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?

[fillippone]

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.

It sounds to me that if you are some government or bank associated criminal then you won't get harassed to mix coins, but if you happen to be a random and/or normal person who wants to process coins (to clean them or whatver), you are going to be harassed into not using mixing services, and if you get your coins back then you are more lucky than if your coins end up getting frozen.

Of course, a government-regulated mixer could potentially be pointless, but I think a few points are important:

• Privacy is a basic human right. Finally, the government is recognising it.
• This is the first step in a different approach to the question, which has been one-sided so far; every tiny tilt toward a different approach is more than welcome. Government will never be our friend, but there are many shades of grey.
• For the vast majority of us, using mixers is not caused by illicit activities, but rather a privacy-preserving scope. We shouldn't be worried about our coins being frozen.

I welcome the news, hoping for more to come.

[LoyceV]

Of course, a government-regulated mixer could potentially be pointless

This news is about the US government, but as OP showed, the Dutch government wrote "A cryptocurrency mixing service is not necessarily illegal" more than 2 years ago.
So any government-regulated mixer will probably be limited to people living in that country, to avoid conflicts with regulations from other governments. Identity theft will be booming....

[logfiles]

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.

I think I have heard this kind of thing before

Remember when you would send any amount back and forth from different crypto exchanges without any maximum restrictions? And then we started seeing maximums of 100 BTC, then 10 BTC, then 1 BTC or much lower for "unverified accounts" to no transactions unless accounts is verified?

If we are to welcome such a trajectory, trust me we shall have so-called "regulated" mixers that will ask for KYC verification if they want to operate with the permission of the Government. 

Yes, the Government will still want to know who is mixing what. It's the common person like you and me who will not know those details of the persons mixing the coins.

[philipma1957]

A government approved mixer should do only 1 thing hide the address of the sender from the recipient.

I would think a government  designed mixer with 1 job hiding the sender address should be legal.

Thus  you have coins you can fund an address with a coin or two.

Send btc to whomever  and the government tracks the sender address funds.

Frankly I don't care if some of my coin is kyc.

But if I send btc to some one I do care that they can see my address coin size.

[NotATether]

If we are to welcome such a trajectory, trust me we shall have so-called "regulated" mixers that will ask for KYC verification if they want to operate with the permission of the Government.  

Yes, the Government will still want to know who is mixing what. It's the common person like you and me who will not know those details of the persons mixing the coins.

No there's no verification, period. They just simply refuse to do business with those customers and return the inputs.

Maybe it can be an open-source design so that people can just clone it and make copycats instead of designing rug pulls.

[logfiles]

A government approved mixer should do only 1 thing hide the address of the sender from the recipient.

I would think a government  designed mixer with 1 job hiding the sender address should be legal.

Thus  you have coins you can fund an address with a coin or two.

Send btc to whomever  and the government tracks the sender address funds.

Frankly I don't care if some of my coin is kyc.

But if I send btc to some one I do care that they can see my address coin size.

The major reason for all this coin mixing thingy is to avoid scrutiny and abuse of privacy from Government and not a common person like me who doesn't care about where you got your coins from, where you send your coin to, why you send your coins from A to B, and what you spent your coins on... Think about it 

Unfortunately with KYC not only is the Government abusing your right to financial privacy but also exposes your sensitive documents to a risk of getting leaked or stolen because the third party user data handlers won't do their job well.

No there's no verification, period. They just simply refuse to do business with those customers and return the inputs.

Maybe it can be an open-source design so that people can just clone it and make copycats instead of designing rug pulls.

The problem is Government will want them to register as "financial entities" and even have AML policies.  If stolen funds are sent to them, Government will want the money seized. Returning the inputs means defying a government directive which means sanctions and all other charges that come along.

I know this is not a perfect example but I think you remember the Tonardo.cash faisco.

[philipma1957]

A government approved mixer should do only 1 thing hide the address of the sender from the recipient.

I would think a government  designed mixer with 1 job hiding the sender address should be legal.

Thus  you have coins you can fund an address with a coin or two.

Send btc to whomever  and the government tracks the sender address funds.

Frankly I don't care if some of my coin is kyc.

But if I send btc to some one I do care that they can see my address coin size.

The major reason for all this coin mixing thingy is to avoid scrutiny and abuse of privacy from Government and not a common person like me who doesn't care about where you got your coins from, where you send your coin to, why you send your coins from A to B, and what you spent your coins on... Think about it 

Unfortunately with KYC not only is the Government abusing your right to financial privacy but also exposes your sensitive documents to a risk of getting leaked or stolen because the third party user data handlers won't do their job well.

No there's no verification, period. They just simply refuse to do business with those customers and return the inputs.

Maybe it can be an open-source design so that people can just clone it and make copycats instead of designing rug pulls.

The problem is Government will want them to register as "financial entities" and even have AML policies.  If stolen funds are sent to them, Government will want the money seized. Returning the inputs means defying a government directive which means sanctions and all other charges that come along.

I know this is not a perfect example but I think you remember the Tonardo.cash faisco.

you are wrong..  you simply did not read what I said.

read my post again and correct yours.

[logfiles]

you are wrong..  you simply did not read what I said.

read my post again and correct yours.

1. I perfectly understood your submission which is why I said that it's not possible or why it won't make any sense. If I may ask. Who is currently the biggest threat to your privacy? Is it me a random forum member who even has no resource to know where you are located or your Government/ Government regulated financial institutions?
A recipient of the coins viewing your sending address or the balance of coins in it should be the one you worry less about.

2. Government approval or making it legal means they (the mixer) have to share all the user data with them and also at times freeze/block funds. I think you have observed this with crypto exchanges at least.

[philipma1957]

Yeah and if I have 10 coins of which 1 is on a kyc government approved account.

 Which shields my balance from the recipient .

A) you actually have a viable payment system

B) it promotes BTc for Payments

C) you have privacy from strangers


D) you have 90% of your corn hidden from the government. In a wallet that you keep.


So a mixer that allows easy peasy safe transactions. Would be fine .

Full kyc on that account is not an issue. Since you keep 90% of your corn in a private address or set

of addresses.  At the moment I have 90% of my coin in my wallets/addresses and 10% on 2

exchanges. which act as a shield to hide my actual amount on the exchanges.



So in effect it is done already by using 2 exchanges to shield my wealth from private recipients.

and keeping 90% of my corn on private addresses.

[Satofan44]

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

@theymos, is this enough to bring back mixers and if it is not then what would be enough? I think that is the main reply that most users are waiting for.

Yeah and if I have 10 coins of which 1 is on a kyc government approved account.

 Which shields my balance from the recipient .

You can do this with any large platform already the difference is only whether it is private or government one, and in both cases you are only protected from the recipient but you have no privacy at all otherwise. There are arguments to be made on both side of such a solution, but a government platform is not necessarily in any way better than a private one. In fact, they are more likely to employ advanced measures to try to de-anonymize your complete holdings because they have the expertise, the resources, and reasons to do so. A private entity, unless extremely mandated by the law, will not do this (they don't do this, basic AML is nothing compared to this).

[KingsDen]

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).

After reading the first quote by TryNinja, I was astonished how everything worked quickly in the favour of mixers, but going down to what nutildah noted made me weak.
This is now an individual decisions of the mixers, whether or not to operate as CEXs. I know that we would definitely come to this point. Should we endorse that mixer should simply give in because we are not going to scam or launder money. If this loophole is extorted, even innocent people would be victimised on the long run.

We are now hoping on Decentralised mixing.

[PrivacyG]

I don't remember the detail, but black list run by zkSNACKs is example why voluntary limitation doesn't work well.
1. Initially they forbid certain coin from their CoinJoin process.
2. Some months/years later they also forbid US citizen/user.
3. Shortly they decide to their CoinJoin coordinator/server.
4. At some point, zkSNACKs company appear to be closed.

It would not even make sense to have voluntary limitation.  Any of these limitations are only precedents and ways around to make Bitcoin less and less what it is right now.  And at the end of the day, they do not even work and all the illegal Money goes through other channels instead.  'You get Privacy, but only if..' does not work and will never work.  You get it or you do not.  Simple.

It does not even work for the Developers or Coordinators either.  I remember Kruw was called out on one of the documents and he was in full support of the Censorship at the time.  You try to do things to their liking and even then you get a strike straight in the back of your head.

[NotATether]

After reading the first quote by TryNinja, I was astonished how everything worked quickly in the favour of mixers, but going down to what nutildah noted made me weak.
This is now an individual decisions of the mixers, whether or not to operate as CEXs. I know that we would definitely come to this point. Should we endorse that mixer should simply give in because we are not going to scam or launder money. If this loophole is extorted, even innocent people would be victimised on the long run.

We are now hoping on Decentralised mixing.

There is no mixer or private exchange that is registered with FinCEN. (Or whatever the European equivalent is.)

Most just have strong warnings not to use the service for illegal purposes. But it is possible to implement technical measures that largely prevent the most egregious forms of abuse.

It would not even make sense to have voluntary limitation.  Any of these limitations are only precedents and ways around to make Bitcoin less and less what it is right now.  And at the end of the day, they do not even work and all the illegal Money goes through other channels instead.  'You get Privacy, but only if..' does not work and will never work.  You get it or you do not.  Simple.

It does not even work for the Developers or Coordinators either.  I remember Kruw was called out on one of the documents and he was in full support of the Censorship at the time.  You try to do things to their liking and even then you get a strike straight in the back of your head.

There are hundreds of addresses with 100+ BTC in them, that are already rate-limited today because >50 BTC can easily be traced.

But now, smaller amounts like 50, 25, 10 etc can also be traced more easily.