The forum is important than all mixers.

We must to have a bit long term vision (if things go worse) but I know fighting for freedom is not bad.

However, let's see a story, we can not build a house and let everyone get in and out, do anything they want and say we are not responsible for it.

If theymos can stop forum ads banner, the same can be done on mixer signature but it is a hard decision I know.

[Upgrade00]

Considering that a public topic was not created it's safe to say that theymos might have not wanted to explain the reason behind the decision. It could be due to all the heat created from the chipmixer situation which indirectly linked to the forum and anywhere else the mixer had an online presence.

It is a drastic decision in my opinion, one which may be to create indemnity; the forum and it's staffs are not directly linked to a mixer and they operate independently. Best case scenario, it's just a precautionary measure against any future occurrence.

[joker_josue]

If theymos really said this, it is easy to guess his reasoning. You don't need to ask him.

1- Staff endorsing mixers might get the forum in trouble.
2- Mixers can't guarantee your privacy even though they say they do. That's possibly false advertisement.

But these points are valid for other services:
- What guarantee is there that a casino doesn't close and scam all its users?
- What guarantee is there for any service that is advertised to state that it has privacy, and not actually does not?


I can even understand why @theymos might have asked for this. Whether he really did, I don't know.

But those are not the reasons for sure.

The moderation of the forum, can be considered employees, so everyone should avoid situations that put the forum in question.
Anyway, if @theymos really made this kind of request, he must have strong reasons. And I trust him, and his good management of the forum. So we may not understand right now, but at some point, I believe this will clear up.

[decodx]

I agree that the forum is more important than mixers, but disabling advertisements on mixers might not be the best solution. Mixers can provide anonymity and privacy to users, which are essential features for some people, especially in countries with strict regulations or surveillance. Besides, mixers can also help prevent transaction analysis and improve fungibility, which can enhance the overall security and privacy of the network. If we disable ads on mixers, we discourage people from using them.

However, I think the concern is not about mixers per se, but about the risk of censorship or control by external forces. If the forum is threatened, it makes sense to consider all possible options to preserve it, even if it means sacrificing some other features.

[OgNasty]

Nice to see this forum doing the right thing for it's users finally...  Even if this was likely the result of legal action...  It was incredibly shady to push these mixers as privacy enabling while almost all of the scams in this community have been laundering their stolen funds through these services.  I'm not sure why it took the government shutting down mixers to get action done, but I guess that falls into the anarchist until times get tough leadership we seem to have here.  Still, I'm glad that sanity finally prevailed, even if it's currently only staff being asked to not advertise money laundering.  A small step in the right direction to keep users here safe and the least that can be done on a site that advertises they don't moderate against scams.

[bitLeap]

Who exactly said this? I'd like to see the source of this quote if you don't mind. Was this a private message?

These are words from other staff solely to protect the bitcointalk and theymos.
As for the banning of ad mixing, it's still gray, and that's what he said.

This is just a protective measure for Theymos, for Bitcointalk and (by consequence) for the Staff. For regular users there is (so far) very little risk, but if you have any doubt, go see a lawyer.
Don't overthink my words, I don't see the future, I don't have any secret information and I don't know anything about laws.

[bitmover]

But these points are valid for other services:
- What guarantee is there that a casino doesn't close and scam all its users?
- What guarantee is there for any service that is advertised to state that it has privacy, and not actually does not?

Forum motivations are not related to scam or legit services.
It is about regulation and legal issues.

Mixers are illegal in most countries (scamming people or not)

Casinos are also illegal in some countries, scamming people or not.

[Pokapoka124]

If we disable ads on mixers, we discourage people from using them.

AFAIK no one stopped the advertisement of mixers, there are mixer campaigns doing business on the forum and just recently a new mixer campaign launched and a lot of members were happy to apply. It’s only staff that have been asked to stop advertising mixers. I think Theymos (if it was Theymos who asked) did that for good reasons considering recent events.

[joker_josue]

Mixers are illegal in most countries (scamming people or not)

Casinos are also illegal in some countries, scamming people or not

Right, but we have to rely on the location of the forum servers.
They are located in the US, so you have to follow the laws of that country. Mixers are not illegal, but they are in the gray zone of the law, which can lead to problems (like some that have happened). Casinos are not illegal in the US.

So, the fact that residents (who can be considered employees) are asked to avoid advertising mixers (unless it is true that this request was made), this will allow for a better response to the authorities since they can argue that none of the team is involved in these projects (in a clear way).

[T3PR00T]

If bitcointalk is hosted in US territory then this is the high time to move it to a neutral location where none of the members to worry about it.

US does not own Bitcoin, it's name, brand, anything related to it. Bitcoin is for everyone, it has no political boundaries.

With the amount of funding the forum have in btc moving the server is not a big deal.

[Zilon]

Right, but we have to rely on the location of the forum servers.
They are located in the US, so you have to follow the laws of that country. Mixers are not illegal, but they are in the gray zone of the law, which can lead to problems (like some that have happened). Casinos are not illegal in the US.

So, the fact that residents (who can be considered employees) are asked to avoid advertising mixers (unless it is true that this request was made), this will allow for a better response to the authorities since they can argue that none of the team is involved in these projects (in a clear way).

It seems there are two contradictory statement here, at first it is pointed that Mixers are not illegal which is very true, So what other law of the country are the staffs meant to follow?, because if there are no laws there will be no violation, So it is obviously not related to where the forum server is located nor has anything to do with staffs who are residents in the US, If it was so the restriction would have been made public.

I just have the notion @Theymos didn't want to disclose the reason for asking staffs to stop advertising mixing services, I believe it should be for the interest of the staffs or yet still could still have a relationship with Chipmixer been shutdown.

[joker_josue]

It seems there are two contradictory statement here, at first it is pointed that Mixers are not illegal which is very true, So what other law of the country are the staffs meant to follow?, because if there are no laws there will be no violation, So it is obviously not related to where the forum server is located nor has anything to do with staffs who are residents in the US, If it was so the restriction would have been made public.

Maybe I didn't explain myself well.

First point, I didn't say that the moderators were employees or that they were all from the US. I say that before the authorities they can be classified as such, especially if they receive something (I don't know if they do).

Another thing is the fact that mixers are not illegal, but in a gray area of the law. In fact mixers are not illegal, they can exist. But according to the US authorities must comply with some rules. Note this interesting article from Coindesk, in part it says:

In the U.S., the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) considers mixers to be money transmitters under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) that need to be registered and meet certain requirements. Chainalysis, however, noted in its report that it is “not aware of any bitcoin or Ethereum mixers currently following these rules.”

That is, the existence of mixers is not illegal, but they have to follow some rules. Rules that no one seems to follow. This may give the impression that they are illegal. Well, those who do not comply with these rules are illegal. But, will Bitcointalk have to verify this? Logically not, it is the authorities who have to verify.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

We (staff) were asked to stop advertising mixing services.

If staff are the only ones asked to avoid advertising mixers services, how about protecting the safety of the other normal members from advertising mixers signatures? and also to protect the forum because if the US government wants to do an investigation in the forum, the forum staff will still need to answer questions like, "Why do they allow other members to advertise mixers?" which means they are also in support; I'm just curious though.

but the truth is

Behind every successful fortune there is a crime.

Even the government staff commits some crimes in the dark for which they don't get any punishment. Like I am aware, money laundering did not start after Bitcoin mixers got launched.

Historically, money laundering is in existence since at-least 2000 years.
But it gained prominence in 1920's

Because most people who launder money get away with it, should all mixers be banned in the name of preventing money laundering?

government against bitcoin miners, government after CEX, government after bitcoin mixers, soon after government, what's next?

[LTU_btc]

I think it's completely normal and understandable reaction from theymos after what happened to Chipmixer. Forum staff can be considered as official representative of Bitcointalk. And it's big difference between regular members and forum staff advertising mixers. Regular members can even advertise scams without bigger consequences, other than ruining your reputation. So, this decision was made to avoid getting any potential problems. Better safe than sorry. For now there is no talk about banning advertising mixers for all members.

[joker_josue]

If staff are the only ones asked to avoid advertising mixers services, how about protecting the safety of the other normal members from advertising mixers signatures? and also to protect the forum because if the US government wants to do an investigation in the forum, the forum staff will still need to answer questions like, "Why do they allow other members to advertise mixers?" which means they are also in support; I'm just curious though.

This analysis is valid, but there turns out to be a difference between staff members and users in general.

The forum is open to the public, and anyone can post anything they want, as long as it's not illegal. Then moderation only has to limit published information that is illegal. Mixers are not illegal, so anyone can post information about them.

Moderators advertising these mixers or any other service, which has problems with the law, can convey the idea that the staff supports these services. Even if this is not true, and it was just advertising. This could create inconvenience for the administration of the forum, which would be forced to have to present more justifications and lose a few hours in court, which in the end would most likely come to nothing. But it would be a nuisance.

So the option of not advertising services that are more sensitive to having problems, is better than having these inconveniences.

[digaran]

Seems like theymos was waiting for the law to say it's not good to advertise mixers. Well, a leader should make the rules before others make them for him.