Mixers to be banned

[OgNasty]

…if Lazarus or other organizations launder millions of American dollars through so called Jambler partner mixers, then they might be in trouble.
I think that Jambler is not a problem today but theymos should take it seriously if there are articles like "Lazarus launders money through a mixer that is a partner of Jambler" published.

I would agree with that statement. I would also say that if jambler is the only <insert word of choice here> allowed to advertise here, then the scenario you describe is only a matter of time. At that point all their users would be in danger of having their funds taken or worse, and the community would be running around trying to warn everyone (although when I warned this with ChipMixer I was attacked) instead of being proactive now. Weighing the risks and rewards, the right choice seems clear.

[icopress]

[...]

This is not the first time I have noticed that you publish something without understanding it. In the form in which it now exists, Jambler has existed for about 6 years. Do you know why? Because all funds that go to the investment fund are verified, coins that Jambler then resells to its partners. This is why their software has no analogues.

To eliminate risks of getting a cryptocurrency of questionable origin, all investor Bitcoins are checked by the platform scoring system, including blockchain analysis. Transactions which have passed the check, get into the system and transaction which have failed the check, are returned to a customer from the same wallet. This stage makes it possible to terminate attempts of unfair investors to use an investment admittance as a mixer in order to clear their money and gain profit at the same time. [banned mixer] does not capitalize on return of cryptocoins which haven’t passed the scoring check, it is a necessary security measure.

[Synchronice]

[...]

This is not the first time I have noticed that you publish something without understanding it. In the form in which it now exists, Jambler has existed for about 6 years. Do you know why? Because all funds that go to the investment fund are verified, coins that Jambler then resells to its partners. This is why their software has no analogues.

First of all, I don't publish something without understanding it and in this case, there is nothing wrong said by me. I know that Jambler has existed for about 6 years. You also probably know that there are mixers that started business many years ago and still exist (longer than Jambler) while there are also some that existed only for a year or two. The difference is that when you partner with Lazarus or other criminal organization and they launder money through you, you are in trouble. If tomorrow Jambler's partner mixer decides to partner with (for example) Lazarus, don't you think that Jambler will be in trouble too?

To eliminate risks of getting a cryptocurrency of questionable origin, all investor Bitcoins are checked by the platform scoring system, including blockchain analysis. Transactions which have passed the check, get into the system and transaction which have failed the check, are returned to a customer from the same wallet. This stage makes it possible to terminate attempts of unfair investors to use an investment admittance as a mixer in order to clear their money and gain profit at the same time. [banned mixer] does not capitalize on return of cryptocoins which haven’t passed the scoring check, it is a necessary security measure.

That only speaks about Investors, not about those who mix money through Jambler's partner mixers. I don't say that I'll get dirty coins from Jambler, I simply say that what if someone mixes tens of millions of dirty coins through Jambler's partner mixers? And what if this is a Lazarus group? Just think about it. I am not against privacy, nor against mixers, I speak facts.
And when I say that Jambler outsmarted others, take it as a compliment because that's actually true.

[BurCoin]

Will a service that can transfer liquid assets (on blockchain like Ethereum) without any transactions be considered a mixer?

[NotATether]

Will a service that can transfer liquid assets (on blockchain like Ethereum) without any transactions be considered a mixer?

No because nobody uses those kind of liquid assets for money laundering.

[BurCoin]

Will a service that can transfer liquid assets (on blockchain like Ethereum) without any transactions be considered a mixer?

No because nobody uses those kind of liquid assets for money laundering.

I would like to receive an answer from the administrator. I plan to post the smart contract address for testing. I don't want to take risks.

[NotATether]

Will a service that can transfer liquid assets (on blockchain like Ethereum) without any transactions be considered a mixer?

No because nobody uses those kind of liquid assets for money laundering.

I would like to receive an answer from the administrator. I plan to post the smart contract address for testing. I don't want to take risks.

In that case, I recommend you PM theymos directly to get a speedy reply. He is probably not monitoring this old thread anymore.

[BurCoin]

Will a service that can transfer liquid assets (on blockchain like Ethereum) without any transactions be considered a mixer?

No because nobody uses those kind of liquid assets for money laundering.

I would like to receive an answer from the administrator. I plan to post the smart contract address for testing. I don't want to take risks.

In that case, I recommend you PM theymos directly to get a speedy reply. He is probably not monitoring this old thread anymore.

Thanks for the advice! I will do this before publishing the smart contract address on the test network.

[examplens]

OK, the rules have been made and adopted.

Question for theymos, would it perhaps be more correct to use another word for wordfiltering instead of "banned"?

Namely, if a new user, ignorant of the new rules of the forum, comes to the current ANN mixer (most mixers still have a link to the ANN on Bitcointalk as a support page), the first thing he will see is that the mixer is renamed as [banned] and that somehow first leads to the thought that he is in there is an issue.
With all the difficulties that the new rule has brought, does it make sense to appeal that this replacement of the name of the mixer is done in a slightly more appropriate way?

If I have a problem with a service, I would not feel comfortable if the first thing I see is that they have been banned from a respectable platform.

[Cricktor]

If a service backlinks to Bitcointalk forum where it shows up as [banned], isn't it the responsibility of the service to explain this to it's customers? Yes, true, it's a policy change of Bitcointalk and likely not in favour of those services, but a website has still it's own responsibility for linking to external sites.

[joker_josue]

Question for theymos, would it perhaps be more correct to use another word for wordfiltering instead of "banned"?

I understand the issue and it even makes some sense, the possible use of another word.

In turn, the question arises: what word to use?
I spent a few minutes thinking about a possibility, and I didn't come up with any better idea than "banned". So what word would you suggest?

[JollyGood]

The mixer service would probably take steps of removing any links to the forum and that would be the best thing for all parties. If they will no longer be allowed to post their services here it does not mean their previous historical relationship with the forum should be erased. Personally, if they choose to keep links on their website pointing to the archive in this forum stating the forum no longer allows mixers to be promoted, I see no problem.

If a service backlinks to Bitcointalk forum where it shows up as [banned], isn't it the responsibility of the service to explain this to it's customers? Yes, true, it's a policy change of Bitcointalk and likely not in favour of those services, but a website has still it's own responsibility for linking to external sites.

[Kruw]

I can understand the stance on Wasabi wallet. What they are doing is different than a mixer, I agree. I don’t think theymos’ statements cover jambler though. It is very clearly a mixer no matter how they try to spin it and the only possible outcome for it in my opinion is being shut down and everyone losing their funds once a hack is laundered through one of their partners. After warning everyone about ChipMixer in advance and being 100% correct and then being the first person to say that the forum would have to remove mixers from advertising here and being 100% correct, it’s only right I sound the horn about jambler. Go against me if you want, I’m rarely on the wrong side of history.

I'll jump in to also take credit for warning users about these custodians.  It's crazy to look back at posts that aren't even a year old to see just how many people who attacked me for warning people about "mixing sites" stealing coins and turning over your data to the government just for me to be vindicated over and over and over again.

[WhyFhy]

Question for theymos, would it perhaps be more correct to use another word for wordfiltering instead of "banned"?

I understand the issue and it even makes some sense, the possible use of another word.

In turn, the question arises: what word to use?
I spent a few minutes thinking about a possibility, and I didn't come up with any better idea than "banned". So what word would you suggest?

Nixed

[Synchronice]

Namely, if a new user, ignorant of the new rules of the forum, comes to the current ANN mixer (most mixers still have a link to the ANN on Bitcointalk as a support page), the first thing he will see is that the mixer is renamed as [banned] and that somehow first leads to the thought that he is in there is an issue.
With all the difficulties that the new rule has brought, does it make sense to appeal that this replacement of the name of the mixer is done in a slightly more appropriate way?

Are forum rules available on the first page of registration? As I remember, no, they aren't and I think we have to put them because a new person might register on this forum just to post about a mixer and when he wont' be able to include banned word, he might try to find a way to spell it differently to show it in post and they might also try to post the name or link of the mixer. They will get banned for no reason. I think it's admin's duty to make some rules easily accessible for members during the registration. If someone makes a mistake after that, then it's their problem because we provided rules on registration page.

@theymos, Symmetrick aka Ratimov wears avatar of a mixer. As far as I know, he is banned but is it still okay? It's not an old event though that happened years ago, no, it was just recently.

[mindrust]

Binance just announced they are delisting privacy coins included but not limited to, XMR and Zcash.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5484277

If you own any privacy coins on that exchange, the deadline is February 20.

We are slowly getting cornered.

The question is, will theymos ban privacy coins too if the regulatories take action against them? Now, that would be the end of the forum because that would mean banning legit crypto projects, it ain't the same as banning mixers.

[LoyceV]

The question is, will theymos ban privacy coins too if the regulatories take action against them? Now, that would be the end of the forum because that would mean banning legit crypto projects, it ain't the same as banning mixers.

Exchanges can't do their AML checks on privacy coins, Bitcointalk doesn't have to do AML checks.

[dkbit98]

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

No it's not and it has never been decentralized forum, but bitcoin is decentralized and that is enough.

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??

That won't happen any time soon, and forum is not directly connected with bitcoin in any way, other than for historic reference.
Governments can make all kinds of things illegal (just look at history), so maybe it's time for people to change the way governments work.

Binance just announced they are delisting privacy coins included but not limited to, XMR

Great news!
I know lot of people have been waiting for this to happen for some time.

The question is, will theymos ban privacy coins too if the regulatories take action against them? Now, that would be the end of the forum because that would mean banning legit crypto projects, it ain't the same as banning mixers.

Monero is not banned, it's just exchanges delisting it and proving that transactions can't be cracked and tracked.

Exchanges can't do their AML checks on privacy coins, Bitcointalk doesn't have to do AML checks.

I hear that If you have $15 you can easily pass ''kyc'' in most places  

[Bitcoadvice]

Hello!
While I understand that mixers are being banned on the forum, I don't believe it was a good idea to change the names of all the former legitimate mixers to "[banned mixer]". This change has caused some issues, such as identifying and reporting phishing mixer websites that use a portion of the real mixer domain name in their phishing domain name. An example of this can be found in my report here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5478625.0.

My suggestion would be to keep the names clearly visible and not censored. As for the former mixer threads in the forum, they could simply be closed. Overall, I think this would be a more useful solution for the forum and better for its users.

[Coyster]

While I understand that mixers are being banned on the forum, I don't believe it was a good idea to change the names of all the former legitimate mixers to "[banned mixer]".

The thing is, you cannot post URL's of mixers in the forum, it will be automatically wordfiltered if you try to post it, but you can write the name of mixers, without posting a link that takes users to their websites. If you want to "report" or "identify" any mixer, just write the names of the mixer, without their URL's.