The Paradox of Privacy and Decentralization: Banning Mixers on Bitcointalk.org

[WhyFhy]

 Bitcointalk, a place of decentralized ideologies, has banned the use of mixers starting Jan 1 2024. This decision presents a fascinating irony and raises several questions about the core values of Bitcoin and the broader crypto community.

The Ideological Conflict:
At its heart, Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. Mixers, which enhance transaction privacy, seem like a natural ally to this cause. Yet, their banning on a platform dedicated to decentralization is contradictory. Does this signify a shift in the community's values, or is it a necessary compromise?

Legal and Ethical Considerations: 
The rationale behind banning mixers often revolves around legal compliance and preventing illicit activities. While these are valid concerns, do they justify stepping away from the principles of privacy and decentralization?

Community Response and Impact:
How has this decision been received by the broader cryptocurrency community? Does it affect the way we perceive and use Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies?

Speculating on Satoshi Nakamoto’s Perspective:
If Satoshi Nakamoto were to witness this, what would their reaction be? Would they advocate for absolute adherence to privacy and decentralization, or acknowledge the need for some regulatory measures?

The Future of Decentralization and Privacy in Cryptocurrencies:
Looking forward, how do we balance the ideals of privacy and decentralization with the practicalities of regulation and legal compliance? What developments might we anticipate in this domain?

[1715325685]

1715325685

[1715325685]

1715325685

[1715325685]

1715325685

[stompix]

The Ideological Conflict:
At its heart, Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. Mixers, which enhance transaction privacy, seem like a natural ally to this cause. Yet, their banning on a platform dedicated to decentralization is contradictory.

There is another conflict and it's right in your way of thinking, do you realize that mixers are centralized platforms?
So you're right now advocating for a centralized platform that talks about decentralization to allow centralized services! 
If we were advocating for decentralization and being your own bank not your keys not your coins all that, , shouldn't we  actually ban any service that takes custody of your coins and that is virtually a bank,  a thing that we go against the principles this forums stands for?
How is that ideology going? 

[franky1]

also dont forget these two details

1. many bitcoiners lobbied to get governments to recognise bitcoin as a currency.. opening the door to currency regulations
   (2009-2013 bitcoin was defined as private property. 2014-now its currency)

2. regulations actually require businesses to watch/monitor mixer users that deposit with them, more so than other random people transacting on the blockchain. so using a mixer doesnt offer better privacy, it puts you on a watchlist due to using a mixer.

the solution, if regulators require businesses to monitor mixer users..
a. stop using mixers
b. invent a new service that does not even mention privacy/cleaning, mixing.. and is more creative with how it takes in deposits and withdraws .. cough cough satoshi-dice cough cough

[Wind_FURY]

I believe if we try to look at the situation from theymos' point of view, it's either risk BitcoinTalk, and its administrators, to be tagged -  or something more serious - by the government for allowing the advertisment of mixing/tumbling services, or removing them from the forum altogether. We may not like the decision, but theymos chose the path with the least risk, and with the least possible issues for the admins.

Plus for theymos to make that decision, the situation probably must be getting more alarming?

[WhyFhy]

The Ideological Conflict:
At its heart, Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. Mixers, which enhance transaction privacy, seem like a natural ally to this cause. Yet, their banning on a platform dedicated to decentralization is contradictory.

There is another conflict and it's right in your way of thinking, do you realize that mixers are centralized platforms?
So you're right now advocating for a centralized platform that talks about decentralization to allow centralized services!  
If we were advocating for decentralization and being your own bank not your keys not your coins all that, , shouldn't we  actually ban any service that takes custody of your coins and that is virtually a bank,  a thing that we go against the principles this forums stands for?
How is that ideology going?  

also dont forget these two details

1. many bitcoiners lobbied to get governments to recognise bitcoin as a currency.. opening the door to regulations

2. regulations actually require businesses to watch/monitor mixer users that deposit with them, more so than other random people transacting on the blockchain. so using a mixer doesnt offer better privacy, it puts you on a watchlist due to using a mixer.

the solution, if regulators require businesses to monitor mixer users..
a. stop using mixers
b. invent a new service that does not even mention privacy/cleaning, mixing.. and is more creative with how it takes in deposits and withdraws .. cough cough satoshi-dice cough cough

I guess your both right to an extent.
The thought never crossed my mind about that.
A lot of prominent members have issues with it , it makes me wonder are they upset over the concept or does it directly affect them
What are a lot of these guys doing to aquire coins that necessitates a mixer?

[BIT-BENDER]

This is a forum not an exchange, not a platform where you save your Bitcoin or can you perform any Bitcoin transaction here, let's not fail to understand that, so in no way has theymos stopped anyone from making use of mixer, the decision to ban mixer from the forum by January 1 is one that is to protect the forum, there are no Many mixing platform and it won't be easy to decipher which is a bad for the community members to cut down that risk the banning mixer from the forum is justifiable, I don't have anything against some money mixer but when A sector is bombarded by new entry be sure to get some bad eggs.
The main priority of theymos now is to protect the community then every other thing is secondary.

[Fiatless]

The Ideological Conflict:
At its heart, Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. Mixers, which enhance transaction privacy, seem like a natural ally to this cause. Yet, their banning on a platform dedicated to decentralization is contradictory. Does this signify a shift in the community's values, or is it a necessary compromise?

The decision to ban mixers is not the creation of the bitcointalk community. It was a result of pressure from external forces that has the potential or power to negatively affect the forum. Mixers are now erroneously seen as a service that promotes criminal activities and associating with it will make those forces see the forum as a place that promotes criminality. So the best thing to do is disassociate with mixing service. The values of this community have not changed, we still believe in privacy and decentralization.

Legal and Ethical Considerations: 
The rationale behind banning mixers often revolves around legal compliance and preventing illicit activities. While these are valid concerns, do they justify stepping away from the principles of privacy and decentralization?

The main reason why governments are shutting down mixers is not because they are used for criminal activities, they want to centralise Bitcoin so that they can kill privacy. But there is a battle you cannot fight. These Law enforcement agencies can seize any website, including this one. They cannot stop us from talking about decentralization but they have the power to control our platforms. If you don't do what they say, then you might not have the platform to spread your beliefs.

Community Response and Impact:
How has this decision been received by the broader cryptocurrency community? Does it affect the way we perceive and use Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies?

The views of most members of the forum have been expressed in this thread
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5476162.0

Speculating on Satoshi Nakamoto’s Perspective:
If Satoshi Nakamoto were to witness this, what would their reaction be? Would they advocate for absolute adherence to privacy and decentralization, or acknowledge the need for some regulatory measures?

I don't know how he will feel about the current situation but it is glary that things are changing and the community is facing so many attacks. Maybe he might start researching other means to keep Bitcoin decentralized.

The Future of Decentralization and Privacy in Cryptocurrencies:
Looking forward, how do we balance the ideals of privacy and decentralization with the practicalities of regulation and legal compliance? What developments might we anticipate in this domain?

There is no way one can balance regulation and decentralization, that's not possible. Legal compliance is just a loss of privacy. But I am afraid that the attack on Bitcoin will keep increasing. These forces will not rest until they centralise the coin. I predict that the community will start devising other ways to escape centralisation.

[panganib999]

I’m clearly divided in this situation, on one hand I know for a fact that banning mixers in the biggest crypto platforms on the planet’s going to be a major, if not audacious decision ok the moderator’s and staff’s part. But at the same time, I kinda understand the reason why.

Thing is, before mixers were a thing bitcoin is safe, secure, and while there are hackers here and there, it’s kind of manageable at a certain degree. When mixers entered the scene more prying eyes appeared out of nowhere, regulation became more pressing, and hackers/scammers found new and creative ways to get away with what we do.

Ultimately, despite these I don’t think condemning the methodology’s the way to successfully thwart threats, but since we got so little to work with, we might not really have a choice at this point, which is fucking sad.

[btc78]

 Bitcointalk, a place of decentralized ideologies, has banned the use of mixers starting Jan 1 2024. This decision presents a fascinating irony and raises several questions about the core values of Bitcoin and the broader crypto community.

The Ideological Conflict:
At its heart, Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. Mixers, which enhance transaction privacy, seem like a natural ally to this cause. Yet, their banning on a platform dedicated to decentralization is contradictory. Does this signify a shift in the community's values, or is it a necessary compromise?

i believe that we can still maintain anonymity without the use of mixers if we want btc to expand and be accepted by most, people needs to trust it

Legal and Ethical Considerations: 
The rationale behind banning mixers often revolves around legal compliance and preventing illicit activities. While these are valid concerns, do they justify stepping away from the principles of privacy and decentralization?

btc is still decentralized no one knows who are behind those addresses

Community Response and Impact:
How has this decision been received by the broader cryptocurrency community? Does it affect the way we perceive and use Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies?

those who were regular users of btc mixers might be against this but i think this is a step forward for the general public to be more accepting and less hesitant about btc itself

[Darker45]

Irony is what we have in abundance here. If it doesn't shake us up that a Bitcoin forum allows shitcoins and even scam crypto projects not just to be discussed but even promoted, then why should it surprise us that it also avoids possible legal entanglements?

I'm not even sure if this forum is "a place of decentralized ideologies". I guess the huge majority of users here have accounts in various centralized Bitcoin-related platforms. How many users here have completely avoided submitting KYC, for example? How many users here have completely avoided custodial services?

However, to ban these mixers doesn't necessarily mean not supporting them and whatever it is they're made for. It's just that having them promoted here could mean having this platform shut down or even for the administrators or perhaps moderators to face a lawsuit. Will it be worth it?

[bluebit25]

Basically, we should still respect the decision of the forum moderators on this issue. But obviously, banning activity on the forum, in my opinion, will not reduce the fact that people will still choose to use mixers for their purposes.

But there is also a real disappointment here, when many service platforms have also contributed a lot to the introduction of bitcoin on the forum. I do not have many prejudices about this issue, but according to my observations, there is also a lot of opposition to banning its use. I also had a private conversation with friends about this issue, and most of them felt that the reason for the ban on the forum could bring better development to the forum.

[KiaKia]

Bitcoin is decentralized not the Bitcointalk forum, even if you don't have an account registered on this forum you can still read posts and topics, there is no form of Tor security that can keep posts and replies and others hidden so this forum is far from decentralization.

The idea of getting rid of mixers on this forum isn't generally a bad thing, I have been expecting such thing for years after I read about an Asian guy who have account on this forum that was able to steal and move around some money one way or the other, I can't remember much of the story but the news have Bitcointalk mentioned with his profile name.

I thought to myself that this forum can be on watch by the government, and this mixer of a thing can be the cause of it, so getting rid of it might not generally be bad for the future sake of this forum.

[davis196]

The Ideological Conflict:
At its heart, Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. Mixers, which enhance transaction privacy, seem like a natural ally to this cause. Yet, their banning on a platform dedicated to decentralization is contradictory. Does this signify a shift in the community's values, or is it a necessary compromise?

Why do you think that decentralization and privacy are connected? Bitcoin is decentralized and transparent. Transparency isn't something bad.
If you really want privacy, just use altcoins like Monero. I don't remember anyone saying that it is mandatory for Bitcoin to become 100% private.
BTC mixers will be banned from Bitcointalk, but that doesn't mean that they are banned from the entire crypto community. Theymos just doesn't want problems with the authorities for promoting mixers, that are involved in illegal activities. Even after Jan. 1 2024, you could find BTC mixers on the darkweb(or somewhere else) and use them(at your own risk).
Just like other forum members have mentioned:
1.BTC mixers are centralized, so you are kinda contradicting to yourself, by saying that mixers are crucial for privacy and decentralization.
2.Somebody using a BTC mixer clearly has something to hide, which always has been suspicious.
If you aren't doing something illegal with Bitcoins, then why would you need a BTC mixer in the first place?

[m2017]

The Ideological Conflict:
At its heart, Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. Mixers, which enhance transaction privacy, seem like a natural ally to this cause. Yet, their banning on a platform dedicated to decentralization is contradictory. Does this signify a shift in the community's values, or is it a necessary compromise?

The world is in a constant state of change and the same is happening with the BTC-community. This is an inevitable phenomenon. Those who don't change and adapt to change will gradually die out. The forum is also trying to adapt to changing external conditions. Progress is impossible without change.

Legal and Ethical Considerations: 
The rationale behind banning mixers often revolves around legal compliance and preventing illicit activities. While these are valid concerns, do they justify stepping away from the principles of privacy and decentralization?

This is an attempt at compromise so that the forum can continue to exist and a step ahead of the opponent.

Community Response and Impact:
How has this decision been received by the broader cryptocurrency community? Does it affect the way we perceive and use Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies?

BTC-community includes many people, sometimes with radically different points of view. Accordingly, no matter what decision the forum leadership makes, there will always be dissatisfied people.

Speculating on Satoshi Nakamoto’s Perspective:
If Satoshi Nakamoto were to witness this, what would their reaction be? Would they advocate for absolute adherence to privacy and decentralization, or acknowledge the need for some regulatory measures?

What kind of reasoning can there be about Satoshi Nakamoto’s point of view if he is not here and the probability of his appearing here is zero? This point can be safely ignored and not even discussed.

The Future of Decentralization and Privacy in Cryptocurrencies:
Looking forward, how do we balance the ideals of privacy and decentralization with the practicalities of regulation and legal compliance? What developments might we anticipate in this domain?

The future of Decentralization and Privacy is in great doubt. Only negative changes should be expected for crypto users. Why did you want the regulators to so easily allow money flows to be drawn to them, bypassing them? Conflicts of interest are inevitable.

[Poker Player]

The problem I see with this is that it is just one more step in saying goodbye to privacy in Bitcoin. Mixers have been banned here because it won't be long before there will be regulations expressly prohibiting them. I said it some time ago: services that serve to obfuscate the origin of funds cannot have much future.

The casinos that have been so important in the history of Bitcoin and Bitcointalk will have to end up operating like fiat casinos, with everyone perfectly identified from the beginning among other things.

We are on a seemingly unstoppable path of loss of privacy in general, and Bitcoin is not going to be an exception.

[Jegileman]

We are on a seemingly unstoppable path of loss of privacy in general, and Bitcoin is not going to be an exception.

If this happens, that will be a huge blow to the bitcoin community. We don’t anticipate for that to happen even as this signs are showing that we may witness that in the future. For the future of bitcoin, measures have to be taken to combat the effect and anything that will destroy or annul the existence of bitcoin in the future. The decentralization and complete privacy is what we have been anticipating for and I hope it continues to remain so without the government having a control of it or anything that will drive away the interest of the public from adopting it more.

[franky1]

The problem I see with this is that it is just one more step in saying goodbye to privacy in Bitcoin. Mixers have been banned here because it won't be long before there will be regulations expressly prohibiting them. I said it some time ago: services that serve to obfuscate the origin of funds cannot have much future.

The casinos that have been so important in the history of Bitcoin and Bitcointalk will have to end up operating like fiat casinos, with everyone perfectly identified from the beginning among other things.

We are on a seemingly unstoppable path of loss of privacy in general, and Bitcoin is not going to be an exception.

thats where things need to be more creative

before bitcoin was a currency. satoshi-dice worked great because it was not gambling currency. and though people used it as a mixer it never advertised itself as such

now that bitcoin is defined as a currency asset, people need to read the regulations and find the exceptions
new methods can be made where it doesnt involve a "service provider" (VASP)
if people cared more about privacy instead of middlemen service provider income, they can find ways.. only problem is the so called privacy guys care more about promoting/offering a service for a fee.. so they end up shooting themselves in the foot by accepting a payment/commission for offering a service

bitcoin isnt the problem. centralised services (vasps and MSB) are
everyone knows governments cant attack the network, they get court orders on service providers

[Wind_FURY]

The problem I see with this is that it is just one more step in saying goodbye to privacy in Bitcoin. Mixers have been banned here because it won't be long before there will be regulations expressly prohibiting them. I said it some time ago: services that serve to obfuscate the origin of funds cannot have much future.

The casinos that have been so important in the history of Bitcoin and Bitcointalk will have to end up operating like fiat casinos, with everyone perfectly identified from the beginning among other things.

We are on a seemingly unstoppable path of loss of privacy in general, and Bitcoin is not going to be an exception.

It won't be that. I believe it will be wallet apps that will start having features that will "warn" users that they are about to receive a "tainted" input. As more users become "taint-aware", the moment they receive a "tainted" input, it's going to be a game of hot-potato.

- Users would sell those "tainted" coins as soon as possible, making the price of "tainted" Bitcoins lower than "clean" Bitcoins.

b. invent a new service that does not even mention privacy/cleaning, mixing.. and is more creative with how it takes in deposits and withdraws .. cough cough satoshi-dice cough cough

Isn't there an upgrade that would make transactions for opening Lightning channels indistinguishable from normal transactions?

[hd49728]

The decision to ban mixers is not the creation of the bitcointalk community

After 14 years, you still talk about the creation of Bitcointalk community?

Welcome to a new Bitcoin forum is a start of Bitcointalk community creation and it was in 2009.

Now if you talk about the community, it is about its current and future, not its creation.

Bitcointalk, a place of decentralized ideologies, has banned the use of mixers starting Jan 1 2024.

It is not a decentralized forum and not for decentralized ideologies.

What is the Bitcointalk's purpose?

Welcome message

The purpose of the forum

This forum exists to provide a platform for the free (but ordered) exchange of ideas. If you have an idea to express, then it is probably possible to do it here as long as you follow the rules.

A lot of people come here primarily looking to make money. The forum administration is very happy that people are able to use the forum in order to better themselves; indeed, one of the reasons for Bitcoin's creation was to break the artificial barriers which prevent so many people around the world from attaining prosperity. However, if your attempts to make money conflict with the forum's primary goal of enabling discussion, then you are swimming upstream, and you will not be sucessful in the end.

If you view the forum as some sort of "job" where you complete some basic tasks and get paid, then you will almost certainly be disappointed, and the forum administration will not be sympathetic. If you do make money using the forum, then it will be through innovation and entrepreneurship, not any sort of mindless busywork.

[franky1]

The problem I see with this is that it is just one more step in saying goodbye to privacy in Bitcoin. Mixers have been banned here because it won't be long before there will be regulations expressly prohibiting them. I said it some time ago: services that serve to obfuscate the origin of funds cannot have much future.

The casinos that have been so important in the history of Bitcoin and Bitcointalk will have to end up operating like fiat casinos, with everyone perfectly identified from the beginning among other things.

We are on a seemingly unstoppable path of loss of privacy in general, and Bitcoin is not going to be an exception.

It won't be that. I believe it will be wallet apps that will start having features that will "warn" users that they are about to receive a "tainted" input. As more users become "taint-aware", the moment they receive a "tainted" input, it's going to be a game of hot-potato.

- Users would sell those "tainted" coins as soon as possible, making the price of "tainted" Bitcoins lower than "clean" Bitcoins.

b. invent a new service that does not even mention privacy/cleaning, mixing.. and is more creative with how it takes in deposits and withdraws .. cough cough satoshi-dice cough cough

Isn't there an upgrade that would make transactions for opening Lightning channels indistinguishable from normal transactions?

you dont need a bitcoin upgrade. you just need to think smarter, lightning can do some changes and fix their flaws, even flaws in regard to how recognisable a channel lock format is

[so98nn]

I think Satoshi Nakomoto would just consider this as good approach. The mixers are getting banned because of valid reason. Forum does allow own hearts towards technology that is supportive and meant for Bitcoin escalation. However, peeps are not using it for the way it is meant. Most of the services came under the radar of regulatory bodies that found illegal activities underway. Now I think we don’t need to explain in detail what these are and for what they are being used but prime result was money laundering. I’m sure theymos has taken serious action against these services considering any of them could be involved with such activity. Now we do not want forum quality drop or get serious flags just because our forum is allowing them to advertise. That’s what Satoshi might have thought.

[stwenhao]

cough cough satoshi-dice cough cough

This is strange. You don't support Ordinals, but you support Satoshi Dice? Why? One kind of spam is acceptable, and another kind of spam is not? Because yes, if your model pushes more data on-chain, instead of pushing less, then it can be considered as a spam.

The real solution is to make transactions smaller, not bigger, and to make less of them, not more, while preserving coin flow. Which means, if you have Alice->Bob->Charlie, then making Alice->Charlie transaction is better, because then Bob can gain more privacy, if he needs that. However, expanding it into Alice->Dice->Bob->Dice->Charlie is not going to help anyone, it will just raise the fees for everyone (unless you introduce difficulty-like adjusted maximum block size, but then what would stop mining pools from abusing that, to store their Ordinals, or even to push altcoins on-chain, wrapped into bitcoin UTXOs?).

[coolcoinz]

Most of the services came under the radar of regulatory bodies that found illegal activities underway.

Here's a thing to consider. What if this or that nation delegalizes something? Does it make it wrong? Should an international forum try to appease every single jurisdiction around the world?
Where's the line that when crossed it becomes too much for the forum to handle?

We allow people to trade bitcoin here, because it's a bitcoin forum, so why not allow them to mix? If the only reason for that is that it's illegal in some countries, then how many countries have to consider it illegal for the forum to take action? I doubt that mixing is illegal in El Salvador.

[Bitstar_coin]

Other than a handful of members, I don't think the majority of this forum members patronize the different mixer platforms that are being promoted here daily. Hence banning them should not have any great impact on the community or the forum in general but refusing to comply with the government authorities' request will be the major problem.
I think the administration of this forum made the right call, this prevents unsolicited attention away from the forum by any means necessary. The authorities are ruthless when it comes to policy violations and have a way of punishing the offenders.

Satoshi is all about privacy which to some extent this forum is and decentralisation which this place is not but would he/them have welcomed the idea of mixers platform knowing what they are used for, i doubt it very much. Privacy and decentralisation are accompanied by transparency which can not be said with mixers. Thankfully there are privacy coins in the market for users who need the mixer service. This is not an issue imo.

[Cryptomultiplier]

The decision to ban mixrs is caused by the laundering activities that has been a way criminals and terrorists make untracked payments and sponsor terror as I learnt, hence the reason why the government is bent on putting a limit to the decentralized network by banning privacy tools that are undetectable.

Still, one clear fact they ignore is that the concept of money has evolved pass even the decentralized network, wherebeit transactions can also be completed by using precious metals and possessions of high value.

Apart from the fact too that forum members who campaign for this mixng platforms would be this left without a campaign or displace those low ranking members currently in different campaigns, the impact would create better opportunities to earn still from BTC and would strengthen its poise in the being decentralized, no matter how it's regulated by any SEC.

[franky1]

cough cough satoshi-dice cough cough

This is strange. You don't support Ordinals, but you support Satoshi Dice? Why? One kind of spam is acceptable, and another kind of spam is not? Because yes, if your model pushes more data on-chain, instead of pushing less, then it can be considered as a spam.

ordinals are large junk meme transactions
spam (including privacy spam) can be charged independently at a higher rate
for instance a fee formulae where utxo that moves with less then X confirms pays more

my tickly throat was not to say more spam is better. it was actually that services need to act smarter with what they advertise

The real solution is to make transactions smaller, not bigger, and to make less of them, not more, while preserving coin flow. Which means, if you have Alice->Bob->Charlie, then making Alice->Charlie transaction is better, because then Bob can gain more privacy, if he needs that. However, expanding it into Alice->Dice->Bob->Dice->Charlie is not going to help anyone, it will just raise the fees for everyone (unless you introduce difficulty-like adjusted maximum block size, but then what would stop mining pools from abusing that, to store their Ordinals, or even to push altcoins on-chain, wrapped into bitcoin UTXOs?).

also things are not alice->bob->charlie in real life
EG
alice buys something from bobs shop
bob pays his employee charlie..

in the real world its not upto alice to pay charlie. alice should not be organising how much charlie gets paid, or ensuring charlie gets paid when bob sells an item, nor completely avoiding bob and just handing funds to charlie

as for mixers
its not
alice->mixer->bob

its actually
alice->mixer reserveZ
dave->mixer reserveZ
fred->mixer reserveZ

mixer reserveG-> fred
mixer reserveS ->bob
mixer reserveK-> dave(or back to alice new unused address)

yes the mixer should pay higher fee and there should also be some other mixer->mixer in the middle incurring more fee's
but they should pay more fee by spamming every block with low confirm age, for the privilege of priority
where only those with low confirms re-spending so fast should pay more then base fee.. whereby others with confirm age over 1 day get to pay flat rate base fee

[hatshepsut93]

Community Response and Impact:
How has this decision been received by the broader cryptocurrency community? Does it affect the way we perceive and use Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies?

Bitcointalk is not Bitcoin. It's not like the Bitcoin software banned mixers. It is a sign though that Bitcoin ecosystem is changing and becoming more in-line with government demands. But Bitcoin ecosystem will always have many faces, and mixers or darknet markets will always be a part of it. They can't be separated because no one can stop Bitcoin transactions from happening.

[stwenhao]

for instance a fee formulae where utxo that moves with less then X confirms pays more

You want to bring back something called "coinage"? This is a good idea. Some page about that: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Miner_fees#Priority_transactions

Which means, instead of the current, flat "satoshi per byte" model, we could have "priority" instead, and allow cheaper transactions, if some coin was not moved for a long time.

my tickly throat was not to say more spam is better. it was actually that services need to act smarter with what they advertise

Yes, this is a good approach. For example, they could just implement something like CoinJoin. Because mixers are banned, but CoinJoin is allowed.

Because the main issue is not mixing per se. It is the way they are taken down. Which means, even if you have a mixer, you can still advertise it, if you for example don't control the coins, but you only provide a market for mixing (like JoinMarket or any other CoinJoin).

in the real world its not upto alice to pay charlie

I think indirectly, but it is. What about tipping the waiter?

alice should not be organising how much charlie gets paid, or ensuring charlie gets paid when bob sells an item, nor completely avoiding bob and just handing funds to charlie

Note that the code can do a lot of good things. Which means, it is possible to write some code, that will allow transaction joining, and sending it later in a batched version to the network. And note that even though this kind of service meets the definition of the mixer, it is still allowed by the rules, if you don't control the funds of your users, or if you can meet any other condition, listed by theymos. There are many ways to do that.

[franky1]

in the real world its not upto alice to pay charlie

I think indirectly, but it is. What about tipping the waiter?

alice should not be organising how much charlie gets paid, or ensuring charlie gets paid when bob sells an item, nor completely avoiding bob and just handing funds to charlie

yes we could change the economics of real world business transactions and interrogate all retailers spending to do payments for them
where instead of having price tags that are:
$300 [$285 + $15 (5%) sales tax] to become
$300 [$255 + $30 employee commission + $15 (5%) sales tax] where it cuts out the business from needing to later pay the employee

but the reality is when you buy a TV/PC from best-buy. you pay best-buy. .. the HR/accounting department of best-buy then pay an employee as a separate transaction at the end of the month

after all in most cases the customer does not know all of best-buys internal costs where best-buy pays out labour, bills, share dividends at the end of the month/year so its kinda impractical to interrogate the retailer about their future spending plans to reduce their transactions by you performing them for them

Note that the code can do a lot of good things. Which means, it is possible to write some code, that will allow transaction joining, and sending it later in a batched version to the network. And note that even though this kind of service meets the definition of the mixer, it is still allowed by the rules, if you don't control the funds of your users, or if you can meet any other condition, listed by theymos. There are many ways to do that.

much like mixing is mentioned in regulations.. so is coinjoining, tumbling, AEC, obfuscation
https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/guidance/Second-12-Month-Review-Revised-FATF-Standards-Virtual-Assets-VASPS.pdf

The market for anonymity-enhancing tools and methods is in rapid flux. For
example, several mixer/tumbler services have been taken offline following
enforcement action for operating as unregistered VASPs. Some VASPs have also
delisted AECs due to their ML/TF risks, which has reduced access to AECs.
Nonetheless, some AECs have seen increased adoption by darknet markets and
ransomware actors, while bitcoin or fiat currencies still seems to be the major
settlement methods. For example, while cybercriminals often require payment in
bitcoin, some ransomware operators have offered discounted rates to victims who
pay in AECs, likely to reduce transparency of payments. In addition, the last year has
seen significant increase in the use of privacy wallet transfers where multiple
people’s transactions are combined into a single transfer, such as CoinJoin. Overall,
the use of anonymity enhancements remains a key area of ML/TF concern.

currently "coinjoin" is not specifically on a list of things VASPS need to actually monitor/do things about officially/specifically. and its just something regulators recently are starting to learn about/discuss/have concerns. but soon enough they will add it to official guidance to monitor coinjoin users

the smarter trick is to go deeper in thought.. like "buy/sell game credit" where deposited coin is not same taint as withdrawn. but the service is advertising as a legit service of retail gaming. instead of promoting itself as "privacy" "coin cleaning" "mixing"
smart people can work out how to use legit services to their "privacy" advantage without needing it advertised as "privacy enhancing"

heck there were even the olden days where you deposit fiat into btc-e create a 'MT-Gox code' and using bitinstant reserves then use the code on mtgox to then withdraw through mtgox.. and that was not considered 'laundering' but instead 'arbitrage'. it was not advertised as "privacy enhancing. though many smart people knew the benefits of using the codes to "arbitrage" their way to different coin holdings
(bitinstant did not get shut down or charged due to its mtgox-btc-e code reserves.. it got shut down because the compliance officer was doing private trades with a drug dealer he had full knowledge about)

EG set up TWO services
a. a legitimate service people can buy 'game credit codes' (offering no withdrawal)
b. a legitimate service people can sell 'game credit codes' (offering no deposits)

thus each business cannot be considered a money service business/exchange. because individually they are retailers

[Wind_FURY]

The problem I see with this is that it is just one more step in saying goodbye to privacy in Bitcoin. Mixers have been banned here because it won't be long before there will be regulations expressly prohibiting them. I said it some time ago: services that serve to obfuscate the origin of funds cannot have much future.

The casinos that have been so important in the history of Bitcoin and Bitcointalk will have to end up operating like fiat casinos, with everyone perfectly identified from the beginning among other things.

We are on a seemingly unstoppable path of loss of privacy in general, and Bitcoin is not going to be an exception.

It won't be that. I believe it will be wallet apps that will start having features that will "warn" users that they are about to receive a "tainted" input. As more users become "taint-aware", the moment they receive a "tainted" input, it's going to be a game of hot-potato.

- Users would sell those "tainted" coins as soon as possible, making the price of "tainted" Bitcoins lower than "clean" Bitcoins.

b. invent a new service that does not even mention privacy/cleaning, mixing.. and is more creative with how it takes in deposits and withdraws .. cough cough satoshi-dice cough cough

Isn't there an upgrade that would make transactions for opening Lightning channels indistinguishable from normal transactions?

you dont need a bitcoin upgrade. you just need to think smarter, lightning can do some changes and fix their flaws, even flaws in regard to how recognisable a channel lock format is

I believe it has something to do with Taproot. But I'm not sure if the making of opening and closures of Lightning channels indistinguishable from regular transactions have been implemented yet. But if it is, then I believe the Lightning Network could be used as more of an off-chain privacy layer rather than an off-chain network for fast and cheap transactions. Because I believe it won't be cheap forever once demand for Lightning goes up. Why? Because Bitcoin is a limited source of capital, then therefore Lightning channels will be limited.

[stwenhao]

I believe it has something to do with Taproot.

Why do you think so? Lightning could work even on P2PK, if there would be no routing. Note that if you multiply a public key by a private key, then you can reach 2-of-2 multisig on a P2PK. Here is how: https://duo.com/labs/tech-notes/2p-ecdsa-explained

Also, there was a thing called "payment channels", that existed long before Lightning Network was even invented. See this page: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Payment_channels

Note that if you have a payment channel, you don't have to add routing to the whole picture. Segwit was needed only because of routing, if you remove routing from LN, you can implement it on any address type you want, even P2PK.

[Frankolala]

Banning mixer on bitcointalk us nothing to me because the forum has been existing before the nicers company came in for ads by forum members. And if mixers services campaign no longer exist in the forum, the gorum will be doing fine and normal activities will still be going on.

Anything that will bring raising of eye browns to this forum ny government should be disallowed to keep the forum clean and save from the government, because the government has the power to shut down any company that they want to. It is sad to see that mixers wants to bring a bad name to bitcoin because of bad actors. This forum was built for sharing ideas on bitcoin and every angle of it, so whatever will jeopardize such mission shouldn't be encouraged.

[LeGaulois]

also dont forget these two details

1. many bitcoiners lobbied to get governments to recognise bitcoin as a currency.. opening the door to currency regulations
   (2009-2013 bitcoin was defined as private property. 2014-now its currency)

True, they were telling us during years how "wonderful" it could be.

But it's worse than that in reality
Did you ever think on who's funding Blockstream or Digital Currency Group for example? And how it's funny if you think about it
Axa, Mastercard, and so on. Come on, what good could have come from letting them in?

If you listen to the WEF about the cryptocurrency industry, nothing is smelling good for us in their speech

[DaveF]

also dont forget these two details

1. many bitcoiners lobbied to get governments to recognise bitcoin as a currency.. opening the door to currency regulations
   (2009-2013 bitcoin was defined as private property. 2014-now its currency)

2. regulations actually require businesses to watch/monitor mixer users that deposit with them, more so than other random people transacting on the blockchain. so using a mixer doesnt offer better privacy, it puts you on a watchlist due to using a mixer.

the solution, if regulators require businesses to monitor mixer users..
a. stop using mixers
b. invent a new service that does not even mention privacy/cleaning, mixing.. and is more creative with how it takes in deposits and withdraws .. cough cough satoshi-dice cough cough

1) Still depends on where you are in the world. A blanket 2014 date is not accurate, even now there are still places that see BTC as property.
2) A lot of places still don't really care about mixers, they just monitor sanctioned addresses, no sanction no problem. The question is how far back do they look.
2a) Yes.
2b) Don't think that matters if once again people / services pay attention to sanction lists.

-Dave

[franky1]

Did you ever think on who's funding Blockstream or Digital Currency Group for example? And how it's funny if you think about it
Axa, Mastercard, and so on. Come on, what good could have come from letting them in?

If you listen to the WEF about the cryptocurrency industry, nothing is smelling good for us in their speech

you like to follow the money..
lets take you backwards..
WEF   world economic forum
   -BIS  bank of international settlements
      -CBDC: M-bridge the BIS project that will manage all reserve swaps of CBDC
           -CBDC the key-pair secured ID of multisig payments between customer<->bank, and bank<->bank to compete/replace visa/mastercard
               -hyperledger the group that helped design many CBDC and the M-bridge
                    -blockstream were part of hyperledger

many of the stuff blockstream done to bitcoin were actually sandbox tests for patented designs they passed onto hyperledger, and vice versa

https://www.ccn.com/hyperledger-blockchain-new-members-blockstream/

[LeGaulois]

@franky1
It's pretty much summed up.

It could deserve a dedicated topic because it's an interesting area of discussion. I made the link with the WEF and other because yes, I do like to follow the money. It answers to a lot of questions

I don't know why people haven't been interested in all this for years they're in the crypto industry.

Especially as the WEF's speech is quite meaningful, to the point where I wondered if the WEF wasn't behind the creation of Bitcoin lol. OK, maybe it's a bit paranoid and could be considered a conspiracy theory, but everything they're doing on crypto is enough to make you wonder. It's not just saying here and there that it should be regulated. It's about the technology, the development of the ecosystem, and even recently they've been talking about interconnecting all the crypto blockchains together.

They're at least trying to drive the bitcoin industry and influence it

Add to that the CBDC, blockchain for Carbon dioxide, Digital iD in EU,

[Lucius]

To me, it is a much bigger paradox that the OP opens a topic like this in BD when we already have a corresponding topic in Meta, and besides, the entire post was created with the help of AI.

https://sapling.ai/ai-content-detector/136d8c995e916e719e38232a9e599997
Also, the GPTZero detector gives a result of 93% generated with the help of AI -> https://gptzero.me/

[Hamza2424]

Mixers are not the only privacy solutions, but yes it was one of the easy ones and user-friendly, we still have, coin-join, pay-join, and even HD wallets, I would like to mention that I have not experienced any of these but I've got some information about these solutions as well.

Mixers Ban on the forum is really a serious concern for the forum, as we dont want to see, opening our eyes in the morning and logging back to the forum, and there you go the Bitcointalk is no more, I think whatever thermos did is really for the sake of the forum. Let's wait for more solutions. In the end satoshi he dared to introduce Bitcoin mixers are not even a deal for him.

[BenCodie]

There is a solution to this paradox. I went into detail with it in a public letter to theymos which asks for a medium, a discussion board for Cybersecurity and Privacy. Something members have expressed that they want in a consensus manner for the last 12 months.

The topics in the thread could have been better. This isn't an attack on decebtralization as another member said, as mixers are centralized. It is an attack on privacy to an extent, in the sense that a service industry which charged fees to mix Bitcoins have now had a major advertising source (and community regulator) removed.

A medium however, is needed. We need to be able to discuss how to be private and secure in the bitcoin ecosystem, and on the net. It's a vital part of keeping the community safe from all kinds of threats in the future, and to innovate on the concept of mixers in a decentralized way.

I'm hoping theymos sees all of the discussions, votes and the letter, and makes a decision on the board before the mixer deadline.

[DooMAD]

for instance a fee formulae where utxo that moves with less then X confirms pays more

You want to bring back something called "coinage"? This is a good idea. Some page about that: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Miner_fees#Priority_transactions

Which means, instead of the current, flat "satoshi per byte" model, we could have "priority" instead, and allow cheaper transactions, if some coin was not moved for a long time.

my tickly throat was not to say more spam is better. it was actually that services need to act smarter with what they advertise

Yes, this is a good approach. For example, they could just implement something like CoinJoin. Because mixers are banned, but CoinJoin is allowed.

Because the main issue is not mixing per se. It is the way they are taken down. Which means, even if you have a mixer, you can still advertise it, if you for example don't control the coins, but you only provide a market for mixing (like JoinMarket or any other CoinJoin).

Fee priority is something that used to be implemented, but was changed for good reasons.  It's worth pointing out that the user suggesting this holds a long term vendetta against developers.  They advocate undoing just about every change made to Bitcoin over the course of the last 7 years.  

I've actually added them to my ignore list because I perceive them to be one of the forums' most prolific disinformation agents.  It's not worth reading their delusions about how this supposedly ought to work.  Particularly when they've been repeating the same drivel for years, hoping to gain a fresh audience.

And in previous topics, their proposed alternative to mixing sounded worryingly akin to setting up what law enforcement agencies would call a 'Front'.  I cannot stress strongly enough how bad this "advice" is.  It is not recommended to found a business with the intent of laundering money.  I'm sure that goes without saying, but just in case anyone did think for a second that it somehow sounded like a sane course of action, it really isn't.

Most of their ideas are equally dangerous and stupid.  

[Kakmakr]

The thing is.... Bitcoin Mixers are the big unknown. We have seen Bitcoin Mixers saying that they are not logging any traffic and then it gets shut down and you find that they have stored Terabytes of data that are raided by law enforcement.

There are Mixers out there that are most probably "Honey Traps" for criminals and they are being used by law enforcement to monitor transactions. (Like some Exit Nodes on Tor) 

[DooMAD]

The thing is.... Bitcoin Mixers are the big unknown. We have seen Bitcoin Mixers saying that they are not logging any traffic and then it gets shut down and you find that they have stored Terabytes of data that are raided by law enforcement.

Did we ever get confirmation it was user data, though?  Innocent until proven guilty and all that.  For all we know, authorities could have seized a bunch of full nodes, each with their own copy of the Bitcoin blockchain.

But yes, Mixers are far from perfect.  They absolutely require trust.  I'm hoping this is something that will improve over time.  Wherever possible, we should aim to employ a "trustless" model.

[kryptqnick]

I think that a post by theymos about mixers is very well-written and explains why they are going to be banned on the forum. The argumentation is very rational, based on the pattern of mixers being declared illegal when they get big.
Moreover, Bitcointalk is a forum, so it's for discussions, and even with the ban, it will be allowed to discuss mixers in general, as long as they don't provide links and direct people toward particular mixers.
I personally have never used mixers, so it won't affect me in any way. While I support the values of privacy and decentralization, they aren't absolute and primary values to me, so I wouldn't stand by mixers when they're becoming illegal.

[DaveF]

The thing is.... Bitcoin Mixers are the big unknown. We have seen Bitcoin Mixers saying that they are not logging any traffic and then it gets shut down and you find that they have stored Terabytes of data that are raided by law enforcement.

Did we ever get confirmation it was user data, though?  Innocent until proven guilty and all that.  For all we know, authorities could have seized a bunch of full nodes, each with their own copy of the Bitcoin blockchain.

But yes, Mixers are far from perfect.  They absolutely require trust.  I'm hoping this is something that will improve over time.  Wherever possible, we should aim to employ a "trustless" model.

No confirmation as to what they have. And I would go so far as to say that since it's an ongoing investigation no confirmation of anything will come out until the investigation is done.
There will be rumor, innuendo and conjecture. But no hard data.

-Dave

[franky1]

doomad motto:
"just have faith and trust and belief in services doomad promotes. dont scrutinise or criticise them"
"be patient the actual things may happen in the future"
but real privacy people want to know and want to ensure their transfers are not tracked by service promoted as "no tracking" now. not having to blindly trust and then only scrutinise once caught, to then investigate and decide in a court room..

gotta laugh when troll sig campaigners blindly idolise/defend project manager they promote, rather then scrutinise and review the feature the service is SUPPOSE to offer to protect the users
when a troll defends a business rather then care about the customer experience/risk.. that troll becomes a sell out

[LeGaulois]

@Kakmakr @DooMAD @DaveF

You're taking Chipmixer as an example (and as @DaveF says there is no confirmation as to what they have) but I can mention Bestmixer, back in 2019.

What happened: While seizing the few servers used, they collected IP addresses, chat messages, TXs details, and BTC addresses.
And it's not a speculation, it was annonced by Europol and others LEs.
I remember several months later, one of the customers who had been using bestmixer was arrested. They seized gold, luxury watches, BTC wallets and other stuff from him.

[DaveF]

@Kakmakr @DooMAD @DaveF

You're taking Chipmixer as an example (and as @DaveF says there is no confirmation as to what they have) but I can mention Bestmixer, back in 2019.

What happened: While seizing the few servers used, they collected IP addresses, chat messages, TXs details, and BTC addresses.
And it's not a speculation, it was annonced by Europol and others LEs.
I remember several months later, one of the customers who had been using bestmixer was arrested. They seized gold, luxury watches, BTC wallets and other stuff from him.

Yes I was talking Chipmixer & sinbad. Both are still listed as 'ongoing'.
Bestmixer and a couple of others we know what they have because they told us as you pointed out, but that was after they were arresting people and doing other things with the data.
AFAIK there have been no arrests from these last 2 nor any official statements of exactly what data they have.

-Dave