Honestly, what really caught my attention in the Treasury
report wasn’t the usual “mixers are bad” narrative, but the fact that they openly acknowledge that mixers actually have legitimate use cases.
“Lawful users of digital assets may leverage mixers to enable financial privacy…”
For a long time, the narrative was pretty simple: mixers = crime. In the short term, I don’t think this is anything good for mixer platforms - regulation will likely get tighter.
But in the long run, it actually strengthens the argument that these tools can be legitimate when it comes to privacy.
Yeah and what do you want to say with this, that the regulators are finally confirming what is the objective truth and you are somehow not satisfied with it? What would be satisfying to you then, since it seems to me that in both of the possible cases you find fault with them. Mixers are completely unregulated territory, well almost. So what do you mean with this isn't anything good for mixer platforms? It will make it harder to scam people, and this is the issue that you have with it? Basically all mixers that have existed so far can be split into 2 groups:
1) Reputable until seized.
2) Exit scammed or reputable until exit scammed.
That is it, there was never a 3rd case.
As consumers increase their use of digital assets for payments, individuals may want to use mixers to maintain more privacy of their consumer spending habits.
This quote sounds ridiculous to me. More people are going to use BTC to purchase goods and services, which means that they would want to use BTC mixers to "maintain privacy" over their "spending habits"? The guy, who wrote this report probably knows very little about Bitcoin.
The people simply don't want to use BTC for buying goods and services. Period. This means that BTC mixers won't be used by anyone to hide his "spending habits". Bitcoin mixers are being used to hide the origin of Bitcoins, that were obtained via illegal activities. I don't believe that the US authorities would ever impose more liberal laws and regulations in regards to Bitcoin mixers.
You have got to be one of the most stupid shitposters that exist on this forum. Not only did you quote a piece of the article that is perfectly correct, indisputably correct, then you proceeded to correct with with complete bullshit that has nothing to do with reality. Many people are using Bitcoin every day, the volume on the Lightning Network alone is in the order of billions of dollars per year which disproves any claims that people don't want to use BTC to make payments. Stop writing lies about shit that you do not know anything about, and focus on learning how to wash yourself and how to use toilets first idiot.
I was wondering what the need was for mixers, if one should upload their ID before they could mix their coin. This is far from what being anonymous is. And it is very clear now that there is nothing like a pivot there because of the demand from the government to keep records for tracking and monitoring of mixer transactions, so they could come after whomever they deem fit to attack. Well, even if they come up with such, any mixer that agrees to such is on their own and likely going to have low patronage of their services.
How about you read some other posts before you write about your own wondering? It has been explained many times in many topics about mixers. It all depends on who you are trying to hide the information and why. If I am using an address that the government already knows that is mine, and I am not trying to hide from the government, why would I not use this platform? Using traditional mixers makes it significantly more risky and difficult to restore the coin back into a state that is provably owned by you. The government can not confirm that you didn't spend the old coins for some stuff and avoided paying taxes, and now you pretend that you have the same balance again.
By using a mixer like this, it makes it easier to do mixing with coins that are already tied to your name and enables you to hide your wealth from services, platforms, and payment recipients. If you are poor, you will not understand the need for this service. If you are rich, then it is quite clear.
