Mixer restrictions

[Charles-Tim]

The official stance of the forum towards mixers has softened a bit, so perhaps those who promote them have more credit than was the case before.

I don't think it has softened. From the edited OP dated December 19th, 2025, theymos is still hard on mixers.

@JollyGood

It is very possible that Lucius only read this:

I am thinking that I will change the rules to allow:
 - Unpaid linking directly to mixers in posts, as long as the mixers aren't also "illegal darknet sites" (which is a term I need to more exactly define).
 - Easing the enforcement of indirection. For example, in the past we would not allow sig ads which point to an article talking about and linking to a mixer. But it's probably OK now if this kind of thing is allowed.

I haven't decided yet on the exact language of those rule changes, though, so the existing rules stand for now.

Theymos later posted this which is not softening of official stances or rules for mixers: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5476162.msg66192940#msg66192940

Nothing changed.

People supposed to be able to mention mixers even as they are banned (but it is not like that), so far they are not promoted through ads, avatar and signature. But it is good that they are not promoted through campaigns and announcements threads.

[examplens]

Something is considered a mixer if it meets all of these requirements:
 1. It has a feature advertised for taking property, improving its privacy somehow, and then returning roughly the same type of property.
     a. Even though you can sometimes use non-mixers to mix coins by depositing and then withdrawing, this doesn't make it a mixer because this is an incidental use of the service; the service isn't advertised as privacy-enhancing.

How is this rule interpreted if exchangers offer the option of asset swap where the user receives the same type of asset in return (probably of a different origin), but at the same time, it is not presented as a service that helps in privacy-enhancing?
This sounds like you may be present, but if you don't mention "increasing privacy" and similar terms.

For example, we have this service, which presents itself as exchangers, although it offers the option of BTC to BTC swap (probably the same with other listed currencies there).

So, as they understand what a mixer is, they obviously interpreted that they are in line with the mixer rule of the forum.

Regarding BTC → BTC transactions: this is simply a standard exchange operation, not a mixer. The main function of a mixer is to intentionally blend funds from multiple users and obscure their origin. In our service, every transaction is fully transparent, traceable, and under the client’s control. If you want, feel free to Google what a crypto mixer is — you’ll see that what we do does not qualify as mixing in any way.
In short, our service operates strictly within AML rules and exchange standards, with full transparency and user control. BTC → BTC is just one of the standard exchange options, nothing more.

BTC to BTC, what exactly is the exchange here, apart from the change of origin?
Google and other AI bots, among other sources, also come to this forum to get information about how mixers are exactly defined.

However, a couple of posts earlier may have gone beyond the scope, and emphasized that regardless of the AML flag on the client's coins, they, in return, deliver 'clean' coins.

Regarding AML, everything is simple: we do not hold clients’ funds in case of AML flags. Instead, we offer a fast and cost-effective exchange into clean, AML-free assets.

So, if the service offers BTC to BTC instant swap, is it a mixer, and is it allowed on the forum, or is it just a matter of the way it is presented here?

[Lucius]

~snip~
Nothing changed.
People supposed to be able to mention mixers even as they are banned (but it is not like that), so far they are not promoted through ads, avatar and signature. But it is good that they are not promoted through campaigns and announcements threads.

I wrote my statement solely based on the individual case of a user who promoted a mixer, and who allegedly did not receive a permanent ban after deleting his posts.

Regarding mixers and their advertising on the forum, nothing has changed, but mixers are still promoted through the forum (signatures) and mixer lists. It's a bit strange to me that paid campaigns are not allowed, but at the same time, clicking on one link brings you to the page with all the mixers.

[NotATether]

Regarding mixers and their advertising on the forum, nothing has changed, but mixers are still promoted through the forum (signatures) and mixer lists. It's a bit strange to me that paid campaigns are not allowed, but at the same time, clicking on one link brings you to the page with all the mixers.

And then what? We should just leave users to the mercy of phishing sites on Google search?

I get that this is not a popular decision with you but these kinds of sites have been instrumental in reducing high-volume scams.

[Lucius]

Regarding mixers and their advertising on the forum, nothing has changed, but mixers are still promoted through the forum (signatures) and mixer lists. It's a bit strange to me that paid campaigns are not allowed, but at the same time, clicking on one link brings you to the page with all the mixers.

And then what? We should just leave users to the mercy of phishing sites on Google search?
I get that this is not a popular decision with you but these kinds of sites have been instrumental in reducing high-volume scams.

I'm not interfering in your business, I'm just saying that it makes no sense for links to mixers to continue to be completely legitimate on this forum like that, and paid advertising is not allowed. The only thing that matters is the fact that the boss allowed it, the fact that it doesn't make sense to me and some others is completely irrelevant.

[KingsDen]

The official stance of the forum towards mixers has softened a bit, so perhaps those who promote them have more credit than was the case before.

I don't think it has softened. From the edited OP dated December 19th, 2025, theymos is still hard on mixers.

Theymos is no longer hard on mixers and it's expected to be so. After reading theymos new stand on mixers, I was even surprised why the ban was not lifted 1st January this year. I think I read where he said he was considering to allow mixers have their Ann threads where mixers could be discussed but without official signature campaigns. I don't know if I'm correct here.

[Forsyth Jones]

Regarding mixers and their advertising on the forum, nothing has changed, but mixers are still promoted through the forum (signatures) and mixer lists. It's a bit strange to me that paid campaigns are not allowed, but at the same time, clicking on one link brings you to the page with all the mixers.

And then what? We should just leave users to the mercy of phishing sites on Google search?

I get that this is not a popular decision with you but these kinds of sites have been instrumental in reducing high-volume scams.

This reminds me a bit of when Jambler advertised here. I didn't find the decision to ban them was fair. AFAIK Jambler isn't a mixer per se, but a service that offers a standardized, ready-made infrastructure for mixers. My deduction is that Jambler was banned because it was interpreted as a mixer, acting as an bridge by buying licensed or clean funds for Jambler's end clients (the mixers themselves). Therefore, because it did 50% of the work a mixer would do to obtain clean coins, it was banned.

Regarding the service offered by NotATether, it doesn't operate in any operational part of the mixing process (like Jambler facilitated for mixers under its infrastructure). Its service acts as a service comparator (not only for mixers, but for various other services like instant exchanges and coordinators), helping users decide which service meets their needs, considering fees and other comparisons... preventing people from falling victim to phishing scams on google or telegram. Therefore, it's a completely valid, legitimate and necessary service for the community.

My only addition here is that I think Jambler should have received the same attention at the time. I don't think it violated the forum's rules on mixers.

Only my 2 sats.

[joker_josue]

For example, we have this service, which presents itself as exchangers, although it offers the option of BTC to BTC swap (probably the same with other listed currencies there).

So, as they understand what a mixer is, they obviously interpreted that they are in line with the mixer rule of the forum.

Regarding BTC → BTC transactions: this is simply a standard exchange operation, not a mixer. The main function of a mixer is to intentionally blend funds from multiple users and obscure their origin. In our service, every transaction is fully transparent, traceable, and under the client’s control. If you want, feel free to Google what a crypto mixer is — you’ll see that what we do does not qualify as mixing in any way.
In short, our service operates strictly within AML rules and exchange standards, with full transparency and user control. BTC → BTC is just one of the standard exchange options, nothing more.

BTC to BTC, what exactly is the exchange here, apart from the change of origin?
Google and other AI bots, among other sources, also come to this forum to get information about how mixers are exactly defined.

However, a couple of posts earlier may have gone beyond the scope, and emphasized that regardless of the AML flag on the client's coins, they, in return, deliver 'clean' coins.

Regarding AML, everything is simple: we do not hold clients’ funds in case of AML flags. Instead, we offer a fast and cost-effective exchange into clean, AML-free assets.

So, if the service offers BTC to BTC instant swap, is it a mixer, and is it allowed on the forum, or is it just a matter of the way it is presented here?

If the transaction is traceable, it's not a mix. I haven't tested it, so I can't confirm whether it is or isn't. Or if it performs AML analysis and can request KYC, it's the same as any other exchange and it's not a mix.

Now, I don't understand this comment about AML, because that's not what it says on the website. What the website says is that if there are any flags, they may request KYC.

[LoyceV]

How is this rule interpreted if exchangers offer the option of asset swap where the user receives the same type of asset in return (probably of a different origin), but at the same time, it is not presented as a service that helps in privacy-enhancing?
This sounds like you may be present, but if you don't mention "increasing privacy" and similar terms.

I'd say every centralized exchange offers this "service", just like every bank does it for cash: you deposit money, you withdraw later. But they keep track of every transaction, probably forever, and they know who you are.

we offer a fast and cost-effective exchange into clean, AML-free assets.

So, if the service offers BTC to BTC instant swap, is it a mixer

I'd say this qualifies as a mixer. I've reported the post, let's see.

I'll quote their (now deleted) post:

According to our Terms of Use, we reserve the right to request KYC if a transaction is flagged as higher risk under AML procedures.

This isn't enough to avoid fitting in theymos' mixer definition.

[fillippone]

According to our Terms of Use, we reserve the right to request KYC if a transaction is flagged as higher risk under AML procedures.

This isn't enough to avoid fitting in theymos' mixer definition.

I think that part of the ToS make me think that is not a mixer. But it’s just me, who like exchanges that do their work (exchanging funds), and not someone’s else job (governments).
Agree on the point about theymos.

[LoyceV]

But it’s just me, who like exchanges that do their work (exchanging funds)

I wouldn't call exchanging Bitcoin for Bitcoin a normal exchange

[Karl_3000]

But it’s just me, who like exchanges that do their work (exchanging funds)

I wouldn't call exchanging Bitcoin for Bitcoin a normal exchange

The exchange is not just an exchange that require no KYC like that, it work like those ChangeNow and Changelly that can bring a campaign on this forum and theymos will not ban them despite that many users flagged them on this forum. Did you know that you can exchanges bitcoin for bitcoin on Changelly and Changenow? See what ChangeNow said about it exchange of bitcoin for bitcoin:



This is what this exchange is also following. When I make use of a translator, I saw this on the exchange when I was about to exchange bitcoin for bitcoin or bitcoin for other coins:

Attention!
According to the exchange service regulations, by clicking the "I paid" button, the user consents to the verification of all transactions sent to the exchange service address. Wallet addresses will undergo AML checks for connections to the following platforms:
- Darknet Service
- Illegal Service
- Mixing Service
- Darknet Marketplace
- Scam
- Fraudulent Exchange
- Stolen Coins
- Ransom
, etc.

If connections to these platforms are detected, the exchange service administration reserves the right to request identity verification (KYC): a video selfie holding a passport (with legible data: passport series and number, full name), and a continuous demonstration of the wallet/account from which the transaction was sent (with legible data: date and time, amount, and recipient address). After full identity verification, the exchange will be suspended, and a refund will be made to the sender's address, taking into account the commission spent on the transfer. If a client sends funds and the exchange service's exchange accounts are blocked due to risk control, the exchange service reserves the right to issue a refund once the client's assets are unblocked in the exchange service's exchange account.
You can check your transaction on the BestChange website.

The mixers that theymos banned are not having these AML/KYC on their TOS. They mixers always say they also do not keep logs.

[JollyGood]

I agree, maybe that post from theymos was misinterpreted by some members but the overall point remains the same. Mixers are banned from the forum and there seems to be no indication they will ever be allowed back. There is definitely no softening of stance towards them.

@JollyGood

It is very possible that Lucius only read this:

I am thinking that I will change the rules to allow:
 - Unpaid linking directly to mixers in posts, as long as the mixers aren't also "illegal darknet sites" (which is a term I need to more exactly define).
 - Easing the enforcement of indirection. For example, in the past we would not allow sig ads which point to an article talking about and linking to a mixer. But it's probably OK now if this kind of thing is allowed.

I haven't decided yet on the exact language of those rule changes, though, so the existing rules stand for now.

Theymos later posted this which is not softening of official stances or rules for mixers: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5476162.msg66192940#msg66192940

Nothing changed.

People supposed to be able to mention mixers even as they are banned (but it is not like that), so far they are not promoted through ads, avatar and signature. But it is good that they are not promoted through campaigns and announcements threads.