Mixers to be banned

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

How can something not be illegal and the law enforcement is going after it? I dont understand something here

Because the service is getting grayer. Law enforcement and government are going after any of the m**er that they have got a very tangible evidence that require them to tagg to the case. Bitcoin m**er is illegal, but government always wants to oversee everything, our privacy is a crime and by so doing they can tagg it as illegal because they believe that some money laundering activities are going on in the m**ers. If m**ers are banned from the forum, it's not banned outside side here, although depending on your country policy too.

[1714788288]

1714788288

[1714788288]

1714788288

[1714788288]

1714788288

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

What a shit show to attack the privacy. I was away for a week and returning in the forum then I see the topic with more than 23 pages of discussion. It's sad to see such strict punishment [I will call it punishment] against mixers. But I think theymos made a good choice. It shows that protecting the forum is his best interest.

Finally, to all legal mixers/services.

I think a mixer will be legal only when they will introduce KYC 😂

You need mixer to hide your addresses from your clients, partners, society, regular people but you don't need to hide it from authority, they don't like it as they want to know every penny that is coming in your wallet and going out from there. Give it to them and they will be happy.

Are we going to see a mixer that will require KYC verification before sending them your coins? A government run agency can bring such mixers. What do you say?

[Z-tight]

Are we going to see a mixer that will require KYC verification before sending them your coins? A government run agency can bring such mixers. What do you say?

A mixer in which the government and 'their' blockchain analysis companies already have your data serves no useful purpose, people might say you can use it to hide from friends, family, business partners and other 'ordinary' people, but you don't even need to use a mixer to hide from such people. It is trivial to hide from people who do not have any blockchain knowledge, an exchange is even enough to do that. People use Tor, mixers, CoinJoin and privacy solutions so that their government and blockchain analysis companies can't deanonymize them, in other words, KYC defeats that purpose.

[OgNasty]

Are we going to see a mixer that will require KYC verification before sending them your coins? A government run agency can bring such mixers. What do you say?

A mixer in which the government and 'their' blockchain analysis companies already have your data serves no useful purpose, people might say you can use it to hide from friends, family, business partners and other 'ordinary' people, but you don't even need to use a mixer to hide from such people. It is trivial to hide from people who do not have any blockchain knowledge, an exchange is even enough to do that. People use Tor, mixers, CoinJoin and privacy solutions so that their government and blockchain analysis companies can't deanonymize them, in other words, KYC defeats that purpose.

Yes, I think a legal mixer would not only serve no purpose for most people, but it would also demonstrate that nobody wants to use a legal mixer, which would then ironically make the mixer hilariously bad as it wouldn’t get enough use to serve it’s purpose as a proper mixer. It would also end the debate on if people are using them for legal purposes, as nobody would use it…

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

It would also end the debate on if people are using them for legal purposes, as nobody would use it…

They don't care about the use they will love to know who have how much and what they are doing with that money. You will be given options. Leave it or take it is your choice. The way they are sanctioning coins, today or tomorrow all bitcoin in circulation will be so called tinted. No centralized exchange will accept your coin and your coins are not moving.

One solution is decentralized exchanges where you can exchange your bitcoin for altcoins and then send the altcoins to exchange to turn it into cash. The other solution is to create a whole system where you can trade everything from daily groceries to real estate using peer to peer transactions. Then again for real estate you need your personal details, for buying groceries you can just punch your QR code though.

Good news is they tried to break bitcoin since it born and failed so far.

[Medusah]

I know it was the easiest way to gain privacy in bitcoin, but we need to look on the bright side.  No mixers means people move to trustless solutions like monero and whirlpool.  Once people get used to these, we will have made progress.

It is strange that some criminals prefer a trust-requiring process than a trustless tho.

[summonerrk]

Usually, if a certain group of individuals or organizations (in our case, Mixers), with similar activities, understands that they have an interest (not to be prohibited), they unite into one union, and with common efforts they try to solve the problem.
Perhaps the mixers should do this and think about how, using their common power and connections, they can prove their right to exist and function, I’m not talking about the legality of the ways in which they can achieve this, that’s their business.

I understand that often even this approach cannot help, but I am sure that alone they are definitely doomed. There is still time, and I think that the forum with mixers was quite good.

[JollyGood]

If there is a way to make money, I am sure business minded people will create the KYC regulated mixer service one day. The way things are going I think legalised or regulated mixers will be a thing in the near future. Most of those that will mix at centralised mixers will do so under the belief they have nothing to hide but then it defeats the object of mixing in the first place.

Is it really impossible to imagine it will happen one day?

Yes, I think a legal mixer would not only serve no purpose for most people, but it would also demonstrate that nobody wants to use a legal mixer, which would then ironically make the mixer hilariously bad as it wouldn’t get enough use to serve it’s purpose as a proper mixer. It would also end the debate on if people are using them for legal purposes, as nobody would use it…

[pawel7777]

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?

Would it be OK to have a signature linking to a blog/article explaining what mixing is, how it works and containing URL link(s) to mixer(s)?
Are you on a crusade against the concept of centralised mixing, or is it just about getting rid of any direct links/recommendations?

p.s. Very disappointing decision. If you know something is not illegal (or immoral) and yet, you want to ban/censor it just for the comfort of not having to deal with authorities (that may or may not have a problem with it in the future), then maybe handing the forum over to someone who is less focused on comfort and more on bitcoin's principles, would be a better option.
Just keep in mind that you're cutting off income for hundreds of people (for no solid reason), and some of them rely on it for their daily lives.

[PrivacyIsImportant]

theymos,

could you tell me whether my service's thread that ony lists and discusses mixers will be allowed here or I should wipe it before January? The thread in question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5476445

The thread itself doesn't link any mixers, only the site that does.

[digaran]

Debatable, I'd say many of them are alt accounts gaming both DT and sig campaigns while suffocating the normal members, and if there is anyone who is unable to earn their share by contributing and doing something deserving, it might be better for them to find something they are good at. But from a moral standpoint,  yes he is responsible, however, how can we be sure those hundreds of accounts are not being controlled by 20 people? So it's a grey area with a lot of room for debates.

[robelneo]

Yes, I think a legal mixer would not only serve no purpose for most people, but it would also demonstrate that nobody wants to use a legal mixer, which would then ironically make the mixer hilariously bad as it wouldn’t get enough use to serve it’s purpose as a proper mixer. It would also end the debate on if people are using them for legal purposes, as nobody would use it…

I don't think such a thing will exist, but I read somewhere here that a blockchain analysis tool and a waiting time are features worth adding by mixers by blockchain analysis tool the mixer can analyze where the funds are coming from, and then they can decide if the funds are meant to be laundered by the sender so they can decline that funds waiting time depends on the blockchain analysis tool input.
But I doubt if one mixer adds it, the majority of mixers will add it, but the mixer that will add these features is safe from being accused of money laundering.

[Not your key not your BTC]

Don't worry, you won't lose your job, because in the next year, we might see a new dex like This popping up to replace the mixer.

Gambling will become increasingly beside the dex signature.

[philipma1957]

Are we going to see a mixer that will require KYC verification before sending them your coins? A government run agency can bring such mixers. What do you say?

A mixer in which the government and 'their' blockchain analysis companies already have your data serves no useful purpose, people might say you can use it to hide from friends, family, business partners and other 'ordinary' people, but you don't even need to use a mixer to hide from such people. It is trivial to hide from people who do not have any blockchain knowledge, an exchange is even enough to do that. People use Tor, mixers, CoinJoin and privacy solutions so that their government and blockchain analysis companies can't deanonymize them, in other words, KYC defeats that purpose.

Yes, I think a legal mixer would not only serve no purpose for most people, but it would also demonstrate that nobody wants to use a legal mixer, which would then ironically make the mixer hilariously bad as it wouldn’t get enough use to serve it’s purpose as a proper mixer. It would also end the debate on if people are using them for legal purposes, as nobody would use it…

I think many would do so. If they are og with a pile of clean untaxed coins.

Anyone with an untouched block of 50 coins in 2009-2010 wiulc not want to show the address holding the fifty coins.  There are a lot of old uncashed blocks.

[BTC_pokaop]

One question I would like to ask is if mixer campaigns are banned from this bitcoin talk forum will mixers stop? Of course they will try to advertise in other places. If the mixer doesn't stop, it might be better to let the campaign go on this forum.

[libert19]

One question I would like to ask is if mixer campaigns are banned from this bitcoin talk forum will mixers stop? Of course they will try to advertise in other places. If the mixer doesn't stop, it might be better to let the campaign go on this forum.

Definitely, mixers will go to some other place to advertise themselves, and the reason behind banning mixer is that bitcointalk or it's users does not get into trouble for promoting them.

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.

[rat03gopoh]

theymos,

could you tell me whether my service's thread that ony lists and discusses mixers will be allowed here or I should wipe it before January? The thread in question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5476445

The thread itself doesn't link any mixers, only the site that does.

Prohibited! it is contain a direct link to mixers directory.

Just don't direct people to mixers: don't link to a mixer, don't link to a directory with links to mixers,

One question I would like to ask is if mixer campaigns are banned from this bitcoin talk forum will mixers stop? Of course they will try to advertise in other places. If the mixer doesn't stop, it might be better to let the campaign go on this forum.

It's like an analogy if xTV channel boycotted all car factories, would they stop producing cars?
Bro, your argument is too weak to defend mixers.

[PrivacyG]

I read all of the comments. Some people didn't like the change in policy at all, of course, but continuing with the status quo isn't going to happen. Some people found the policy too vague/subjective.

Of course.  It will be extremely hard to make every body happy and you will not make every body happy.  Some people were already unhappy before you even said anything and will be happier with the new policy.  A few people will leave no matter the change.

Anyway.  Thank you for continuing to listen and I do hope this is not you leaning over the Enemy boat and obeying fully.  We already had enough traitors and I hope you are the last to give up on us.

What do people think about this version of the policy? Does anyone think that it's worse than the original version, and if so, why? Are there any possible improvements (which wouldn't totally undermine the whole thing)?

I am sticking to my own beliefs and I presume you already know what I think about either the first or last version of the policy.  But since what I wish can not come true, I will comment on this situation ignoring previous points I tried to make.

I am not entirely sure whether by 'the new policy' you meant the ENTIRE initial thread is replaced or only a part of it so I will comment about your original definition of Mixers.  Particularly, Mixers with Know Your Customers continuing to be allowed.  Probably under a new name because I presume they will not want to be categorized as 'Mixers' no more.

I believe either you ban ALL Mixers or you let them all roam free.  Know Your Customer being one of the ways you separate 'good' from 'bad' Mixers opens up a way for more BAD things than good things to happen in the future.  It includes and opens up ways for more of the bad guys.

First, it helps the 'Tainted' vs 'Clean' Bitcoin and 'Privacy is for criminals' narrative tremendously.  See how Wasabi thinks it is better to have Blockchain Analysis ban UTXOs from Coin Joins while using the very malicious 'So you say you would support SBF have Privacy on his Coins?' narrative.  By allowing Know Your Customer enabled Mixers only, all new or existing Mixers may start implementing Know Your Customer policies to avoid getting banned.  After all, Mixers are businesses and they will want more not less customers and advertisement.

Which I think is very bad because we want LESS Know Your Customer, not more.  Right?

I can read this definition of yours in a different way if you want.  It is only fine to Mix Bitcoin if you link the Bitcoin to your name and personal documents.  Otherwise, the Mixer is bad.  Well.  By linking Bitcoin to your name and personal documents it is pretty much that we are 'cleaning' our Coins.  Coins coming out from Know Your Customer Mixers will, I presume, be allowed on all of the Services supporting the TvC narrative too.

This part of your definition will make people new to Bitcoin think no Know Your Customer is bad.  Notable Bitcoin Talk users tried to do the exact opposite for a long time now and convince the new people that Services WITH Know Your Customer are the bad ones.  This does not only help the TvC and 'Privacy is for the bad guys' narrative but will also be a way for new, REALLY bad Mixers to launch and promote themselves.

Think FreeWallet.  Now think a 'FreeWallet' kind of Mixer.  You deposit funds hoping to 'get more Privacy'.  Then the Mixer cracks down on you and no matter what you do, the Mixer will not want to return your Bitcoin unless you provide more documents.  And more.  And more!  Because it is never enough for them.  This is so much easier to do as a Mixing Service because they have a supposedly valid reason to suspect customers.  They want Privacy so WHAT IF they are bad guys.

Now this can happen selectively so the Mixer runs freely while cracking down on a selective part of their customers.  I mean.  I suppose you already know the dangers of Know Your Customer and similar events from the past.  But as I said, it promoted the TvC narrative a lot and it is an incentive for upcoming Services to start promoting it too.

I rather have no more Mixers on Bitcoin Talk than have Know Your Customer Services all around the Forum.  So since you are keen on implementing this ban.  I believe it is important to find a way to apply the ban without helping the worst of the Services emerge.

-----

I still do not understand something.  Is it an offense starting from the first of January to promote Bitcoin > Monero > Bitcoin Atomic Swaps?  Or is it not, considering it does not fit point 1 and 2 of the definition for a Mixer?

[fruktik]

Because the service is getting grayer. Law enforcement and government are going after any of the m**er that they have got a very tangible evidence that require them to tagg to the case. Bitcoin m**er is illegal, but government always wants to oversee everything, our privacy is a crime and by so doing they can tagg it as illegal because they believe that some money laundering activities are going on in the m**ers. If m**ers are banned from the forum, it's not banned outside side here, although depending on your country policy too.

I liked your statement that the state considers any anonymity and confidentiality criminal. How does this happen? Are the “managers” themselves going against the constitution? Yes, that's what it looks like. There is nothing else here.
  If things continue like this, democratic countries will eventually turn into disguised totalitarian regimes. In principle, we can already observe this at the moment. Under plausible pretexts and concern for citizens, the screws in the legislative field are increasingly being tightened. So what did it all come to? Did you want this outcome?

[NotATether]

** Existing threads will be locked and archived.

Archiving should *prevent* them from being able from unlocking the topic again, but they should not be moved to the Archival board. Then the first few pages will be full of old mixer ANNs which I don't think is the behavior you intended.