Are illegal services using impersonation allowed?

[Poker Player]

Because I see one that has been running on the forum for 4 years and should have been banned long before mixers were banned. I don't know if it's because it doesn't run a signature campaign that it doesn't attract so much attention and that's why it's still being advertised. Besides, at the rate we are going it seems that the forum is going to ban everything that offers privacy, such as non-kyc casinos, which can be used for mixing as well.

Not that I personally have anything against the service, but it is striking to me that any service that remotely resembles a mixer is not allowed and this one is.

[LoyceV]

the service

Which service?

As far as I know, "illegal services" aren't allowed. See for instance certain account sales. The DDOS-service was also illegal, but nobody reported it because it wasn't breaking any rules.

[Poker Player]

Which service?

Anonymous crypto loadable bitcoin debit card - No KYC - Private Card Services

[_act_]

This is not a mixer. There are services that are not mixers but that requires no KYC that are left on this forum. Even Jambler was not banned before and it has nothing to do with KYC. There is still a campaign on this forum that you can use the site for exchanging coins anonymously even with tor or VPN but not banned because it does not go against the rules of this forum. Mixers are the threat and it is about converting bitcoin to bitcoin on those centralized mixers that were banned on this forum.

[Poker Player]

This is not a mixer. There are services that are not mixers but that requires no KYC that are left on this forum.

So what? It's illegal no matter how much the OP says he “perceives” it's not.

Such a service would be illegal in the European Union.

Thanks, but we do not perceive the nominal services to be illegal in the EU.

You better read up on how he provides services before you say things like that.

[_act_]

You better read up on how he provides services before you say things like that.

If we should follow the laws, Wasabi wallet supposed to also be banned on this forum but it was not banned. By law all mixers including conjoin are indirectly banned because they support no KYC. Wasabi was allowed but the government recently went after the conjoin and it is about to cease operation. Those KYC payment processors like the MasterCard offered by some sites, bad people are conveniently using them. The dirtiest money are in banks. The governments failed to stop online criminals because the criminals are successfully using what that are regulated. I do not see any problem for some people because of restrictions to use no KYC credit cards. We are in a stupid world, the government supposed to ban knives, cutlasses because they can be used to kill. They can also ban cars, trains because they do have accidents especially cars. With what that I see, that service is not going to be banned on this forum. I was late to see it, because my country made life difficult for us many months ago when all our cards are restricted to make foreign transactions, all in the name of fighting inflation we have no freedom.

[Poker Player]

If we should follow the laws, Wasabi wallet supposed to also be banned on this forum but it was not banned. By law all mixers including conjoin are indirectly banned because they support no KYC. Wasabi was allowed but the government recently went after the conjoin and it is about to cease operation. Those KYC payment processors like the MasterCard offered by some sites, bad people are conveniently using them. The dirtiest money are in banks. The governments failed to stop online criminals because the criminals are successfully using what that are regulated. I do not see any problem for some people because of restrictions to use no KYC credit cards. We are in a stupid world, the government supposed to ban knives, cutlasses because they can be used to kill. They can also ban cars, trains because they do have accidents especially cars. With what that I see, that service is not going to be banned on this forum. I was late to see it, because my country made life difficult for us many months ago when all our cards are restricted to make foreign transactions, all in the name of fighting inflation we have no freedom.

I see you keep commenting without knowing how the service works. I too would like another world, where mixers were allowed in the forum and banks were not so corrupt, but the situation we are in is that mixers have been banned from the forum when there is no formal ban on them, while what that "service" does is illegal. Since you don't go to the thread to read I'll put it to you, that you don't have to do much digging.

I don't understand what you don't understand about how this service works? I've written a few times but here's another one if you haven't put me on ignore or it won't be hard for you to read.

OP is find people (or he is get access to people documents), and then account is open in some bank. That person is then deliver plastic card with all data to OP, and he is then sell that card to you. You pay for this service a little less than 1000 EUR per year, and that money is divided between the OP and the actual cardholder. The process is quite simple, there isn’t some great wisdom in how the whole thing works.

That's what I meant by "impersonation". To say that it is an "anonymous" service is basically lying. It is a fraud service.

[LoyceV]

By law all mixers including conjoin are indirectly banned because they support no KYC.

Which law? Of which country?

[mindrust]

Mixers ain’t banned anywhere in the world. They are shutting them down not because they are mixers. They do it because mixers let bad people in. If those mixers were doing kyc, they wouldn’t have been seized. I know it sounds retarded but that’s how it is. But then using a closed source centralized mixer was also a stupid idea and yet thousands of people didn’t see a problem with that so, never say never :d

If mixers make kyc mandatory, they’ll have their yuuge business back. As long as they hand over the kyc docs to the gov when they are asked, there shouldn’t be any problems

[LoyceV]

They do it because mixers let bad people in.

Even worse: some mixers may be created by bad people.

If those mixers were doing kyc, they wouldn’t have been seized. I know it sounds retarded but that’s how it is.

It will be a cold day in hell before I send my passport picture to an anonymous website.

If mixers make kyc mandatory, they’ll have their yuuge business back.

There is no business for mixers with KYC. Who's going to fall for "Hey, if you give me $10000 and let me take a high resolution photograph of you holding your passport, I give you back $9500"? If anything, honest users who want privacy won't use it, and criminals would pay some poor guy a couple of bucks to use his ID. "Money Muling" is already a problem for fully regulated banks.

[mindrust]

There is no business for mixers with KYC. Who's going to fall for "Hey, if you give me $10000 and let me take a high resolution photograph of you holding your passport, I give you back $9500"? If anything, honest users who want privacy won't use it, and criminals would pay some poor guy a couple of bucks to use his ID. "Money Muling" is already a problem for fully regulated banks.

The same people who used centralized closed source mixers. They won’t notice a difference, trust me.

[_act_]

By law all mixers including conjoin are indirectly banned because they support no KYC.

Which law? Of which country?

I am referring to United States

Money transmitter laws and virtual currency
If you operate a cryptocurrency-related business, most regulators will view your business as a money transmitter. As such, your business is subject to the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and must register for a money transmitter license. This applies in all states, except Montana.

With how mixers are operating, they can not be given licence in the United States and the way they operate make it to be like mixers are indirectly banned.

I am not saying mixers are illegal but the government will want all to be in their control and find all ways possible that what are not in their control to be banned. They are making the laws.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

All these i believed started from the way government are raging attacks on bitcoin and they haven't succeeded for once, they should allow everyone to make use of whatever services people think is best for them and they had better to start the realization that not everything must be regulated by them, we have many unregulated government policies, politicians and their affairs in which affects the people but no one talked about them, such is corruption within the government settings, etc. 

[dkbit98]

Because I see one that has been running on the forum for 4 years and should have been banned long before mixers were banned.

I am not sure what illegal services are operating in forum, but bitcointalk forum still doesn't moderate scam, and it is not illegal to use cards from someone else unless they are stolen.
So there is low risk for any scammer to get  their service banned in this forum and from government,... bitcoin privacy is more dangerous for big brother, and ''terrorists'' are now on vacation  

Besides, at the rate we are going it seems that the forum is going to ban everything that offers privacy, such as non-kyc casinos, which can be used for mixing as well.

There is no mixing done in casinos, and no advertising of coins getting ''clean''.

[JollyGood]

Now this is an interesting point you have raised.

That card service has been available for several years and despite my reservations about it and subsequent questioning in that thread some years ago, it received some positive reviews from members that ended up receiving the cards in physical format and used them. Some of them were trusted members with a good posting history and the card sellers had (I think) no allegations of scamming against them.

It would be interesting to see what theymos would conclude if he were to look at the way the service is operated. If he did not want to keep mixers as a service and banned their advertisements in the forum to protect it from any negative attention of law enforcement agencies, then maybe the same rule should be applied elsewhere.

Where would he draw the line?

Which service?

Anonymous crypto loadable bitcoin debit card - No KYC - Private Card Services

[Sandra_hakeem]

There is still a campaign on this forum that you can use the site for exchanging coins anonymously even with tor or VPN but not banned because it does not go against the rules of this forum. Mixers are the threat and it is about converting bitcoin to bitcoin on those centralized mixers that were banned on this forum.

You're not totally correct bruh  
People are all out, looking for the slightest means to bypass the privacy ban/censorships. It's possible that they'd take an advantage of a casino that doesn't require KYCs, depositing dirty coins and withdrawing clean ones..  The forum isn't against casinos that don't have KYC options, it's against casinos that allow users to swap thier coins for either a coin of same value, or another altcoin.

It will be a cold day in hell before I send my passport picture to an anonymous website.

That's just the same as getting registered on a CEX. You don't use 'em at all?

[PX-Z]

It will be a cold day in hell before I send my passport picture to an anonymous website.

That's just the same as getting registered on a CEX. You don't use 'em at all?

Since when CEX called as anonymous website? I don't think you get the point between sending KYC information to a regulated finance platform and anonymous platform. They are not the same. CEX asking KYC is worse, but anonymous asking KYC is much more worst.

[Poker Player]

I am not sure what illegal services are operating in forum... and it is not illegal to use cards from someone else unless they are stolen.

It is illegal to offer a card sales service as "anonymous" when it is not. Cards without KYC are either no longer available, or have ridiculous KYC limits, such as 50€. It is one thing for your father or your wife to leave you the card and another to offer a service of supposedly anonymous cards when in fact they have a name on the card that is not yours and for which you pay a commission. The OP of that thread to prove his "perception" that the services he offers are not illegal, all he has to provide is the number under which his company is registered in the EU (or his self-employed number) and the permission he has to offer financial services. It doesn't need to be public if he doesn't want to, he can send it to theymos by PM. And since he offers services to everyone, send him the permissions he has to do so in the USA, so that if Treasury or the IRS sends a requirement to theymos, he has his back covered.

Now this is an interesting point you have raised.

That card service has been available for several years and despite my reservations about it and subsequent questioning in that thread some years ago, it received some positive reviews from members that ended up receiving the cards in physical format and used them. Some of them were trusted members with a good posting history and the card sellers had (I think) no allegations of scamming against them.

The issue here is not that the service is scamming forum members. The service works great for forum members. The service is a fraud because what it advertises as "anonymous" is an impersonation service to defraud.

[dzungmobile]

I don't think you get the point between sending KYC information to a regulated finance platform and anonymous platform. They are not the same. CEX asking KYC is worse, but anonymous asking KYC is much more worst.

You are right but your post recalls one hilarious project, Brave browser.

Years ago, they prided to be a browser for privacy but later they ask their users to complete KYC of wanting to claim BRAVE token. It is funny and I did not do it to get their token.

[JollyGood]

As stated in my previous post, it would be interesting to see what theymos would conclude if were to look in to this. Maybe it could set a precedent where he does look in to various threads if they are brought to his attention (if that precedent has not already been set already).

I agree, the issue is not about whether a scam has taken place even though we have heard for years that scams are not moderated. The issue is about the actual service provided being legal/illegal, even if the end users are satisfied with the functionality of the service provided.

Now this is an interesting point you have raised.

That card service has been available for several years and despite my reservations about it and subsequent questioning in that thread some years ago, it received some positive reviews from members that ended up receiving the cards in physical format and used them. Some of them were trusted members with a good posting history and the card sellers had (I think) no allegations of scamming against them.

The issue here is not that the service is scamming forum members. The service works great for forum members. The service is a fraud because what it advertises as "anonymous" is an impersonation service to defraud.