Mixer restrictions

[LoyceV]

As for implementing AML checks for mixers, that idea has one flaw. If the person mixing the coins does not have anonymity then why would they do it knowing there is a log that connects them directly back to the coins they want to anonymise?

The answer depends on who they're trying to hide from. Do you want your barista to know you just bought a jet? Or your vegan friend to know you just bought meat? Or your wife about <whatever>?

I'd say a much more interesting question is going to be who this "AML mixer" shares the data with: just one government? Any government? Every government? Companies? Advertising agencies? "1573 third party partners"?
Just writing the above, I know for sure I wouldn't use it!

[BlackHatCoiner]

If the bad people are first using Conjoin, it would have been better for mixers integrity, than to be using mixers directly.

Nope. They'd then pull off one of their great psyops to convince you that mixers are bad regardless. 

That will still be a good excuse than to be using mixers directly. I still think that mixers having AML check may significantly reduce the use of mixers by such group.

Mixers having AML checks would reduce the use of mixers by all groups equally, by approximately 100%.

As for implementing AML checks for mixers, that idea has one flaw. If the person mixing the coins does not have anonymity then why would they do it knowing there is a log that connects them directly back to the coins they want to anonymise?

Another flaw is that you're handing over your privacy for a privacy-enhancing service, while there are alternatives like coinjoin which don't require you to sacrifice anything. The AML mixer is a terrible business idea.

[dkbit98]

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

So you are saying that if you send me Bitcoin and I sent you Bitcoin back from my different wallet, than this is considered a mixer?
We could do the same thing if you send me Bitcoin and I send you back Bitcoin in Lightning Network.
Keep in mind that I would never say my bitcoin is ''clean'' or ''dirty'', we just exchanged bitcoin p2p, exactly like Satoshi imagined it.
I think reporting everyone who is exchanging BTC to BTC is not a good thing.

[LoyceV]

So you are saying that if you send me Bitcoin and I sent you Bitcoin back from my different wallet, than this is considered a mixer?

Do you offer privacy features with this?

we just exchanged bitcoin p2p, exactly like Satoshi imagined it.

I never got to ask him, but I'm pretty sure the intention was to use Bitcoin as money to buy something else than Bitcoin.

I think reporting everyone who is exchanging BTC to BTC is not a good thing.

I've seen offers for it, and it varied from "buy my dirty Bitcoin at a discount" to "I'm willing to pay a premium for freshly mined Bitcoin". I think dealing with either one of those examples is very risky.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I've seen offers for it, and it varied from "buy my dirty Bitcoin at a discount" to "I'm willing to pay a premium for freshly mined Bitcoin". I think dealing with either one of those examples is very risky.

I think dealing with either of those examples is risky as well, because they're going to just scam you, and not give you anything. Otherwise, where are those dirty bitcoin at discount? Asking for a friend.

Seriously, though. Are there any such real offers anywhere on the Internet? Why not take them? It's impossible to tell if it was "normal, clean" bitcoin initially, or "dirty", after you coinjoin.

[dkbit98]

Do you offer privacy features with this?

I never claimed this, same as I never claimed if my coins are ''clean'' or ''dirty''  

I've seen offers for it, and it varied from "buy my dirty Bitcoin at a discount" to "I'm willing to pay a premium for freshly mined Bitcoin". I think dealing with either one of those examples is very risky.

So if I release my service and offer just exchanging my bitcoin for your bitcoin with small fees, would you consider this a mixer?
I would never claim anything, and give mo guarantees about AML ratings and stuff like that.

[LoyceV]

So if I release my service and offer just exchanging my bitcoin for your bitcoin with small fees, would you consider this a mixer?

It doesn't matter how I call it, but by theymos' definition, I think it comes down to whether or not you claim it improves my privacy.

[examplens]

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

So you are saying that if you send me Bitcoin and I sent you Bitcoin back from my different wallet, than this is considered a mixer?
We could do the same thing if you send me Bitcoin and I send you back Bitcoin in Lightning Network.
Keep in mind that I would never say my bitcoin is ''clean'' or ''dirty'', we just exchanged bitcoin p2p, exactly like Satoshi imagined it.
I think reporting everyone who is exchanging BTC to BTC is not a good thing.

Except for the purpose of anonymization, I don't see any other reason to exchange BTC for BTC. And I agree with LoyceV, it's not a normal exchange. Subvariations, like BTC to BTC on Lightning, are another matter.

As the service for which I started this topic is still active here, I could conclude that it is ok for theymos to be present as long as they do not promote such features. Which makes me think, would a service that does not have the direct words 'mixer', 'tumbler', 'coinjoin' in its name and presents itself as an exclusive exchange BTC for BTC, ETH for ETH (now there are several altcoin mixers) be acceptable?

[theymos]

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).

That's borderline, but I decided that it is a mixer. The part of the mixer definition I was debating was the "advertise that it's improving deposited coins' privacy somehow" part. Without that "we offer a fast and cost-effective exchange into clean, AML-free assets" quote, I probably would've allowed it, since the site itself and most of the other materials I saw didn't seem to advertise privacy enhancement. (The site itself being no-KYC isn't a privacy enhancement of the coins, so that part is irrelevant.)

[Karl_3000]

Except for the purpose of anonymization, I don't see any other reason to exchange BTC for BTC. And I agree with LoyceV, it's not a normal exchange. Subvariations, like BTC to BTC on Lightning, are another matter.

I will also agree with LoyceV because lightning network is different entirely from mixers. Mixers are what the government are banning which makes theymos later ban it on this forum.

As the service for which I started this topic is still active here, I could conclude that it is ok for theymos to be present as long as they do not promote such features. Which makes me think, would a service that does not have the direct words 'mixer', 'tumbler', 'coinjoin' in its name and presents itself as an exclusive exchange BTC for BTC, ETH for ETH (now there are several altcoin mixers) be acceptable?

That is an exchange with AML check and not a mixer designed like an exchange. There are still some centralized exchanges that has no KYC that I can use. I can send the exchange bitcoin and later withdraw bitcoin.

[She shining]

That's borderline, but I decided that it is a mixer. The part of the mixer definition I was debating was the "advertise that it's improving deposited coins' privacy somehow" part. Without that "we offer a fast and cost-effective exchange into clean, AML-free assets" quote, I probably would've allowed it, since the site itself and most of the other materials I saw didn't seem to advertise privacy enhancement. (The site itself being no-KYC isn't a privacy enhancement of the coins, so that part is irrelevant.)

So all they have to do idwork on their wordings to have some umbrella of protection. Don't say just do. They can come as a simple exchanger for BTC to other coins and vice versa with their selling point it's easier to use and cheaper than other options. I believe we are focusing more on how it's advertised than what it does.