Mixer restrictions

[LoyceV]

What's the verdict on this case, in which a mixer URL is used as part of an escrow contract?

[Apocollapse]

What's the verdict on this case, in which a mixer URL is used as part of an escrow contract?

Where's the URL?

That's just GenesisMix.cx, mentioning Bitcointalk.org is fine, but not if you mention https://bitcointalk.org/

Also the URL link behind the ANN thread is to Altcoinstalks, not the mixer URL, so I don't see anything wrong with that.

The only problem I see is the thread posted in Service board, it should be Reputation, Off topic or Archival.

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.

[JollyGood]

It seems to be a direct mention of (in essence amongst other things) a mixing service therefore is not allowed. Open their website and you see the following in large fonts: Bitcoin Mixer: Anonymize your Bitcoins with a High Profile, Secure, Private, & CoinJoin-powered Bitcoin Mixer

No matter how you try to look at this, the reality is it seems to be pushing the boundaries to circumvent they system and it allows for all banned mixers to do the same because a precedent exists.

I guess theymos will have to post about it.

What's the verdict on this case, in which a mixer URL is used as part of an escrow contract?

[examplens]

Where's the URL?

That's just GenesisMix.cx, mentioning Bitcointalk.org is fine, but not if you mention https://bitcointalk.org/

Also the URL link behind the ANN thread is to Altcoinstalks, not the mixer URL, so I don't see anything wrong with that.

The only problem I see is the thread posted in Service board, it should be Reputation, Off topic or Archival.

It's a new name, so it's not world-filtered yet. Try to write the domain name of one of the older mixers, which were known on Bitcointalk at the time of the ban proclamation.

I agree that the service section may not be the right place for a reference about active escrow.

[Apocollapse]

It's a new name, so it's not world-filtered yet. Try to write the domain name of one of the older mixers, which were known on Bitcointalk at the time of the ban proclamation.

Chipmixer.com
Sinbad.io
Blender.io

[LoyceV]

Where's the URL?

An URL doesn't have to be a link for anyone to understand it's an URL.

~

Now try those URLs. There's no point word-filtering sites that don't exist.

[paid2]

Chipmixer.com
Sinbad.io
Blender.io

They're offline, so if I'm not wrong theymos doesn't care to word-filter them.

You should try to post the URL of active/online mixers if you want this test to be useful.

[Apocollapse]

Alright fine, this is new for me, I admit I was wrong, I thought theymos word-filtered the mixer words because it's related to promoting the mixers, as we know ANN thread, signature campaign, review campaign are about promotions.

But, never knew it was also word-filtered when I only post the unclickable URL.

They're offline, so if I'm not wrong theymos doesn't care to word-filter them.

You should try to post the URL of active/online mixers if you want this test to be useful.

Mixer.money
Mixtura.money
Whir.to

[Don Pedro Dinero]

We can never know what theymos will end up doing but I think that is not allowed here, and I wonder why the manager has thought of doing it in this forum. Although if he wants to ultimately carry it out he has other options as LoyceV has advised him.

[JollyGood]

The thread has been removed (seems to be nuked rather than be moved to a different board).

What's the verdict on this case, in which a mixer URL is used as part of an escrow contract?

[hilariousandco]

It was trashcanned. It looks like a covert advert to me. The image in the op links to their Announcement on altcointalk. I've asked an admin to review it but I don't think it should be here as per the current rules on mixers but theymos will have to ultimately decide.

[examplens]

It was trashcanned. It looks like a covert advert to me. The image in the op links to their Announcement on altcointalk. I've asked an admin to review it but I don't think it should be here as per the current rules on mixers but theymos ill have to ultimately decide.

Given that the whole thing is on the altcoinstaks forum mater, it's a little unclear why the contract was posted on this forum, also in the service section.

[JollyGood]

That seemed to be the best way to handle the situation because it seemed to be designed in a manner to circumvent the rules. Just one look at that thread was enough to raise questions about the integrity issue. Of course they can try to maximise their appeal in other forums but when it relates to this forum I am glad there is consistency in the decision making process.

It was trashcanned. It looks like a covert advert to me. The image in the op links to their Announcement on altcointalk. I've asked an admin to review it but I don't think it should be here as per the current rules on mixers but theymos ill have to ultimately decide.

[theymos]

What's the verdict on this case, in which a mixer URL is used as part of an escrow contract?

Not allowed:

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.

The thread is strongly linked to someone being paid to do something for a mixer, and it's also an advertisement/paid-post.

[hilariousandco]

It was trashcanned. It looks like a covert advert to me. The image in the op links to their Announcement on altcointalk. I've asked an admin to review it but I don't think it should be here as per the current rules on mixers but theymos ill have to ultimately decide.

Given that the whole thing is on the altcoinstaks forum mater, it's a little unclear why the contract was posted on this forum, also in the service section.

Probably a sneaky way to try advertise it here  .

[paid2]

Hey theymos!

Sorry to reopen this thread, but wouldn't this provide a legal basis for accepting mixers on Bitcointalk again? Could you give us your point of view?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/01/fact-sheet-executive-order-to-establish-united-states-leadership-in-digital-financial-technology/

The Executive Order revokes the previous Administration’s Digital Assets Executive Order and the Treasury Department’s Framework for International Engagement on Digital Assets which suppressed innovation and undermined U.S. economic liberty and global leadership in digital finance.

Wasn't this framework (Administration’s Digital Assets Executive Order and the Treasury Department’s Framework for International Engagement on Digital Assets) the exact reason you banned mixers from Bitcointalk?

This Trump's executive order is now effective apparently: https://www.justice.gov/dag/media/1395781/dl?inline


Some more recent news:
https://protos.com/doj-scraps-crypto-unit-tells-staff-to-ignore-crypto-exchanges-and-mixers/

[...]reportedly told DoJ employees to avoid pursuing cases against different crypto exchanges, crypto mixers, and “offline wallets.” Instead, he told them to focus on “prosecuting individuals who victimize digital asset investors.”

or https://fortune.com/crypto/2025/04/08/doj-ncet-disbands-memo-todd-blanche-trump/

[KingsDen]

Hey theymos!

Sorry to reopen this thread, but wouldn't this provide a legal basis for accepting mixers on Bitcointalk again? Could you give us your point of view?

That is an extremely good development! I've also been pleased to see several other actions like that, such as removing Tornado Cash from the sanctions list. However, President Trump has only been in office for a few months, and the actual effects of these stated policy positions won't be clear for a while. The Biden administration also said that mixers aren't necessarily illegal, and that they weren't anti-crypto. Actions and time will speak louder than words. So I probably won't consider reversing the mixer ban until Trump has been in office for a full year, and we have a fuller picture of how his administration actually operates in these areas.

[JollyGood]

Well theymos stated it was an extremely good development but he also stated the mixers ban will not be reconsidered at least until Trump has been in office for a full year. It has only been three months therefore in the interim period many things in the political arena could change. I hope their positive attitude towards crypto remains but anything is possible when it is related to politics.

That is an extremely good development! I've also been pleased to see several other actions like that, such as removing Tornado Cash from the sanctions list. However, President Trump has only been in office for a few months, and the actual effects of these stated policy positions won't be clear for a while. The Biden administration also said that mixers aren't necessarily illegal, and that they weren't anti-crypto. Actions and time will speak louder than words. So I probably won't consider reversing the mixer ban until Trump has been in office for a full year, and we have a fuller picture of how his administration actually operates in these areas.

[xLays]

Since Fortify already locked the thread titled Limbo - a mixer in disguise? New signature campaign, instead of opening another one about the same topic, I think it’s better to continue the discussion here.
Also in guide as per LoyceV post.

The wording it uses to advertise the business is very "strategic" and aligns basically with what a mixer does. Just wondering if I'm completely off base here or what other people think?

I think you should have posted this in Mixers to be banned.

The reason I’m posting here is because I thought bitcointalk was slowly starting to allow mixers again, but based on what happened with Limbo and their ANN thread and even the signature campaign being deleted like instead of just locking or editing the title like before, so it seems very unlikely that mixers will allowed again here in bitcointalk soon.

I think it’s time we discuss again whether there’s any chance for mixer services to be allowed back on bitcointalk soon.

[Fortify]

The reason I’m posting here is because I thought bitcointalk was slowly starting to allow mixers again

No it has not, it's been quite strict and clear on this.

The current approach is: the forum policy might change after a year of Trump and seeing the stance of the current administration.

The reasoning: the services offered float dangerously close to money laundering and to borrow the analogy, you don't want to be anywhere near the strike zone if they decide to attack it. Bitcointalk does not want to be seen to be remotely connected to such services right now, as it might lead to guilt by association. People who want these services can easily find them.

I've seen several big services and/or their owners get crushed by the might of US financial regulators over the years, they can be a sleeping dragon until they decide to wake up and have a crackdown - it's not worth the risk to the wider community (in my opinion)