Letter to Theymos: Provide medium for the forum in the face of the mixer ban

[NotATether]

The title of this topic is a little misleading as I initially thought that it had something to do about the mixer ban. But actually it's just another request to create the Cybersecurity and Privacy board, which is definitely a good idea as I've previously stated.

Have you figured out who would be the moderator for such a board? I think that might be one hurdle you need to overcome.

[BenCodie]

The title of this topic is a little misleading as I initially thought that it had something to do about the mixer ban. But actually it's just another request to create the Cybersecurity and Privacy board, which is definitely a good idea as I've previously stated.

Mixers offer privacy. Mixers are being taken away. The mixer ban is a hindrance to privacy. The board will be a supplement for that hindrance - and for those that feel hindered by the removal of mixers from the forum, the board might provide legitimate supplements to the removal.

Have you figured out who would be the moderator for such a board? I think that might be one hurdle you need to overcome.

I'd be happy to however I believe that some members whom the community would much prefer over myself had put their hands up in the discussion thread already I'll double check that and edit this post with all of the quotes later on.

[LoyceV]

One benefit of allowing advertising of these campaigns (that will become clearer from the ban forward) is the force of good practice on services by holding reputation as collateral in exchange for advertising.

I've seen many scamming mixers over the years. Until recently, I didn't realize some mixers may just be created by non-scamming bad guys in need of good people looking for privacy. I can't be certain which mixers fall in which category, but by now I think it's likely both exist.
I also considered Bitcointalk the place to be to find honest mixers. It's weird though: that could mean a honest mixer is ran by what some governments consider to be criminals.

To top it off we have a staff member who acknowledges the following:

Instead of offtopic and trolling, better do some forum research if you're so interested.

But who does not take action on this, such as deleting the ridiculous off topic garbage replies from Shenanigan on the subject.

"Staff" members can't delete posts. Xal0lex is a Moderator on his own boards, not on Meta.

BenCodie, please change the thread title to something like: "Discussion, LoyceV powers on the forum."

The off-topic troll is welcome to spam LoyceV's reputation thread.
I've deleted my post responding to the troll. I should have known better.

The title of this topic is a little misleading as I initially thought that it had something to do about the mixer ban.

I thought the same. That probably didn't help in staying on-topic.

I'll be making a new self-moderated topic if a moderator doesn't remove the obvious spam

You can't do that in Meta.

[BenCodie]

One benefit of allowing advertising of these campaigns (that will become clearer from the ban forward) is the force of good practice on services by holding reputation as collateral in exchange for advertising.

I've seen many scamming mixers over the years. Until recently, I didn't realize some mixers may just be created by non-scamming bad guys in need of good people looking for privacy. I can't be certain which mixers fall in which category, but by now I think it's likely both exist.
I also considered Bitcointalk the place to be to find honest mixers. It's weird though: that could mean a honest mixer is ran by what some governments consider to be criminals.

It's a moot point and an ongoing battle. As said in OP, there's no doubt that you can't win with mixers. They're either good people for freedom and privacy, with bad people using them and ruining it for legitimate users, or bad people running them and using others to hide coins...the ratio, unknown.
It's not something that's purely bad or good either way. You're always going to have good users using what they think are legitimate mixers. Those good people are the ones I am hoping will make use of the CS & P board if theymos decided to add it.

To top it off we have a staff member who acknowledges the following:

Instead of offtopic and trolling, better do some forum research if you're so interested.

But who does not take action on this, such as deleting the ridiculous off topic garbage replies from Shenanigan on the subject.

"Staff" members can't delete posts. Xal0lex is a Moderator on his own boards, not on Meta.

BenCodie, please change the thread title to something like: "Discussion, LoyceV powers on the forum."

The off-topic troll is welcome to spam LoyceV's reputation thread.
I've deleted my post responding to the troll. I should have known better.

I'll be making a new self-moderated topic if a moderator doesn't remove the obvious spam

You can't do that in Meta.

That's a damn shame. I guess the trash just has to remain then. It's a little bit ridiculous though.

The title of this topic is a little misleading as I initially thought that it had something to do about the mixer ban.

I thought the same. That probably didn't help in staying on-topic.

It definitely didn't indicate to discuss loycev's permissions on the forum and things about user bans.

[JollyGood]

Yours is about the most apt reply in this thread because it captures the essence of the motive behind it. This thread seems to be more about attention-seeking on part of the OP for his own agenda consisting of pushing for the creation of the board he dreams theymos will accept.

I could be wrong (I have been in the past about many things) but it seems as though by creating what could be seen by others as some form of misconstrued legitimacy by being the creator of a security board will probably help bring in some extra customers for the $42 he charges for a service based on what he copy/pasted in the OP of this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5434404.0

Some members actually believing he is well versed in the cybersecurity field is about absurd as you could imagine. Here he writes: "Why am I running the service and what qualifies me to do so?" then fails to provide anything of substance (including qualifications and/or experiences) which qualifies him to do so.

As for this thread, in my opinion "Letter to Theymos" should have been "a PM to theymos" first before attention-seeking in the Meta board.

Wonderful thread this, I laughed a lot. You have to see what you can see lately in Meta.

First we have our friend BenCodie who takes advantage of the mixers ban to push his much loved Cybersecurity and Privacy board, which seems reasonable to me, and more considering the positive votes it has had in the forum, but it seems to me that the promotion of this topic is not purely disinterested but has quite a lot to do with this:

[Consultations available] Personalized Cybersecurity & Privacy Report for $42

Then we have our dumb friend Shenanigan saying a stupidity of his own and making a fool of himself, which leads to the first 14 comments of the thread having nothing to do with what the OP is saying.

To top it off we have a staff member who acknowledges the following:

Instead of offtopic and trolling, better do some forum research if you're so interested.

But who does not take action on this, such as deleting the ridiculous off topic garbage replies from Shenanigan on the subject.

Of the rest of the comments, only nutildah has an on topic reply, with which I agree.

According to the above, my conclusion is the following: hey BenCodie, please change the thread title to something like: "Discussion, LoyceV powers on the forum." so at least this thread in Meta will look like an on topic one, although what will be weird is the OP, I recommend you also to edit it to match the main discussion of the thread.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

One benefit of allowing advertising of these campaigns (that will become clearer from the ban forward) is the force of good practice on services by holding reputation as collateral in exchange for advertising. Services can not steal from users or do so on an isolated level, they could not be unfair to users in a subtle way, and they must do as the service promises and no less, or else the service will immediately face negative attention from the community.

Just thought I'd address this point--it makes total sense that a business would try to remain honest if they face reputational damage should they not do so.  The only problem is that there could be shady shit going on behind the scenes that no one outside the advertiser knows about, and it's not until either they get caught or pull an exit scam that they face the blowback, and by the time that happens they couldn't care less what members of this forum write about them.

Similarly, there are a lot of reasons why corporations should do things, but sometimes they don't.  It could be because of greed, incompetence, or whatever, but in the world of crypto it's damn hard to predict what a project/exchange/business is going to do or why.

I hate the ban on mixers on principle, but I see Theymos's side of it as well.  Try to fight the government and you're guaranteed to lose or go broke trying--and AFAIK mixers aren't illegal yet, but I'm guessing Theymos is anticipating that that's where the US government is going.

[philipma1957]

One benefit of allowing advertising of these campaigns (that will become clearer from the ban forward) is the force of good practice on services by holding reputation as collateral in exchange for advertising. Services can not steal from users or do so on an isolated level, they could not be unfair to users in a subtle way, and they must do as the service promises and no less, or else the service will immediately face negative attention from the community.

Just thought I'd address this point--it makes total sense that a business would try to remain honest if they face reputational damage should they not do so.  The only problem is that there could be shady shit going on behind the scenes that no one outside the advertiser knows about, and it's not until either they get caught or pull an exit scam that they face the blowback, and by the time that happens they couldn't care less what members of this forum write about them.

Similarly, there are a lot of reasons why corporations should do things, but sometimes they don't.  It could be because of greed, incompetence, or whatever, but in the world of crypto it's damn hard to predict what a project/exchange/business is going to do or why.

I hate the ban on mixers on principle, but I see Theymos's side of it as well.  Try to fight the government and you're guaranteed to lose or go broke trying--and AFAIK mixers aren't illegal yet, but I'm guessing Theymos is anticipating that that's where the US government is going.

Yeah I have lived in the USA and the laws are complex and vast.

50 sets of  state laws
Hundreds of county laws
Thousands of city laws
and federal laws.

on three levels tax, criminal , civil.

I am at my desk looking at 45 plus federal tax books which are just for some of the federal tax laws.

[Poker Player]

"Staff" members can't delete posts. Xal0lex is a Moderator on his own boards, not on Meta.

Well, thanks for the info. Again. Now that you mention it, I sounded like that, but I hadn't thought about it when I wrote the post.

I could be wrong (I have been in the past about many things) but it seems as though by creating what could be seen by others as some form of misconstrued legitimacy by being the creator of a security board will probably help bring in some extra customers for the $42 he charges for a service based on what he copy/pasted in the OP of this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5434404.0

Of course, that's what I think too, no matter how much he denies it.

Yeah I have lived in the USA and the laws are complex and vast.

50 sets of  state laws
Hundreds of county laws
Thousands of city laws
and federal laws.

on three levels tax, criminal , civil.

I am at my desk looking at 45 plus federal tax books which are just for some of the federal tax laws.

That not only happens in the USA. In the EU you have laws at the EU level, at the state level, and depending on the state, at the regional level, sometimes more than one level of local laws, county laws, and so on. There seems to be no end to the voracity of the public authorities and the growing regulatory complexity.

[SamReomo]

Mixers offer privacy. Mixers are being taken away. The mixer ban is a hindrance to privacy. The board will be a supplement for that hindrance - and for those that feel hindered by the removal of mixers from the forum, the board might provide legitimate supplements to the removal.

You're right that mixers were intended to offer privacy in the beginning but they were also run and managed by humans and that means the ones who were managing those mixers had their own shady side which none of us was aware of. I know that there are still good guys that are running their mixer sites but in past most trusted mixers have done activities that made theymos to ban even those mixers as well that didn't do anything wrong. The ban on mixers is surely for the safety of the forum and its members and theymos has no personal issues with those mixers and their owners.

Bitcoin was meant to be decentralized and there was no mention of privacy of hiding one's transactions in original code of Bitcoin. Satoshi wanted to have a system where someone can easily transfer funds using a currency that's not managed or controlled by centralized system and he created Bitcoin. I know that privacy is a very important thing for everyone and the board you're suggesting is going to be helpful, but I'm quite sure there will be users who will share or leak a lot of things in that board which isn't going to be a good thing for the forum and its members.

Although, I have supported your initial application of that board and I'm still a supporter of the idea but I think there should be strict rules on that board so it can be useful for the ones who want to be safe from the hackers and scammers. I know that such board can be a useful place to promote awareness about scams and privacy things that could help the ones to be on the safe side but there are some negative things that can also take place on that board.

[Timelord2o67]

The OP is basing their statistics on a poll of a couple of dozen users out of the more than three million registered users?

Remarkable.

[Mpamaegbu]

~snipped~

In my opinion, this Loycev is very arrogant. Sounds very arrogant. No self-respecting person who accidentally ends up in a proxyban deserves to be treated like that

I guess you're trying to live out the meaning of your moniker, "shenanigan". Otherwise, I don't see what could occasion all those wild accusations you're throwing up on this thread. Someone should kindly check up the meaning of shenanigan before they get unnecessarily serious with your POV.

On the mixer ban, I'm cocksure there's going to be a ripple effect that will empower other competitors that can wrestle traffic from this forum. Already, I've read about a manager who has concluded plans to move a mixing service they're managing here to a sister forum. In time to come, more managers are going to find fertile grounds to move theirs too; not just only mixers but other advertising promotions. I don't know if theymos' decision to ban mixers here outright will be a good one at the end. This is an experiment we all hope will end well. It's a make or mar moment.

[LoyceV]

Bitcoin was meant to be decentralized and there was no mention of privacy of hiding one's transactions in original code of Bitcoin.

For the record: privacy was mentioned in Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin whitepaper:

10. Privacy
The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the
parties involved and the trusted third party. The necessity to announce all transactions publicly
precludes this method, but privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in
another place: by keeping public keys anonymous. The public can see that someone is sending
an amount to someone else, but without information linking the transaction to anyone. This is
similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of
individual trades, the "tape", is made public, but without telling who the parties were.

This has since then been called "pseudonymous".

On the mixer ban, I'm cocksure there's going to be a ripple effect that will empower other competitors that can wrestle traffic from this forum.

I already saw a coinjoin campaign that will soon resume.

Already, I've read about a manager who has concluded plans to move a mixing service they're managing here to a sister forum.

Obviously, banning mixers from being advertised here doesn't stop them from being advertised elsewhere. But that's not Bitcointalk's (or theymos') problem anymore.

[JollyGood]

It is remarkable and you are not the only one who has noticed that.

In between posting erratically by amongst other things attacking some members and being hypocritical with his gambling views, he has been trying to re-invent himself as a cyber security expert but he has no skills to make that qualification.

Keeping that in mind, he wants to charge $42 for a service that he offers by copy/pasted some text which does not equate to any expertise here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5434404.0 and that seems to be the obvious motive behind his constant pushing for theymos to create the board.

The OP is basing their statistics on a poll of a couple of dozen users out of the more than three million registered users?

Remarkable.

[SamReomo]

For the record: privacy was mentioned in Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin whitepaper:

You're right that Satoshi discussed about privacy in the Bitcoin's whitepaper but that privacy wasn't meant to be something like the one that the mixers give. There were no chain analysts back then and Satoshi mentioned something that was acceptable as part of privacy in those days.

10. Privacy
The public can see that someone is sending an amount to someone else, but without information linking the transaction to anyone.

It was directly mentioned in the Bitcoin white paper that public can see who is sending an amount of Bitcoin to whom but they won't be able to link that transaction to anyone. I believe these days it's not hard for authorities and other chain analysis originations to determine that who made the transaction and linking it to an individual isn't that hard anymore for them.

The mixers were playing their part to add that privacy element to the transactions and surely they had achieved their goals because linking of those transactions with someone was pretty tough when the transaction went through a mixer but some of the mixers were doing shady things as well which were noticed by the authorities and that become the reason for seizing of mixers.

[BenCodie]

It is remarkable and you are not the only one who has noticed that.

In between posting erratically by amongst other things attacking some members and being hypocritical with his gambling views, he has been trying to re-invent himself as a cyber security expert but he has no skills to make that qualification.

Keeping that in mind, he wants to charge $42 for a service that he offers by copy/pasted some text which does not equate to any expertise here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5434404.0 and that seems to be the obvious motive behind his constant pushing for theymos to create the board.

The OP is basing their statistics on a poll of a couple of dozen users out of the more than three million registered users?

Remarkable.

Quit the witch hunt. This thread has nothing to do with that thread. I've already said that in other posts.

Anyone with half a brain can use this logic:
Cybersecurity & Privacy board with free knowledge would hinder any service offering cybersecurity and privacy related services

I posted that thread purely as a medium for anyone who wanted assistance while the board was being made. The price is purely the cost of my time. It is not some massive attempt for profit. $42 for 1.5-2hrs time? Come on.

The OP is basing their statistics on a poll of a couple of dozen users out of the more than three million registered users?

Remarkable.

Consensus is consensus. If the other 3 million were active, I see no reason why they wouldn't have voted.

Yours is about the most apt reply in this thread because it captures the essence of the motive behind it. This thread seems to be more about attention-seeking on part of the OP for his own agenda consisting of pushing for the creation of the board he dreams theymos will accept.

I could be wrong (I have been in the past about many things) but it seems as though by creating what could be seen by others as some form of misconstrued legitimacy by being the creator of a security board will probably help bring in some extra customers for the $42 he charges for a service based on what he copy/pasted in the OP of this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5434404.0

Some members actually believing he is well versed in the cybersecurity field is about absurd as you could imagine. Here he writes: "Why am I running the service and what qualifies me to do so?" then fails to provide anything of substance (including qualifications and/or experiences) which qualifies him to do so.

As for this thread, in my opinion "Letter to Theymos" should have been "a PM to theymos" first before attention-seeking in the Meta board.

Wonderful thread this, I laughed a lot. You have to see what you can see lately in Meta.

First we have our friend BenCodie who takes advantage of the mixers ban to push his much loved Cybersecurity and Privacy board, which seems reasonable to me, and more considering the positive votes it has had in the forum, but it seems to me that the promotion of this topic is not purely disinterested but has quite a lot to do with this:

[Consultations available] Personalized Cybersecurity & Privacy Report for $42

Then we have our dumb friend Shenanigan saying a stupidity of his own and making a fool of himself, which leads to the first 14 comments of the thread having nothing to do with what the OP is saying.

To top it off we have a staff member who acknowledges the following:

Instead of offtopic and trolling, better do some forum research if you're so interested.

But who does not take action on this, such as deleting the ridiculous off topic garbage replies from Shenanigan on the subject.

Of the rest of the comments, only nutildah has an on topic reply, with which I agree.

According to the above, my conclusion is the following: hey BenCodie, please change the thread title to something like: "Discussion, LoyceV powers on the forum." so at least this thread in Meta will look like an on topic one, although what will be weird is the OP, I recommend you also to edit it to match the main discussion of the thread.

Attention seeking....

I could be wrong (I have been in the past about many things) but it seems as though by creating what could be seen by others as some form of misconstrued legitimacy by being the creator of a security board will probably help bring in some extra customers for the $42 he charges for a service based on what he copy/pasted in the OP of this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5434404.0

Of course, that's what I think too, no matter how much he denies it.

...You both make me sick.

I haven't bumped that thread nor promoted it since it was created months and months ago. I am not actively trying to gain business. My dedication to a board that the community want, that everyone in the community will benefit from, has zero to do with that thread...and as I've said before, it will only be hindered after the board is added, as a lot of the info I possess will go into the board.

You can both twist things as you like - This thread has a clear intention, to get an answer from theymos in the face of a hindrance to anonymity and privacy that will take place on January 1. It is a clear letter, it clearly updates the progress of what the active members of the community have asked for, and it provides an official, public request.

I don't think you will convince anyone that I am campaigning for this board just to make $21~ per hour from providing security audits for people, and giving information to people that they'll otherwise get for free. Get real.

[yhiaali3]

It is unfortunate to see that the thread has deviated too far from its path. Perhaps misunderstanding and confusion occurred among members due to the link between the topic of creating a cybersecurity board and the issue of banning mixer campaigns in the forum.

I am one of the members who supported your request and still do, but frankly, I was surprised by the link between the issue of approval of the cybersecurity board and the ban on mixers. Perhaps some members think that you are chasing the opportunity to obtain approval.

Although I do not doubt your good intentions towards the forum, I think that perhaps it is better to postpone the topic until the beginning of the new year and see the results and effects of the decision to ban mixer campaigns.

[BenCodie]

It is unfortunate to see that the thread has deviated too far from its path. Perhaps misunderstanding and confusion occurred among members due to the link between the topic of creating a cybersecurity board and the issue of banning mixer campaigns in the forum.

All you need to do is visit my trust viewer and look at the members who have "~"'d me, to know/reason why, on top of Shenanigans garbage, this thread has continued to be derailed. Those who claim that I am aiming for attention with this thread, are simply here to cause drama.

Shenanigan is one who is here to stir up trouble. Why he chose here, is another story that may relate to the above. I don't know.

Others, like yourself, innocently may not see the link that is clear to me...which I'll explain:

I am one of the members who supported your request and still do, but frankly, I was surprised by the link between the issue of approval of the cybersecurity board and the ban on mixers. Perhaps some members think that you are chasing the opportunity to obtain approval.

Although I do not doubt your good intentions towards the forum, I think that perhaps it is better to postpone the topic until the beginning of the new year and see the results and effects of the decision to ban mixer campaigns.

The ban of mixers are a big hit to on-chain privacy.
The cybersecurity & privacy board are a healthy discussion place and a plus to privacy.

No cybersecurity & privacy board + the ban of mixers provides a big message from this forum administration: We do not want to (and we can't) talk about privacy, or enable it.
Cybersecurity & privacy board added + the ban of mixers is another message entirely: We will abide by the authorities but we will keep healthy, legitimate discussion about privacy (a core value of Bitcoin's) open to all, in a board vote which the active/voting community has decided on with consensus.

The timing is not coincidental, I believe there is a need for a response from theymos by the time mixers are banned, so we can know which message the forum is giving us.

[348Judah]

2. Add the Cyber security and Privacy board in the Other category of the forum:

Name: Cybersecurity and Privacy
Category: Other
Description: Discussion about cybersecurity and online privacy and its improvement to minimize the risk of data breaches, hacks, tracking or system compromise which may result in exploitation or loss of Bitcoins.

Even if this is granted, it has a complete different approach to tackle the issues on ground concerning mixers and I don't think this can change anything, but the whole idea of the cyber security measure is a good idea but considering that with mixers ban may change nothing about the decision already made.

I will ask you nevertheless to mention some of those "rights and privileges" that he has and the other regular users don't

LoyceV has ability to unban. But he is not a global moderator. How is this even possible?

Always say something you have an idea about it, have you ever seen a situation whereby you see loycev getting users unbanned, and if you're mistaking from that of proxy ban, then many other people has that same right to unbanned newbies who have evil record of their IP address used at the point of registration, which i think should be something entirely different from the normal ban we are talking about here in this context.

[BenCodie]

2. Add the Cyber security and Privacy board in the Other category of the forum:

Name: Cybersecurity and Privacy
Category: Other
Description: Discussion about cybersecurity and online privacy and its improvement to minimize the risk of data breaches, hacks, tracking or system compromise which may result in exploitation or loss of Bitcoins.

Even if this is granted, it has a complete different approach to tackle the issues on ground concerning mixers and I don't think this can change anything, but the whole idea of the cyber security measure is a good idea but considering that with mixers ban may change nothing about the decision already made.

It is a completely different approach, yes. It is enabling the discussion of measures that can be made in the future...maybe, more evolved measures. Maybe, more evolved, decentralized mixer, or decentralized exchange discussion, and how to go about building these on the Bitcoin ecosystem. Maybe, discussion about alternative on-chain privacy that is less frowned upon by authorities and less preferable by bad parties. The possibilities are endless with a discussion board that involves privacy. Cyber security and privacy go hand in hand, security keep people safe, privacy keep people safe. The two topics go hand in hand.

I will ask you nevertheless to mention some of those "rights and privileges" that he has and the other regular users don't

LoyceV has ability to unban. But he is not a global moderator. How is this even possible?

Always say something you have an idea about it, have you ever seen a situation whereby you see loycev getting users unbanned, and if you're mistaking from that of proxy ban, then many other people has that same right to unbanned newbies who have evil record of their IP address used at the point of registration, which i think should be something entirely different from the normal ban we are talking about here in this context.

Let's not feed this pointless discussion.