Why gambling and mixing called bad actors in bitcoin

[Maestro75]

This is simply a question of morality and not legality. For gambling yes in the distant past it was perceived by different jurisdiction to be an activity for people who are not able to find jobs to engage themselves, feed their families. It was peculiar classification of unemployed people, better definition for laziness and those looking for easy virtue. Back then the above description is the way African society see gambling and gamblers, a terrain for unsuccessful people, drunks and unuseful hands.

Also, you already understand what bitcoin mixer is. When a mixer company receive bitcoin from different people and utters or mixes them so that the original traceable identity will be lost and you can't trace the wallet where it was sent out from or whatever quantity sent or to be delivered afterwards. You see by simple understanding, it appears as if it is an illicit act

Even till today gamblers are still classified as irresponsible people in parts of the society where materialism is looked down on. But for those who make money their god, they have soft spot for gamblers and give the excuse that they do it because they are unemployed since government can not provide jobs for everybody. That excuse should not be accepted because there are unemployed people who also see gambling as evil, it is not about religiosity but of morality like you mentioned. Mixers are seen as more of aiding money laundering than a legal business and that is why they are often chased and harassed by government. You are correct in all you pointed out.

[1714323159]

1714323159

[1714323159]

1714323159

[1714323159]

1714323159

[Hyphen(-)]

From my experience and observations, I noticed both Bitcoin mixing and online gambling using Bitcoin are mostly regarded as bad actors in Bitcoin despite both being the highest Bitcoin adopters and having the largest Bitcoin volume in transactions and services.

Everyone has a different point of view, but I don't consider Bitcoin Mixers and Gambling to be bad acts because of privacy and passion.
People gamble for fun, while others gamble for a high return in a short period of time, taking a very high risk in the process.
While people use mixers to get fully secured, mixers also provide us with privacy, and according to the Bitcoin rule of anonymity, mixers are excellent tools to use in order to achieve that anonymity in Bitcoin.

Secondly, if Gambling and Bitcoin mixing services are called bad actors, what about centralized exchanges are they also perceived as bad actors in Bitcoin?

Well yes! Because we do reveal our privacy in form of KYC for centralized exchanges which is very wrong.

why is CEX considered a bad actor in Bitcoin? it is precisely because of CEX that crypto adoption is easier and crypto trading is more secure. even though there are several cases where CEX went bankrupt or took the money away, this is only natural, because that is the negative thing about CEX, but that doesn't make CEX a bad actor in Bitcoin, we have to see it in full, because there are still many other CEX platforms that run their services well.

Centralized exchanges are very useful, especially when purchasing Bitcoin if you are unable to obtain it through peer-to-peer trading, and it also increases the rate of Bitcoin adoption in some parts of the world because some people find out about Bitcoin through CEX.
The main risk is leaving your Bitcoin in their custody; you should move your Bitcoin to personal wallets rather than leaving them in the exchange.

[Ucy]

From my experience and observations, I noticed both Bitcoin mixing and online gambling using Bitcoin are mostly regarded as bad actors in Bitcoin despite both being the highest Bitcoin adopters and having the largest Bitcoin volume in transactions and services.
Secondly, if Gambling and Bitcoin mixing services are called bad actors, what about centralized exchanges are they also perceived as bad actors in Bitcoin?

What makes both seem bad is the abuse of privacy and betting, otherwise both (privacy and betting) are good if not abused/misused.
Luckily Bitcoin users can choose to avoid or reject coins they found to be mixed or from gambling... unless the coins are from responsible mixing or betting sites. And by responsible mixing/betting sites, I mean sites that prevent or discourage crime money or gamblers from going through them.
In regards to Centralized Exchanges, you could consider them bad if they are not regulated properly by governments and depending on how far they deviate from the Bitcoin Principles.



Unlike fiat system, Bitcoin is public and transparent enough for all to see and decide whether to accept or reject coins linked to good or evil works.

[cydrix]

Due to the drawbacks that the majority of people focus on and the historical component of what has occurred, which links gambling and crypto mixing with illegal or immoral acts, these activities are constantly viewed as bad actors in the cryptocurrency sector.
My sense is that gambling is not just viewed negatively in the crypto realm; it is also negatively viewed in real life owing to religious beliefs, people's personal experiences, and other factors.
However, the bad actors in gambling are usually those who abuse and lose control of the buzz, which typically results in addiction, debt, and even potential fraud issues. Additionally, gamblers have the potential to abuse fiat currency or cryptocurrencies to start their addiction, which would theoretically result in sizable financial losses.

[Z390]

The irresponsible gamblers are the bad actors giving Bitcoin a general bad look from those who don't understand Bitcoin and that's because those gamblers don't know how to manage risks when gambling, Bitcoin is not to be accused of gambling. After all, gamblers can use local currencies to gamble too.

A person becoming addicted to gambling has nothing to do with Bitcoin, Bitcoin was created as a decentralized digital currency, and itblame. Casino owners are aware of this, and they accept Bitcoin payments.

Bitcoin was never a gambler's currency, it was not created as a gambling currency, people lack the knowledge that's why they put all blames om Bitcoin, if they can at least try to learn they will know they've wrongly accused Bitcoin.

[Hispo]

On mixing, one must wonder if every time to go to the store to buy a candy and pay with a bill, the vendor would ask you about the entire history of the bill from its printing years ago until the day you got it to pay for candy. Even though you are not a criminal but rather the most honest person in your city  

...
with exchanges its the same your given a risk rating.
if all your deposits are all mixed sourced then you have a higher risk rating than someone that does not use a mixer
meet a threshold and they start to look closer at you

deposit $10. dont worry.. however deposit $1k-$10k-$100k, then expect to be on a watch list with more involved investigation reporting the higher the risk/amount is
government, regulators and authorities dont chase after criminals or suspects over $1-$10. they want the big fish

In my opinion, it is not the same for several reasons.
Firstly, since exchanges go and will continue to go with automated software to check the blockchain path of the deposits, they can adjust their filters to check on deposits as small as they consider to be necessary. Unlike cash.

I can go with a 100$ bill to buy anything and that is okey, it may be different on exchanges.

Also, if I was a drug lord and I deposited 20$ to Binance I could get flagged, if the funds came from the bulk of the illegally obtained satoshis, on the other hand in the same situation, I could take a 20$ from the mountain of dirty money in my narco bunker and buy something with it and no reasonable human being would check for the bill serial number in a data base before selling me a pizza.

 

[panganib999]

It all boils down to scam accusations and allegations of tolerating hackers.

Looking at the signature campaign I represent (a mixing website), I think I have all the rights to put out my two cents in the issue.

The main reason why Mixing is getting hate nowadays is due to the media sensationalizing Cryptocurrency Mixers, and due to allegations in the past of hackers turning to Mixers to wash off their stolen bitcoins. Which happened sparingly in the past don't get me wrong, but nowadays don't happen as much, especially since mixers are becoming more and more intelligent by the day, and most cryptocurrencies are stolen in exchanges, which they themselves employ contingencies for large-scale hackings.

As for the cryptocurrency gambling industry being hated on, I have very little idea. But I can infer that it may have something to do with some sites, especially ones that are irreputable committing fraud against their customers by not paying them their correct wins or locking their cryptos in their gambling accounts and then closing them without notice.

[tjtonmoy]

~Snip

Things are bad only when you use it for a bad purpose. Nothing is bad unless it is used in such a way that to people it seems bad. Same could be said about all mentioned things in this OP.  
Mixing is a way to preserve your privacy and to keep yourself safe. But when you combine that with criminal acts, it becomes bad. Same thing with gambling. As long as it doesn't become an addiction, it's all fun and game.
Now to think that if centralized exchanges are as bad as those two examples. It is possible, because as I said before, when you use it for a bad cause, it is bad. And to think it in other way, bitcoin is decentralized and should not be kept in centralized exchanges. Bitcoin looses its whole purpose, and are you really hodling your BTC when you keep them in CEX? It is not your coin until you withdraw it in a personal decentralized wallet.

[hatshepsut93]

Where did you get the idea that they are considered "bad actors" and "in Bitcoin"? Bitcoin community certainly views them favorably. I can only think of the regulated exchanges that are avoiding transactions from these services because of potential troubles with the law - unlicensed casinos could be used for money laundering, and mixing is used by criminals to obscure their tracks.

[AmoreJaz]

Where did you get the idea that they are considered "bad actors" and "in Bitcoin"? Bitcoin community certainly views them favorably. I can only think of the regulated exchanges that are avoiding transactions from these services because of potential troubles with the law - unlicensed casinos could be used for money laundering, and mixing is used by criminals to obscure their tracks.

do take note that one of the old use cases of crypto or btc in particular is in the field of gambling business. just look at primedice, freebitco and other old gambling sites. i guess some of the old time crypto users have gone into crypto owed to these gambling sites.
also do remember that gambling even without crypto exist long time ago. so this is just another facet of crypto usage.

[Gyfts]

...

Granted you're mixing your coins for actual privacy and not concealment of a crime, then even the heightened scrutiny/overwatch from regulators don't mean anything. And that's if they care enough to actually track your coins. Use a half decent mixer and you can achieve reasonable privacy. If international law enforcement is after you, mixing your coins won't do anything. There is no escaping their grip.

Mixers do get a bad rep, there's nothing inherently wrong with them and I'd encourage people to use them if they actually care about true privacy. Bitcoin is closer to anonymous than the traditional banking system even though the addresses can personify someone if you allow it to, it's just not enough. If I could go back and ask for something different about the BTC protocol, it'd be more anonymity like Monero does it.

[mindrust]

From my experience and observations, I noticed both Bitcoin mixing and online gambling using Bitcoin are mostly regarded as bad actors in Bitcoin despite both being the highest Bitcoin adopters and having the largest Bitcoin volume in transactions and services.
Secondly, if Gambling and Bitcoin mixing services are called bad actors, what about centralized exchanges are they also perceived as bad actors in Bitcoin?

Gambling is not liked in every country in the world. It is not specific to bitcoin. In some countries, gambling is completely forbidden. In my country for example, only the games provided by the government is allowed. Bitcoin is opening up a great opportunity to the people that don't want to get robbed by the government. I said this before, bitcoin's best use case is probably gambling. Because of that reason, it will never die.

Mixing coins on the other hand is a gray area. You may want to stay anonymous and there is nothing wrong with that. However, other people that use these mixing services might not be that innocent. And you don't know if you are getting their dirty coins or not. I am not really a fan of them.

[justdimin]

I think it's because perhaps, some bad actors use bitcoins to launder their money in casinos so they are not detected in doing money laundering. After all, when they buy bitcoins on the black market, they transfer the money to the seller and the seller either sends the bitcoins to another wallet or sends them directly to a bitcoin mixer. So perhaps, that's why bitcoin mixers are often seen as providing money laundering services when they are not.

Bitcoin mixing is like a double-edged sword that can be used for good and bad, depending on the person using it. So actually, what to chase are bad people who use bitcoin mixing for bad things but it won't be easy to trace them because they are also smart in hiding everything.

That is a common thing in regular casinos as well, that is why it is not easy to get in and just give cash and take chips. There are even casinos that do not take cash as well, just for this purpose alone and I feel like that's an important thing.

I understand the need and protection about it, what if I go to a casino with a million dollars, gamble a bit, and then take it out? I could literally cause a trouble with it and then I could end up with a laundered money. By that time when I withdraw if anyone asks where I found it, I could just say I won it at a casino. This is why laundering on gambling is common and it is easy, and that is why most casinos started to ask for KYC as well, it is doing fine and should not be shocked at all.

[Merit.s]

Bitcoin decentralized network makes it difficult for governments to trace the owner of transactions that is carried out. So many investors who are into illegal activities has used this opportunity to carry out the illegal activities through gambling and mixers,this doesn't mean that this line of businesses are bad actors.  We shouldn't use the sin of one man to condemn everyone because they are still many honest and upright bitcoin investors who gamble with Bitcoin and also secure their bitcoin transaction privacy with a mixer. There are also many bad actors who uses fiat for money laundering and drug trafficking, who haven't been caught by the government or are backed up by the government. It is not bitcoin that is the problem but the individuals that are involved in these illegal activities. As long as we are human,illegal activities is a most,due to greed and the eagerness to get fast money.

[kaseygriffin]

Broadly speaking, it's not just bitcoin or crypto, but it's bad for every financial-related market they get into. I see a lot of people condemning this issue while fiat is where they operate in greater volume ( I also want to mention activities like prostitution and drugs ) . More precisely the bad sides in society will still exist in their own way and the means are made to make it easy, so don't look at one negative side and forget about the other side.

[Andrija Branislav]

why is CEX considered a bad actor in Bitcoin? it is precisely because of CEX that crypto adoption is easier and crypto trading is more secure. even though there are several cases where CEX went bankrupt or took the money away, this is only natural, because that is the negative thing about CEX, but that doesn't make CEX a bad actor in Bitcoin, we have to see it in full, because there are still many other CEX platforms that run their services well.

In my opinion, Mixing, on the other hand, is a technique used to obfuscate the source of funds, which goes against the principles of transparency and traceability within the Bitcoin network. While these activities are not inherently bad, they are often associated with criminal behavior and can tarnish Bitcoin's reputation as a legitimate asset.

[DanWalker]

From my experience and observations, I noticed both Bitcoin mixing and online gambling using Bitcoin are mostly regarded as bad actors in Bitcoin despite both being the highest Bitcoin adopters and having the largest Bitcoin volume in transactions and services.
Secondly, if Gambling and Bitcoin mixing services are called bad actors, what about centralized exchanges are they also perceived as bad actors in Bitcoin?

Mixers are considered bad because it makes it difficult for governments and legislatures to track bitcoin accounts, so they won't like them and find a way to destroy them. But for those who value privacy, it's a favorite tool of theirs.
As for gambling, it has never had a good reputation because it causes more crimes than benefits society, even in my country, gambling is completely banned. But some people hate bitcoin, and they have taken advantage of this to smear, and spread false information to inhibit the development of bitcoin.

[franky1]

On mixing, one must wonder if every time to go to the store to buy a candy and pay with a bill, the vendor would ask you about the entire history of the bill from its printing years ago until the day you got it to pay for candy. Even though you are not a criminal but rather the most honest person in your city  

...
with exchanges its the same your given a risk rating.
if all your deposits are all mixed sourced then you have a higher risk rating than someone that does not use a mixer
meet a threshold and they start to look closer at you

deposit $10. dont worry.. however deposit $1k-$10k-$100k, then expect to be on a watch list with more involved investigation reporting the higher the risk/amount is
government, regulators and authorities dont chase after criminals or suspects over $1-$10. they want the big fish

In my opinion, it is not the same for several reasons.
Firstly, since exchanges go and will continue to go with automated software to check the blockchain path of the deposits, they can adjust their filters to check on deposits as small as they consider to be necessary. Unlike cash.

I can go with a 100$ bill to buy anything and that is okey, it may be different on exchanges.

Also, if I was a drug lord and I deposited 20$ to Binance I could get flagged, if the funds came from the bulk of the illegally obtained satoshis, on the other hand in the same situation, I could take a 20$ from the mountain of dirty money in my narco bunker and buy something with it and no reasonable human being would check for the bill serial number in a data base before selling me a pizza.

heres what most people dont know

when using a mixer yes you are flagged but its not a yes/no flag. its a number/%.. they are not interested in getting a human involved to do an investigation at business(CEX) level unless said number/% reaches a threshold. but they do put you on a certain level of evolved algos to monitor different thresholds more. monitor customers more as each threshold passes
up to a point where thresholds reach a certain level where they would then try to gain more info about you

for instance it costs a bit of money to buy data from other partners/businesses they know/associate with. so they wont waste money buying all details of everyone(unless they are bulk data dealers)

so if your just depositing $10 they wont waste $1 trying to find if you have other accounts on other CEX and your flag rating on those services. however the more you do the more thresholds you reach the more intensive their scrutiny becomes

so someone that is high percentage normal coin movements small percentage mixed several taints back is a lower risk threshold than someone who puts all their funds through a mixer before then depositing into an exchange

and if the value of highly mixed deposits is high enough to breach tax thresholds and border crossing thresholds then they start to gather more information and do investigations. and if in those investigations they see some criminal tracings of funds they report it to authorities
they wont reveal all the thresholds of each level but atleast knowing that they dont investigate everyone is obvious because to watch everyone takes many many people and most businesses and authorities do not have enough personnel to watch everyone

meaning that "government" dont see or watch or receive data about everyone. just the interesting highly suspect stuff that reached a certain threshold that has met some standards regulators require

and regulators in formal legislation DO class using mixers as a red flag. meaning the more you use it the higher the intensity is of being on watch lists where actual humans start investigating. compared to someone just depositing $100 or $10 a week into an exchange from their own employment income accounts

[benalexis12]

From my experience and observations, I noticed both Bitcoin mixing and online gambling using Bitcoin are mostly regarded as bad actors in Bitcoin despite both being the highest Bitcoin adopters and having the largest Bitcoin volume in transactions and services.
Secondly, if Gambling and Bitcoin mixing services are called bad actors, what about centralized exchanges are they also perceived as bad actors in Bitcoin?

Actually, that depends on your understanding, so I agree with what you are saying, it is negative for you, but for others it is a good way. That's why we don't have the same opinion because we have our own beliefs that are right or wrong that we can agree with or disagree with other people, especially maybe in this matter that you are talking about now. Just like for me bitcoin mixing is good if I am one of the bitcoin holders at this thing also doing some other bitcoin holders as well for sure.

[imamusma]

Mixers are considered bad because it makes it difficult for governments and legislatures to track bitcoin accounts, so they won't like them and find a way to destroy them. But for those who value privacy, it's a favorite tool of theirs.
As for gambling, it has never had a good reputation because it causes more crimes than benefits society, even in my country, gambling is completely banned. But some people hate bitcoin, and they have taken advantage of this to smear, and spread false information to inhibit the development of bitcoin.

I don't like to say that these two services are actors who tarnish the good name of bitcoin, but both of these services can be abused by bitcoin users. The real actors are bitcoin users who intend to carry out illegal transactions by utilizing the two services above, so the two services cannot be blamed entirely.

Governments and people who hate bitcoin are of course taking advantage of this situation to their advantage and rule. But nevertheless I think it is their right regardless if the plan works or not. I honestly don't hate the government if its goal is to prevent abuse, but underneath it all I think they are just plotting something to hurt bitcoin and its users financially.