Mixer restrictions

[d5000]

This discussion started after a campaign manager (who had been caught promoting banned mixers several times already) asked about promoting it again:

I don't see anything bad in "asking" about it if the platform removed the mixer from the website. Currently I don't see a mixer link there - only I see something about a "coming" privacy/CoinJoin feature. (The repeated knowing promoting of mixing services instead would, in contrast, be a reason for a ban.) However I don't know the details of the case.

The proposal of a hard deadline of a week I made was only because the discussion shifted to a more generalized question, away from the Omnisee case. And I think this is good, it would be best to have a clear rule (even if "unofficial" like most rules in the forum), instead of reacting to every case individually.

The one week rule is unnecessary in my opinion.  If theymos already knows when the website started 'offending', it would be an unnecessary extra effort to count down to 1 week, notify everyone about it, launch bans et cetera when he could simply delete the Topic and remove the signatures of all participants in the first moment he finds out.

The idea is that theymos' involvement would not even be needed. The rule would generate the incentives for the managers to handle these cases fastly and with the least possible drama. theymos would be simply notified to include the link in the blacklist, but the signatures then would already have disappeared.

Because other than money, what stops a multi million Mixer industry from constantly creating multiple websites that appear to have no thing to do with Mixers, advertising them through signature campaigns on Bitcoin Talk and silently adding the feature later on?

Thus in my past post I clarified that I would support a ban for repeating offenders if they know (that can be proven with archive.org links for example) that they should have detected that website as a mixer.

Anyway I don't expect this to happen too often.

An option I am thinking of is platforms escrow a monetary guarantee that they do not own a 'prohibited' service and that they will not silently add one to their platform.  Most of the campaigns already have an escrowed guarantee, this could be added as part of the escrow terms.

If the problem becomes bigger then it's an idea to consider, but otherwise I don't consider it necessary - as I wrote I think the hard 1 week deadline would provide the needed incentives already to react fast.

[examplens]

That's already the campaign manager's job

Manager tempban himself and the participants?

Yesterday I received a notification from your ANN thread, so it caught my attention and honestly, it seems to me that you are playing on thin ice. Some reference links could be considered a violation of mixer ban rules. (I think I drew your attention to that earlier). I advise you to revise it or at least talk to theymos about it.
You yourself know that there are many members who would be happy to start a new drama against you, and it would probably be good for your health and the health of your business if you solved it preventively

[AB de Royse777]

Yesterday I received a notification from your ANN thread, so it caught my attention and honestly, it seems to me that you are playing on thin ice. Some reference links could be considered a violation of mixer ban rules. (I think I drew your attention to that earlier). I advise you to revise it or at least talk to theymos about it.
You yourself know that there are many members who would be happy to start a new drama against you, and it would probably be good for your health and the health of your business if you solved it preventively

I understand what you mean now. Yes, you are correct and taking care of it in a few hours.

Edit: Thanks examplens to give this in mind. Removed all branding display from the ann topic. When you have time please revise it and if you find I missed any of the brand display please PM me. I will send a PM with the link of this post to theymos to have his opinion too.

Cheers,

[joker_josue]

Yesterday I received a notification from your ANN thread, so it caught my attention and honestly, it seems to me that you are playing on thin ice. Some reference links could be considered a violation of mixer ban rules. (I think I drew your attention to that earlier). I advise you to revise it or at least talk to theymos about it.
You yourself know that there are many members who would be happy to start a new drama against you, and it would probably be good for your health and the health of your business if you solved it preventively

I understand what you mean now. Yes, you are correct and taking care of it in a few hours.

Be careful with the links...

[AB de Royse777]

Be careful with the links...

As per my knowledge none of it are taking directly to a site plus not endorsing the projects too. However, if any of you find something please feel free to PM me.

Cheers,
PS: Notified theymos

[Shishir99]

I was searching for some information today and noticed an inactive account is wearing a mixer signature in their profile. The user has been inactive for a long time, but their signature still appears. I thought you had wiped out all the mixer announcement threads, signatures, and everything related to mixers. Here is the link to the profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=261927

This made me think there might be other inactive forum accounts wearing the mixer signature. I know this is not going to cause any problem. Probably doesn't even warrant paying attention. But you can take a look if you want.

[LoyceV]

Here is the link to the profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=261927

That mixer ended their business in 2017: The lagest Bitcoin mixer is about to stop working:

2. We do not sell the domain name nor our software nor methods we used for mixing.

The domain must have expired, and whoever bought it copied the original site. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a scam now.

I'd say this mixer should be wiped from signatures.

[NotATether]

I'd say this mixer should be wiped from signatures.

When theymos banned mixers two years ago, he only wiped the details of those active mixers in operation. He left dead mixers alone (e.g. Chipmixer), probably because they don't actually go anywhere.

[Cinexa]

Here is the link to the profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=261927

That mixer ended their business in 2017: The lagest Bitcoin mixer is about to stop working:

2. We do not sell the domain name nor our software nor methods we used for mixing.

The domain must have expired, and whoever bought it copied the original site. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a scam now.

I'd say this mixer should be wiped from signatures.

This is an identical copy of the old website. The website is running on a domain it just registered again.

- Domain was registered in July 18, 2023. Wayback Machine cannot find the website from between September 2017-August 2023.

- 404 on order.php, which is the link their own /api page says generates the deposit address. No backend.

- Deposit address bc1q0csa0yc8wz9y42pzlayx59js4tjj95menss0gu is Hardcoded into the Static HTML on every request/session. Same with bit mixer code. Everybody who navigates through is directed to send it to the same address, and get shown the same bit mixer code.

- The deposit address has only ever had 1 transaction; it has received 0.00068 BTC but never sent anything out; This is significantly below there 0.01 BTC minimum and represents some "high volume mixer" with 545 BTC reserve?

Namecheap shared web hosting (LiteSpeed + web-hosting.com SPF record) behind Cloudflare. "Servers where US authorities don't have reach" and "no logs"  oh really?

Whoever runs it didn't even bother making it work. Send coins there and they're gone.

[Forsyth Jones]

I was searching for some information today and noticed an inactive account is wearing a mixer signature in their profile. The user has been inactive for a long time, but their signature still appears. I thought you had wiped out all the mixer announcement threads, signatures, and everything related to mixers. Here is the link to the profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=261927

This made me think there might be other inactive forum accounts wearing the mixer signature. I know this is not going to cause any problem. Probably doesn't even warrant paying attention. But you can take a look if you want.

I don't remember if the immediate ban on mixers also censored mixer signatures. Even today, when I access old threads, I still see ChipMixer signatures that some inactive members still carry around. I found an example here
I get the metamask warning when i try to access the signature oh this RiverBoatBTC member, nobody would be foolish enough to fall for a mixer from a random member from the last decade.

- Deposit address bc1q0csa0yc8wz9y42pzlayx59js4tjj95menss0gu is Hardcoded into the Static HTML on every request/session. Same with bit mixer code. Everybody who navigates through is directed to send it to the same address, and get shown the same bit mixer code.

- The deposit address has only ever had 1 transaction; it has received 0.00068 BTC but never sent anything out; This is significantly below there 0.01 BTC minimum and represents some "high volume mixer" with 545 BTC reserve?

Namecheap shared web hosting (LiteSpeed + web-hosting.com SPF record) behind Cloudflare. "Servers where US authorities don't have reach" and "no logs"   oh really?

Whoever runs it didn't even bother making it work. Send coins there and they're gone.

This is all very strange, and it catches my attention even more because it's a recent transaction from this year, 2026. Could it be a potential test? This smells like a scam to me.

When theymos banned mixers two years ago, he only wiped the details of those active mixers in operation. He left dead mixers alone (e.g. Chipmixer), probably because they don't actually go anywhere.

As I imagined.

[examplens]

I'd say this mixer should be wiped from signatures.

When theymos banned mixers two years ago, he only wiped the details of those active mixers in operation. He left dead mixers alone (e.g. Chipmixer), probably because they don't actually go anywhere.

You were the one who once asked theymos about defunct mixers and their status here. He gave a clear enough answer.
Since the question is being reopened, maybe this rule should be added to the first post.

Also I should point out, it should not be ban-worthy to link to a closed mixer's ANN thread. Or actually to any post in the ANN thread that is not advertising to use the mixer.

Defunct mixers' ANN-threads probably won't be locked. Non-promotionally linking to a mixer's ANN thread will be allowed, whether or not it's a defunct mixer.

[Shishir99]

Here is the link to the profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=261927

That mixer ended their business in 2017: The lagest Bitcoin mixer is about to stop working:

I don't remember seeing this before. Or I probably forgot that the mixer stopped its operation a long time ago.
What I did was click on his signature and noticed that it redirected me to a website that is online. I didn't bother to check if this is the original one or probably a fake scam mixer. I now get it that it is a fake scam mixer that copied the old design. The only thing that bothered me is that the signature represents a mixer.

I see another member mentioned that some inactive profiles also have the signature of ChipMixer, which wasn't wiped out. I think there are more. Probably most of them no longer operate their business. Now it's the admin's decision what to do about these inactive profiles.

[logfiles]

I don't remember seeing this before. Or I probably forgot that the mixer stopped its operation a long time ago.

There was a lot of ICO noise at the time so you probably missed seeing it 

I see another member mentioned that some inactive profiles also have the signature of ChipMixer, which wasn't wiped out. I think there are more. Probably most of them no longer operate their business. Now it's the admin's decision what to do about these inactive profiles.

Yeah, I have seen some inactive profiles still having other signatures of defunct mixers like Bitblender (which shutdown), bestmixer (which got seized) but luckily all the websites are off which means no bad actor tried to acquire the domains. 

[theymos]

I'd say this mixer should be wiped from signatures.

Done, thanks!

[dkbit98]

When theymos banned mixers two years ago, he only wiped the details of those active mixers in operation. He left dead mixers alone (e.g. Chipmixer), probably because they don't actually go anywhere.

I can't believe two years have passed already since mixer ban... time really flies  
Most mixers already know how strict bitcointalk is now, so they don't even try advertising, even if it's hidden.
It's probably a good idea to sig-ban someone who wears mixer signature.

[kennycryptoitalia]

When theymos banned mixers two years ago, he only wiped the details of those active mixers in operation. He left dead mixers alone (e.g. Chipmixer), probably because they don't actually go anywhere.

I can't believe two years have passed already since mixer ban... time really flies  
Most mixers already know how strict bitcointalk is now, so they don't even try advertising, even if it's hidden.
It's probably a good idea to sig-ban someone who wears mixer signature.

I remember very well when it happened, two years have already passed!
I think Theymos did it out of fear of retaliation against the forum, not because they had anything against mixers.
He seems like a very libertarian person who loves freedom, so i think this was the reason.

[MarryWithBTC]

I think Theymos did it out of fear of retaliation against the forum,...

"Retaliation?"

What exactly did the forum do that would warrant the said retaliation by the government or authorities?

Trust you understand what it means to retaliate?

[Myleschetty]

I think Theymos did it out of fear of retaliation against the forum,...

"Retaliation?"

What exactly did the forum do that would warrant the said retaliation by the government or authorities?

Trust you understand what it means to retaliate?

I think he's referring to the numerous crypto tumbler platforms (Chipmixer, Blender, Sinbad, etc.) that were once advertized on this forum years ago. which, shutdown after clients involved in ransomware, used their service to mixed $3 billion, and North Korean cyber thefts, respectively.
Which may make the federal grand juries view this forum as a venue or supporter of illegal activity.
I recall that many of the forum members, particularly the campaign manager who oversees the mixer marketing seek legal counsel.

[FinneysTrueVision]

"Retaliation?"

What exactly did the forum do that would warrant the said retaliation by the government or authorities?

Trust you understand what it means to retaliate?

It might not be the most accurate word, but I can understand the point. The mixer ban was implemented to avoid any liabilities or legal ramifications against the forum. Even before the ban, I was worried that the forum could be used as a scapegoat similar to when DeepDotWeb got shut down and their owners were arrested. This was a news website that wasn’t directly operating any illegal service, but it was being used to advertise mixers and dark web marketplaces.