Quoting
what I see was ChipMixer’s third-to-last post on this forum:
Nothing new.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_InfocalypseThe term was coined by Timothy C. May in 1988. May referred to "child pornographers, terrorists, drug dealers, etc.".[2] May used the phrase to express disdain for what he perceived as "Think of the children" argumentation by government officials and others seeking to justify limiting civilian use of cryptography tools.
Trying to get a handle on this megathread is like stepping into a bizarro horror-world—but it also gives me a sense of déjà vu as to how KYC was first widely resisted,
and even ridiculed, then widely accepted.
There is NOTHING WRONG with mixers. Indeed, mixers are a social good. A mixer is only a kludge, an imperfect bugpatch on a
catastrophic design flaw in Bitcoin: Its transparent blockchain.
Satoshi was aware of this design flaw. He knew what questions to ask. He didn’t know the answers.
The challenge is, how do you...? It’s hard to think of how...
The best answer is a then-obscure commit-and-nullify protocol which (IIRC) was invented in the research literature in the 1990s, and which was not deployed until Zcash mainnet in 2016. In 2008–2010, Satoshi didn’t know about it—and moreover, a practical implementation would require several years of cryptographic research about zero-knowledge proofs.
In 2013–2014, many Bitcoiners, including prominent developers for what became Bitcoin Core, were intensely interested in integrating this technology into Bitcoin. Much of the history of those discussions is
right here on this forum, buried in the archives.
If privacy and fungibility had been built into Bitcoin early, then advocates thereof would have stood on the high ground of accomplished facts. But accomplished facts went in the other direction. The discussions bore no fruit. What should have been an MVP feature of Bitcoin v0.1.0 was shunted over to an altcoin. And the precedent was set for Bitcoin to be a surveillance-coin that’s like dumping your fucking bank statements into a public append-only database.
The precedent is hard to undo. And now, upon that precedent, the noose is being tightened.
When the culture accepts that Bitcoin mixers are fully delegitimated—not only allegedly illegal, but socially perceived as a so-called “evil”—then, the next step is a head-on attack against privacy coins.
In parallel, as free speech and privacy are under intense, systematic global attack, I think it’s not unlikely that reality will imitate theymos’ 2019 April Fool’s joke. In many places nowadays, KYC is required for many websites—porn sites, social media sites... Soon, you’ll need to do KYC to boot the operating system of a computer. When KYC is required not only to have an account, but to
read the Bitcoin Forum, expect everyone who hates mixers to hop onto the compliance bandwagon.
The mixer signature is visible on
AdolfinWolf's account
@Theymos
theymos, mods and devs!
While exploring the forum, I stumbled upon a user profile where a mixer link is still present in the user signature space. I think this should be disabled or removed as soon as possible. Also, I believe that there will be many other similar inactive user profiles where many other mixer links are probably still present in their signature spaces.
By any chance, isn't there any way to perform removing mixers' signature links or backlinks using any automated way? To make sure no profile now contains mixer signature links.
I am talking about this user's profile:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=320943Why the fuck is anyone hunting to rat out ChipMixer signatures on accounts that have been inactive since
before mixer advertising was banned? What does it achieve!? Is the goal to memory-hole the plain fact that not only was mixer advertising allowed, but mixers were popular and socially acceptable to
almost everyone absolutely everyone who is not insane?(At the time of this writing: Muhammed Zakir is inactive since 2018, and AdolfinWolf is inactive since 2022.)There is NOTHING WRONG with mixers. theymos made a policy, by which we must abide on this forum. Much though I disagree with the policy, I’m not blaming him; I know that the forum is located in the “Land of the Free” (LOL), and I don’t know what factors went into his decision. We do need to abide by the forum policy. But there is NO reason for this ridiculous virtue-signaling bullshit. OH MY GOD, tHeYmOs & MODS, CLUTCH YOUR PEARLS AND RUN HERE QUICKLY, THERE IS AN INACTIVE FORUM PROFILE WITH AN OLD CHIPMIXER SIGNATURE!!! Seriously—
what? why!?
By the way, can you also please address me on how the signature links are being removed from the discussion threads or users' profiles if they are still present on this forum?
...using an appropriate SQL update query across all relevant tables....
...Basically, the admin creates a blacklist (list of mixers for example).
Then it creates a rule that whenever this link is used, the server automatically changes it to a previously configured word/link.
As soon as the system detects a case, it exchanges the unauthorized information for another authorized one.
What’s next? Automated censorship of the thread about the
unpaid, unsolicited ChipMixer ad I wore for awhile as a pure expression of my political opinions?
Why I am temporarily wearing an unpaid, unsolicited Chipmixer signature ad
Merited by squatz1 (10), Foxpup (6), BlackHatCoiner (6), DarkStar_ (5), malevolent (4), hugeblack (2), nc50lc (2), 1miau (2), o_e_l_e_o (2), marlboroza (2), Heisenberg_Hunter (2), stompix (1), buwaytress (1), mk4 (1), NotATether (1)
In various forms, my signature promoted
unpaid links to ChipMixer’s clearnet and onion sites for most of the year 2020. I also considered applying to their paid signature campaign; it would have been fair to myself! In retrospect, I question if avoiding the paid campaign was foolish of me. But I wanted to make a point that I’d advertise ChipMixer purely out of the goodness of my heart, with no compensation whatsoever—and even at the opportunity cost of rejecting paid signatures; in substantial effect, I willingly lost money to advertise ChipMixer.
Do you want theymos to memory-hole that, too? Have a robot censor it retroactively?
Or the following post, +5 from ChipMixer?
I retract part of the beginning of that post, but I proudly stand by the part ChipMixer quoted:
However, due to my intent to expose the blockchain data from this transaction, I decided to use an address from ChipMixer. The address was obtained using ChipMixer voucher codes that I set aside for this potential purpose in November. I always keep a moderate amount of money in Chip vouchers, just in case I need to do something bad for my privacy. The money for these vouchers may have been deposited by me anytime in about the past three or four years; thus, any blockchain observer who identifies Chip inputs will not find it feasible to guess which were mine.
There are multiple ways to use ChipMixer - it is great to see a person who understands their risks and plans how to achieve most privacy with the tool.
The transaction was for me to send 0.01 BTC to a charity of theymos’ choice, as I had promised. It’s txid
40fca7f95058864b1457fb8f626fd02a97aba7f502386ad30f7ca184f5ee81c4 with an
OP_RETURN memo to show that the transaction fulfilled my promise.
So, do you want to use an automated process to bowdlerize that discussion, like bleeping out the word “fuck”? If not, why worry about old signatures from inactive users?
“Part 0/n
”, because I see I need to write an essay and start a thread to advocate for mixers. No violation of forum rules. No promotion of existing real-life mixers. Only free speech to express opinions about politics, law, and society.
