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?

[1714231615]

1714231615

[1714231615]

1714231615

[1714231615]

1714231615

[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