Are no-KYC services banned?

[alani123]

I noticed that a thread for the promotion of a new exchange openly advertising as no KYC got moved to the archival board. Link

The promotion manager moved it voluntarily?

A new signature campaign "MrStork Exchange Service" has been opened by the campaign manager Hhampuz.

I know this isn't the discussion topic , but I'll be brief: The campaign was moved to the board archival, I don't understand what happened, I'm just speculating  

It got classified as a mixer after users complained, which is totally fine. For the record I messaged theymos about launching this campaign a few days ago and would not have posted it without getting the green light on it.

No harm done!

As far as I know there's no official announcement of no-KYC services being banned in this forum. But perhaps it's coming?

[Hhampuz]

As far as I know there's no official announcement of no-KYC services being banned in this forum. But perhaps it's coming?

It was not allowed for having too many similarities with a mixing service, the non-kyc part was not the issue.

[Hazink]

As far as I know there's no official announcement of no-KYC services being banned in this forum. But perhaps it's coming?

It was not allowed for having too many similarities with a mixing service, the non-kyc part was not the issue.

In addition they also offers a mixing service indirectly, even as they claims not to be a mixer, any service which offers to take your dirty coins and give you a clean one can also be considered a mixer which such is part of the service they offer.

[alani123]

As far as I know there's no official announcement of no-KYC services being banned in this forum. But perhaps it's coming?

It was not allowed for having too many similarities with a mixing service, the non-kyc part was not the issue.

In addition they also offers a mixing service indirectly, even as they claims not to be a mixer, any service which offers to take your dirty coins and give you a clean one can also be considered a mixer which such is part of the service they offer.

By that logic pretty much any service that uses different inputs for withdrawals could be classified under the same category but ok, I understand that being promoted as a mixer is kinda too much.

[_act_]

In addition they also offers a mixing service indirectly, even as they claims not to be a mixer, any service which offers to take your dirty coins and give you a clean one can also be considered a mixer which such is part of the service they offer.

This will be the main reason. Also it is using Tor only because I noticed that the exchange has no clearnet? If clearnet is there and no mention of dirty and clean, it would have been allowed. I will be expecting the exchange to come in new way.

[PX-Z]

I noticed that a thread for the promotion of a new exchange openly advertising as no KYC got moved to the archival board.
...
As far as I know there's no official announcement of no-KYC services being banned in this forum. But perhaps it's coming?

Your quoted post of Hhampuz answers it all, it's because of mixer-kind of service that bitcointalk doesn't want to have here.

There are still lot of services who offered non-KYC is still here, even have paid and free to use signature campaigns, so it's not about those services.

[TryNinja]

An exchange that asks no KYC, lets you deposit BTC for trading, naturally lets you withdraw BTC. You deposit dirty BTC, you withdraw "cleaner" BTC. Is that ok? Is that a mixer? Is it only a mixer if they claim to clean dirty coins, like MrStork did? At what point is my non-KYC exchange considered a mixer?

@theymos, See what you have done?

[alani123]

I noticed that a thread for the promotion of a new exchange openly advertising as no KYC got moved to the archival board.
...
As far as I know there's no official announcement of no-KYC services being banned in this forum. But perhaps it's coming?

Your quoted post of Hhampuz answers it all, it's because of mixer-kind of service that bitcointalk doesn't want to have here.

There are still lot of services who offered non-KYC is still here, even have paid and free to use signature campaigns, so it's not about those services.

Just see what TryNinja posted above me and he's 100% correct. By the logic of this removal also maybe Bustabit should be banned because in their site they advertise mixing with just different words:


I was actually in favor of mixers being banned here but if we aren't strict on what counts as a mixer then maybe lots of services should end up banned.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

Personally, i think all services that are rubbing shoulders with regulators (that we consider privacy focused) are going to be banned at some point. I am seeing the trend and we are headed for that direction. This will include no KYC exchanges, coins like monero etc.

Just a matter of time.

[PX-Z]

Just see what TryNinja posted above me and he's 100% correct. By the logic of this removal also maybe Bustabit should be banned because in their site they advertise mixing with just different words:


I was actually in favor of mixers being banned here but if we aren't strict on what counts as a mixer then maybe lots of services should end up banned.

This will land on this category written by theymos. As long it's not advertised to enhanced privacy-enhancing then it's good to say its not mixer

1. a. Even though you can sometimes use non-mixers to mix coins by depositing and then withdrawing, this doesn't make it a mixer because this is an incidental use of the service; the service isn't advertised as privacy-enhancing.

3. ...Non-KYC services of other types are still allowed, and in many cases they are a good idea.

About the gambling sites like bustabit or any casino, i don't think you can just deposit then withdraw without wagering because your account will be flagged or its not possible to withdraw until you wager XX amount.

[icopress]

This will be the main reason. Also it is using Tor only because I noticed that the exchange has no clearnet? If clearnet is there and no mention of dirty and clean, it would have been allowed. I will be expecting the exchange to come in new way.

This is wrong.

The problem is not in "kycfree" or "only-Tor", with a 99% probability the thread was moved to the archive because the interface allows you to exchange "BTC for BTC".

[_act_]

The problem is not in "kycfree" or "only-Tor", with a 99% probability the thread was moved to the archive because the interface allows you to exchange "BTC for BTC".

I use the onion site again and wanted to use it to exchange bitcoin for bitcoin and I saw that you are right. The site would be said to be a mixer because of that. An exchange should be a platform that one coin can be exchanged to another and not the same coin. If it is the same coin it is a mixer.

[hd49728]

I use the onion site again and wanted to use it to exchange bitcoin for bitcoin and I saw that you are right. The site would be said to be a mixer because of that. An exchange should be a platform that one coin can be exchanged to another and not the same coin. If it is the same coin it is a mixer.

You can expand this to bridges that allow users to bridge from one cryptocurrency to another cryptocurrency.

So if the expansion is right in the concept, will cryptocurrency bridges, from one blockchain to another, from layer 1 to layer 2, will soon be classified as mixers in future.

I am very curious that will bridges become next targets of SEC. and DOJI.

[Poker Player]

The problem is not in "kycfree" or "only-Tor", with a 99% probability the thread was moved to the archive because the interface allows you to exchange "BTC for BTC".

I use the onion site again and wanted to use it to exchange bitcoin for bitcoin and I saw that you are right. The site would be said to be a mixer because of that. An exchange should be a platform that one coin can be exchanged to another and not the same coin. If it is the same coin it is a mixer.

What if I use Bitcoin to exchange it for a shitcoin, and I use those shitcoins to buy Bitcoin again?

You can expand this to bridges that allow users to bridge from one cryptocurrency to another cryptocurrency.

So if the expansion is right in the concept, will cryptocurrency bridges, from one blockchain to another, from layer 1 to layer 2, will soon be classified as mixers in future.

I am very curious that will bridges become next targets of SEC. and DOJI.

This. In the end, legislation will prohibit any movement of funds that is not perfectly identified KYC, as a bank transaction, regardless of whether it is from Bitcoin to Bitcoin or with shitcoins in between. I have been saying this for a long time and have been barked at for it, but anyone who does not see the way this is going is willfully blind.

[darewaller]

What if I use Bitcoin to exchange it for a shitcoin, and I use those shitcoins to buy Bitcoin again?

Such exchanges will not provide you 100% privacy from the point of government authorities when you are doing in an CEX with full KYC.

In the end, legislation will prohibit any movement of funds that is not perfectly identified KYC, as a bank transaction, regardless of whether it is from Bitcoin to Bitcoin or with shitcoins in between.

Most governments started treating cryptocurrencies as virtual assets which means they will not have any problem if our coins sources are not from the suspected list; they just need tax. This is the situation of current scenario and what governments will do when we start using cryptos rather than just cashing out is still a mystery and I agree with you on that perspective.

[theymos]

No-KYC exchanges, casinos, etc. are very intentionally not banned. This service is different in two important ways:

First, referring to the mixer definition, it "has a feature advertised for taking property, improving its privacy somehow, and then returning roughly the same type of property." It allows BTC->BTC "trades", which satisfies the "returning the same property" part, and it advertises itself as improving privacy of the returned coins. So it's a mixer. Most no-KYC exchanges neither allow BTC->BTC "trades" nor advertise their service as improving the privacy of your coins somehow, whereas a mixer would have to do both of those things.

Second: If somebody posted on the Currency Exchange board and offered to trade your stolen coins for clean coins minus a fee, or linked to a website meant to effect such trades, that would definitely be disallowed due to the prohibition on illegal trades, even before the mixer ban. The service in question here does not use the phrase "stolen coins": they say "dirty coins", which is definitely different and could include some legally-sourced coins. But when I look at all of their marketing materials holistically, it all feels too close to the stolen-coins-trader example. So I'd lean toward banning this particular service even if they didn't meet the mixer definition. "Make your dirty coins clean" is not something that typical no-KYC exchanges advertise.

[Solosanz]

Too bad, if Mr.Stork Exchange remove BTC withdrawal, their service would be fine.

What if I use Bitcoin to exchange it for a shitcoin, and I use those shitcoins to buy Bitcoin again?

It should be fine till now, currently the forum only restrict BTC to BTC trade.

Second: If somebody posted on the Currency Exchange board and offered to trade your stolen coins for clean coins minus a fee, or linked to a website meant to effect such trades, that would definitely be disallowed due to the prohibition on illegal trades, even before the mixer ban. The service in question here does not use the phrase "stolen coins": they say "dirty coins", which is definitely different and could include some legally-sourced coins. But when I look at all of their marketing materials holistically, it all feels too close to the stolen-coins-trader example. So I'd lean toward banning this particular service even if they didn't meet the mixer definition. "Make your dirty coins clean" is not something that typical no-KYC exchanges advertise.

What about lending? someone can use lending as a loophole to trade same coins.

Let's say I had 0.5 BTC, but no one knows if I already have Bitcoin and I posted a genuine application on there, especially if my account have a good trading history and promise to pay high interest rate. I don't think there's no one will want to trade when I offered big return.

[FatFork]

What about lending? someone can use lending as a loophole to trade same coins.

The same rules apply as for trading.

[LoyceV]

By the logic of this removal also maybe Bustabit should be banned because in their site they advertise mixing with just different words:

Who do they offer privacy from? Other players, random internet users, or governments? I assume the casino logs all transactions and winnings.

What if I use Bitcoin to exchange it for a shitcoin, and I use those shitcoins to buy Bitcoin again?

You can do that. But if you'd offer such a service on Bitcointalk without KYC, it's part of theymos' "mixer definition", and not allowed. It's like the elephant in the room: everyone knows about it, but as long as you don't mention it, it's okay.

What about lending? someone can use lending as a loophole to trade same coins.

There will always be loopholes, and this may become a risk for lenders at some point.

[alani123]

By the logic of this removal also maybe Bustabit should be banned because in their site they advertise mixing with just different words:

Who do they offer privacy from? Other players, random internet users, or governments? I assume the casino logs all transactions and winnings.

Any centralized service can claim to keep no logs while in fact they do. So logs or not is kinda besides the point.

The thing here is if you for example wanted to deposit to an exchange, companies like Coinbase tend to follow the trail of coins and if your transactions are tied to a "tainted" address (which may include casinos) then there's a high chance you might be asked questions or they might even close your account which could cause troubles. So for users feeling insecure depositing or withdrawing coins to a casino if they get their coins from an exchange like Coinbase then some basic mixing kinda helps ease the stress of potentially being caught and having your trade account shut down.

But as a side effect this can also be utilized with people that don't have as pure intentions as avoiding their trade accounts being shut down. It could also be indirectly used for people wanting too hide their tainted coins involved in trafficking and whatnot. You can never know really. With bitcoin being traceable these problems arise everywhere. You may be depositing coins to have some fun and if you end up winning and withdrawing profits, by the governments standards you could be partaking in a "money laundering operation".