Are no-KYC services banned?

[Medusah]

Monero is not a mixer.

Every time you spend XMR, you're mixing your input with other people's XMR. 

Sorry for bumping this, I just realized I forgot to respond earlier. 

[LoyceMobile]

Monero is not a mixer.

Every time you spend XMR, you're mixing your input with other people's XMR.

That's like saying dollar bills are a mixer. Every time you spend it, you're missing money with other people's money.

[Medusah]

That's like saying dollar bills are a mixer. Every time you spend it, you're missing money with other people's money.

Do you combine your inputs with those of others when using XMR?  You do.  So it's a mixer.  We can refer to the other users as "mixers" instead of attributing it solely to the network, if you're concerned about the semantics. 

[LoyceV]

Do you combine your inputs with those of others when using XMR?  You do.  So it's a mixer.  We can refer to the other users as "mixers" instead of attributing it solely to the network, if you're concerned about the semantics.

So the cash register at the supermarket is the mixer: I get different inputs in return for the inputs I give them.
Since we're talking about non-KYC services on the forum, maybe it's good to follow theymos' definition of a mixer:

Definition of a mixer

For clarity, here is a detailed definition of what we mean by a "mixer". Most people know intuitively what a mixer is and don't have to read this.

Something is considered a mixer if it meets all of these requirements:
 1. It has a feature advertised for taking property, improving its privacy somehow, and then returning roughly the same type of property.
     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.
     b. If a site is not primarily a mixer but has a mixer function, such as a mixer function on a gambling website, then the whole site is considered a mixer.
     c. If the site takes coins, gives you a possibly-transferrable IOU, and will convert this IOU back into mixed coins much later, then the temporary conversion into a different type of property does not prevent it from being considered a mixer.
     d. If the site internally converts your deposit into other things as part of its mixing, but ultimately the point of the product is to get your original type of property back, then that's a mixer, not an exchanger.
 2. It is possible for the mixer to steal property passing through it. Assume that the sender does everything as correctly as possible. Also assume that no miners/verifiers on the base-layer cryptocurrency are evil. But assume that every other actor involved is evil (everyone able to vote in a DAO, every coordination server, every counterparty, every member of a multisig, etc.). Ignore short-term software bugs which are expected to be quickly fixed.
 3. The service does not collect KYC-type info from all users. (This is not an endorsement of KYC generally, or a condemnation of non-KYC services generally. Non-KYC services of other types are still allowed, and in many cases they are a good idea.)

Examples of things that are not banned mixers include exchangers (unless they have a mixing function), CoinJoin-supporting non-custodial wallets, and Monero.

[Medusah]

So the cash register at the supermarket is the mixer: I get different inputs in return for the inputs I give them.

You'd need to clarify what constitutes an "input" in physical cash, but essentially, yes.  You provide the cash register with your money, and in return, they give you change made up of other people's money.  However, Monero operates differently when you make a transaction; your money gets mixed with other people's money, whether you actively choose this or not.

A more fitting comparison with cash would be this:  Every time you spend a dollar bill, you meet 15 strangers.  Together, you all place your dollar bills into a black box without seeing how much each person has put.  Then, you hand this box to the cashier.  She takes out your dollar bill (without being aware of its owner) and divides the remaining money into 15 individual boxes, each belonging to one of the strangers.  Wouldn't that be a mixer? 

Since we're talking about non-KYC services on the forum, maybe it's good to follow theymos' definition of a mixer

I understand his concept of a mixer.  But, generally speaking, a "mixer" can be a wide range of other things.  

[NotATether]

Do you combine your inputs with those of others when using XMR?  You do.  So it's a mixer.  We can refer to the other users as "mixers" instead of attributing it solely to the network, if you're concerned about the semantics.

So the cash register at the supermarket is the mixer: I get different inputs in return for the inputs I give them.

Bwahahaha, time to seize all the cash registers at Walmart!

[alani123]

Do you combine your inputs with those of others when using XMR?  You do.  So it's a mixer.  We can refer to the other users as "mixers" instead of attributing it solely to the network, if you're concerned about the semantics.

So the cash register at the supermarket is the mixer: I get different inputs in return for the inputs I give them.
Since we're talking about non-KYC services on the forum, maybe it's good to follow theymos' definition of a mixer:

When you put it like that, it's a funny comparison. Criminals use cash all the time too. It's not just the supermarket, it's virtually the whole economy.
And authorities being obsessed only with crypto makes this whole analogy look absurd. But also on the other hand now governments are limiting the legal use of cash. Now in Europe 200 and 500 EUR bills stopped being printed out long ago. Basically every one of these notes reaching a bank is withdrawn from circulation. And it was recently legislated that the maximum cash transaction in Greece can be 500 EUR! I guess other countries are set to lower the limit under central EU directive too.

Looking back at what Satoshi envisioned bitcoin as though, it's an electronic version of cash.
But this alone doesn't change much. It's the fact that it's decentralized that changes everything.

So... As long as the "supermarket" in your example is a registered business, the government doesn't care. They're going to comply with whatever law the government brings out anyday without resisting. As any big business would. Big businesses continue as normal even if we live under an oppressive military dictatorship.

Well, likewise with the supermarket, this forum has become too big to go unnoticed. But we as the users aren't that much of a revolutionary bunch to support it functioning if the government wants to actually shut it down due to it not following oppressive laws.

tl;dr sure gov policy has tons of contradictions if we want a revolution it's not gonna happen on its own

[vjudeu]

You'd need to clarify what constitutes an "input" in physical cash

It is simple: a single input, or a single output, can be called "a coin". The main difference between fiat currencies and crypto, is that you can use any denominations you want. Which means, that if you would have a consensus rule, that "only coins with equal amounts, starting from 1, 2, and 5 are valid", then it would be a perfect soft-fork, and would recreate the change-making problem.

Some example: transaction fc406eb3fa4a3f305f5670880b9bc69aeed89b2756dd9eb34e7359c21969dcce, you give three coins to the shop: 9232, 9201 and 9110 satoshis. You pay for example 14460 satoshis, and keep 2931 satoshis as your change (or the other way around). And you also pay 10152 satoshis to the government, for keeping the currency alive.

Also, this analogy is even more relevant, when you think about how easy is to use a coin. Because you can pay with a single $100 bill, and then it is just a light piece of paper. But you can also bring a huge bag of 10,000 pennies, and put it on the table, in front of some cashier. Then, the amount will be the same, but if you think about resources, needed to process your transaction, then they will be bigger, and you will probably pay a bigger fee for wasting someone's time to count all of those single coins, and for forcing all people in the queue to wait for "confirmation".

[dkbit98]

Do you combine your inputs with those of others when using XMR?  You do.  So it's a mixer.  We can refer to the other users as "mixers" instead of attributing it solely to the network, if you're concerned about the semantics. 

No it's not a mixer, and there is no anything centralized that could control transactions.
Even if you combine inputs of Bitcoin with other people it's not a mixer, joinmarket is not a mixer, mimblewimble is not a mixer, etc.
You invented your own definition of mixer that is not corresponding to reality.

[Medusah]

No it's not a mixer, and there is no anything centralized that could control transactions.

According to theymos' definition, that may be the case.  But, in my understanding, if a tool is utilized for coin mixing, it qualifies as a mixer.  And if it lacks a central point of failure, it can be considered a decentralized mixer.

You invented your own definition of mixer that is not corresponding to reality.

Really?  Then what term would you use for a protocol that mixes your inputs?  A "joiner"?  

If mixing is the activity, then the mixer is the entity performing it.  That's basic English. 

[dkbit98]

According to theymos' definition, that may be the case.  But, in my understanding, if a tool is utilized for coin mixing, it qualifies as a mixer.  And if it lacks a central point of failure, it can be considered a decentralized mixer.

Not only according to theymos but according to everyone else except you.
Have fun and enjoy your own rules in your little eco chamber if you have nothing better to do in your life.

Really?  Then what term would you use for a protocol that mixes your inputs?  A "joiner"?

I think your brain is also a mixer, a bad one