eXch - instant exchange BTC / LN / XMR / LTC / ETH / ERC20

[JollyGood]

I am highly suspicious when newbie accounts make claims such as these. Of course there is a small chance he is telling the truth, however I do not believe he is a "forensic crypto investigator". It is a newbie account therefore maybe it is just wishful thinking on his part.

~snip~
I'll do some research on my own side, but in case you've already done what I'm about to do, can you share how best to get in touch with these organizations to request the return of funds?

No offense, but someone who calls themselves a forensic crypto investigator shouldn't be asking such a question - because how can you expect to be able to follow the money trail, when you can't find the contact information for the agencies that have already been mentioned so many times.

[Pmalek]

We may well be deviating from the topic a bit, yet I am frequently curious regarding the extent to which wallets with secure elements are open source.

The software that runs the wallet and makes the devices functional can be fully open-source but not the physical chips, aka the secure elements. Even Trezor that talked about creating the first open-source secure element said in one of its reports that their goal is to make the secure element as open-source as possible. Meaning, it's not completely open-source. I think it was the Passport Foundation developers that commented on the forum and said that we currently don't have a single open-source element on the market.

[NotATether]

I am highly suspicious when newbie accounts make claims such as these. Of course there is a small chance he is telling the truth, however I do not believe he is a "forensic crypto investigator". It is a newbie account therefore maybe it is just wishful thinking on his part.

It's not a forensic investigator attached to an official body such as a corporation or government agency, but an independent investigator.

The on-chain weakness of many coins has spawned a booming and successful industry of independent onchain investigators ("bounty hunters" but of $1,000 rewards, not $1) whose business model comes from tracing crypto and recovering it. Whether they have access to commercial tools like Chainalysis is a different story.

It is all quite messy, as nothing is official. Meanwhile you have the security services of the government carrying out seizure operations simply because they feel that it's the only law enforcement action they are actually able to perform on these sites. Again, lack of formality is damaging.

Crypto has basically no representatives in government short of a few exchanges who only want to talk about $$$ profits.

[LyricalRainbow]

Is there any alternative to eXch which also offers bitcoin without or atleast low AML score?

[NotATether]

Is there any alternative to eXch which also offers bitcoin without or atleast low AML score?

I exchanged BTC for LTC on Wizardswap and checked the recceived coins. It had a 23% AML score.

Of course, most exchangers do not source from exchanges. They can only give you coins that other users send them, unless they manually do a sell/refill themselves. So the AML score you receive might wildly vary.

[Pmalek]

Is there any alternative to eXch which also offers bitcoin without or atleast low AML score?

I suggest that you take a look at https://kycnot.me/?categories=exchange. Btw, I just noticed that the site has been completely redesigned. You have filters on the left, so feel free to tick and untick anything you want to add or omit from your search. The higher the rating, the more privacy features a service supports. You can click on each individual exchange to open more detailed information about the service.

Overall, I don't think any privacy-preserving exchange will have too good an AML rating. They stand on two different sides of the battlefield.

[Lucius]

~snip~
Overall, I don't think any privacy-preserving exchange will have too good an AML rating. They stand on two different sides of the battlefield.

This is true and no one should be fooled into thinking that they will receive coins from such services that will have a perfect AML score. The only way to be somewhat sure that you will not have problems with future transactions is to trade on CEXs. Of course, this is not advice, but only my observation in relation to how cryptocurrencies progress over the years.

What the authorities want to do is to firstly discourage people from using Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as currency, and secondly to try to destroy every possible decentralized way of trading the same. Well, I can say that they will try, but given the nature of cryptocurrencies and the internet, they will never succeed, even though they will spend a lot of taxpayer money for that purpose.

[LoyceV]

What the authorities want to do is to firstly discourage people from using Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as currency

I read wrote this a while ago about "the notion of taint": governments can't stop Bitcoin, but they can make people believe Bitcoin is "dirty". So the notion of taint is an attack on Bitcoin's fungibility, which is an attack on Bitcoin itself.

[NotATether]

What the authorities want to do is to firstly discourage people from using Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as currency

I read this a while ago about "the notion of taint": governments can't stop Bitcoin, but they can make people believe Bitcoin is "dirty". So the notion of taint is an attack on Bitcoin's fungibility, which is an attack on Bitcoin itself.

Which is why it's so important that we protect mixers, especially the ones that purify AML scores. They're the only ones stopping this nonsense.

[bitmover]

What the authorities want to do is to firstly discourage people from using Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as currency

I read wrote this a while ago about "the notion of taint": governments can't stop Bitcoin, but they can make people believe Bitcoin is "dirty". So the notion of taint is an attack on Bitcoin's fungibility, which is an attack on Bitcoin itself.

This is true.

For now, it is still easy to " clean" our coins using mixers or swap services that accept those coins.

Then those coins will become just a few % dirty. They cant say all coins are dirty because they have like 1% from "tainted " addresses.

[Pmalek]

Which is why it's so important that we protect mixers, especially the ones that purify AML scores. They're the only ones stopping this nonsense.

I have never thought about taint that much or used a service to provide me with feedback regarding the "cleanliness" or "dirtiness" of some of my coins, but when you say that we need to protect mixers that purify AML scores and make them better, do you have certain names in my mind? You probably can't mention them as it might be against the 'mixers are banned' rule and I understand that, so let me formulate the question differently: Are there certain mixers that you know of or have tested that can take "very tainted" bitcoin, mix them, and turn the outputs into "less tainted" or "clean" bitcoin? And they wouldn't make your coins even more "dirty" or "suspicious" because you used a mixer?

[NotATether]

Are there certain mixers that you know of or have tested that can take "very tainted" bitcoin, mix them, and turn the outputs into "less tainted" or "clean" bitcoin?

Of course !!

In fact, the vast majority of mixers operating today operate like that. It's not like in 2015 when they all used CoinJoin.

And they wouldn't make your coins even more "dirty" or "suspicious" because you used a mixer?

No. Because these coins were withdrawn directly from exchanges.

[Trêvoid]

Which is why it's so important that we protect mixers, especially the ones that purify AML scores. They're the only ones stopping this nonsense.

I have never thought about taint that much or used a service to provide me with feedback regarding the "cleanliness" or "dirtiness" of some of my coins, but when you say that we need to protect mixers that purify AML scores and make them better, do you have certain names in my mind? You probably can't mention them as it might be against the 'mixers are banned' rule and I understand that, so let me formulate the question differently: Are there certain mixers that you know of or have tested that can take "very tainted" bitcoin, mix them, and turn the outputs into "less tainted" or "clean" bitcoin? And they wouldn't make your coins even more "dirty" or "suspicious" because you used a mixer?

Just remember, while mixers can help with couple issues, but they’re not a magic solution, using them can still raise eyebrows, and the legal landscape is always changing. Always do your research and consider the risks before using any service.

[Lucius]

I read wrote this a while ago about "the notion of taint": governments can't stop Bitcoin, but they can make people believe Bitcoin is "dirty". So the notion of taint is an attack on Bitcoin's fungibility, which is an attack on Bitcoin itself.

Those who have been in this for a long time have surely noticed that they are trying to boil us like a frog (someone mentioned it recently) in other words very slowly until it is too late. Countries like Turkey, Vietnam, and Thailand have a completely open tactic based on the fact that you can buy, sell, and store cryptocurrencies, but paying with them is prohibited - while on the other hand, the rest of the world is doing everything to get the idea out of the average person's head that they should use Bitcoin as a currency.

It's not something that comes exclusively from political circles, but we hear it every day from people like Saylor or companies like BlackRock. The latter has very, to say the least, strange attitudes when it comes to BTC, and for those who don't know, they long ago bought majority shares in practically all the biggest BTC mining companies. Some say they are building a Trojan horse, others that they have already built it and successfully deployed it.

Just remember, while mixers can help with couple issues, but they’re not a magic solution, using them can still raise eyebrows, and the legal landscape is always changing. Always do your research and consider the risks before using any service.

It's been quite a few years since someone opened Breaking Mixing Services in which it is proven that mixers are not quite as resilient as they seem, because at that time all but one have proven to be quite ineffective in what they are supposed to provide to each client.

If one man could do it, I have no doubt that some much more powerful organizations today can do much more, because it's no secret that they've been working on it for over 10 years.

[un_rank]

Those who have been in this for a long time have surely noticed that they are trying to boil us like a frog (someone mentioned it recently) in other words very slowly until it is too late.

Slightly off-topic, but that frog in hot water analogy has always been wrong. The frog will in fact jump out of the boiling water no matter how slowly it is heated. Which shows they may be smarter than us as humans tend to adjust to uncomfortable situations until it is too difficult to get out of.

... while on the other hand, the rest of the world is doing everything to get the idea out of the average person's head that they should use Bitcoin as a currency.

Back to the topic. This has been an ongoing strategy for many years now. Bitcoin is painted as unreliable, unpredictable, heavily linked to illegal activities and carries baggage from previous transactions. I do not know if this has an effect on the consumer yet, or it is just the expected hesitation before adopting something new, paper notes were not accepted easily either.

- Jay -

[examplens]

~snip~
Overall, I don't think any privacy-preserving exchange will have too good an AML rating. They stand on two different sides of the battlefield.

This is true and no one should be fooled into thinking that they will receive coins from such services that will have a perfect AML score. The only way to be somewhat sure that you will not have problems with future transactions is to trade on CEXs. Of course, this is not advice, but only my observation in relation to how cryptocurrencies progress over the years.

This is completely true. Some AML analyses that I have done raise my risk score and mark coins that came from an "unlicensed exchange" as medium risk. It sounds like indirectly directing users to traditional CEX, because I guess they are the 'only ones' that can guarantee high purity of coins.

[Pmalek]

This is completely true. Some AML analyses that I have done raise my risk score and mark coins that came from an "unlicensed exchange" as medium risk. It sounds like indirectly directing users to traditional CEX, because I guess they are the 'only ones' that can guarantee high purity of coins.

It's propaganda and has nothing to do with the history of your coins or what the previous owners did with them. If you deposited your "medium-risk" bitcoin into a CEX like Binance and they didn't mind, the risk rating of that same bitcoin would probably soon drop to "low-risk" as it enters Binance's pool. The goal is to keep as many people engaged with controllable services. That's what CEXs are. They are controllable. They can at any time block you, lock you, freeze you out, or share any and all information they have about you with those who ask. That's why they want to keep you there and not have you engage with bitcoin through parties they have no influence over.

[LoyceV]

Some AML analyses that I have done raise my risk score and mark coins that came from an "unlicensed exchange" as medium risk. It sounds like indirectly directing users to traditional CEX, because I guess they are the 'only ones' that can guarantee high purity of coins.

They don't even have to "guarantee" anything:  the ones who earn from selling the notion of taint are the ones who make up which coin is good or bad. It makes perfect sense that their customers get a clean slate.

If you deposited your "medium-risk" bitcoin into a CEX like Binance and they didn't mind, the risk rating of that same bitcoin would probably soon drop to "low-risk" as it enters Binance's pool. The goal is to keep as many people engaged with controllable services.

The companies who earn from "taint" earn more when demand for their "services" increases. There may be one flaw though: if everyone would only use centralized KYC exchanges, their services would become obsolete. So in order to survive, they need to keep selling the idea that not all Bitcoins are equal.

[Lucius]

Those who have been in this for a long time have surely noticed that they are trying to boil us like a frog (someone mentioned it recently) in other words very slowly until it is too late.

Slightly off-topic, but that frog in hot water analogy has always been wrong. The frog will in fact jump out of the boiling water no matter how slowly it is heated. Which shows they may be smarter than us as humans tend to adjust to uncomfortable situations until it is too difficult to get out of.

I know that it is not literally correct, it is a metaphor that has become so common that we still use it in our everyday life. I don't agree that frogs are smarter than people, but that perhaps they have a better instinct for survival, considering that they are guided by very basic feelings, which in humans are often intertwined in complex loops of feelings.

Back to the topic. This has been an ongoing strategy for many years now. Bitcoin is painted as unreliable, unpredictable, heavily linked to illegal activities and carries baggage from previous transactions. I do not know if this has an effect on the consumer yet, or it is just the expected hesitation before adopting something new, paper notes were not accepted easily either.
- Jay -

I've already written somewhere that it's a bit paradoxical that most people are looking for some kind of confirmation from their governments, banks, and various institutions that Bitcoin is something legal, good, acceptable - and that same Bitcoin was created as a kind of alternative to the current system.

I think that globally, we cannot say that there is some kind of universal opinion about BTC, but that it depends from country to country. Institutionally, the US is sovereignly winning the battle so far, but some studies say that about 21% of global trading/investing is in Central, Southern and Eastern Europe.

[Pmalek]

The companies who earn from "taint" earn more when demand for their "services" increases. There may be one flaw though: if everyone would only use centralized KYC exchanges, their services would become obsolete. So in order to survive, they need to keep selling the idea that not all Bitcoins are equal.

Even the most hardcore taint-believers and bullshit sellers know that there will never be a world where everyone who engages with bitcoin will do so under their terms (in centralized and controllable environments). There will always be a grey economy and straight-up black markets. I agree with you that those markets are important to them and they will never get their grip on everything, nor would that be in their best interest.