Mixer restrictions

[alani123]

I haven't really caught up with this yet, and probably won't read this whole thread, but am curious how much professional legal assistance was consulted before this decision was made..
Is this a legal fight bitcointalk absolutely cannot win? Is it ambiguous?

I mean, if its possibly winnable I think it would be a good use of 5-10 BTC of forum funds to take it as far as possible in court..
But idk if theymos is trying to stand up against any of this, or lay low under the radar..

Forum has plenty of money and I for one wouldn't mind seeing it stand up for Satoshis principles..
And a 2-3 year long court battle would make a good interesting thread..

Ask thyself, why would bitcointalk take up the legal fight to defend the right of promoting bitcoin mixers?
Put down some serious arguments about what's to gain and what's to lose.

Consider what mixers really are and what their position in today's civil society is.

All things considered, I think there's close to 0 gain to had from this while the danger of further ramifications and/or getting too much negative attention are the most likely outcomes if not worse.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

I haven't really caught up with this yet, and probably won't read this whole thread, but am curious how much professional legal assistance was consulted before this decision was made..

I highly doubt. Admin probably acted after looking at the trend and what was going on. He decided to just play it safe. First it was just the Bitcoin mixers getting sanctioned and then servers seized, and then it went on into LE creating accounts in the forum to tell users that Mixer A and B are bad and they have seized them. They went as far as pointing out the mixer's signature campaign Bitcoin addresses. I think that there is what made theymos to just do away with the mixers completely. The next move would have probably been to seize the forum, fine or sue him.

Is this a legal fight bitcointalk absolutely cannot win? Is it ambiguous?

You know how fucked up legal battles can be, especially if anything is linked to "money laundering". They can take years, and things can never be the same again. Look at all those chaps who have been there before.

I mean, if its possibly winnable I think it would be a good use of 5-10 BTC of forum funds to take it as far as possible in court..

It could be more... This is "money laundering" we are talking about, not some simple case 

[LoyceV]

Is this a legal fight bitcointalk absolutely cannot win?
~
And a 2-3 year long court battle would make a good interesting thread..

I'm not sure what the forum's legal structure is, but I guess that would also mean 2-3 years stress and uncertainty for Admin on a personal level. I'm pretty sure Admin enjoys the technical side of Bitcoin a lot more.

[bitmover]

Is this a legal fight bitcointalk absolutely cannot win?
~
And a 2-3 year long court battle would make a good interesting thread..

I'm not sure what the forum's legal structure is, but I guess that would also mean 2-3 years stress and uncertainty for Admin on a personal level. I'm pretty sure Admin enjoys the technical side of Bitcoin a lot more.

I agree. I dont think bitcointalk should be defending the business model of third party business. It is up to those services to defend their models... once they are safe for the forum to advertise,  bitcointalk could advertise them again.

[nullius]

[I] am curious how much professional legal assistance was consulted before this decision was made..

I didn’t want to say so in my earlier post:  I presume that theymos acts on advice of counsel.  And that he probably doesn’t want to comment on that, and shouldn’t.

It is why I went easy on him, and explicitly avoided criticizing him, even though I despise this policy.

I mean, if its possibly winnable I think it would be a good use of 5-10 BTC of forum funds to take it as far as possible in court..
But idk if theymos is trying to stand up against any of this, or lay low under the radar..

You want the forum to be an ACLU of Bitcoin, fighting public-interest legal battles for free speech?  That sounds great to me.  I’d commend theymos if he were to take such a direction.

As I recently remarked in a PM to an anonymous party:

I suspect that his [theymos’] decision is driven entirely by the need not to be put in a cage, in “the Land of the Free”.  [...]  And it doesn’t much matter what the law is.

I believe, and I would strongly argue that some or all of what is banned is First Amendment protected speech, according to the U.S. Constitution.  If so, theoretically, theymos should have no legal risk.  However, the U.S. government has proved in practice that when they really want to, they disobey their own constitution.

I don’t want to see him caged, so I explicitly avoided criticizing theymos in the public thread.

The good part of this:  It’s not banned to promote and defend the nonexistent ChipMixer.  Thus, I’ve taken to somewhat systematically promoting ChipMixer in concept—despite my disappointment in their shockingly bad OPSEC.  I see promoting the nonexistent ChipMixer as a pure political statement.

For theymos to ignore legal risks would be foolish.  But it would be wise to sit down with a First Amendment specialist lawyer, and figure out how to construct a test case without risk of a criminal indictment.  The problem is to make a “case or controversy” raising a constitutional law question, without a risk of jackbooted thugs kicking your door down.  I have ideas, but will not provide them here; that’s the lawyer’s job, and anyone with a legit interest in my thoughts about this can contact me privately.

Advertising of controversial services can be a major free speech issue.  For example, decades before Backpage, Michael Lacey and James Larkin got in trouble for running newspaper ads for a California abortion referral service in Arizona, where advertising abortion was explicitly illegal.  Their state constitutional appeal was pending when Roe v. Wade was decided, and was thus decided on that basis—without reaching the First Amendment question.  Well, then, decades later, anyone who follows free speech news knows about their publishing of escort ads on Backpage.

The parallel is striking.  Backpage strictly banned ads that were clearly illegal:  Any ad with a overt offer of sex for money, and any erotically evocative type of ad from or about anyone under age 18.  Escorting is legal; to offer to spend time with someone in exchange for money is unambiguously 100% legal.  Backpage published ads from people offering to spend time with you for money.  That’s it.  It’s sexist and misogynist to condemn that, just because those people were mostly alluring young women.

And here?  theymos would never have allowed any ad saying, “Send your stolen bitcoins and dirty drug money here for laundering!”  The single most popular mixer ad was ChipMixer; I personally respected ChipMixer, because their website quoted Adam Back on fungibility.  They seemed sincerely to care about fungibility and privacy.  I myself also think that mixers are an important way to shield yourself from armed robbers:  If you need to make an 0.00099 (plus fee) BTC payment to a stranger who can track you down IRL, pay with an 0.001 BTC ChipMixer chip so they can’t see that you have 100 BTC in your wallet.  Otherwise, you’re hanging a neon flashing sign on yourself that says to violent criminals, “PLEASE BREAK INTO MY HOME AND PUT A GUN TO MY HEAD, OR KIDNAP MY CHILDREN.”

Is it illegal to protect yourself and your children from violent crime?

The Backpage thing ended badly for Lacey and Larkin.  See what I said above about the USG and their disregard for their own constitution.  I insist that Backpage was legal.  Lacey and Larkin had lawyers, who surely advised them all along.  They had millions of dollars for legal fights—which USG then seized so they couldn’t easily pay lawyers.  “The Land of the Free” believes in making criminal defendants helpless, so they can be squashed like bugs.

All that was on my mind, when I wrote the above-quoted PM.

I guess this kind of story is probably why theymos is so exceedingly cautious, even though I (IANAL) think that the forum’s policy here bans an awful lot of legal speech.  But you raise an excellent point, eddie13:  If theymos wants to fight this for the greater good, he could talk to a lawyer about a free speech lawsuit in the public interest.

Good chance of nully buddy generating interesting content,

Sorry an idiot trolled the top spot on this page, instead of my reply to you.  I’m too busy generating interesting content, some of which may raise a ruckus.  I dunno if you personally will like it, but hey—if you want “interesting”, perhaps in the sense of “may you live in interesting times”, nully must deliver!

[PrivacyG]

I mean, if its possibly winnable I think it would be a good use of 5-10 BTC of forum funds to take it as far as possible in court..
But idk if theymos is trying to stand up against any of this, or lay low under the radar..

Legal fights do require a lot of money and this Forum does have it, but few people can handle the stress of going against the State it self in court.  I tend to agree with LoyceV, this would put him under real personal stress.  My brain says go for it, but I do not think theymos deserves that level of stress in his personal life.

Because this looked like a rather preventive measure than a decision he was told or forced to make by surrounding laws, by a warning letter or what ever, I do not know if it is YET worth fighting it.  This could be a situation where he significantly de escalated a situation, preventing the worst, and a court case would blow up things instantly.

I do not know that much about theymos but he is clearly not wanting to speak on the subject in too much detail, so I tend to think the situation was worrying enough that backing off seemed like the better choice?

The thing is.  Enough time has passed that most people do not even care whether Mixers will ever be back.  Not only this, but most replies I read say about how bad Mixers are and that they are useless any way.  Which also means the chances are low that theymos ever sees a ban removal even worth considering, because why fight for some thing that is not even wanted on here any more, particularly when allowing them here sounded like a pretty risky choice at one point.

[eddie13]

I like theymos very much, and was never a big chipmixer fan.. Sus af, they nearly 51%d this forum employing privacy breachers..They had part of the treasury and half of dt..

Im not talking about wanting to fight to keep your signature campaigns lol. More like the fight to keep the pressure up against forces that want you on a mandatory world digital currency they can shut you off with on their whim, the first steps being illegalize mixers, XMR, self custody, etc all the way in their complete path of total control of you..

More NRA than ACLU I'd say..

Guess he stepped it back a bit and allows recommendation of mixers but no links and no advertising.. Allright fine..

Everybody wants to use Bitcoin to make money.. Beg for regulation so the banks can buy..
Ive always wanted to help Bitcoin in its revolutionary power of removing control of free people by centralized forces and the power to print money subjecting all to the hidden tax of inflation so they can wage war or fund progressive tranny propaganda in timbucktoo off my back..

What's to gain? More like what's to loose..



Watching something on HBO with my girl today and saw the same xfinity add atleast 10 times about their wifi that can "alert you to people entering and exiting your house".. The one with the zombies..
Damn I thought that was obscure boardinging on conspiracy but nope..
Wifi human body tracking, flock cameras everywhere logging every wireless signal that passes..
Nobody is going to stand up to shit.. Zombies were a perfect analog..Nice inside joke xfinity..
Maybe its time to throw in that towel.. Like many posts I read earlier in this thread express, its probably game over..

Ive always felt the mission of this forum was to continue the vision of Satoshi, who was very in favor of a mixing type feature.
Pretty sure it was said by some specific guy here, dont want to name names if this thread is sensitive but you know, something about "money laundering/tax evasion is not inherently immoral".. Makes a lot of sense to mix your coins and skip exit taxes out of Iran right about now doesnt it?

[nullius]

The thing is.  Enough time has passed that most people do not even care whether Mixers will ever be back.  Not only this, but most replies I read say about how bad Mixers are and that they are useless any way.

This cultural change is what I am fighting—why I am fighting.  The mixer ban, and worse, the community’s acceptance of the mixer ban is a symptom of cancer.

As chemotherapy, I’m flipping anti-Bitcoin.  For years, one of my biggest life dreams was to stack up big BTC.  Now, I don’t want it.  A UTXO is an NFT, with its value decreed by the fiat veto power of “AML checkers” and “risk scores”; catching up, I read a thread about “how to do an AML check” and I almost vomited.  Thus, to me, a UTXO is toxic waste, a hot potato, Gresham’s Law bad-money to dump for privacy coins.  BTC = STRONG SELL.

I stand for freedom and privacy.  I don’t want to be part of any anti-mixer community—and I swear that I will never do an “AML check”.  I’d rather dump Bitcoin. 💔

If you think those are strong words, I have queued up a draft OP for a thread that will really twiddle some people’s bits.

I do not know that much about theymos but he is clearly not wanting to speak on the subject in too much detail, so I tend to think the situation was worrying enough that backing off seemed like the better choice?

As I indicated, I infer that there was probably something behind the scenes that he shouldn’t publicly comment about, and it would be wise of us not to ask.  If his lawyers told him anything worrisome in a privileged discussion, that’s none of our business.

♥️ ChipMixer (except for your poor OPSEC and your massive unnecessary data retention, you fool!)
P.S., eddie13, you posted while I was pondering the above short message.  Eh, I will catch up here later.  For now, I simply must highlight this:

Ive always felt the mission of this forum was to continue the vision of Satoshi, who was very in favor of a mixing type feature.

[PrivacyG]

Im not talking about wanting to fight to keep your signature campaigns lol.

I did not say this was what we were fighting for, did I?  I am not fighting for the campaigns, they could be gone by tomorrow for all I care, I do know they made me a worse Member for a while making me post B S during days and hours I did not even feel like spending my time here and I do know they produce a lot of crap around the Forum.  I do not mind having the best Members getting paid for spending their time making Bitcoin Talk a better place but I do know what the many negatives are.

The point is not fighting the signature campaigns.  Caring about those and not about the Mixers situation would be kind of equal to getting paid 60 Dollars a week to accept the situation as it is, which is not some thing I would be happy with.  Hell.  Pay me the Universal Basic Income, ensure that I have a roof above my head, food to eat, electricity to use and water to drink and I would still not be happy under the current circumstances.  Money is not and should not be the point.  Rather, I do not understand how we got here and why almost no body seemingly gets it.

I get the situation theymos was surrounded in and the decision he made.  I suppose we all got to this conclusion at this point and got it.  But I honestly expected that the core of our community would be brought together FOR Mixers.  Instead, I see a lot of it either not minding the ban at all or spitting on Chip Mixer as if they never even liked it in the first place, as if it was never a worthy service.  Some of these names were in fact Chip Mixer advertisers at the time, and not only in their signature but also through their replies, so it makes me wonder, what did those people stand for all this time?

I can remember that every single time some body asked for help with the Privacy of their UTXOs, every body was recommending them as one way of doing it.  It was always Chip Mixer and Coin Join, in pretty much every single such Topic we had.  And we all knew Chip Mixer could not irrefutably prove that they kept no logs, no keys et cetera.  But two options were always better than one, and this opinion seems to have changed immediately when that Mixer took the fall.

When some body tries to create an alternative to Fiat, to Banks, you just already know their name is put on a target list and they are considered outlaws immediately.  I also doubt Satoshi would have had an opinion against Mixers.  I do not believe he would have argued selling drugs and human trafficking for Bitcoin is good, but I do believe he would have supported any thing that supported the moral ideas of financial freedom.

Mixers take Bitcoin from multiple people and scramble it to break links.  The idea that they are 'dirty Bitcoin tumblers' to pull 'clean Bitcoin' out of them is an invention.  Bitcoin is fungible, but the Taint invention destroyed fungibility as every body nowadays care whether their Bitcoin are clean or not.  I kept mentioning this for a long while, but it has already become normality.  I put my Address in to the b1exch Anti Money Laundering checking tool for the first time this year, and considering my threat level I should be tied up and locked in a dark, damp cell right now!

So this is how it works.  We had fungible Bitcoin, but they put Taint on top of it.  Now you get clean or dirty Bitcoin, so if you try to scramble them you get a 'Money Laundering' machine.  If they never cared to mess with the Bitcoin fungibility, there would be no way Mixers could even be considered 'dirty money tumblers'.  But through a simple concept like Taint, they got what they wanted and probably way easier than they expected.

More like the fight to keep the pressure up against forces that want you on a mandatory world digital currency they can shut you off with on their whim, the first steps being illegalize mixers, XMR, self custody, etc all the way in their complete path of total control of you..

Every time some body like you comes around and talks about this I have a hope that some people still get it, but then every body else comes around talking it down as if we are some nut heads talking about science fiction while all of this is happening right in front of us all, day by day.

It was one thing when no body believed it and we did not have all these things going on, it is a completely different thing now when we have 'AI', all the tracking software, hardware, technology, you name it.  Smart TVs spying on customers was conspiracy until LG was exposed for doing it, you see the Flock scandal, you see every thing nowadays being about having 'less and less to hide' and more to show because this is what proving your self innocent is today.  Showing it all to every body, or having no Privacy at all.

And I do not know if people will ever wake up from being a zombie any more, my hope is way too little at this point.

[nullius]

Bitcoin is fungible, but the Taint invention destroyed fungibility as every body nowadays care whether their Bitcoin are clean or not.  I kept mentioning this for a long while, but it has already become normality.

From 2013: I taint rich! (Raw txn fun and disrupting 'taint' analysis; >51kBTC linked!)

I put my Address in to the b1exch Anti Money Laundering checking tool for the first time this year, and considering my threat level I should be tied up and locked in a dark, damp cell right now!

  Preview of an upcoming thread somewhere:

...a Bitcoin UTXO is now an NFT, with its value decreed partly by fiat of an “AML check” veto...

I will never use an “AML checker”.  I shall remain forever ignorant of how the fuck to use an “AML checker”.  I swear that I will learn to submit to public ballbusting [sexually explicit link] before I ever use a so-called “AML checker”.  Who knows?  Perhaps cock and ball torture [sexually explicit Wikipedia link] may be pleasureful?  An “AML checker” surely is not.  I could be open-minded about getting my dick stomped on an anvil [sexually explicit link]; I am absolutely closed-minded about “AML checkers”.

It’s a doozy.  The whole thing is harsher.

Im not talking about wanting to fight to keep your signature campaigns lol.

I was never in the paid ChipMixer signature campaign.  And ChipMixer never paid me any money at all (except withdrawal of chips that I deposited).  This was noted earlier in the thread, before your return to the forum:

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)

More NRA than ACLU I'd say..

I’m merely using “ACLU” as a cultural shorthand for “American free speech litigation”.  I do note that if the ACLU had not won Reno v. ACLU and some other important cases, the Internet as we know its freedoms would not exist.  USA is influential worldwide—just as AFAICT “KYC for porn” started in USA, mutated, and metastasised worldwide, so it is fast moving towards “KYC for age, to turn on a computer”.

What’s your theory about how NRA fits in?  Thinking aloud:  Would you suggest that USG is right that cryptography is a “munition”, but then contend that it’s Second Amendment protected?

[JollyGood]

There is still some much controversy and anticipation surrounding the mixer ban. I could be wrong but one day it seems as though mixers will probably return to the forum. I completely agree, if mixers are welcomed back in the forum the onus has to be on them if they wish to prove a point or disprove any allegations. As long as the forum owners/operators believe there will be zero legal implications for them to advertise or promote mixers, they will allow mixers to use the forum.

I agree. I dont think bitcointalk should be defending the business model of third party business. It is up to those services to defend their models... once they are safe for the forum to advertise,  bitcointalk could advertise them again.

[Shinpako09]

There is still some much controversy and anticipation surrounding the mixer ban. I could be wrong but one day it seems as though mixers will probably return to the forum. I completely agree, if mixers are welcomed back in the forum the onus has to be on them if they wish to prove a point or disprove any allegations. As long as the forum owners/operators believe there will be zero legal implications for them to advertise or promote mixers, they will allow mixers to use the forum.

Maybe yes, maybe not. Our views about mixers are different from those in power or authorities. For now, I don't see any reason the forum will take the risk in bringing back mixers. As long as the authorities view the mixers as a tool for money laundering or whatever they view it, the forum will not gonna welcome them back. The operators only will, if major agencies give the green light to mixers. Until then, I don't think we will ever see mixer promotions here again. It's not about the risk of mixers, it's about the risk of being targeted by the authorities.

[jokers10]

As long as the forum owners/operators believe there will be zero legal implications for them to advertise or promote mixers, they will allow mixers to use the forum.

How can you imagine that? The fact is that during Sinbad seizure the representatives of the authorities said that the mixing or mixing services are not illegal by themselves, so it wasn't mandatory dangerous for the forum from the very beginning, but the risk grade is not a zero in any case, especially if to take into account the number of mixers which were closed by the authorities with the concrete indictments. So I don't see a way mixers can guarantee that there will be totally no risk for the forum... I think that no one can, but it is up to the forum administration what risks they see as more significant.

[nullius]

I could be wrong but one day it seems as though mixers will probably return to the forum.

I hope so.

For now, I don't see any reason the forum will take the risk in bringing back mixers.

Do you want to keep the value of your BTC?  The mixer ban is entwined with today’s dominance of “AML checks”; it means that Bitcoin has lost the war against taint attacks, which it’s been fighting since 2013.  When it reaches the point that your Bitcoin NFTs can only be traded on CEX or otherwise with full KYC/AML, what will be your (and the forum’s, and theymos’...) BTC’s real value?

Code:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

# BTC == NFT

“Taint”, “AML checks”, and “risk scores” are cancer.  This is chemotherapy.

BTC is not money anymore.  Each BTC UTXO is now an NFT:  A nonfungible
token, with value that may be cancelled by fiat of an “AML check”.
Therefore, I no longer accept any on-chain BTC unless starvation-level
desperate.  I surely will not “hodl” any BTC to help enrich banks,
billionaires, and ETFs while they make “AML” to control me.

To send me *money*, which is fungible by definition, please send
Zcash (ZEC):
u1zelv8lksqh5h7j5t2mvuu8uvq6k93v2pq4jndxcrsvjjtmuryla3sgys9j37scu4lavgsmshfd26ndq6hpqt86zlh0g5ynt74xydzeplj47tjjzmsywhlunmjzpvsa8cz35g64amq7p5jax2k93h25jz6nl7re44urm0tc2fwcwl38cx

See also this post by Satoshi Nakamoto:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770.msg8637#msg8637

Alternatively, I will accept XMR.  Its cryptography is inferior, but
it’s fungible; therefore, it’s money:
85rhEmu4HzfCFrQvzwNa2vc7wvycRBpuVhZFL28sjH4zCmD2DNrEKdaNYecDUtWjCXRfPpiPsmAuC9UZs94evzsrNncsRG5

In the future, *perhaps* I may set up a Lightning server to accept
BTC by Lightning *only*.  That way, I’ll be able to buy more money.
It’s strictly a business decision about whether the overhead of a
Lightning server and inbound channel capacity is financially worthwhile,
under a “Bitcoin minimalist” policy.

To make me want BTC again, annihilate the entire infrastructure of
“AML” with extreme prejudice.  This is a non-negotiable demand.
No compromise.  I DO NOT CARE if BTC goes to $10 million on KYC-CEX order
books; the argument, “but BTC number go up!” is only a tulip-bulb Ponzi
seduction to bribe me to submit to the system I came to Bitcoin to escape.
If I’m expected to know how to do an “AML check” to use BTC, then
the long-term value of BTC to me is zero.

I don’t know how to use an “AML checker”, and I promise that I shall
never learn.  If “AML checkers” are now required for use of Bitcoin,
then on that particular point, I shall remain an ignorant newbie forever.
I swear on my PGP key.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEARYKAB0WIQSNOMR84IlYpr/EF5vEJ5MVn575SQUCaucjAQAKCRDEJ5MVn575
SV+FAP9rgf2fLCIQTduOxu9P4PzQYlVXzdOkpZCV3d0lpAXhugEAitKS0jvDjSeH
GiPT3sjvweKadWB6ovua64bbiXdAGQA=
=wTB1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

This is a matter of principle to me.  However, I pragmatically make the economic argument because most people don’t care about principles.  My message:  If you don’t uphold my principles, I will fight to hit you in the wallet.  Bitcoin without freedom has no long-term value.

...toxic waste, a hot potato, Gresham’s Law bad-money to dump for privacy coins.  BTC = STRONG SELL.

The fact is that during Sinbad seizure the representatives of the authorities said that the mixing or mixing services are not illegal by themselves, so it wasn't mandatory dangerous for the forum from the very beginning, but [...]

So I don't see a way mixers can guarantee that there will be totally no risk for the forum... I think that no one can, but it is up to the forum administration what risks they see as more significant.

It’s why I like eddie13’s idea.  I think it’s a good cause for public-interest litigation—and no less than a fight for the soul of Bitcoin, so to speak.

[examplens]

I could be wrong but one day it seems as though mixers will probably return to the forum.

I hope so.

For now, I don't see any reason the forum will take the risk in bringing back mixers.

Do you want to keep the value of your BTC?  The mixer ban is entwined with today’s dominance of “AML checks”; it means that Bitcoin has lost the war against taint attacks, which it’s been fighting since 2013.  When it reaches the point that your Bitcoin NFTs can only be traded on CEX or otherwise with full KYC/AML, what will be your (and the forum’s, and theymos’...) BTC’s real value?

I'm not sure why the story about the mixer's return to bitcointalk keeps dragging on when it's already been clearly stated. theymos said that the behavior of the Trump administration could influence the change of decision, if it is shown that they will not be "hostile" towards privacy services. Later, he concluded that he was still not convinced, and the point was put to rest on that topic.

Although I am still of the opinion that the mixer ban is a kind of pressure on all privacy and no-kyc services, the decision should be accepted and it is obvious that it will not be revised again.

[MarryWithBTC]

I'm not sure why the story about the mixer's return to bitcointalk keeps dragging on when it's already been clearly stated. theymos said that the behavior of the Trump administration could influence the change of decision, if it is shown that they will not be "hostile" towards privacy services. Later, he concluded that he was still not convinced, and the point was put to rest on that topic.

Although I am still of the opinion that the mixer ban is a kind of pressure on all privacy and no-kyc services, the decision should be accepted and it is obvious that it will not be revised again.

So far, if the activities and policies of Trump's administration which is considered a pro-bitcoin administration could not convince theymos, I doubt any other president's administration can.

It will stress us less if we consider mixers permanently gone.

[nullius]

I'm not sure why the story about the mixer's return to bitcointalk keeps dragging on when it's already been clearly stated.

Well, I can speak only for myself about that:  I’m a long-term thinker, and this is a Bitcoin Culture War.  I do not look only to today.  I look to five years, ten years in the future:  What does this portend?

I could LOL about the mixer advertising ban.  I only rarely used mixers, and I never fully relied on them; when the police seized data that ChipMixer was foolishly retaining, all they could ever have found was my anonymous swaps straight from Zcash shielded into ChipMixer deposit addresses.  I used Chip as an extra layer of privacy; I thought that perhaps, in practice, ChipMixer may have a bigger anonymity set than shielded-ZEC-to-BTC swappers.  I don’t need mixers.  And I was never in ChipMixer’s paid signature campaign; I have no financial incentive to protest here.

Well, I’ll tell you what I see:  Privacy has gotten much worse on all fronts; the Bitcoin Forum banning mixer ads has me reasonably in a state of culture shock; and if the past decade’s trends continue for the next decade, that is a future in which I do not want to live.

I’m not the only one...

Things have DRASTICALLY changed over the last decade, and they are only getting a lot worse.  I actually wish this is doom thinking, but we are almost there.  'The culture' has already accepted most of what they have been served.

...but so few are the people who really care about this.  That’s why it’s a cultural problem.

theymos said that the behavior of the Trump administration could influence the change of decision, if it is shown that they will not be "hostile" towards privacy services. Later, he concluded that he was still not convinced, and the point was put to rest on that topic.

I dunno why anyone would expect a WLFI/meme shitcoiner in bed with Palantir to be friendly to Bitcoin privacy, but... whatever, it hasn’t happened.

Bold, underline, and colour added:

Although I am still of the opinion that the mixer ban is a kind of pressure on all privacy and no-kyc services, the decision should be accepted and it is obvious that it will not be revised again.

Because the mixer ban is a kind of pressure on all privacy and no-kyc services, we need to talk about it, and keep talking about it—and I will not shut the fuck up about it!

First, they came for the mixers.  I said nothing, because I’m a snooty Zcasher doing no-KYC anonymous accountless swaps to/from the transparent surveillance-chain when I need it.  Why would I speak up for the ignorant masses, who need the convenience of a centralised mixer?

Then, they came for...

The way things are going, examplens, what future prospects do you predict for my current paid signature?  No one would have foreseen the mixer advertising ban in 2016; what will we have in 2036?

It will stress us less if we consider mixers permanently gone.

^^^ Cultural problem, Exhibit A.  This is why I see the mixer advertising ban as an important Bitcoin political issue—as an activist issue.

As I have said repeatedly, I am cautious about criticising theymos.  I know he may be subject to many pressures—and perhaps, his decision may have been well-guided in the circumstance.  (Perhaps.  At this time, I do not hereby opine on that either way.)  It doesn’t stop me from speechifying about the issue—nor from thinking that eddie13 had a great idea about litigating this in the public interest.