Mixer restrictions

[Obiavelliii]

Does this change anything?

As stated in the July 2025 report by the President’s Working Group on Digital
Asset Markets established by Executive Order 14178 (E.O. 14178), Strengthening
American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology, “the Trump Administration
supports the ability of lawful users of digital assets to privately transact on a public
blockchain.”10

The report also acknowledged that although illicit actors “use mixers to
obfuscate and launder funds … lawful users of digital assets may leverage mixers to
enable financial privacy when transacting through public blockchains.”11 The report
recommended that Treasury should consider next steps regarding its proposed rulemaking
concerning CVC mixing.12

FinCEN is withdrawing its finding that international CVC Mixing is a class of
transactions of primary laundering concern, and the proposed rule, published on October
23, 2023, seeking to impose special measure one regarding international CVC Mixing.

While FinCEN maintains that illicit actors continue to use mixers and other tools and
methods to hinder law enforcement investigations, this withdrawal is informed by the
concerns from commentors that the expansive definition of CVC mixing in the proposed
rule could have a chilling effect on legitimate activity and place a large reporting burden
on covered financial institutions. However, FinCEN will continue to monitor activity
involving CVC mixers for indicia of money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit
finance activity, and may take appropriate steps in the future to mitigate any such
activity.

This is actually a pretty huge deal for anyone who cares about privacy.
‎The most interesting part is the language they're using now. For years now the government was talking about mixers like they were only hackers and money launderers. Seeing an official document explicitly state that, "lawful users may leverage mixers to enable financial privacy" is a big change.
‎
‎

[Lucius]

~snip~
Most members in the forum are most probably not even interested in who or what is banned, they are only looking at ways to monetise their activity in the forum and as mixers provided the biggest pay, they are hoping the mixer restrictions are removed.

Even if mixers were to return to the forum, I doubt they would offer much higher pay rates than what we currently have on the forum. Mixers have found some other ways to advertise themselves, and for that they pay 5-6 times less than what was the case here.

[bitmover]

~snip~
Most members in the forum are most probably not even interested in who or what is banned, they are only looking at ways to monetise their activity in the forum and as mixers provided the biggest pay, they are hoping the mixer restrictions are removed.

Even if mixers were to return to the forum, I doubt they would offer much higher pay rates than what we currently have on the forum. Mixers have found some other ways to advertise themselves, and for that they pay 5-6 times less than what was the case here.

I think that all of these other ways to advertise combined are not even half efficent as bitcointalk advertising. The exposure and the domain authority here are enormous

They pay less because those places are less effective

[JollyGood]

Even if mixers were to return to the forum, I doubt they would offer much higher pay rates than what we currently have on the forum. Mixers have found some other ways to advertise themselves, and for that they pay 5-6 times less than what was the case here.

Upon reflection I have to agree. It does seem as though with the advent of other forums that are heavily advertising and promoting mixers, there would be no logical reason for mixers to pay the highest rates (or even high rates) to those participating in their signature campaigns (if they were allowed to use the forum again).

I think that all of these other ways to advertise combined are not even half efficent as bitcointalk advertising. The exposure and the domain authority here are enormous

They pay less because those places are less effective

This is probably true but are those members (that are hoping for mixers to return to the forum) expecting huge payments for participating in campaigns?

[PrivacyG]

This is probably true but are those members (that are hoping for mixers to return to the forum) expecting huge payments for participating in campaigns?

I would personally be fine even if they were simply allowed again here with no Signature Campaign advertisement.  Having multiple ways to enhance the Privacy level of UTXOs with out making some of the ways look like tools of crime is never a bad thing.

[Lucius]

~snip~
I would personally be fine even if they were simply allowed again here with no Signature Campaign advertisement.  Having multiple ways to enhance the Privacy level of UTXOs with out making some of the ways look like tools of crime is never a bad thing.

I have already written that the privacy offered by most mixers is very expensive today and that few would agree to pay $50 or $60 + 3-5% of the amount they mix to get coins that they may have a problem with because some bot will detect them as coming from a mixer. The most successful mixer has a "pay what you want, if you want" policy, and it was extremely profitable, and a lot has changed since then to today.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I would personally be fine even if they were simply allowed again here with no Signature Campaign advertisement.  Having multiple ways to enhance the Privacy level of UTXOs with out making some of the ways look like tools of crime is never a bad thing.

Would you ever trust a mixer again, after what's been happening in the past few years, though? I don't think I would, and frankly, I don't find the reason to ever forfeit the custody and privacy of my coins to some unknown entity, when there are solutions like Wasabi that offer significant levels of privacy for near zero cost.

I think that allowing mixers to be advertised again would do more harm than good, because it would trick people into thinking mixers are legitimate, when we all know they would be turned down one after the other sooner or later, and it would direct users into custodial solutions when there are already fantastic non-custodial solutions.

[examplens]

I would personally be fine even if they were simply allowed again here with no Signature Campaign advertisement.  Having multiple ways to enhance the Privacy level of UTXOs with out making some of the ways look like tools of crime is never a bad thing.

Would you ever trust a mixer again, after what's been happening in the past few years, though? I don't think I would, and frankly, I don't find the reason to ever forfeit the custody and privacy of my coins to some unknown entity, when there are solutions like Wasabi that offer significant levels of privacy for near zero cost.

It's a good thing there’s never been a problem with a known entity, so we only have issues with unknown ones.
The use of Wasabi for the purpose of anonymisation is easily recognised, and Coinjoin necessarily raises the AML score. At the same time, you have a mixer that has been working for years and delivers exchange-based coins to the user, which have no mixer origin.
The cost of mixing is not always a decisive parameter, but the degree of anonymisation that is achieved.

[NotATether]

Would you ever trust a mixer again, after what's been happening in the past few years, though?

Yes.

Actually I am more likely to trust a platform that has been around longer than some random no name.

Heck I even trust Kruw's coordinator. They'd have to physically arrest the guy to damage anyone's custody. (Not that he's doing anything wrong btw)

All of the scam reports I deal with on BitMixList were from services less than 90 days old.

Scammers have simply become impatient, and want quick gains now. I think it's because they've watched so many other scammers on crypto Twitter do the same with memecoin launches and pumpfun.

Waiting for 1-2 years to go rouge is not profitable anymore.

[TryNinja]

Would you ever trust a mixer again, after what's been happening in the past few years, though? I don't think I would, and frankly, I don't find the reason to ever forfeit the custody and privacy of my coins to some unknown entity, when there are solutions like Wasabi that offer significant levels of privacy for near zero cost.

There's a mixer with 8 years in the market and no bad reports whatsoever (literally zero). I'm sure you know which one, they sponsored my telegram bot for many months.

The problem with Coinjoin is that many exchanges detect them and send you an email telling you do not do that anymore. But a good mixer will send you coins that are just like any other.

[JollyGood]

If mixers were allowed to promote their services via the Service Announcements board then that might meet the needs for those that would like to see mixers promoted for the sake of privacy concerns. If that were to happen yet mixer signature campaigns were restricted, then I suppose some would be pleased (and many would see that as a first necessary step before mixers might be allowed back for campaigns).

I would personally be fine even if they were simply allowed again here with no Signature Campaign advertisement.  Having multiple ways to enhance the Privacy level of UTXOs with out making some of the ways look like tools of crime is never a bad thing.

[Lucius]

There's a mixer with 8 years in the market and no bad reports whatsoever (literally zero). I'm sure you know which one, they sponsored my telegram bot for many months.

The problem with Coinjoin is that many exchanges detect them and send you an email telling you do not do that anymore. But a good mixer will send you coins that are just like any other.

That may be true, but what is the price of that service? The last time I used that mixer I paid almost $80 for that service, and in their campaign on the ATT forum I was paid $30 a week to promote them.

That didn't seem like a fair deal to me, but everyone has their own calculation in the story, right?

[alani123]

I would personally be fine even if they were simply allowed again here with no Signature Campaign advertisement.  Having multiple ways to enhance the Privacy level of UTXOs with out making some of the ways look like tools of crime is never a bad thing.

Would you ever trust a mixer again, after what's been happening in the past few years, though? I don't think I would, and frankly, I don't find the reason to ever forfeit the custody and privacy of my coins to some unknown entity, when there are solutions like Wasabi that offer significant levels of privacy for near zero cost.

I think that allowing mixers to be advertised again would do more harm than good, because it would trick people into thinking mixers are legitimate, when we all know they would be turned down one after the other sooner or later, and it would direct users into custodial solutions when there are already fantastic non-custodial solutions.

I have never trusted a mixer, period and would never do in the future.
Their services are full of promises but in the end always under deliver. Their mixing methods are always detectable and it would just be better doing a P2P swap so someone funds your wallet from an exchange. Exchanges are always whitelisted and you end up receiving coins from a wallet commonly used by thousands of people, which is far better than any mixer can do.

If Iran, Russia and North Korea can evade sanctions using BTC from binance, there's no reason to use any centralised mixer besides an exchange's hot wallet.

[Catenaccio]

I have never trusted a mixer, period and would never do in the future.
Their services are full of promises but in the end always under deliver. Their mixing methods are always detectable and it would just be better doing a P2P swap so someone funds your wallet from an exchange. Exchanges are always whitelisted and you end up receiving coins from a wallet commonly used by thousands of people, which is far better than any mixer can do.

Even a most successful mixer like CM and has very long time of operation like CM did not keep their promise, I don't know which mixers can be completely trustworthy.

CM after their service seizure by government (FBI did it in March 2023), was discovered that they actually saved logs while they promised with users that there is no log saved in CM database.

The BTC Mixer, proven for years, was confiscated by the authorities (funds, domain, and 7 GB of data). Unfortunately, despite all the numerous assurances to the contrary, CM actually stored the data, so in the end, after the arrest, many users lost their Chips/BTC. This should be a reminder to everyone that despite good intentions, you should follow what you say as much as possible.

[PrivacyG]

Would you ever trust a mixer again, after what's been happening in the past few years, though? I don't think I would, and frankly, I don't find the reason to ever forfeit the custody and privacy of my coins to some unknown entity, when there are solutions like Wasabi that offer significant levels of privacy for near zero cost.

I get your point and I agree, if there are non custodial solutions then they would definitely be prioritized all the time.  But on the other hand.  I have personally not had any bad experience with the Mixers I used so far, which could have to do with me not trying out new ones that are unknown.

I do worry a little bit however when using them, which does not happen when using non custodial options.  As long as there are such alternative solutions around, I would not want them gone even if they are expensive enough to consider them not worth the costs.

[Alpha Marine]

From a privacy standpoint it is good to have the search light on mixers dimmed. They are taking the more neutral stance which is the one shared by every bitcoin enthusiast and encourages more honest usage. This whole situation, including the mixer ban here only helps to discourage regular users from seeing mixing as a grey area they would want to avoid, this raises the percentage of illicit usage for it.

Even if the signatures don't come back, I hope we can have more free conversations about it here.

I didn't fully understand the bold parts of your post, I want to be sure what I understood or there was an error somewhere in the sentence.

Do you mean that the continued ban of mixer in the forum is an evidence or testament that mixers are illegal and should exist only in the gray areas?

No!
What he means is that since mixers are banned here, users here will see mixers as something that is bad, which means they will stay away from them. When the people who use it genuinely stay away from it, only the people who use it for illegal activities will use it.
I don't totally agree with him, though. Yeah, banning mixers here can affect the way people view mixers, but it doesn't stop people from using them. Genuine people still use mixers. And I believe some day in the future, maybe a very long time from now, mixers would be allowed back to the forum.

[Shishir99]

The mixer signature is visible on AdolfinWolf's account

@Theymos

I was reading the feedback on LoyceV's profile, and noticed he once helped a member get his Bitcoin back by sweeping the address; that guy exposed his private keys in the forum. I was reading that thread and noticed that the forum account of Chipmixer was actually using their signature. So I came here to see if anyone reported this before and found this post. Since the domain is no longer a mixer, I don't think theymos would wipe out the signatures on these accounts. But I am sure some members would often notice this and come here to report it. LOL.

[examplens]

The mixer signature is visible on AdolfinWolf's account

@Theymos

I was reading the feedback on LoyceV's profile, and noticed he once helped a member get his Bitcoin back by sweeping the address; that guy exposed his private keys in the forum. I was reading that thread and noticed that the forum account of Chipmixer was actually using their signature. So I came here to see if anyone reported this before and found this post. Since the domain is no longer a mixer, I don't think theymos would wipe out the signatures on these accounts. But I am sure some members would often notice this and come here to report it. LOL.

If such accounts are already being cleaned, betkarma also has a link to an active mixer in its website link and signature.
They should not be drastically blamed for this, because the service has both an exchange and casino function on the site (in addition to mixer possibilities), and they themselves said that they planned to announce exchange services here, but later gave up because of the mixer ban rules.

[Shishir99]

If such accounts are already being cleaned, betkarma also has a link to an active mixer in its website link and signature.
They should not be drastically blamed for this, because the service has both an exchange and casino function on the site (in addition to mixer possibilities), and they themselves said that they planned to announce exchange services here, but later gave up because of the mixer ban rules.

This will make sense to remove their signature as well since theymos previously wiped out signatures from inactive accounts. Some businesses stopped coming to this forum because of the mixer ban. It is interesting to see that the mixers are now adding casino games and exchange features inside their platform. I don't know how their users are taking it. Average gamblers won't play in a casino which is also a mixer. A withdrawal from that casino would be considered as funds from mixer.

As for the Chipmixer case, I don't think he would actually erase the signature from the inactive profiles since the domain is seized and does not lead to a real mixer anymore.

[JollyGood]

Granted you have not had any bad experiences with mixers. Keeping that aside, anybody using mixers that provide a custodial service should proceed with caution. People are using custodial mixers under the impression that they are private. With the exception of the claims that the mixers themselves make about transactions remaining private, do you really have any undisputed proof about them not saving the data associated with your mix?

I suppose that will be the most difficult aspect for the mixer to prove and the customer to believe.

I get your point and I agree, if there are non custodial solutions then they would definitely be prioritized all the time.  But on the other hand.  I have personally not had any bad experience with the Mixers I used so far, which could have to do with me not trying out new ones that are unknown.

I do worry a little bit however when using them, which does not happen when using non custodial options.  As long as there are such alternative solutions around, I would not want them gone even if they are expensive enough to consider them not worth the costs.