Mixer restrictions

[dkbit98]

Yes you can. But they log everything and it doesn't give you privacy if the right government comes knocking. So they have no reason to stop the exchange from doing this.

I can also keep a log of any p2p exchange, and I don't trust most exchanges or services that are claiming not to save logs.
We can still remember what happened with Chipmixer and their chips, and many leaks happened to Ledger and exchanges.

I have reported it to the mods for action. I think at this point, the accounts expect the thread to get deleted or them getting banned i the shortest time possible, but I wonder why the post anyway.

Instead of reporting all new mixers forum should enforce everyone to read the forum rules when registering new account, especially the part about mixers not being allowed anymore.

[LoyceV]

I don't trust most exchanges or services that are claiming not to save logs.
We can still remember what happened with Chipmixer and their chips

As far as I know, they didn't keep track of who-got-which-chip.

Instead of reporting all new mixers forum should enforce everyone to read the forum rules when registering new account, especially the part about mixers not being allowed anymore.

If I'd have to read every cookie popup, all terms and all conditions the internet throws at me on a daily basis, I wouldn't get anything done. This disclaimer overload made the average user click "accept" without reading anything (like giving away legal ownership of their soul instead of opting out to get a gift voucher).

[examplens]

Instead of reporting all new mixers forum should enforce everyone to read the forum rules when registering new account, especially the part about mixers not being allowed anymore.

If I'd have to read every cookie popup, all terms and all conditions the internet throws at me on a daily basis, I wouldn't get anything done. This disclaimer overload made the average user click "accept" without reading anything (like giving away legal ownership of their soul instead of opting out to get a gift voucher).

Through registration, a mandatory checkbox could be added, like "I will not announce or advertise mixer service."

Do such users receive any info message after the ban?
Ban already after registration and one post, without explanation, sounds quite confusing.

[joker_josue]

Instead of reporting all new mixers forum should enforce everyone to read the forum rules when registering new account, especially the part about mixers not being allowed anymore.

If I'd have to read every cookie popup, all terms and all conditions the internet throws at me on a daily basis, I wouldn't get anything done. This disclaimer overload made the average user click "accept" without reading anything (like giving away legal ownership of their soul instead of opting out to get a gift voucher).

Through registration, a mandatory checkbox could be added, like "I will not announce or advertise mixer service."

Do such users receive any info message after the ban?
Ban already after registration and one post, without explanation, sounds quite confusing.

Perhaps the problem is this ban. For a crypto service owner who is generally unfamiliar with forum rules, advertising that service on Bitcointalk makes sense. Now, if a mixer is announced, the topic should be removed and the user should be warned, not banned. Especially if this was one of their first posts.

I think the issue is more the lack of information communicated to those who see their posts deleted. Users rarely find out the real reason why a post is deleted, unless they enter investigation mode. The information regarding this should be clearer than a simple generic message saying "you did not comply with the forum rules," always leaving the question "which ones?".
But that's a different discussion altogether...

[NotATether]

Through registration, a mandatory checkbox could be added, like "I will not announce or advertise mixer service."

I have a better idea.

Make the checkbox say "I have read the Forum Rules", and then link to the Unofficial Rules thread.

[LoyceV]

Through registration, a mandatory checkbox could be added, like "I will not announce or advertise mixer service."

That's like telling every new user about the existence of mixers
It would be better if the registration page has a link to the Unofficial forum rules. Or add the mythical welcome message.

Now, if a mixer is announced, the topic should be removed and the user should be warned, not banned. Especially if this was one of their first posts.

Most mixers use their URL as username. Allowing them to post means they'll continue advertising their mixer.

[examplens]

I have a better idea.

Make the checkbox say "I have read the Forum Rules", and then link to the Unofficial Rules thread.

All this is in an ideal world. I know of many cases where users do not read the terms of the financial contract, rather than the rules of the regular forum. Almost on a daily basis, we have those who complain about casinos or exchanges, but in fact, they only refer to their own ToS, which everyone accepted during registration.

That's like telling every new user about the existence of mixers
It would be better if the registration page has a link to the Unofficial forum rules. Or add the mythical welcome message.

I believe that at least 50% of members do not know what OP_RETURN is, and even if there was a warning that it is not allowed to write about it, they would certainly accept that rule, because they don't know much about it anyway. It's not their business.
Logically, if someone hears about the term 'mixer' for the first time during registration, there is very little chance that they will go on to fully educate themselves about it, just to better understand the registration conditions.
According to the sample from the alternative forum, it is surprising how many people have no idea about what, how, or why mixers work. Even if they have been in the mixer sig campaign for a year.
In the end, it is no longer forbidden to talk about mixers, only mixer advertising is forbidden.

[joker_josue]

Now, if a mixer is announced, the topic should be removed and the user should be warned, not banned. Especially if this was one of their first posts.

Most mixers use their URL as username. Allowing them to post means they'll continue advertising their mixer.

Yes, that's true. My question is: is the user informed of the reason for the ban? That's the crucial point.

Now, I also admit that many of these services end up being advertised by alt accounts of someone who already uses or knows the forum at least minimally. They know that even if it's a minor issue, the service is advertised for a few hours, and that can be enough to introduce something new.

[LoyceV]

Yes, that's true. My question is: is the user informed of the reason for the ban? That's the crucial point.

Do you really believe anyone who creates a mixer and advertises it here didn't follow the last years of development around mixers? I'm pretty sure they know exactly what they're doing, they just try anyway.