✅ b1exch.to - Instant Auto Exchange | NO KYC | Escrow 0.2 BTC

[bitmover]

Following the whole drama surrounding the Coldcard wallet, one cannot help but wonder what the next step will be for the one who is currently managing the stolen Bitcoins. As one of the 100% no-kyc exchanges, b1exch could perhaps be misused to swap these coins, thus becoming a participant in money laundering.

I doubt that the heavily tracked coins will be sent to such swap services. I think it's unlikely that the thieves of such a massive amount would trust it to a service that gains full control over the cryptocurrency, even if only during the swap. For the thieves, the fact that b1eXch doesn’t collect user data shouldn’t be as important as the fact that b1eXch itself will have the technical capability to steal all those funds. If I were them, I would clean such a haul using atomic swaps.

Most the services called atomic swaps use thrid party centralized services to process bitcoin deposits.

I dont think they have many options to make those coins clean...

[examplens]

I doubt that the heavily tracked coins will be sent to such swap services. I think it's unlikely that the thieves of such a massive amount would trust it to a service that gains full control over the cryptocurrency, even if only during the swap. For the thieves, the fact that b1eXch doesn’t collect user data shouldn’t be as important as the fact that b1eXch itself will have the technical capability to steal all those funds. If I were them, I would clean such a haul using atomic swaps.

Most the services called atomic swaps use thrid party centralized services to process bitcoin deposits.

I dont think they have many options to make those coins clean...

The mixing of stolen coins with Coldcard has begun. It goes through Wasabiwallet, so it's not as sophisticated as one might have expected.
One part was swapped into ETH, which was later sent to Tornado Cash

[bitmover]

The mixing of stolen coins with Coldcard has begun. It goes through Wasabiwallet, so it's not as sophisticated as one might have expected.
One part was swapped into ETH, which was later sent to Tornado Cash

Didnt coordenators from wasabi wallet blocked the funds? I thought they could do that.

Maybe a small part of the funds can stay undetect after using tornado cash.

[examplens]

Didnt coordenators from wasabi wallet blocked the funds? I thought they could do that.

Maybe a small part of the funds can stay undetect after using tornado cash.

As far as I understand, they can and will, but only on the basis of clear evidence from the owner of the coins
Here is kruw statement: https://stacker.news/items/1530165?commentId=1530545

[PrivacyG]

Following the whole drama surrounding the Coldcard wallet, one cannot help but wonder what the next step will be for the one who is currently managing the stolen Bitcoins. As one of the 100% no-kyc exchanges, b1exch could perhaps be misused to swap these coins, thus becoming a participant in money laundering.
Question to b1exch, do you have a scenario ready in such a case?
The Bybit hack greatly influenced the persecution of eXch and its subsequent closure, it would be really bad if a similar fate befell another no-kyc service

My opinion.  b1exch would be put in a bad light by its own customers if they did have a scenario prepared against the Coldcard attacker.  I would personally not visit them any more after this.  Because according to their Terms no one will be traced, checked et cetera or treated in a different way,

1. Service Overview

Bitcoin was not created to be surveilled. It was created to liberate. b1eXch exists to honour that original intent: to provide a space where people can transact freely, without interference, without observation, and without asking permission.

2. Eligibility

Any person may create and perform exchange operations on our service. We do not discriminate, impose identity verification, or maintain any rejection criteria based on nationality, geography, or personal characteristics.

We do not and cannot determine the identity or location of our users. No registration, email, phone number, or any other personally identifying information is required or collected.

b1eXch does not perform Know Your Customer (KYC) verification. b1eXch does not perform Anti-Money Laundering (AML) screening. b1eXch does not employ, integrate, or cooperate with any blockchain analytics, chain analysis, or transaction surveillance tools or providers.

Your transactions are yours. We do not score them, flag them, trace them, or share them. Every user is treated equally and unconditionally, regardless of the origin, destination, or history of their funds.

As seen here,
https://b1exch.to/Terms

[PX-Z]

Following the whole drama surrounding the Coldcard wallet, one cannot help but wonder what the next step will be for the one who is currently managing the stolen Bitcoins. As one of the 100% no-kyc exchanges, b1exch could perhaps be misused to swap these coins, thus becoming a participant in money laundering.
Question to b1exch, do you have a scenario ready in such a case?
The Bybit hack greatly influenced the persecution of eXch and its subsequent closure, it would be really bad if a similar fate befell another no-kyc service

My opinion.  b1exch would be put in a bad light by its own customers if they did have a scenario prepared against the Coldcard attacker.  I would personally not visit them any more after this.  Because according to their Terms no one will be traced, checked et cetera or treated in a different way,
...

Yes, and that's exactly how services like b1exch can end up on the radar of law enforcement. Once a platform is found to have processed or facilitated the movement of hacked or illicit funds, it gives authorities a stronger reason to investigate or even shut it down.
We've seen similar situations with mixers and exchanges that became associated with laundering stolen/hacked crypto. Even if a service isn't directly involved in the theft, repeatedly processing those funds can still attract regulatory scrutiny and legal action.

[PrivacyG]

Yes, and that's exactly how services like b1exch can end up on the radar of law enforcement. Once a platform is found to have processed or facilitated the movement of hacked or illicit funds, it gives authorities a stronger reason to investigate or even shut it down.
We've seen similar situations with mixers and exchanges that became associated with laundering stolen/hacked crypto. Even if a service isn't directly involved in the theft, repeatedly processing those funds can still attract regulatory scrutiny and legal action.

So what do they do, if the Coldcard attacker transfers Bitcoin to b1exch they steal it from him, which opposes their own Terms?  Would you say that is the correct thing to do?

I do not know what happens if law enforcement eventually want to 'put them down'.  That would only be proved if actually tested in a real scenario.  Because in the same Terms this is what b1exch claims,

8. Infrastructure & Jurisdiction

b1eXch operates behind a multi-layered infrastructure focused on complete and uncompromising security.

All internal services are interchangeable, and Clearnet access points on the public internet tunnel encrypted traffic through the Tor network before it reaches any application component. No server in the chain knows both the client's identity and the service's physical location simultaneously.

The hosting environment employs full-disk encryption with runtime key derivation, volatile memory-only session handling, and anti-forensic countermeasures including RAM encryption, disabled direct memory access interfaces, and tamper-responsive storage controllers. In the event of physical interdiction, cold-boot extraction, or live imaging attempts, no plaintext user data or cryptographic key material is recoverable from the hardware.

Network traffic between internal services is encrypted and routed through isolated overlay tunnels. There is no single point of interception that would yield meaningful intelligence about any individual transaction or user session.

As a consequence of this architecture, b1eXch does not operate within any identifiable legal jurisdiction. We are technically unable to determine the country or location of our users, and no government, court, or regulatory body has the ability to compel the production of data that does not exist, from infrastructure that cannot be located.

[PX-Z]

So what do they do, if the Coldcard attacker transfers Bitcoin to b1exch they steal it from him, which opposes their own Terms?  Would you say that is the correct thing to do?

I do not know what happens if law enforcement eventually want to 'put them down'.  That would only be proved if actually tested in a real scenario.  Because in the same Terms this is what b1exch claims,

Refunding it back to the known hackers wallet address is the right thing based on the blocklist (they will make or already made). And put a warning message to it that it wont process, etc.

And have a new policy regarding the processing of hackers address. But of course, hackers can just send to its another address multiple times then make a transaction to the platform. With that, b1exch can't do any thing, unless they insert new address on their blocklist list.
The idea isn't really about stopping hackers. It's about establishing that the platform has no intention of facilitating the laundering of funds when it has clear, credible knowledge of their origin. That distinction could be meaningful in demonstrating "good faith" operation, even though it cannot prevent attackers from using fresh addresses or more sophisticated laundering techniques.

[joker_josue]

So what do they do, if the Coldcard attacker transfers Bitcoin to b1exch they steal it from him, which opposes their own Terms?  Would you say that is the correct thing to do?

I do not know what happens if law enforcement eventually want to 'put them down'.  That would only be proved if actually tested in a real scenario.  Because in the same Terms this is what b1exch claims,

Refunding it back to the known hackers wallet address is the right thing based on the blocklist (they will make or already made). And put a warning message to it that it wont process, etc.

And have a new policy regarding the processing of hackers address. But of course, hackers can just send to its another address multiple times then make a transaction to the platform. With that, b1exch can't do any thing, unless they insert new address on their blocklist list.
The idea isn't really about stopping hackers. It's about establishing that the platform has no intention of facilitating the laundering of funds when it has clear, credible knowledge of their origin. That distinction could be meaningful in demonstrating "good faith" operation, even though it cannot prevent attackers from using fresh addresses or more sophisticated laundering techniques.

The only way they can truly maintain a neutral stance is to directly block addresses that are legally blocked or identified by the authorities. In other words, coins coming from those addresses would be rejected.

Regarding addresses resulting from theft, which blockchain analysts say are the case, the situation changes somewhat.
An analyst says that money was stolen; until proven otherwise, the suspicion remains. But what if it wasn't?

Of course, as a private platform, you have the right to choose whether or not to receive it.

So, I think it's a dilemma that the platform administrators have to decide. I believe that, to date, they have never stated that there are "limitations" of this kind in its use, but perhaps they exist and they don't want to reveal them publicly.
In reality, the blockade may already exist, and only the alleged criminal will know when to attempt it.

It would be interesting to know the official opinion, but I don't think they're going to say anything about it.

[internetional]

The only way they can truly maintain a neutral stance is to directly block addresses that are legally blocked or identified by the authorities. In other words, coins coming from those addresses would be rejected.

Regarding addresses resulting from theft, which blockchain analysts say are the case, the situation changes somewhat.
An analyst says that money was stolen; until proven otherwise, the suspicion remains.

And what, if the authorities claim that the coins were stolen, does that suddenly leave no room for the suspicion? Personally, I don't trust the authorities any more than I trust commercial analysts.

I don't think this is a solution. Those who prefer to rely on the authorities can keep their Bitcoins in regulated custodial services. But those who choose self-custody probably did so precisely to avoid depending on the decisions of the authorities.

[notocactus]

And what, if the authorities claim that the coins were stolen, does that suddenly leave no room for the suspicion? Personally, I don't trust the authorities any more than I trust commercial analysts.

In fact I don't trust any of them and it's because governments hire commercial on chain analytic companies to do works for governments. Obviously, there are blockchains, public ledgers and on chain transaction records so analysis can come from any entities, no only one commercial analytic company that has a contract with a government.

IRS Dishes Out $1.25 Million for Data Firms to Crack Monero.
How Chainalysis Helped the FBI Track Down and Freeze Millions in the Caesars Casino Ransomware Attack.

[Forsyth Jones]

So what do they do, if the Coldcard attacker transfers Bitcoin to b1exch they steal it from him, which opposes their own Terms?  Would you say that is the correct thing to do?

I agree with your thinking.

There is simply nothing what b1exch can do, anything they will do goes against the terms themselves. The maximum they could do is to refund the funds once it is proven that the funds originated from the theft, but for this, they will need some third-party tool to track the funds or government cooperation.

Even if the stolen funds pass through b1exch, it makes no sense to the gov seizing the platform, because instant-exchange is only a tool, seizing a tool just because a criminal used to launder funds is the same as banning paper money because various bad actors use it to launder stolen funds, doesn't make sense.

It's the same as a country wanting to block discord on national territory because there are pedophiles using the app.

What must be done is to apply justice, go after criminals, investigate, go through entire due legal process, seize tools is authoritarianism and pure ignorance, it is to punish and prohibit victims and good people from using the service, while the real culprits will  just jump to the next available service. Censoring, seizing do not solve the problem, what it resolves is that the police and security agencies and bodies do their work unilaterally.

[SamReomo]

In fact I don't trust any of them and it's because governments hire commercial on chain analytic companies to do works for governments. Obviously, there are blockchains, public ledgers and on chain transaction records so analysis can come from any entities, no only one commercial analytic company that has a contract with a government.

There're doing a great business that's why government has to hire them in order to track down such activities of bad actors. The scammers are also getting smarter overtime and in some cases it's not possible for even chain analysis companies to track down many transactions.

But, I must say that chain analysis companies are also making a lot of money by offering genuine services that are sometimes used by government. Those who're good at such type of analysis may consider offering their services to get something, but I don't think they'll stand a chance against the already established companies.

[PrivacyG]

Refunding it back to the known hackers wallet address is the right thing based on the blocklist (they will make or already made). And put a warning message to it that it wont process, etc.

And have a new policy regarding the processing of hackers address. But of course, hackers can just send to its another address multiple times then make a transaction to the platform. With that, b1exch can't do any thing, unless they insert new address on their blocklist list.
The idea isn't really about stopping hackers. It's about establishing that the platform has no intention of facilitating the laundering of funds when it has clear, credible knowledge of their origin. That distinction could be meaningful in demonstrating "good faith" operation, even though it cannot prevent attackers from using fresh addresses or more sophisticated laundering techniques.

The 'morally right thing to do' is also that Bitcoin should not allow hackers and thieves to move from their Addresses.  But particularly following the 'morally right things to do' is how you get to how Tether, Binance and every other platform and centralized Cryptocurrency works.

A Blacklist is subjective.  That applies even to United States sanction lists.  You could say some of these are definitely justified, but some of them are not and there is NO way all the many thousands of entried in that Sanction list are objectively right.

I want a platform that runs on Cypherpunk ideas.  On the same ideas Bitcoin was made of.  Asking a platform to 'establish' that they have no intention of facilitating crime is in my opinion a bad idea.  Anyway.  Following this idea you can get in a very deep rabbit hole.  For example.  Is Know Your Customer not out there particularly to prevent crime?  Then should it not be the 'morally right thing to do' that b1exch also integrates Know Your Customer?  How about Anti Money Laundering?  If b1exch wanted peace and silence from the European Union or The United States, they would have created a platform that integrated all the regulations and laws they are asked and expected to.

I could go on.  My point is.  Expecting a Blacklist from b1exch is like expecting Coinbase to integrate a Mixer in their own platform.  It goes against what it theoretically stands for.

-----

The only way they can truly maintain a neutral stance is to directly block addresses that are legally blocked or identified by the authorities. In other words, coins coming from those addresses would be rejected.

Regarding addresses resulting from theft, which blockchain analysts say are the case, the situation changes somewhat.
An analyst says that money was stolen; until proven otherwise, the suspicion remains. But what if it wasn't?

That is any thing but a neutral position.  Neutral means all Bitcoin is treated the same.

Where should they get the list of Addresses 'legally blocked or identified by authorities'?  The United States?  That is not neutral for Russians.  Russia?  That is not neutral for most of the World.

Neutral means fungibility.

Of course, as a private platform, you have the right to choose whether or not to receive it.

b1exch does not have that right however.  Not according to their Terms anyway.

In reality, the blockade may already exist, and only the alleged criminal will know when to attempt it.

That would be a sad reality for us to wake up to.

It would be interesting to know the official opinion, but I don't think they're going to say anything about it.

And they better not.  I believe that would only spark unnecessary debates, dillemas, trust issues et cetera.

[joker_josue]

That is any thing but a neutral position.  Neutral means all Bitcoin is treated the same.

Where should they get the list of Addresses 'legally blocked or identified by authorities'?  The United States?  That is not neutral for Russians.  Russia?  That is not neutral for most of the World.

Neutral means fungibility.

I completely agree. I only said it in a "legal" sense, from the point of view of the typical authorities who go after this type of service.

The important thing is that they never favor any particular type of client. If the platform continues to function normally, and all users are obligated to do the same, there shouldn't be any complications.

Other exchanges, it seems, facilitated the trading of certain clients who had more coins to exchange, clients who were allegedly involved in crimes.

When the platform treats everyone equally, without giving advantages to some, people feel more comfortable and don't have major problems.

[PrivacyG]

Other exchanges, it seems, facilitated the trading of certain clients who had more coins to exchange, clients who were allegedly involved in crimes.

When the platform treats everyone equally, without giving advantages to some, people feel more comfortable and don't have major problems.

Are you sure by 'facilitated' authorities mean in all these reports they intentionally gave advantages to a particular type of customers?  Because I am pretty sure 'facilitated' can also mean the criminals were simply able to use the website normally like the rest of us do.  And that is particularly the problem authorities have with these websites, that they do not treat particular type of customers in a different way.

[joker_josue]

Other exchanges, it seems, facilitated the trading of certain clients who had more coins to exchange, clients who were allegedly involved in crimes.

When the platform treats everyone equally, without giving advantages to some, people feel more comfortable and don't have major problems.

Are you sure by 'facilitated' authorities mean in all these reports they intentionally gave advantages to a particular type of customers?  Because I am pretty sure 'facilitated' can also mean the criminals were simply able to use the website normally like the rest of us do.  And that is particularly the problem authorities have with these websites, that they do not treat particular type of customers in a different way.

Apparently, some people made the exchange directly without using the Clearnet platform (that's what I'll call it).

But of course, it's all speculation; these authorities act "on their own initiative" and will always find an excuse to pursue a service if they so desire.

[internetional]

In the past, Bitfinex has already blocked withdrawals of my assets to addresses it considered high-risk. Other exchanges do this too. It is a pretty standard practice.

In my opinion, this is a big red flag that would make me look for an alternative.
Honestly, this is the first time I've heard of withdrawal blocks due to receiving addresses, so I'm pretty sure it's not industry standard practice. Maybe at Bitfinex but not at all others.

Bitfinex finally unlocked my withdrawals after holding my funds for over three weeks. Based on the outcome of the investigation, I can say for sure that b1exch had nothing to do with it. The suspicion was not caused by me trying to withdraw tokens to their address.

If the problem had been with that address, Bitfinex would have asked me at least one question about it. But there were no such questions. I received a lot of questions, but the ones concerning withdrawals only related to the transactions that I hadn't canceled at the time of the inquiry. The withdrawal to the b1exch address had already been canceled, and Bitfinex had no interest in it.

Apparently, I just had a lot of deposits into Bitfinex in various cryptocurrencies from different addresses, and a critical mass accumulated, after which Bitfinex put my account under review, requesting information on the source of funds for all incoming deposits.

By the way, the original source of one of these deposits was income from a b1exch signature campaign. I wrote Bitfinex about this, and it caused no difficulties or additional questions.

So, as of right now, Bitfinex definitely does not view interacting with b1exch as anything illicit.