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.

[examplens]

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.

Bitcointalk is not the only place where mixers were present, and I am not referring to the altcoinstalks forum.
If in those other places the discussion about banning mixers on Btt ended in 6 pages of a 15-page thread, it is not surprising that newcomers did not see such information.
Banning a mixer on a forum like Bitcointalk is a strange and unexpected thing, except for those of us who are local here, and for that to be accepted, 1300+ posts in this thread are needed.

Likewise, for example, none of the mixers who tried to announce themselves here after the ban, and got an instant ban and deletion of their posts, did not appear on the altcoinstalks forum. If they desperately want to draw attention, that would certainly be a logical move.
We assume that it is not possible that someone from the mixer industry has not followed the development and does not know that all mixers have migrated to that forum.

[dkbit98]

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

I think they only get message about ban, but without any explanation whatsoever.
It's reasonable to think that outside bitcointalk forum many people don't know anything about mixer ban, especially new services.

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

That sounds good.
Anything is better than what we have now.
Few years ago I knew people who couldn't even register in forum because of evil fees, and they never used forum before that

[Zoomic]

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.

Absolutely new mixers could emerge and locate here based on old articles that confirmed that mixers are promoted here as the oldest cryptocurrency forum. There's a very high chance that people who aren't aware that mixers are banned here are the ones making the mixed accounts.

It doesn't pay any serious minded person to waste their time look for loopholes to keep hiding to promote their dear brand.

[JollyGood]

There are many ways that new members could be advised and informed about the rules before, during and after registering. Ultimately, having a checkbox does imply they have understood the rules therefore if they are in breach they will probably not be able to complain if a temporary or permanent ban was imposed on them.

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.

[rat03gopoh]

I found this service published, they have a "refresh mode" feature. Their definition:

Fresh Mode is for users who prefer receiving funds with a clean, minimal on-chain footprint. Instead of passing through the full transaction trail of the assets you send, Fresh Mode delivers fresh, exchange-issued coins — designed to feel like a brand-new start after every swap.

What you get:

No Past Baggage - avoid inheriting unwanted transaction history
Compliant Sources - liquidity from trusted providers
Premium Quality - exchange-grade assets for settlement
Fresh Coins - newly issued funds with a clean on-chain history
If you care about what your coins “look like” on-chain - Fresh Mode keeps it simple: swap in, receive fresh.

Offering stuffs: clean onchain footprint, CEX issued (licensed?) coins. I think this is relevant to requirement 1, but I doubt it.

Another statement:

Refresh mode is simple swap scheduled for release in April, you send us any token, we provide licensed coins straight from major centralized exchanges. We take a relevant commission for the service and deliver fresh exchange-sourced coins.

[AML Bot]

This is simply a marketing ploy to jack up fees, nothing more, especially since they claim to be non-custodial. "Clean coins" only refers to coins with a good AML rating. If they claimed "we'll clean your stolen coins," that would be a different matter (calling for violation of the law).

[dkbit98]

I found this service published, they have a "refresh mode" feature.

It's interesting that I was able to initiate ''swap'' on that stereoswap, and I received very strange exchange rate.
For 1 BTC I send they want to send me 19.658 BTC, probably as a gift for using their service  
This looks more like a scam exchange than a mixer or real exchange, so I would stay away.



And for ethereum they are keeping most of the ''profits'' 

[examplens]

Another statement:

Refresh mode is simple swap scheduled for release in April, you send us any token, we provide licensed coinsstraight from major centralized exchanges. We take a relevant commission for the service and deliver fresh exchange-sourced coins.

Yes, this is the explanation of the mixer.
I see no reason why theymos should not remove them if we stick to the same pattern.

This is simply a marketing ploy to jack up fees, nothing more, especially since they claim to be non-custodial. "Clean coins" only refers to coins with a good AML rating. If they claimed "we'll clean your stolen coins," that would be a different matter (calling for violation of the law).

It is about circumventing the forum's rules and using customized words to avoid triggering the mixer ban rule. "Any token" can also include stolen coins, "licensed" or "fresh" sounds much better than "clean coins", but the end result is the same.

[TryNinja]

New report from the United States Department of the Treasury.

Just want to say, in case it wasn't obvious yet, that using mixers is not illegal:

Lawful users of digital assets may leverage mixers to enable financial privacy when transacting
through public blockchains.

For instance, individuals may use mixers to protect sensitive
information on personal wealth, business payments, or charitable donations from appearing on a
public blockchain.

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/246/GENIUS-Act-Illicit-Finance-Innovation-Congressional-Report-March-2026.pdf

[nutildah]

New report from the United States Department of the Treasury.

Just want to say, in case it wasn't obvious yet, that using mixers is not illegal:

Lawful users of digital assets may leverage mixers to enable financial privacy when transacting
through public blockchains.

For instance, individuals may use mixers to protect sensitive
information on personal wealth, business payments, or charitable donations from appearing on a
public blockchain.

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/246/GENIUS-Act-Illicit-Finance-Innovation-Congressional-Report-March-2026.pdf

Its not illegal IF they are registered with FinCEN as a money transmitter businesses... it says it later in the same paragraph you quoted. I'm guessing some of the conditions of operation include freezing funds at the government's request and giving them any/all information about its users, at any time and for any reason. I dunno if there's a demand for such a thing, or if they even exist (outside of licensed  exchanges or swapping services).

[NotATether]

New report from the United States Department of the Treasury.

Just want to say, in case it wasn't obvious yet, that using mixers is not illegal:

Didn't expect the government to publish that!

I think though, that the best solution would be for mixers to limit the maximum size of mixes to way below the 50 BTC threshold. It should be like 1 BTC max, and force a minimum waiting period for addresses in between mixes so that the people who run the mixers can check the news and see whether a lot of subsequent mixes from the same address are coming, and if the address has been associated by ZachXBT or some other blockchain analysis as part of a hack or scam or something, to just blacklist the address from the mixer.

Blacklisted addresses and transactions that exceed the maximum size are simply beamed back to the sender.

This way a user can stay compliant, and the operational risk of running a mixer is severely reduced.

No more billion-dollar mixes. Only hackers mix that much money.

Its not illegal IF they are registered with FinCEN as a money transmitter businesses... it says it later in the same paragraph you quoted. I'm guessing some of the conditions of operation include freezing funds at the government's request and giving them any/all information about its users, at any time and for any reason. I dunno if there's a demand for such a thing, or if they even exist (outside of licensed  exchanges or swapping services).

A mixer that freezes funds is pointless (otherwise why don't we just use exchanges), but you can beam the money back to the sender and log the IP address (yeah, sorry no-logs crowd) and request headers, in case anyone demands for information and you can just tell them you refused to process the money.