This discussion started after a campaign manager (who had been caught promoting banned mixers several times already) asked about promoting it again:
I don't see anything bad in "asking" about it if the platform removed the mixer from the website. Currently I don't see a mixer link there - only I see something about a "coming" privacy/CoinJoin feature. (The repeated
knowing promoting of mixing services instead would, in contrast, be a reason for a ban.) However I don't know the details of the case.
The proposal of a hard deadline of a week I made was only because the discussion shifted to a more generalized question, away from the Omnisee case. And I think this is good, it would be best to have a clear rule (even if "unofficial"
like most rules in the forum), instead of reacting to every case individually.
The one week rule is unnecessary in my opinion. If theymos already knows when the website started 'offending', it would be an unnecessary extra effort to count down to 1 week, notify everyone about it, launch bans et cetera when he could simply delete the Topic and remove the signatures of all participants in the first moment he finds out.
The idea is that theymos' involvement would not even be needed. The rule would generate the incentives for the managers to handle these cases fastly and with the least possible drama. theymos would be simply notified to include the link in the blacklist, but the signatures then would already have disappeared.
Because other than money, what stops a multi million Mixer industry from constantly creating multiple websites that appear to have no thing to do with Mixers, advertising them through signature campaigns on Bitcoin Talk and silently adding the feature later on?
Thus in my past post I clarified that I would support a ban for repeating offenders if they know (that can be proven with archive.org links for example) that they should have detected that website as a mixer.
Anyway I don't expect this to happen too often.
An option I am thinking of is platforms escrow a monetary guarantee that they do not own a 'prohibited' service and that they will not silently add one to their platform. Most of the campaigns already have an escrowed guarantee, this could be added as part of the escrow terms.
If the problem becomes bigger then it's an idea to consider, but otherwise I don't consider it necessary - as I wrote I think the hard 1 week deadline would provide the needed incentives already to react fast.
