Restriction laws on mixer.

[SuperBitMan]

Under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), anyone who transfers money on behalf of others is a Money Services Business (MSB), and if you check what mixer those it can be called a money services business.
U.S. authority known as Financial Crimes Enforcement Network – (FinCEN) have stated that: crypto mixers may qualify as money transmitters and If so, they must:

1. they most register with FinCEN: a mixer can operate if they can register with FinCEN but if they are not register with FinCEN they are illegal and cannot operate.   

2. they must Implement KYC (Know Your Customer): this is also one of the things a mixer most do, they need to make KYC compulsory for their customers, if they can’t do this they can’t operate.

3. they most always report suspicious transactions: they most report any suspicious transactions they notice in their mixer if they are not doing or don’t accept to do this they can’t operate.

The restrictions laws on mixer those it limit financial freedom or the restriction law is protecting the society.
What do you think.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

What do you think.

I think that, especially number 2 destroys what a mixer is.

2. they must Implement KYC (Know Your Customer): this is also one of the things a mixer most do, they need to make KYC compulsory for their customers, if they can’t do this they can’t operate.

Who the hell is going to use a mixer, that is used especially for privacy if you have to pass a kyc.

[bitmover]

2. they must Implement KYC (Know Your Customer): this is also one of the things a mixer most do, they need to make KYC compulsory for their customers, if they can’t do this they can’t operate.

Who the hell is going to use a mixer, that is used especially for privacy if you have to pass a kyc.

Supposing you complain to KYC on the mixer and mix your funds.

The mixer (and the government) would know where did your bitcoin came from. But when you send the mixer funds to a third party, he wouldn't know where your money came from.

For example, you want to send some money you made on the forum sig campaigns to a person who you don't like to expose your Don Pedro Dinero  identity. You could use that mixer and then send the funds.

I know KYC is contradictory to what mixers stand for, but it would still have some uses.

But a lot of shady mixers operating without KYC would show up if that law really becomes a thing.

[NeuroticFish]

The mixer (and the government) would know where did your bitcoin came from. But when you send the mixer funds to a third party, he wouldn't know where your money came from.

For example, you want to send some money you made on the forum sig campaigns to a person who you don't like to expose your Don Pedro Dinero  identity. You could use that mixer and then send the funds.

I know KYC is contradictory to what mixers stand for, but it would still have some uses.

Interesting point, but then you would dox yourself - which for some is OK and probably for most is a no-go - plus, I would not be surprised if that money would be still marked as "mixed", which, for many exchanges would be a red flag.

So while I agree that it does have its uses, it may need quite a lot more time until such "legally fine" mixers will become a thing.

[bitmover]

Interesting point, but then you would dox yourself - which for some is OK and probably for most is a no-go - plus, I would not be surprised if that money would be still marked as "mixed", which, for many exchanges would be a red flag.

Yeah, it would probably have its own "mixer signature" making an easily to detect onchain transaction. 

But at least in theory the identity would be preserved and only accessible to authorities. This would end money laundering and tax evasion with mixers, but those things would still be happening in other services like DEX  Kyc free exchanges p2p , etc..

[Z-tight]

Most of the people who want to use a mixer are privacy-oriented individuals, so they would never pass kyc to use one, because that's exactly what they try to avoid by using a mixer. Yeah, you may say some people could use this, but those who can most likely do not care about privacy, so they would just send their coins without going through this additional step.

This is surely not a sustainable model for a mixer. They would be 'accepted' in the eyes of the government, but their customer base would be so thin that they would run out of business sooner rather than later.

[zasad@]

Most of the people who want to use a mixer are privacy-oriented individuals, so they would never pass kyc to use one, because that's exactly what they try to avoid by using a mixer. Yeah, you may say some people could use this, but those who can most likely do not care about privacy, so they would just send their coins without going through this additional step.

This is surely not a sustainable model for a mixer. They would be 'accepted' in the eyes of the government, but their customer base would be so thin that they would run out of business sooner rather than later.

Any centralized exchange functions as a mixer. You can send bitcoins there and receive new bitcoins from an exchange address, as well as receive any other coins from the exchange's addresses. If there were no KYC, the exchange would function as a mixer with trading functions, or vice versa.
We can also talk about logs that mixers don't keep, but we'll never know.

[hugeblack]

Any centralized exchange functions as a mixer. You can send bitcoins there and receive new bitcoins from an exchange address, as well as receive any other coins from the exchange's addresses.

I think their main problem with mixers is that they don't collect user data or make tracking transactions more difficult. Once mixers become "cooperative with the authorities," we won't hear any more complaints.

[Z-tight]

Any centralized exchange functions as a mixer.

Depending on who's looking for you or who you're 'hiding' from. However, the thing is that centralized exchanges are data farms, so it would be counterproductive to seek privacy in their platform, even though it can get the job done for you if you are trying to hide traces from your spouse or any regular person.

Once mixers become "cooperative with the authorities," we won't hear any more complaints.

Very true and i hope we don't get to that point, because most people would surely abandon it. The authorities want to be able to get data about anybody from every crypto service and then they would allow you operate freely. In short, they seek total control.

[zasad@]

Any centralized exchange functions as a mixer. You can send bitcoins there and receive new bitcoins from an exchange address, as well as receive any other coins from the exchange's addresses.

I think their main problem with mixers is that they don't collect user data or make tracking transactions more difficult. Once mixers become "cooperative with the authorities," we won't hear any more complaints.

We've already seen the story of many mixers on the forum that were shut down.
I'm not accusing mixers of collaborating with the authorities, but a mixer needs logs like an insurance policy. If the owner is caught, they can agree to cooperate with the government, hand over the logs, and get a few years in prison, or refuse to cooperate and get life imprisonment. What would you do?

[SuperBitMan]

Any centralized exchange functions as a mixer. You can send bitcoins there and receive new bitcoins from an exchange address, as well as receive any other coins from the exchange's addresses.

I think their main problem with mixers is that they don't collect user data or make tracking transactions more difficult. Once mixers become "cooperative with the authorities," we won't hear any more complaints.

Yeah that’s the problem mixers are having with the government, the government wants to have access to their users or customers and without a KYC done by a mixer they can get access to any user, the government wants to be able to trace any transaction in case of any criminal activity they want to investigate.
But if all this is been made possible in mixer it will lose the content that some people want which is privacy.

I know some people may say privacy should be our right, but remember some privacy will cause more harm to the society, if your money is stolen and the police helps you to find it and return it back to you I believe you will be happy but if they can’t fine it or trace it you will surely be sad. So think about the future.

[zasad@]

I know some people may say privacy should be our right, but remember some privacy will cause more harm to the society, if your money is stolen and the police helps you to find it and return it back to you I believe you will be happy but if they can’t fine it or trace it you will surely be sad. So think about the future.

Look at the statistics on how much stolen money the police return to victims. Let's recall the Mt. Gox case: payouts are still being made, but people are forced to go through very complicated bureaucratic procedures. If you're worried about your coins, an insurance policy will provide protection, but relying on the police is very naive.

[rat03gopoh]

But a lot of shady mixers operating without KYC would show up if that law really becomes a thing.

Illegal mixers will continue to exist as black market facilities. And the worst thing is if centralized platforms or scanning tools can't identify where I've mixed coins. While (possibly) having transaction/KYC proof in case of a freeze, it's still an unnecessary additional process. Imagine a freeze every time I send mixed coins.

[SuperBitMan]

I know some people may say privacy should be our right, but remember some privacy will cause more harm to the society, if your money is stolen and the police helps you to find it and return it back to you I believe you will be happy but if they can’t fine it or trace it you will surely be sad. So think about the future.

Look at the statistics on how much stolen money the police return to victims. Let's recall the Mt. Gox case: payouts are still being made, but people are forced to go through very complicated bureaucratic procedures. If you're worried about your coins, an insurance policy will provide protection, but relying on the police is very naive.

So you prefer the government should not have any trace of how our money goes out and come in, well the government will never give us that freedom because they believe if they should give us that total freedom they won’t have the power of financial control in their nation and this was the main reason some countries were seriously against bitcoin at first.

An insurance policy are limited when it comes to crypto, is not like the one we get in bank.
Government insurance does not cover crypto so you will rely on Crypto exchange insurance (partial protection) or Private crypto insurance companies.

[Lucius]

Mixers have no problem with governments, it's actually the other way around. Governments are bothered by any financial transaction that they cannot fully control, so they do not want Bitcoin to be used as a currency, and even less to be mixed, which only makes it more difficult to track, although I do not believe that such transactions can be considered completely impenetrable.

Laws and restrictions are one thing, putting them into practice is quite another - if you destroy one mixer, two new ones appear.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The days when bitcoiners could just set up a centralized service and share it freely with the public are just over. Privacy enhancing services are, especially, targeted by governments, and, whether they comply or not, are sooner or later going to be shut down.

Just stick with decentralization and use coinjoin, which is cheaper, self-custodial and truly private.

[Z-tight]

I know some people may say privacy should be our right, but remember some privacy will cause more harm to the society, if your money is stolen and the police helps you to find it and return it back to you I believe you will be happy but if they can’t fine it or trace it you will surely be sad. So think about the future.

I think people who cannot come to terms with the fact that their coin is their responsibility, should not use crypto. They are better off sticking to fiat. Privacy does not cause any harm, people do. If you allow bad actors to steal your funds and then use privacy tools to hide their traces, then i'm sure you'll agree with me that the problem here is not the tool itself.

Everyone should have a right to privacy. Though governments would never consent to that and as such we've been fighting a losing battle for a long time now.

[zasad@]

I know some people may say privacy should be our right, but remember some privacy will cause more harm to the society, if your money is stolen and the police helps you to find it and return it back to you I believe you will be happy but if they can’t fine it or trace it you will surely be sad. So think about the future.

Look at the statistics on how much stolen money the police return to victims. Let's recall the Mt. Gox case: payouts are still being made, but people are forced to go through very complicated bureaucratic procedures. If you're worried about your coins, an insurance policy will provide protection, but relying on the police is very naive.

So you prefer the government should not have any trace of how our money goes out and come in, well the government will never give us that freedom because they believe if they should give us that total freedom they won’t have the power of financial control in their nation and this was the main reason some countries were seriously against bitcoin at first.

An insurance policy are limited when it comes to crypto, is not like the one we get in bank.
Government insurance does not cover crypto so you will rely on Crypto exchange insurance (partial protection) or Private crypto insurance companies.

Governments that opposed Bitcoin were losing until they decided to legalize it and implement an accounting system.
China is a prime example of a cryptocurrency ban. There, paying for goods with cryptocurrency is prohibited by law, yet thousands of Russian businessmen pay for goods in China using cryptocurrency.
In Russia, paying with cryptocurrency is also prohibited, but we already have many crypto wallet services. I transfer cryptocurrency to my wallet on a crypto service, then photograph the QR code to pay in a store or photograph the payment details, and the crypto service pays for me, exchanging my cryptocurrency for rubles. This isn't P2P, and these services don't require KYC.

Robbers won't rob someone who has money in a bank; it's very difficult to withdraw a large sum of money from a bank in just one day.

I'm not against governments, but if the government wants to control everything, it should also ensure the security of cryptocurrency owners.

[Z-tight]

I'm not against governments, but if the government wants to control everything, it should also ensure the security of cryptocurrency owners.

They claim kyc and aml policy is also for customer protection, yet people still often lose their funds in custodial platforms, with no way of recovering it. Strict regulation in my own opinion is about control and not really about protecting customers. And as such people should never store their coins in any centralized exchange or custodial platform.

[MarryWithBTC]

1. they most register with FinCEN: a mixer can operate if they can register with FinCEN but if they are not register with FinCEN they are illegal and cannot operate.   

This is understandable

2. they must Implement KYC (Know Your Customer): this is also one of the things a mixer most do, they need to make KYC compulsory for their customers, if they can’t do this they can’t operate.

Does the government want to know the assumed people who are seeking for privacy through mixers? it sounds funny.
If mixers implement KYC, what will now be the difference between them and CEX

3. they most always report suspicious transactions: they most report any suspicious transactions they notice in their mixer if they are not doing or don’t accept to do this they can’t operate.

if mixers on their own has a means to detect suspicious transactions, that means they are spying on their customers.
Mixers are gradually losing what made them privacy tools.