Mixers to be banned

[JollyGood]

I did not know anything about your account before you posted here but you have now come to my attention therefore I looked at your feedback. You also came to the attention of icopress and lovesmayfamilis and they have given you neutral feedback.

I will have a look at your previous posts to see if it is justified for me to tag your account too and any other account you may have allegedly exchanged merits with.

Keeping that aside, I think most members complaining about the ban are looking at this from a financial perspective more than any freedom of expression. Hopefully many will disappear soon after they realise they will not be selected for signature campaigns.

I am not familiar with this issue, but after going through multiple pages I was able to understand the situation and what can be its implication for the forum. There are a lot of reasons why I feel the ban on Mixers is not justified and it shows how much the admin is stooping to those who are controlling the economic vulnerability of everyone actively involved here.

Some would tag me as I get tagged a lot because of my questions and intentions to be in this forum. The problem that does not have a solution is to find a region where we all can do, what we want to without the interference of a government-based entity based in the US and accepted by every country. It would be great if we as a community could forget our earnings and come up with a decentralized-based forum. I have a few things in my mind and I know they will not get accepted as I have been tagged by a DT1 user.

[1714474274]

1714474274

[1714474274]

1714474274

[1714474274]

1714474274

[1714474274]

1714474274

[digaran]

I have a suggestion on how we can bypass US laws and allow mixers to advertise here.
Theymos needs to move to Iran, servers should be hosted there as well. But there are limitations:

1- no porn.
2- no gambling.
3- females must wear scarfs.
4- no profanity.
5- no youtube, tweeter, facebook, telegram etc.
6- no talks about leaders and officials.
7- no income from cryptocurrencies is allowed.
8- no flirting or kissing, even with your spouse.
9- crying is encouraged, partying is forbidden, laughing is discouraged.
My next suggestions are, China, Russia, North korea, Saudi Arabia.
Don't laugh, I forgot to mention if you remove your scarf inside your car, you get a ticket and after repeating it, your car is bye bye.
So be thankful you can still live on this planet. At least we are buying time thanks to Bitcoin, otherwise we could be arguing whether is OK to wake up for work 5 mins late or not. More you back down, more they push, Bitcoin has created a platform for us to push much harder than before.

[coupable]

Since the number of pages on this topic is growing rapidly, it is difficult to see all the opinions. So I constantly follow Thymos' posts to keep up with updates.

Now I understand that all topics related to mixers and all accounts related to mixer projects will be attended to. But a question came to my mind, and I don’t know if it was previously asked on one of the pages, which is related to the scam and accusations section. If someone was subjected to fraud or theft by one of the Mixer sites, would he have the right to publish the details of what happened to him in that section? Considering that this could fall within public discussions, would the mixer who is the subject of the conversation have the right to publish his position or clarify something?

[FatFork]

Since the number of pages on this topic is growing rapidly, it is difficult to see all the opinions. So I constantly follow Thymos' posts to keep up with updates.

Now I understand that all topics related to mixers and all accounts related to mixer projects will be attended to. But a question came to my mind, and I don’t know if it was previously asked on one of the pages, which is related to the scam and accusations section. If someone was subjected to fraud or theft by one of the Mixer sites, would he have the right to publish the details of what happened to him in that section? Considering that this could fall within public discussions, would the mixer who is the subject of the conversation have the right to publish his position or clarify something?

You don't have to constantly follow all the posts in this thread since theymos updated the OP with the new rules. To your specific question, I think this applies:

- Mixer URLs will be automatically wordfiltered out, but you can still discuss mixers otherwise.

So I guess discussions regarding scam accusations and other aspects of a particular mixer site will be allowed unless they clearly serve as promotions. But keep in mind that the direct url to the mixer site might be automatically filtered out.

[Pmalek]

@theymos
What about a service like [banned mixer]? Does it fit your definition of a mixer or advertisement for mixing?
It doesn't link to or promotes a specific mixing service, but promotes a way to create a mixing business. Based on your rule update, talking about mixing won't be prohibited.
Please let us know.

[digaran]

@Pmalek, do they collect full KYC data? If they don't then it is a mixer, they also have their ANN thread which says they are a mixing service, unless of course they and their clients collect full KYC data.

[mikeywith]

@Pmalek, do they collect full KYC data? If they don't then it is a mixer, they also have their ANN thread which says they are a mixing service, unless of course they and their clients collect full KYC data.

hmm, reading theymos latest update, I don't think a service like [banned mixer] would require any KYC of some sort, it's a bit of gray but more to white than black, it's a service that offers the ability for clients to create mixers, it could be thought of as pointing to a freelancing website where all the freelancers there are specialized in a few blockchain related stuff, mixers being one of their professions, so I think [banned mixer] doesn't break the "new rules".

Obviously, I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

[digaran]

@mikeywith, who are we fooling here, ourselves, theymos, feds, or everyone? 😂 this whole thing doesn't make any *sense, I mean it's not even against US rules, but the admin has decided to act on it before the LE decides the fate of this forum. I guess we all become more conservative as we age, which is a good thing.
But he has made his mind, and we should support him even if we disagree. Now the question is, who are we fooling here?


*= too complicated to handle easily, at least needs 6 months of discussing and evaluating.
Note I might have suggested ways to bypass the ban earlier somewhere else, that's who I am, I don't discriminate, I just suggest, just like the devil.😉

[icopress]

@theymos
What about a service like [banned mixer]? Does it fit your definition of a mixer or advertisement for mixing?
It doesn't link to or promotes a specific mixing service, but promotes a way to create a mixing business. Based on your rule update, talking about mixing won't be prohibited.
Please let us know.

Jambler does not provide Mixing services to end clients. This is the same as if it were forbidden to advertise “kitchen knives” on the forum. Jambler is a supermarket where you can buy such a knife, but nothing more. And most importantly... in the form in which it exists now, Jambler existed before the ban, so there is no point in talking about some kind of loophole.

[mikeywith]

who are we fooling here

I read theymos's post a few times to understand what the rules actually mean and how they are going to be enforced, in other words, I didn't just skim through them, and I believe that I have fully understood the new rules, and by reflecting that on the [banned mixer], I can't see how it fits in this definition of a mixer.

If someone wants to fool theymos, it would be advertising a service called "Cupcakes.io" and then on the front page of that, you see a little mixing window, but if you do actually visit the website in question -- it just doesn't look like they offer any mixing service per se.

If theymos wants the likes of Jambler banned, IMO he would do another rules revision to fit them in, but as the rules stand right now, I  don't think he would ban them.

[Husna QA]

@theymos
What about a service like [banned mixer]? Does it fit your definition of a mixer or advertisement for mixing?
It doesn't link to or promotes a specific mixing service, but promotes a way to create a mixing business. Based on your rule update, talking about mixing won't be prohibited.
Please let us know.

I found out about Jambler when discussing ToS on mixer services with icopress some time ago.

At first, I thought that Jambler was a holding company for several existing mixer services. Still, after I tried reading on the website, it was nothing more than a "tool" that provides facilities for those who want to build a mixer service without having to start from scratch.

Another example that I understand is similar to https://www.simplemachines.org/, which provides tools that can be used to create a forum. One example of a forum that uses SMF is https://bitcointalk.org.

Likewise, with Jambler, the site provides the 'tools' and not the mixer service itself, which offers its services directly to end users. CMIIW

-snip-
We are the first platform that allows anyone to create their own business and profit from cryptoanonymization services, you can become both a partner and an investor. Jambler itself does not interact directly with clients. This approach is very similar to a referral program and avoids conflicts of interest between the platform and partners. Our algorithm involves the sale of obviously clean coins from cryptocurrency exchanges to partners using our platform.

[digaran]

"In a word, Jambler purchases output transactions from cryptocurrency stock exchanges and/or miners, verifies their quality and resells them to partners who, in turn, interact with end clients. The purpose of our work is to ensure safety for cryptocurrency owners and security for their savings."

That's a quote from their ANN thread, if you read the first page you will also understand they are a mixing service, unless they have changed their service entirely, then that ANN thread should be purged IMO, cause that would mean bypassing the ban.
You could wait for admin to give a green light, I'm sure many other people have the exact same idea for a new service.

[arabspaceship123]

I'm curious about what happens next because if Jambler doesn't mix it isn't a mixer. If it's providing tools to mixers it still doesn't make it a mixer so it shouldn't be banned. Only theymos can tell us.

Is Jambler the first time users asked for simplification in the topic since theymos banned mixers?

I found out about Jambler when discussing ToS on mixer services with icopress some time ago.

At first, I thought that Jambler was a holding company for several existing mixer services. Still, after I tried reading on the website, it was nothing more than a "tool" that provides facilities for those who want to build a mixer service without having to start from scratch.

Another example that I understand is similar to https://www.simplemachines.org/, which provides tools that can be used to create a forum. One example of a forum that uses SMF is https://bitcointalk.org.

Likewise, with Jambler, the site provides the 'tools' and not the mixer service itself, which offers its services directly to end users. CMIIW

[Husna QA]

"In a word, Jambler purchases output transactions from cryptocurrency stock exchanges and/or miners, verifies their quality and resells them to partners who, in turn, interact with end clients. The purpose of our work is to ensure safety for cryptocurrency owners and security for their savings."

That's a quote from their ANN thread, if you read the first page you will also understand they are a mixing service, unless they have changed their service entirely, then that ANN thread should be purged IMO, cause that would mean bypassing the ban.
You could wait for admin to give a green light, I'm sure many other people have the exact same idea for a new service.

Yes, the admin's clarification can clarify whether services like Jambler are included in the prohibited category or not.

The goal of my definition is to include the mixers that we're all familiar with, and to ideally also cover all ways of obfuscating these types of mixers, without any false-positives. If things very unlike mixers are covered by my definition, then this may be a flaw in my definition. But in reading all of the comments here, I've so far not been convinced that my definition is flawed in either classifying too many or too few things as mixers.

If you look at the Bitcointalk Community Awards, which will be open for the next 60 days from December 1, the main sponsor is Jambler. In that case, I think the OP should also have coordinated and asked the admin for permission. And I think he already did.

If Jambler falls into the prohibited category, then OP must change the sponsor starting next year because of the following:

DRAFT - NOT CURRENT POLICY

Starting Jan 1, 2024:
~
 - It's not allowed for mixers to do giveaways, sponsorships, bounties, paid posts, or paid ads in posts. If a thread is for paying people to do something for a mixer, then that's also not allowed. **

[Plaguedeath]

Yes, the admin's clarification can clarify whether services like Jambler are included in the prohibited category or not.

It looks like a "NO" according to theymos's post, although he said probably and the user who ask it mentioned URL link(s).

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)?

It'd be OK in a post. In a signature it would probably not be allowed, as it would look like "promoting a mixer".

I check on Jambler site, /our-partners.php]there's a page that containing mixers URLs. What I think is, if Jambler only mention the domain names without hyperlinks, does it still fall to "promoting a mixer" or it's allowed?

Maybe a better question "theymos, can you tell us what's the way promote a site related to mixers in this forum after the restrictions?" because many users are still trying to figure out to find a loophole from your rules.

[mdayonliner]

Yes, the admin's clarification can clarify whether services like Jambler are included in the prohibited category or not.

The goal of my definition is to include the mixers that we're all familiar with, and to ideally also cover all ways of obfuscating these types of mixers, without any false-positives. If things very unlike mixers are covered by my definition, then this may be a flaw in my definition. But in reading all of the comments here, I've so far not been convinced that my definition is flawed in either classifying too many or too few things as mixers.

Jambler video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdemPYl-MPg

.... we ==[banned mixer] - The platform== purchase your output bitcoin transactions from stock exchange's

Jambler is a platform enabling you ==Partners== to deliver services of bitcoin anonymization without any significant initial investments

[banned mixer] offers you ==Sellers== to make a short-term investment. Withdraw ==send the money to Jambler== your bitcoins from a stoke exchange, Receive your money back+1% in 12 hours on average

We have four endpoints which runs the full operations. Sellers, Partners, Jambler - the platform, and customers ==the End users==

Workflow according to their descriptions:

Sellers provide the platform with output transactions from cryptocurrency stock exchanges
Sellers => Platform


Customers ==End users== send bitcoins to the platform for anonymization via partner mixers ==Partners==
End users => Platform ==via Partners==

   
Upon completion of mixing ==in Platform==, Customers ==End users== get the money from pot-1 and Sellers from pot-2
Platform => End Users
Platform => Sellers

Conclusion:
The entire mixing process is happening in Jambler ==the platform==


There are no room to doubt that [banned mixer] is not a mixer itself. According to their /our-partners.php]partners list Mixtum, [banned mixer], Bitmixer, XXL Mixer, Mixtura, WebMixer, MedusaMixer are their current partners. These partners bought nothing but the ready-made script. [banned mixer] does all mixing and operation control.

[Husna QA]

Yes, the admin's clarification can clarify whether services like Jambler are included in the prohibited category or not.

It looks like a "NO" according to theymos's post, although he said probably and the user who ask it mentioned URL link(s).

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)?

It'd be OK in a post. In a signature it would probably not be allowed, as it would look like "promoting a mixer".

-snip-

Because I see there are still users asking about this;

@theymos
What about a service like [banned mixer]? Does it fit your definition of a mixer or advertisement for mixing?
It doesn't link to or promotes a specific mixing service, but promotes a way to create a mixing business. Based on your rule update, talking about mixing won't be prohibited.
Please let us know.

and there are still those who have doubts regarding sponsorship of an event.

OP I see that voting is going to be open for 60 days, but better beware of the new rules starting from January 1st, and I am not sure that main sponsor is going to be accepted than.
Big purge is coming.

So the admin may need to add additional explanations in the new rules regarding mixers later, like the one you quoted above, maybe in the FAQ category.

[icopress]

[...]

Let me ask a rhetorical question... As an end user, can you mix your bitcoins using the Jambler website? No ... And this is the correct answer.

I check on Jambler site, /our-partners.php]there's a page that containing mixers URLs. What I think is, if Jambler only mention the domain names without hyperlinks, does it still fall to "promoting a mixer" or it's allowed?

There is a significant difference... because in my understanding, a mixer catalog means a site that, by its purpose, is a “catalogue”. In the case of Jambler, only their partners (who actually use their software) are listed. There are no ratings and no other mixers listed.

Also, take a look here.

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

It's OK.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

[...]

Let me ask a rhetorical question... As an end user, can you mix your bitcoins using the Jambler website? No ... And this is the correct answer.

Just yesterday we discussed this issue at my local board, as there is a colleague who has this firm. Wouldn't it be better to ask themmos directly to avoid any last minute surprises? I think that would'nt hurt anyone but on the contrary, the possibility of theymos appearing in the near future saying that it does not allow [banned mixer] to advertise or sponsor would.

[icopress]

Just yesterday we discussed this issue at my local board, as there is a colleague who has this firm. Wouldn't it be better to ask themmos directly to avoid any last minute surprises? I think that would'nt hurt anyone but on the contrary, the possibility of theymos appearing in the near future saying that it does not allow [banned mixer] to advertise or sponsor would.

Take a look here.

If you look at the Bitcointalk Community Awards, which will be open for the next 60 days from December 1, the main sponsor is Jambler. In that case, I think the OP should also have coordinated and asked the admin for permission. And I think he already did.