Second chance for mixers?

[tabas]

Not sure yet, any mixer would be sponsors of for any contest if won't mention their website?

Well, if that contest gives some guess timeline on when they'll be allowed to advertise again, they might capitalize on that, and soon, whoever creates that contest will expose who sponsored them. It's still a win for that website and they'll be known for that especially if the prize is quite high.

Exactly my guesses. It's possible a mixer could develop an interest to sponsor it only if they are convinced that they will be returning any soon.
There won't be problems if the brand sponsoring the contest is not mentioned because they know that later on, when mixers must have been reinstated, their names would definitely be mentioned.

That's right, if they see the situation and it's going to happen anytime soon. They will take the chances, and it's considered for them as another marketing that they'll be given some good welcoming and recognition by the community for sponsoring and conducting that contest. It takes a marketing genius on their end to realize that because it creates long term impact on their brand, and they'll be known for supporting the comeback that might happen soon.

[takuma sato]

Mixing funds through the traditional route is safer? Not really and is the reason theymos is likely against even a remote connection with them.

well I never said mixing funds through traditional route but laundering funds through traditional route.
I meant is safer in the sense that paper money is harder to track
Unlike digital that usually leaves some footprints of properly scrutinized.

Mixing and laundering funds "the traditional route" is the same thing. People who have paper cash want to clean it and make it useful by hiding the source, their ultimate goal is getting it into a bank account which is digital. Swapping a paper note for another paper note doesn't achieve much, it is not what 99% of people are looking for when laundering money outside of crypto. These are the semantic arguments that people use to defend m1xers, going around in circles, but it's obvious to anyone what the majority of people are using them to do - usually hiding stolen funds.

Same old argument as claiming people that use proxys or Tors is to sell drugs on the darknet. The truth is, using a m1xer is only common sense if you want to pay with BTC, otherwise the sender can know simply too much about you and you could be put in danger. Example, you receive payments for the participation in a signature campaign advertising a website. You use these funds to pay for a product or service. The owner now knows who you are, and knows your address. They can proceed to google the address, and now they know your nickname here, your posting history, your views on various topics, and most importantly, every single address you've ever used here to obtain payments. You have now become a potential target. To avoid this, you must regain your privacy, which means mixing the coins. You can call it coinjoin, mix service, sending them around, it's all the same concept. Criminalizing this activity is plain insanity. It's not money laundering, it's a pro-privacy feature for your own protection. We have to normalize the usage of mixing coins, and the Tornado Cash case was a step in the right direction.

[Synchronice]

-

I kind of agree with you, however, there is no point in having democracy if people continue to be idiots and always vote for the same people who will screw you over later, only worrying about creating/raising taxes, regulations that will bring more costs than benefits and laws that screw you over. It is necessary to raise awareness among the population through decentralization (which is one of the properties of Bitcoin) and freedom that only the free market can provide.

In ideal world, you need a smart and talented dictator but such a dictators have only been a few people in our existence, so, democracy is still the best option that we have. The education is a real challenge, that's something that the government should be fixing but why should they fix it? They need stupid people to make stupid choices, it's easier to manage them but one of the biggest thing that we have is internet. With internet, you have access to every kind of information but another task is, it can brainwash some and can enlighten some, in the end it still comes down to the person.

Normies are laymen when it comes to technologies like Bitcoin, economics and political science, which is why we have politicians who are still stuck in the 50s and want to ban things like Bitcoin, mixers and anything else that brings more freedom to people, but these same people keep electing these clowns.

Don't be fooled into thinking that the government is stupid. If they were so stupid, they wouldn't stay in power, nor would they be re-elected or convince the population so easily. However, technology like Bitcoin is slowly changing this and making the need for the status quo obsolete (and that's why they feel threatened). We no longer need to depend on a monopolized currency that is issued and controlled by the government. Bitcoin fixes this, as well as innovations and facilitators that free trade can provide.

But they have a very strong argument for that. They'll tell you that people launder money, buy and sell illegal things and because of the mixers or anonymous cryptocurrencies, the crime rate is going up and there is not much that the government do besides controlling people more. This argument is solid enough to convince the majority of people who just want a normal, average life and nothing more.

[Etranger]

But they have a very strong argument for that. They'll tell you that people launder money, buy and sell illegal things and because of the mixers or anonymous cryptocurrencies, the crime rate is going up and there is not much that the government do besides controlling people more. This argument is solid enough to convince the majority of people who just want a normal, average life and nothing more.

People who don’t desire anything beyond a normal, ordinary life, in my opinion, don’t even think about things like cryptocurrency mixers. They simply aren’t the target audience. So even if they hear some of the “arguments” against mixers, they don’t pay much attention to them. Such anti-mixer—and more broadly, anti-cryptocurrency—propaganda isn’t narrowly targeted to create a negative perception specifically of mixers. It’s designed to establish a general negative view of the entire crypto space. Today, someone hears about the dangers of mixers, tomorrow they hear about someone’s Bitcoin wallet getting hacked, and the day after that, they’ll steer clear of the crypto world altogether.

[m2017]

People who don’t desire anything beyond a normal, ordinary life, in my opinion, don’t even think about things like cryptocurrency mixers.

Here I categorically disagree. Every bitcoiner should think about BTC-mixers. Why? Because of the pseudo-anonymous nature of this asset. If you have somehow shown your btc-address, then for the purposes of, first of all, your own safety, you can't use it in the future. Because anyone, absolutely anyone, will be able to track the history of your transactions (with the possibility of using it to your detriment). You don't show your bank deposit at every step and don't provide bank transactions to everyone you meet, right? This is where mixers come to the rescue. Mixers are not a tool for criminal activities, but a tool for preserving your privacy, which everyone has the right to.

Such anti-mixer—and more broadly, anti-cryptocurrency—propaganda isn’t narrowly targeted to create a negative perception specifically of mixers. It’s designed to establish a general negative view of the entire crypto space. Today, someone hears about the dangers of mixers, tomorrow they hear about someone’s Bitcoin wallet getting hacked, and the day after that, they’ll steer clear of the crypto world altogether.

It is correctly stated here that this is anti-cryptocurrency propaganda that affects mixers.

A regulator that is unable to control bitcoin\mixers is trying to "secure and protect" its subordinates citizens from this. And "demonization" is actively used here.

[LoyceV]

People who don’t desire anything beyond a normal, ordinary life, in my opinion, don’t even think about things like cryptocurrency mixers.

Here I categorically disagree. Every bitcoiner should think about BTC-mixers. Why? Because of the pseudo-anonymous nature of this asset.

What most people do and what they should do aren't necessarily the same Most people don't care about privacy, and they'll tell you they have nothing to hide. That's not true, but life is a lot easier if you don't care about privacy (until it's too late).

[Synchronice]

But they have a very strong argument for that. They'll tell you that people launder money, buy and sell illegal things and because of the mixers or anonymous cryptocurrencies, the crime rate is going up and there is not much that the government do besides controlling people more. This argument is solid enough to convince the majority of people who just want a normal, average life and nothing more.

People who don’t desire anything beyond a normal, ordinary life, in my opinion, don’t even think about things like cryptocurrency mixers. They simply aren’t the target audience. So even if they hear some of the “arguments” against mixers, they don’t pay much attention to them. Such anti-mixer—and more broadly, anti-cryptocurrency—propaganda isn’t narrowly targeted to create a negative perception specifically of mixers. It’s designed to establish a general negative view of the entire crypto space. Today, someone hears about the dangers of mixers, tomorrow they hear about someone’s Bitcoin wallet getting hacked, and the day after that, they’ll steer clear of the crypto world altogether.

Every message is meant for an average user because the number of average user is the highest. I don't get scared by someone's Bitcoin wallet getting hacked or coins going through a mixer but you have to keep in mind an average user. Average user likes service that forgives them mistakes, they like PayPal because they can claim a refund if something goes wrong, if they accidentally pay money to someone. They like bank because they can call to bank and reset their login and password credentials if something goes wrong and they can regain access to their account. Bitcoin is too much of a responsibility for an average user.

[Etranger]

Every message is meant for an average user because the number of average user is the highest. I don't get scared by someone's Bitcoin wallet getting hacked or coins going through a mixer but you have to keep in mind an average user. Average user likes service that forgives them mistakes, they like PayPal because they can claim a refund if something goes wrong, if they accidentally pay money to someone. They like bank because they can call to bank and reset their login and password credentials if something goes wrong and they can regain access to their account. Bitcoin is too much of a responsibility for an average user.

I completely agree with what you said—I also believe that cryptocurrencies encourage individuals to take on responsibilities that are often handled by other institutions. But in this case, the sample of an average mixer user won't be equal to the sample of an average user in general, since using a mixer requires at least some understanding of cryptocurrencies. And because of that, the person is already, to some extent, assuming the kind of responsibility you're talking about.

[Lucius]

What most people do and what they should do aren't necessarily the same Most people don't care about privacy, and they'll tell you they have nothing to hide. That's not true, but life is a lot easier if you don't care about privacy (until it's too late).

This is true - and accordingly, most people follow the line of least resistance. When you look at only the people who use this forum, I think maybe 10% (max 20%) use Tor, even though it's free and provides far more privacy than any paid VPN. I think I saw data not too long ago that Tor browser has about 2 million users, which is really ridiculous considering there are about 5 billion internet users today.

[EarnOnVictor]

People who don’t desire anything beyond a normal, ordinary life, in my opinion, don’t even think about things like cryptocurrency mixers.

Here I categorically disagree. Every bitcoiner should think about BTC-mixers. Why? Because of the pseudo-anonymous nature of this asset.

What most people do and what they should do aren't necessarily the same Most people don't care about privacy, and they'll tell you they have nothing to hide. That's not true, but life is a lot easier if you don't care about privacy (until it's too late).

It depends on how far they are willing to go in the context of privacy, which is by choice.

Privacy is good, yet I believe most people are inclined towards it already with various measures they deem comfortable enough for them. Thereby, see mixing as another mile they are not so willing to take, which I also believe is not a must.

[JollyGood]

You can call it coinjoin, mix service, sending them around, it's all the same concept. Criminalizing this activity is plain insanity. It's not money laundering, it's a pro-privacy feature for your own protection. We have to normalize the usage of mixing coins

If the Trump administration is taking a very open minded approach to crypto (and also mixers as seen with Tornado Cash being removed from the sanctions list), then maybe an official announcement should be made regarding where they stand.

and the Tornado Cash case was a step in the right direction.

The owner/operator has been charged with criminal conduct whereas the website itself has been removed from sanctions. This will be an interesting court case.

[NotATether]

If the Trump administration is taking a very open minded approach to crypto (and also mixers as seen with Tornado Cash being removed from the sanctions list), then maybe an official announcement should be made regarding where they stand.

Irrespective of whatever Trump's administration does, I don't think that announcement is coming any time soon.

[Synchronice]

What most people do and what they should do aren't necessarily the same Most people don't care about privacy, and they'll tell you they have nothing to hide. That's not true, but life is a lot easier if you don't care about privacy (until it's too late).

This is true - and accordingly, most people follow the line of least resistance. When you look at only the people who use this forum, I think maybe 10% (max 20%) use Tor, even though it's free and provides far more privacy than any paid VPN. I think I saw data not too long ago that Tor browser has about 2 million users, which is really ridiculous considering there are about 5 billion internet users today.

My opinion about Tor is that you don't need it. One doesn't need that level of privacy in every day online activities. If someone really thinks that they need it, then I really want to know what they do in real life, do they move with hoodies and mask everywhere they go? I still think that 2 million users for Tor is quite a large number.

Also, I think that using Tor without a VPN is not a good idea because your ISP can see that you use a Tor and that's basically leaking yourself. You tell your ISP what you want to seriously protect your privacy, I think that they mark such people, especially when their number is so small (2 million). By using VPN, you also tell your ISP the same but it's a little different. VPN has significantly more users, lots of people use it for different purposes like gaming, streaming and so on, while Tor's usage is mostly limited to privacy.

[Ambatman]

Irrespective of whatever Trump's administration does, I don't think that announcement is coming any time soon.

The US doesn't really care about Germany stance against privacy
It's not a surprise knowing how the EU are actively fighting against privacy and making KYC mandatory.

If the Trump administration is taking a very open minded approach to crypto (and also mixers as seen with Tornado Cash being removed from the sanctions list), then maybe an official announcement should be made regarding where they stand.

Well the highest Trump has likened Bitcoin as is been digital gold and has never mentioned anything about privacy weird if he does

This year and the next is a strong time and would really decide government stance towards Bitcoin
And it would be shaped in the next decade.

[NotATether]

My opinion about Tor is that you don't need it. One doesn't need that level of privacy in every day online activities. If someone really thinks that they need it, then I really want to know what they do in real life, do they move with hoodies and mask everywhere they go? I still think that 2 million users for Tor is quite a large number.

Satoshi would have definitely been one of those people. You can't be walking around nowadays with a million bitcoins.

Irrespective of whatever Trump's administration does, I don't think that announcement is coming any time soon.

The US doesn't really care about Germany stance against privacy
It's not a surprise knowing how the EU are actively fighting against privacy and making KYC mandatory.

That may be true, but theymos is not going to lift the ban any time soon if FIOD Nederland keeps making regular visits here.

[LoyceV]

My opinion about Tor is that you don't need it.

I think you mean to say that you don't need it I can think of many different reasons to use Tor, for instance political activists.

One doesn't need that level of privacy in every day online activities.

My expectation is that Tor-users only use Tor for specific purposes.

If someone really thinks that they need it, then I really want to know what they do in real life, do they move with hoodies and mask everywhere they go?

Online privacy is different from offline privacy. I don't mind if my neighbours know my real name, but I don't want them to know I'm Marcel AKA Switzerland AKA Loyce Valenzuela.

I think that using Tor without a VPN is not a good idea

Tor Project disagrees:

Generally speaking, we don't recommend using a VPN with Tor unless you're an advanced user who knows how to configure both in a way that doesn't compromise your privacy.

Read the link for more information. TL;DR: "it depends"

theymos is not going to lift the ban any time soon if FIOD Nederland keeps making regular visits here.

The interesting part here is that eXch was not a mixer by theymos' definition. Nevertheless, Admin saw the writing on the wall:

We are aware that there is an ongoing operation targeting our service by some law enforcement agencies with the goal of adding us to the OFAC sanctions list and possibly seizing our infrastructure (good luck to them^**, nevertheless). Since it's primarily coming from U.S.-based agencies, we will update our ToS to inform our users in the U.S.

Regarding eXch and the forum, two weeks ago, admin has asked staff members to stop advertising for that service, and the reason was the quote above.

^**This didn't age well....

[hugeblack]

That may be true, but theymos is not going to lift the ban any time soon if FIOD Nederland keeps making regular visits here.

which one FIODNederland (UID: 3593363)^*or FIOD Netherlands(UID: 3705361)?
Without official confirmation, we cannot trust these accounts.

^**This didn't age well....

Compared to what happened with Sinbad, many positive changes have occurred:
1. US law enforcement authorities were not part of the investigation.
2. The forum was not mentioned or any user addresses blacklisted.
3. Investigations began after what happened with byBit.

[takuma sato]

With the recent Coinbase hack a lot of people have become new targets for criminals looking for crypto holders. Now all these people are going to be paranoid for the rest of their lives thinking if some crazy bastards may show up with $5 wrenches or worse. This is yet another reminder of why a pro-m1xer stance is simply a pro-safety stance. You do not want your dox tied next to your coins, and the only way to detach your dox from your holdings is by m1ixing your coins so they can't no longer be followed. You may remain as a "holder of crypto" in the records but at least criminals will not be able to follow your funds around. Once you do this, you could move elsewhere to remove the records that tie you to your physical address. This would give you some increased peace of mind and better safety, of course, switch phone numbers too. You may go as far as changing your legal name if needed. But the fundamental part here on the technological, bitcoin side is the fact that how m1xers will help for your safety. We must fight for this right, authorities have to understand the risks of not being able to mix your coins and the risk of KYC when it comes to bitcoin, so it is only natural that people would use a m1xer. If authorities don't understand this, then they don't care about our safety.

[SamReomo]

A policy prediction market, I like it! That's fine.

Note however that I may soften the ban over time, in two or more phases. For example, I may remove the wordfilter much sooner than any other aspects of the ban.

I can see some positive vibes about the services that were banned! Ah, I don't even spell it due to that wordfilter thing but after reading this comment of Theymos I'm feeling that we may soon see some advertisements when the ban is softened and finally lifted and that's a good news for the ones who prefer privacy.