Mixers to be banned

[arabspaceship123]

It isn't about individual ppl it's about what's best for the forum. It's a decision which's going to affect sig campaigners but if we're after what's best for the forum it's a small sacrifice.

I'm trying to understand what we're allowed to post about mixers without breaking new rules. We can't get paid by mixers we shouldn't directly post URLs. If we're allowed to mention mixers by name in some topics ppl won't know where they can't post about it unless there's a sub started for mixers.

Several people seem to be concerned that the current policy will be too disruptive/constraining. How about I make this modification to loosen it a bit: you can direct people to mixers by name (even in something like a "top 10 mixers" topic), as long as:
 - You don't directly post their URLs.
 - It's not a paid ad, and you're not representing a mixer.

Would this be sufficient to address the concerns?

[1714507202]

1714507202

[1714507202]

1714507202

[1714507202]

1714507202

[1714507202]

1714507202

[1714507202]

1714507202

[joniboini]

It could be understood that I could still wear mixers' signatures as long as they don't contain a URL and my username isn't mixerABCD.

Yes you can. As long as it doesn't have any links. And in turn, whoever is paying him to do so contacted him outside the forum.

Wouldn't that still violate the ad part though? I don't know how you would verify if somebody is being paid or not from this other than trusting what they said. Unless you track his wallet address etc, which can take time and it is probably easier to just ban any mixer sig. It doesn't matter where the user is being contacted since the promotion is still happening here. CMIIW.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

It's a decision which's going to affect sig campaigners but if we're after what's best for the forum it's a small sacrifice.

I couldn't care less about that; I'm more concerned about the government and their witch hunt in progress against crypto as well as Theymos's decision to ban even the mention of mixers.  I don't know if he was pressured to go that far or if he's just playing it very safe, but mixers don't have to be criminal by nature.  By that logic every cash register should be illegal.

Hopefully those who retaliated against me using the trust network for stating these uncomfortable facts before they became facts will rethink their actions.

I just looked at your trust page to figure out who left what, and I have no clue what you're talking about.  Did someone leave a neg for something you said related to the issue at hand, or do you have a persecution complex?  I'm genuinely curious.

[Mpamaegbu]

~snipped~

Imagine that Abcmixer did a fraudulent transaction with an address, launches a campaign on bitcointalk, uses same address to pay upto 50 participants of the campaign. FBI uncovers them, link more than 30 addresses belonging to the bitcointalk members to Abcmixer. The 30 participants are automatic culprits or accomplice. It will take more than 10 tons of efforts to convince FBI that you are a mere promoter of the mixer.

I get your point but somehow you skewed my point. What's the forum if not the users? If theymos is saving the forum users isn't he also saving the forum? Anyway, let's not overflog that issue as we seemed to have headed the same direction on that micro context.

The point of my argument concerning the authorities not even clamping down on banks is a way of showing disdain that much money laundering activities go on with fiat than we've in cryptos. Isn't this a case of giving a dog a bad name just to hang it. Authorities are doing the much they can to strangulate Bitcoin but the good thing is that they arrived a bit late now. As it's right now, I don't think any FUD can make Bitcoin dip to $20,000 until after this rally, no matter how bad that news is.

[suchmoon]

It could be understood that I could still wear mixers' signatures as long as they don't contain a URL and my username isn't mixerABCD.

It's reasonably safe to assume that a sig of this nature is a paid ad... at least for the purposes of this rule. I like the revision a little better, it makes it possible to e.g. post news about the next mixer being seized by the FBI.

I just looked at your trust page to figure out who left what, and I have no clue what you're talking about.  Did someone leave a neg for something you said related to the issue at hand, or do you have a persecution complex?  I'm genuinely curious.

Og might be thinking that someone excluded him for saying something nasty about mixers, but the reality is that he started attacking people for wearing Chipmixer signatures (like LoyceV and myself and a few others) after he got called out on his own shenanigans.

[Poker Player]

I just looked at your trust page to figure out who left what, and I have no clue what you're talking about.  Did someone leave a neg for something you said related to the issue at hand, or do you have a persecution complex?  I'm genuinely curious.

Og might be thinking that someone excluded him for saying something nasty about mixers, but the reality is that he started attacking people for wearing Chipmixer signatures (like LoyceV and myself and a few others) after he got called out on his own shenanigans.

People tend to see the speck in the other's eye, and in Og's case he sees a lot of problems with mixers but apparently sees no problem with living in Arizona and advertising in his signature an illegal casino in the USA:

Why is Stake Illegal in US? | Alternatives

Back to the central theme of the thread, it's a bummer, but probably necessary to prevent greater evils, although it leaves the outlook for the future looking very bad indeed. Bitcoin transactions are on their way to becoming more and more like banking transactions, where the authorities know who is sending the money and who is receiving it. It's a thing that will take time if it eventually ends up happening that way, but that's the trend we're on.

[cryptosize]

I just looked at your trust page to figure out who left what, and I have no clue what you're talking about.  Did someone leave a neg for something you said related to the issue at hand, or do you have a persecution complex?  I'm genuinely curious.

Og might be thinking that someone excluded him for saying something nasty about mixers, but the reality is that he started attacking people for wearing Chipmixer signatures (like LoyceV and myself and a few others) after he got called out on his own shenanigans.

People tend to see the speck in the other's eye, and in Og's case he sees a lot of problems with mixers but apparently sees no problem with living in Arizona and advertising in his signature an illegal casino in the USA:

Why is Stake Illegal in US? | Alternatives

Back to the central theme of the thread, it's a bummer, but probably necessary to prevent greater evils, although it leaves the outlook for the future looking very bad indeed. Bitcoin transactions are on their way to becoming more and more like banking transactions, where the authorities know who is sending the money and who is receiving it. It's a thing that will take time if it eventually ends up happening that way, but that's the trend we're on.

I do not believe that will happen.

People will find ingenious solutions (DEX + BTC/XMR swaps).

But yeah, if you want to convert BTC to CBDC, good luck with that, you're pretty much fucked!

[Litzki1990]

If there is a possibility that our forum will be directly affected due to mixer campaigns, then we all have to coordinate the decision. But if mixer can stop the campaign and take a different decision then it might be a very good decision for users like us. We still have a month to catch up, so if you think that it is possible to tighten the rules and run the mixer campaigns within this month, then you should decide to continue the mixer campaigns. If all mixer campaigns are stopped then many people will directly lose their jobs and many people are directly dependent on their jobs. So if there is a different plan without banning mixer campaigns, I think you should think about it.

[NotATether]

Several people seem to be concerned that the current policy will be too disruptive/constraining. How about I make this modification to loosen it a bit: you can direct people to mixers by name (even in something like a "top 10 mixers" topic), as long as:
 - You don't directly post their URLs.
 - It's not a paid ad, and you're not representing a mixer.

Would this be sufficient to address the concerns?

Yes, I think that would be sufficient.

This would also allow people to type a word which refers to one thing but happens to be a name of a mixer without risking a ban.

Signature campaigns are not important in a time like this, especially when we have LE accounts descending posting public warnings here.

And I can answer: "There are torrent sites that you can do, it's a matter of searching on those sites."

With the exception that you should never suggest anyone to search a mixer on the Internet, unless you want them to get scammed.

You should never suggest anyone to use a mixer on Bitcointalk either, unless you want them to get scammed.

How many times do we have to tell you that the mixing industry is not, at large, a scamming industry?

What's the difference between a mixer getting seized and some other service (pretending to) hold your funds hostage by KYC?

[philipma1957]

Several people seem to be concerned that the current policy will be too disruptive/constraining. How about I make this modification to loosen it a bit: you can direct people to mixers by name (even in something like a "top 10 mixers" topic), as long as:
 - You don't directly post their URLs.
 - It's not a paid ad, and you're not representing a mixer.

Would this be sufficient to address the concerns?

Yes, I think that would be sufficient.

This would also allow people to type a word which refers to one thing but happens to be a name of a mixer without risking a ban.

Signature campaigns are not important in a time like this, especially when we have LE accounts descending posting public warnings here.

And I can answer: "There are torrent sites that you can do, it's a matter of searching on those sites."

With the exception that you should never suggest anyone to search a mixer on the Internet, unless you want them to get scammed.

You should never suggest anyone to use a mixer on Bitcointalk either, unless you want them to get scammed.

How many times do we have to tell you that the mixing industry is not, at large, a scamming industry?

What's the difference between a mixer getting seized and some other service (pretending to) hold your funds hostage by KYC?

The government approves of kyc.
The government has lots of guys with guns.
they will follow orders.


If they are telling you don’t use a mixer. Don’t use one.

So everyone needs to check rules of the country they are in and follow its rules.

And btc does not offer the promise of freedom it once did.

[philipma1957]

Several people seem to be concerned that the current policy will be too disruptive/constraining. How about I make this modification to loosen it a bit: you can direct people to mixers by name (even in something like a "top 10 mixers" topic), as long as:
 - You don't directly post their URLs.
 - It's not a paid ad, and you're not representing a mixer.

Would this be sufficient to address the concerns?

So when must I alter this ad I am doing Dec 31 works?

[pinggoki]

Again, people are talking here as though we've lost something.  Everyone can continue to use these services if they choose to. We simply have to maintain the thin veneer of discretion about it.  And one day we'll likely find ways to build protocols to replace these services so that the whole thing becomes impossible to shut down.  Then we win.  It's not as bleak as it looks.

Exactly, the forum just bans the talk of it and the endorsement of it but that don't exactly mean that we are outright disallowing the use of it, it's just that the forum doesn't want to be any part of their activity. I guess the Satoshi of crypto mixers hasn't been born yet so for now, we just have to wait until then and do cat and mouse chase with the authorities for using crypto mixers to protect our privacy. I just hope that when you said push back against the dystopian policies of our respective government, the people that you're talking about is going to push back.

[pooya87]

If there is a door to be kicked down, the authorities will eventually kick it down. That's the problem with centralization, which means the solution is to eliminate centralization (like what we did with Bitcoin). However, there isn't any solid progress in developing decentralized social networks, forums, etc. which is the unfortunate part.

CoinJoin-supporting non-custodial wallets

This is the weird part to me since by definition these are also mixers and where functionality is concerned there is no difference between these and the centralized mixer mixing coins!

[FinneysTrueVision]

This will undoubtedly be a huge blow to custodial mixing services. I always expected these businesses to become obsolete but thought it would be because decentralized solutions would become superior in terms of convenience for the user, not because of coercive government actions against those providing or seeking a reasonable level of privacy. Hopefully this will be the motivation needed for adoption and development of privacy enhancing protocols resistant to government censorship.

[tranthidung]

If all mixer campaigns are stopped then many people will directly lose their jobs and many people are directly dependent on their jobs. So if there is a different plan without banning mixer campaigns, I think you should think about it.

Without mixers, there are many other campaigns for you. You only need time to see other gates open for you. You need patience, that's it.

Your account was created in 2017 and it means you have gone through two bear market especially the 2018 and 2019 bear market. I believe you know how very little signature campaigns and available slots for each in 2018 or 2019. The current bear market since 2021, 2022 and lasts till 2023 is actually much much better than 2018 or 2019, with so many campaigns.

If you exclude mixer campaigns, there are still more campaigns for you to join than 4 or 5 years ago. Think about it, don't think pessimistic and don't only think about yourself.

You need jobs in Bitcointalk? First you need the forum to be lively, not a seized one.

In the meantime till Jan 1, 2024, use some time to read Welcome message and stop complaining about it. The decision is made, and it is what it is. Even signature is a privilege, not a right!

[hugeblack]

2) Mixer links in signatures are allowed, but the announcement and deal agreement must be outside the forum (since links in signatures are an individual responsibility)

"Pssst! There's this thing we're not allowed to talk about it, but if you click the link under my post, you can read all about it!"
Nope, that's not going to work.

It will work if the purpose of the ban is to protect the forum or disclaim responsibility. This is exactly why plagiarism of images is allowed, but plagiarism of avatars is not allowed.

In general, from reading the comments, it seems that it is a desire from @theymos. Is there any way to prepare another wording for this ban and vote on it from the forum community?

[Timelord2067]

Does using or acting as an escrow count as mixing?

Why?/Why not?


I have observed some exchanges use (what I'm loosely referring to as) a two step wallet where you link a wallet AND the exchange's wallet. You can then shift coins backwards and forwards between the two. Essentially you can mix coins(deposit to one wallet then withdraw from the other).

Will these exchanges be banned too?


Will discussing methods of how coins could be mixed a banable offence?

[cygan]

somehow i find theymos step understandable and i also think it's very important that a big discussion has been sparked here👍
i've just skimmed through a few pages and i don't know whether the following question has already been asked or answered by you

what will happen to the free raffles (such as this ones ^[1], ^[2]) where a card with the logo of a mixer is published as a prize (there are no hidden links or the like), will these also be banned from january 1st?

[1]: [FREE RAFFLE] - Custom UniJoin Card, (S/N 6). Only by invitation!
[2]: [Free Raffle] Exclusive MixTum collectible card №6

[jokers10]

Several people seem to be concerned that the current policy will be too disruptive/constraining. How about I make this modification to loosen it a bit: you can direct people to mixers by name (even in something like a "top 10 mixers" topic), as long as:
 - You don't directly post their URLs.
 - It's not a paid ad, and you're not representing a mixer.

Would this be sufficient to address the concerns?

It can hardly look not strange anyway. Different government agencies of different countries say that mixing bitcoins is not illegal per se and they have problems with some exact mixers, we suppose that it is not anything bad per se. So it looks like we are saying that it is okay to use mixers, it is not illegal, but it is forbidden to talk about it on the forum and you will be banned for something not illegal and not bad. I don't know how to make it look not strange.

And partial restrictions look even stranger. Because to find that boundaries we should see what is exactly wrong. Because if all vegetables discussion is banned on the forum it is still strange, but at least consistent. And when it is okay to say that vegetables are healthy food, but I can not say you how to get some for you because it could lead to a ban, it looks much stranger.

We know that banks and investment funds go bankrupt and have problems with authorities on a regular base. Ponzi schemes of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, Chara bank and in Toronto-Dominion Bank, money laundering in JPMorgan Chase, HSBC, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank and Bank of New York Mellon, etc. So staying consistent should we ban discussion about banks and investment funds keeping in mind that they can face with problems with authorities in the future? Banking and investment in not illegal per se, but all that can be used by criminals. And I named some organisations which had some problems with authorities (I didn't link any of their sites, but I could). So how to find correct boundaries?

[digaran]

@theymos, What ever you do, please don't ban a Bitcoin service entirely, just the illegal services.  Even if you manage to ban all, how will you moderate other networks? We can't control what people might say on telegram or other sites, what if we promote a site and they decide to suddenly add mixer links?
You can't possibly moderate that much of activity, we might as well welcome the idea of a new generation of snitches trying to get people banned by providing links to off forum sites to show that someone shared a link to a site which now is promoting mixers. (cool idea for merit/trust farmers.)