Mixers to be banned

[theymos]

I'm curious myself if there were any formal requests or warnings received

We've received no warnings or requests to change policy from law enforcement regarding mixers.

It will help to know if the stand of the forum is that mixers are injurious to the public like darknet

I would prefer to allow them. I don't view using them as unethical, and I don't care about reputation. But this kind of thing is far from the core mission of bitcointalk.org, and the costs far outweigh the benefits.

It wouldn't be illegal to continue allowing mixers here. That's why we're able to offer a 1-month grace period. But allowing them has become too risky/problematic, and it's only going to get worse. Imagine 5% of all active forum users being sanctioned due to being paid directly by mixers, or all participants in a big signature campaign being targets of a search warrant, or our service providers suddenly banning us due to being "associated" with mixers, etc. I think that the crypto community is near the start of a multi-year squeezing campaign against mixers; similar to the cannabis industry in the US, or Operation Choke Point, or what happened with Backpage, or the deplatforming of Parler.

non-KYC exchanger converts your BTC to XMR

That's allowed unless the site is also a mixer due to eg. allowing BTC->BTC "exchanges" or advertising BTC->XMR->BTC exchanges as a way of mixing coins.

Theymos, I understand this decision had to be taken to save the forum from alot of accusations in aiding fraudulent activity in the future but what next are we going to ban?

I don't anticipate the need for major new restrictions in the next couple of years, but it could indeed happen. Maybe Bitcoin will be banned in the US someday, and then I'll have to either shut down bitcointalk.org or find a way of moving it to some remaining territory of freedom in the world. That's the problem with centralized forums. I wish that more work was being done on creating decentralized, uncensorable, but also usable forums. I would love nothing more than to be able to shut down bitcointalk.org due to some decentralized solution making it obsolete. Find me a 501(c)(3) nonprofit working on this, and I'll donate to it.

To be clear: not all .onion sites qualify as darknet, right?

Correct. And something can also be darknet without having a .onion. By "darket" I mean something that wouldn't be able to exist for long outside of the shadows because it's being suppressed by the state.

How about old avatars? Many inactive and even banned users still have an avatar from a Bitcoin mixer.

It's not a priority, but I might blank them at some point.

How about Scams Bitcoin Mixers List and Services closed:

Since that doesn't have any real links to mixers, it may be OK. Probably we'll leave it alone at the start and see how it looks after a few months.

[1714260113]

1714260113

[1714260113]

1714260113

[1714260113]

1714260113

[1714260113]

1714260113

[dwyane36]

Bitcointalk.org aims to allow about as much freedom as is reasonably possible. But this is not a darknet forum, and with mixers looking "grayer and grayer", it's no longer reasonably possible to allow linking to mixers. Even though "a cryptocurrency mixing service is not necessarily illegal," a clear pattern has emerged where mixers pop up, last for a little while, and then get taken down by law enforcement once they get too big. Allowing mixers to be posted on bitcointalk.org before they seemingly-inevitably get declared illegal and seized is not sustainable. Therefore, linking to mixers will no longer be allowed, just the same as linking to darknet sites is already not allowed.

Given the current situation, I completely understand your decision. But at the same time, it seems to me that banning all mixers on the forum is too drastic. By the way, the Dutch regulators(FIOD) aren't the only ones who recognize the fact that mixers can be used for legal purposes. For example, here is a quote from a FinCEN document in which they also recognize this.

FinCEN recognizes that there are legitimate reasons why responsible actors might want to conduct financial transactions in a secure and private manner given the amount of information available on public blockchains.
FinCEN also recognizes that, in addition to illicit purposes, CVC mixing may be used for legitimate purposes, such as privacy enhancement for those who live under repressive regimes or wish to conduct licit transactions anonymously.

So maybe you shouldn't ban absolutely all mixers on the forum? Alternatively, you could set certain criteria for mixers, and if they meet them, then allow them to stay and advertise on the forum as before.

[Samrean]

Oh well, I guess some people will stop (shit)posting...

I know someone who made $1200/month (not a lot of money in the USA, but still plenty enough in poorer countries).

If people don't like Theymos' decision (that's fine), they should start a decentralized forum, because bitcointalk.org has always been centralized. Deal with it.

I think you do not know that the mixers have the best posters and are the best paying campaigns.
None of the mixer participants is shit poster.

[joker_josue]

If this decision is to protect the forum, I believe that no matter how difficult it is, it should be taken.
Indeed, even if unfairly, the authorities are attacking the mixers on all fronts, the forum could be affected. Therefore, the best way to keep the forum neutral is to avoid any connection to mixers - even in a completely indirect way.

- Going forward, directing people to mixers in new posts/edits will be totally disallowed, and doing so could lead to a ban. Many mixer URLs will be wordfiltered-out, and if
you bypass the wordfilter, then that'll definitely be ban-worthy.

I would just like to see this point clarified. What is considered directing someone to a mixer?

If someone says:
"We can use a mixer to break your connection"
"There are services that mix the currencies of several users, and that way you can try to increase your privacy. Search on Google."
"Yesterday I used a very good new mixing service, different from all the others we usually use. Search for 'new btc mix' and find out."


Of the three sentences, which are found in this rule?

[theymos]

I would just like to see this point clarified. What is considered directing someone to a mixer?

If someone says:
"We can use a mixer to break your connection"
"There are services that mix the currencies of several users, and that way you can try to increase your privacy. Search on Google."
"Yesterday I used a very good new mixing service, different from all the others we usually use. Search for 'new btc mix' and find out."


Of the three sentences, which are found in this rule?

Of those three examples, the first and second would be OK because they don't direct people to a specific mixer.

[Shishir99]

SNIP

Isn't Bitcointalk signature space just like another banner ad on the internet? People advertise illegal things on Google ads and use many other ad networks too. While Bitcoin mixers are not completely illegal which you agree. Google, Facebook,, or some random ad networks do not even verify what was advertised on their service. BitcoinTalk has no connection with the mixer companies. It's just a public forum where people talk about crypto currencies and many other things. Bitcointalk do not monitor any service. It's absurd to punish the entire industry just because of some random big companies were seized.

[cryptosize]

Oh well, I guess some people will stop (shit)posting...

I know someone who made $1200/month (not a lot of money in the USA, but still plenty enough in poorer countries).

If people don't like Theymos' decision (that's fine), they should start a decentralized forum, because bitcointalk.org has always been centralized. Deal with it.

I think you do not know that the mixers have the best posters and are the best paying campaigns.
None of the mixer participants is shit poster.

Are you sure about that?

I have written proof about my claims.

[Kruw]

So, to sum up. If a service:

- is taking property and returning roughly the same property,
- advertises itself as providing privacy,
- requires user to forfeit custody of coins,
- and does not collect KYC

is illegal in this forum.

Really sad turn of events for the Bitcoin forum.

No, this is a great thing to happen.  Listen to Satoshi:

Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending

You DO NOT NEED a trusted third party to make your Bitcoin private.  You can coinjoin non custodially without ever giving up any data.

I have a feeling it's going to be easier to discuss about making a bomb than how to mix some coins.

- Hey, how can I gain privacy in Bitcoin?
- Use mixers!
- Cool, which one?
- WTF, you want to get banned sir?

If you want to gain privacy on Bitcoin, you have to use coinjoins.  Mixers do not provide privacy because the operator can track each withdrawal to its corresponding deposit.

[joker_josue]

I would just like to see this point clarified. What is considered directing someone to a mixer?

If someone says:
"We can use a mixer to break your connection"
"There are services that mix the currencies of several users, and that way you can try to increase your privacy. Search on Google."
"Yesterday I used a very good new mixing service, different from all the others we usually use. Search for 'new btc mix' and find out."


Of the three sentences, which are found in this rule?

Of those three examples, the first and second would be OK because they don't direct people to a specific mixer.

Thanks for the clarification.

In short, we can talk about its existence, we cannot mention names. Or can names be said without there being a direct recommendation?
For example: "Yesterday mixxptoabcd was closed by the US authorities, follow the news..."

[Synchronice]

but what next are we going to ban?

I am not theymos to give 100% real answer but probably everything that creates threat for this forum. At the moment, threats are things that are associated with darknets. I don't think Theymos will ban anything in near future. Probably the next thing might be DEX or CoinJoin wallets but at the moment they are okay.

Will crypto non KYC casinos be next as they too can be used for mixing.

I am not theymos again but I'm 100% confident non-KYC casinos are not the next thing to be banned because casinos are regulated. Some casinos registered in Costa-Rica are able to provide service without asking for KYC. If someone launders money through casinos, that is not Theymos's problem. People launder money through banks and exchanges but promoting of them doesn't create any threat because this business model is accepted and regulated. There is no official certificate to run mixers but casinos, exchanges and so on exist and are controlled by governments. It's not bitcointalk's problem if any particular company does something shady, it's a type of business model that is considered to be helping illegal activities that creates threat for this forum if it gets promoted here.

The government are winning and there's nothing we can do about it.

Use Monero and/or DEX. Bitcoin was never superior in protecting your privacy compared to Monero.

Oh well, I guess some people will stop (shit)posting...

Campaigns run by mixers were paying more than others and were able to afford people who post high quality posts, so, I don't think some people will stop posting because they weren't posting shit posts. There are a few exceptions of course, I don't argue with that.

Theymos, are we able to mention mixer companies? Can I say: Bitmixer was the first bitcoin mixer in history, chipmixer was the most profitable company, Guys, does anyone remember the time when mixers were legal?
Will we be able to mention company names without suggesting them to other people?

Also, can we talk about kycnot.me or mention it in our posts? This is a dictionary site but it's not exclusively about mixers, it's about overall non-kyc companies.

[Mate2237]

It is good to remove things that bringing problem to the peace in the Forum. And this not the first time users in the forum have said that mixers should be ban or stop working in the forum after the melodrama of CM. After the sieze of CM then Sinbad came to an existence and everyone used Sinbad to mix and participate then later in the month or there about whilewind came to the forum and compete with Sinbad and other mixers follow suit. And mixers became popular in the forum and those who have not heard the name heard and see and those who have not used it before, used mixers to mix coins from one wallet to others. I also used a mixer and it it very much interesting.

Now forum users have seen the important of mixers and the usefulness of mixers so if mixers are remove automatically from the forum, it might disturbed some users so is there any other terms and conditions (rules) given to them before they can operate in the forum? Because their present here is also making the forum more actively. If the ones that are running in the forum can change their features to the two examples in the OP, will they be allow to operate in the forum? Or if any other one that coming have the same features with above two examples in the Op will it be allowed? This is bitcoin forum and it is good to steer clear with criminal elements that will tannish the name. Thank you for your drastic decision to clean the forum.

[shahzadafzal]

Thank you for communicating the upcoming changes and for sharing the much needed new policy. If I’m not wrong Sinbad is the 3rd mixer in the last 18 months that have been sanctioned by the U.S. Govt.

Bitcointalk.org holds significant importance as a forum within the bitcoin community, serving as a valuable space for discussions, insights, and collaboration. It's crucial to maintain a positive image and ensure that Bitcointalk is not labeled as a platform endorsing or promoting potentially illegal activities.

By proactively addressing concerns related to mixers, the forum aims to uphold its reputation as a responsible and compliant space for not only Bitcoin but cryptocurrency enthusiasts in general.

If I say theymos’s this decision plus stoping the advertisement reflects his commitment to fostering a constructive environment while respecting legal and ethical considerations within the broader crypto landscape.

Also I think this topic should be pinned for sometime in the meta section and also a linked to this topic should be added in mprep’s topic Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

It's not funny how privacy seems to be a great offense to the government because they actually want to see through every individual's privacy to be in control of everything. Be that as it may, Bitcoin was not designed in such a manner; mixers only helped to bring about more privacy for users.

Although the decision you have taken is to also protect the forum, honestly, the government is attacking Bitcoin in many ways. Even if mixers are banned from being advertised on the forum, the government will still find another successful mixer to bring down.

Indeed It's sad news for the first day of the month, December, that mixers, which are usually the highest-paying campaigns, are to be banned from the forum.

[zasad@]

I'm not a designer, but something like this...

[hd49728]

Theymos, are we able to mention mixer companies? Can I say: Bitmixer was the first bitcoin mixer in history, chipmixer was the most profitable company, Guys, does anyone remember the time when mixers were legal?
Will we be able to mention company names without suggesting them to other people?

It will depend on status of the company.

If it is a dead company (seized, shut down, scam exited), I think no problem to talk about history.
If it is a live company, still in operation, you will be banned because you indirectly direct people to that company.

Thank you for communicating the upcoming changes and for sharing the much needed new policy. If I’m not wrong Sinbad is the 3rd mixer in the last 18 months that have been sanctioned by the U.S. Govt.

ChipMixer
Tornado Cash
Sinbad

[LoyceV]

to increase your privacy. Search on Google

I couldn't resist highlighting the irony in this.

What will be the punishment if there will be "use mixer" in the post where recipe is discussed?

OP mentions the word "mixer" 32 times, but never specifies it as "Bitcoin mixer". I see a new market for KitchenAid to advertise in signatures on Bitcointalk, starting 4 months from now! If I search the word "mixer" on Google, all I see is pages filled with this:

(image source in image URL)

It looks like "we" have given a completely different meaning to an existing word.

[eaLiTy]

Isn't Bitcointalk decentralized forum where everyone has freedom to talk on any subject even against any government?

Bitcointalk still allows freedom of speech and support decentralization.  If you check out the past mixers that got into trouble by the government citing aiding in helping mix hacked coins and it has become a recurring theme and theymos took the safe option rather than getting in trouble.

If tomorrow Gov declare Bitcoin btc as a money laundering source then we will see Bitcoin word in blacklist and also we will change domain??

apologize  for over talked but I learned here that This forum is best place for embracing freedom.

The reason why the authorities are able to track the hacked coins to these mixers is because it is transparent and it is clear to any government that BTCitcoin will not aide in money laundering .

[joker_josue]

What will be the punishment if there will be "use mixer" in the post where recipe is discussed?

OP mentions the word "mixer" 32 times, but never specifies it as "Bitcoin mixer". I see a new market for KitchenAid to advertise in signatures on Bitcointalk, starting 4 months from now! If I search the word "mixer" on Google, all I see is pages filled with this:

(image source in image URL)

It looks like "we" have given a completely different meaning to an existing word.

@theymos
Sorry to bother you, but I have a concern based on these comments.

Will you reject any image that shows the name of a mixer?  

[BitMaxz]

In short, we can talk about its existence, we cannot mention names. Or can names be said without there being a direct recommendation?
For example: "Yesterday mixxptoabcd was closed by the US authorities, follow the news..."

I guess it's yes we can talk about mixers but we do not allow to mention their sites, name of service, links, or guide them directly by saying "Search it using this keyword" It is considered a "direct recommendation" you are guiding him/her to a mixer.
About the news with the mentioned name of the mixer service, I think it should be fine because you redirecting people to the news and its service is already closed.

Will you reject any image that shows the name of a mixer?  

You'll be banned I'm sure.

[goldkingcoiner]

You banned mixers just when I was about to tell you guys about my awesome cinnabon recipe. But fine. Guess you don't need to know how awesome life can be.

But in a more serious tone, if this is what is required to keep Bitcointalk safe from lawsuits or other, then thats fine. But it does seem a bit like Theymos is jumping the gun on this. Advertising ban, I understand. But merely talking about specific mixers is not allowed? What is this, China?

Not much will change for me as there are better ways to be anonymous. Bitcoin is not one of them, and was never meant to be such.