Mixer restrictions

[LoyceV]

If there's money to be made, someone's going to do it. If they KYC all customers, they would even be allowed to advertise their "mixer" on Bitcointalk. But the business model will be so terrible, nobody will use it.

Are you sure about it?
I see more and more people accepting kyc for everything as normal, and same for face scans, kyc for social media, etc.

I'd argue those aren't privacy services. You can't generalize behavior of people who don't care about privacy to people who do care. To most people, privacy is just an inconvenience, and those aren't the people who use mixers.

[Karl_3000]

If there's money to be made, someone's going to do it. If they KYC all customers, they would even be allowed to advertise their "mixer" on Bitcointalk. But the business model will be so terrible, nobody will use it.

I'd argue those aren't privacy services. You can't generalize behavior of people who don't care about privacy to people who do care. To most people, privacy is just an inconvenience, and those aren't the people who use mixers.

Any mixers that accept KYC and keeping logs just like exchanges are just like exchanges. Exchanges that do not keep logs, accept the use of Tor and not accepting KYC are seen more as mixers to privacy people.

Mixers keeping logs and accepting KYC, why using them with the high fee they are charging their users when there are exchanges that can be used. They are no more mixers the moment they start all these stupidities.

Mixers should not go to this direction.

[Upgrade00]

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.

I like this idea. While it is not a guarantee to prevent the government from coming down on the mixer if any form of stolen funds is sent to it. They do not have custody and will simply be sending stolen funds back to the hackers and they can recycle it through a different channel.
In practice this could deter scammers from using it which should theoretically keep the authorities

[Davidvictorson]

Isn't hackers their target audience? How many none hackers uses mixers nowadays? Curiosity made me ask 

I like this because even the article said that

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

Their target are audience are definitely the hackers.

[examplens]

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.

There will always be a mixer that shortens waiting time and gives it an advantage over the competition.
I wonder if, in this scenario, the user would send coins to his address through a few hops, and then to the mixer. How long will it take ZachXBT and the X investigators to blacklist all the addresses from that ricochet?