@Harlot. Agreed, it is Singapore's laws. I was asking the question again for you to understand that it is in the exchange's decision to put guilt in the user's actions because of Singapore's laws.
You can hate me for asking questions, hehehehe. However, they are important questions that need to be asked, I reckon.
Topic: [2020-04-13] Coin Mixer’s Record Month Proves Bitcoin Users Want Anonymity (Read 658 times)
April 22, 2020, 10:18:33 PM
April 22, 2020, 03:19:07 PM
Is it not true that Binance Singapore froze a user's account because they something they did not want?
This is a matter of domestic laws from Singapore and not the actual guilt itself. CoinJoin transactions based on Singapore's AML procedures may have been violated by the user when they have mixed their withdrawals for privacy.i would love to see a source showing that MAS has published specific guidance or that this is a statutory issue. i doubt singapore AML laws refer to coin mixing. i also skimmed over the new payment services act and it seems pretty lax.
i wonder if binance SG's partners (Xfers or vertex venture holdings) have an internal policy about overt coinjoin/mixing, and the partnership is contingent on complying with it. something tells me it's about an abundance of caution rather than the law itself, and that it's not really binance proper that is behind it.
April 22, 2020, 07:17:49 AM
@Harlot. Hehehe. It was only an argument. I did not try to put guilt. Is it not true that Binance Singapore froze a user's account because they something they did not want?
This is a matter of domestic laws from Singapore and not the actual guilt itself. CoinJoin transactions based on Singapore's AML procedures may have been violated by the user when they have mixed their withdrawals for privacy. However like I said this does not make them automatically guilty of something far more than adding privacy to their transaction, The Singaporean government cannot automatically assume that they are doing illicit activities just because they have mixed their cryptocurrencies. Mixing coins in Singapore might have violated some of their AML laws but its just that they aren't guilty of anything beyond mixing their coins.
April 21, 2020, 08:15:52 PM
@oeleo,
I'd twist your question in my way here:
Even if we bounce our coins into 100 or even 1000 addresses and keep them in 1000 different addresses each, who gives these exchanges the power to ask us where the funds came from? Will they even ask if I use a wallet that's unknown to these exchanges and is highly untraceable for services like chainalysis (like if ever such a wallet arises)? What if I send my BTC from each of those 1000 addresses to Binance? Will they stop me and ask for proof that these addresses belong to me? Where the hell remains anonymity then?
P.S.: What has these exchanges to do with gambling sites? For eg.; If I send some considerable amount of BTC from sportsbet.io to a centralized exchange, won't they accept it as a deposit?
I'd twist your question in my way here:
Even if we bounce our coins into 100 or even 1000 addresses and keep them in 1000 different addresses each, who gives these exchanges the power to ask us where the funds came from? Will they even ask if I use a wallet that's unknown to these exchanges and is highly untraceable for services like chainalysis (like if ever such a wallet arises)? What if I send my BTC from each of those 1000 addresses to Binance? Will they stop me and ask for proof that these addresses belong to me? Where the hell remains anonymity then?
P.S.: What has these exchanges to do with gambling sites? For eg.; If I send some considerable amount of BTC from sportsbet.io to a centralized exchange, won't they accept it as a deposit?
Agreed! However, in this sad world that is the cryptospace, they can clearly lock your account because they would be questioned by a government that gave them the license to operate.
In any case, everyone gave good arguments. Thank you.
@Harlot. Hehehe. It was only an argument. I did not try to put guilt. Is it not true that Binance Singapore froze a user's account because they something they did not want?
April 21, 2020, 01:57:59 PM
I know it's ridiculous, I'm laughing myself about it.
Imagine someone accepting payments in BTC and he receives tainted bitcoins. If we follow their reasoning he will be linked to a criminal person and he will start to be in trouble at the moment he deposits to an exchange platform. They will gladly provide any information collected to the police upon request.
And exchange platforms are the bridge between the crypto world and the traditional banking system for the majority of people since we don't massively use DEXs.
The trend will be to say "people have to make their due diligence before receiving a payment" but how do you want the average Joe to make it when the majority uses a web-based wallet, don't even know how to sign a message, etc.
Imagine saying "Show me your bitcoin first" when you're selling something
What is considered as a tainted coin, it's difficult to say, they mostly rely on companies I mentioned and the large databases they all are building, and it's very hard to find information about it since it's not exactly something that's been publicly known.
April 21, 2020, 01:43:49 PM
Agreed. Privacy is a fundamental right, however, that was not the argument. I was asking why or how can we assume that regular people who use bitcoin only as a speculative investment, or use it legally, mix their coins? This would put taint on their coins and also put their accounts on exchanges at risk.
I've replied with your argument earlier but it seems like it wasn't enough for you. Let me explain that this is an invalid argument. Why? Your argument already put guilt in their actions just because they are using a mixer for their daily activities. In simple terms if we put this in a court the roles will be reverse and now the burden of proof even though the defendant is not yet proven guilty is on them just because they use a mixer. Well in our law the burden of proof is always the ones who are accusing the defendant and they should always prove that this normal users you are talking about are using mixers illegally.
April 21, 2020, 12:37:00 PM
@oeleo,
I'd twist your question in my way here:
Even if we bounce our coins into 100 or even 1000 addresses and keep them in 1000 different addresses each, who gives these exchanges the power to ask us where the funds came from? Will they even ask if I use a wallet that's unknown to these exchanges and is highly untraceable for services like chainalysis (like if ever such a wallet arises)? What if I send my BTC from each of those 1000 addresses to Binance? Will they stop me and ask for proof that these addresses belong to me? Where the hell remains anonymity then?
P.S.: What has these exchanges to do with gambling sites? For eg.; If I send some considerable amount of BTC from sportsbet.io to a centralized exchange, won't they accept it as a deposit?
I'd twist your question in my way here:
Even if we bounce our coins into 100 or even 1000 addresses and keep them in 1000 different addresses each, who gives these exchanges the power to ask us where the funds came from? Will they even ask if I use a wallet that's unknown to these exchanges and is highly untraceable for services like chainalysis (like if ever such a wallet arises)? What if I send my BTC from each of those 1000 addresses to Binance? Will they stop me and ask for proof that these addresses belong to me? Where the hell remains anonymity then?
P.S.: What has these exchanges to do with gambling sites? For eg.; If I send some considerable amount of BTC from sportsbet.io to a centralized exchange, won't they accept it as a deposit?
April 21, 2020, 09:36:17 AM
I know it's not a mixer but the point is about tainted coins and how we will become discriminated
It's ridiculous. What counts as "tainted" bitcoin? Anything that has been mixed? Anything that has been traded peer-to-peer? Anything that has been part of a CoinJoin transaction? Anything from a casino? How far back do we look? If you go back far enough, the vast majority of bitcoins in circulation will have been "tainted" in some way. What if I bounce my bitcoin between 10 brand new addresses? Does that make it "clean" again? How about 20 addresses? How about 100? How do I know that bitcoin I am buying completely legitimately won't be declared "tainted" by another exchange for some other obscure reason?Centralized exchanges are starting to make rules about what their users can and cannot spend their own money on, and who they are and are not allowed to transfer their own money to. It goes against the very idea of bitcoin being decentralized and uncensorable, the very nature of bitcoin, the very thing bitcoin was designed to do. Everyone should be avoiding these exchanges at all costs.
Privacy was the main reason I initially chose to avoid centralized exchanges and do all my trading peer-to-peer, but as time goes on, the list of reasons to avoid CEXs just keeps growing and growing.
April 21, 2020, 04:15:34 AM
Is it just the withdrawal action that this Binance and other Exchange Mafias prevent you from conducting on their app/site or they also don't allow deposits if we use mixing services to hide our transactions from being traced that we send to these exchanges?
What makes them decide whether the coins are coming from a "bad" source and gives them the right to stop us from using these services? If these Exchanges and other major places won't allow us to use mixers for our own good, don't you think that more people will get into the darknet and use the mixing for the real bad then due to being provoked?
What makes them decide whether the coins are coming from a "bad" source and gives them the right to stop us from using these services? If these Exchanges and other major places won't allow us to use mixers for our own good, don't you think that more people will get into the darknet and use the mixing for the real bad then due to being provoked?
KYT (Know your transaction) with the help of blockchain intelligence companies like Chainalysis or Elliptic having a lot of clients such as Binance and even governments.
A platform can well freeze users' accounts and ask questions like what are the origins of your funds. I'm lazy to search but I remember someone who got 2 accounts blocked on 2 exchange platforms because the bitcoins were coming from Bisq. (I know it's not a mixer but the point is about tainted coins and how we will become discriminated (Banknotes are used in illegal activities and tainted yet nothing is done, what could be done btw))
Companies are building databases to link BTC addresses to know identities. Yeah, it's ironic in a world fo decentralization, anonymous transactions and privacy generally speaking. I see a privacy concern for bitcoiners.
These same companies supposed to promote the crypto sphere.
So all the persons praising Binance and co here and there should also remember what they're doing against people
April 20, 2020, 06:13:44 PM
Is it just the withdrawal action that this Binance and other Exchange Mafias prevent you from conducting on their app/site or they also don't allow deposits if we use mixing services to hide our transactions from being traced that we send to these exchanges?
What makes them decide whether the coins are coming from a "bad" source and gives them the right to stop us from using these services? If these Exchanges and other major places won't allow us to use mixers for our own good, don't you think that more people will get into the darknet and use the mixing for the real bad then due to being provoked?
What makes them decide whether the coins are coming from a "bad" source and gives them the right to stop us from using these services? If these Exchanges and other major places won't allow us to use mixers for our own good, don't you think that more people will get into the darknet and use the mixing for the real bad then due to being provoked?
April 20, 2020, 04:39:53 AM
This would put taint on their coins and also put their accounts on exchanges at risk.
From the data I have discussed earlier in this thread, 40% of coins passed through mixers come directly from exchange accounts, and more still will come from exchanges via either someone's personal wallet or via another mixer. There is therefore a significant amount of bitcoin from exchanges being mixed. It isn't a frequent occurrence for exchange accounts to be put at risk by this, or else it wouldn't be happening so much.As LeGaulois says, the desire for privacy and mixing or similar techniques is only going to increase with time. How will exchanges be able to discriminate against "tainted" bitcoin when the vast majority of coins of in existence have been mixed or otherwise anonymized at some point?
April 20, 2020, 01:39:03 AM
...
There are many legitime reasons to seek privacy with Bitcoin for things we do in our daily life and there is a difference to make between 2 things, privacy, and secrecy, and both are different.
Why don't you let the door of your house open when you get sex with your wife so? There are certain things you don't need the world to know about.
Perhaps you don't get why privacy is needed because you have no need yourself and maybe a limited usage of BTC.
Quote
Financial privacy is an essential element to fungibility in Bitcoin: if you can meaningfully distinguish one coin from another, then their fungibility is weak. If our fungibility is too weak in practice, then we cannot be decentralized: if someone important announces a list of stolen coins they won't accept coins derived from, you must carefully check coins you accept against that list and return the ones that fail. Everyone gets stuck checking blacklists issued by various authorities because in that world we'd all not like to get stuck with bad coins. This adds friction and transactional costs and makes Bitcoin less valuable as a money.
There is more to read here Why privacy to understand better why it's not needed to be 'suspicious' about bitcoiners who aren't ready to display their anus to others.
Believe me or not within 5 years we will wee more persons looking to increase their privacy with BTC (especially when it will become heavily regulated, taxed,...) we will see more solution like Wasabi, Samourai, mixers,... more tech will emerge, BTC will improve itself and finally it will become a standard.
I always thought Coinjoin should have been included in Bitcoin Core from the start.
I dont argue against privacy - that is fine. nobody does. as long as there is a transparent way where you / regul / enforments can show all is compliant and no shit happened
April 20, 2020, 12:14:06 AM
I was asking why or how can we assume that regular people who use bitcoin only as a speculative investment, or use it legally, mix their coins? This would put taint on their coins and also put their accounts on exchanges at risk.
I replied way up there with an example of how regular people back then probably wished they had a way to anonymize their wallets back then, or at least give them a better degree of privacy.
Again, you assume if I mix my coins, I taint them. Assumption again is mixing is going to get your coins dirty. Roger Ver, among others, got his bitcoins from an auction of seized bitcoins. Those were definitely tainted. He's doing ok.
Exchanges, banks. You put your money with them and you're definitely tainting them. Banks = provably most frequent financial offenders.
April 19, 2020, 08:40:13 PM
Why would regular people who use bitcoin as a speculative investment want to mix their coins?
Because privacy is a fundamental right. You don't have to be doing something illegal to want to keep your financial dealings private or to obfuscate how much bitcoin you are holding.Why do regular people who own fiat not post their bank statements publicly?
Why do regular people who own gold not post their holdings publicly?
Why do regular people who own stocks and shares not post their holdings publicly?
Why should bitcoin users be any different?
Bitcoin is unique in that anyone in the world can see what you are holding if they know your address(es), and so bitcoin is unique in its need for mixing services.
Agreed. Privacy is a fundamental right, however, that was not the argument. I was asking why or how can we assume that regular people who use bitcoin only as a speculative investment, or use it legally, mix their coins? This would put taint on their coins and also put their accounts on exchanges at risk.
April 19, 2020, 04:16:52 PM
...
There are many legitime reasons to seek privacy with Bitcoin for things we do in our daily life and there is a difference to make between 2 things, privacy, and secrecy, and both are different.
Why don't you let the door of your house open when you get sex with your wife so? There are certain things you don't need the world to know about.
Perhaps you don't get why privacy is needed because you have no need yourself and maybe a limited usage of BTC.
Quote
Financial privacy is an essential element to fungibility in Bitcoin: if you can meaningfully distinguish one coin from another, then their fungibility is weak. If our fungibility is too weak in practice, then we cannot be decentralized: if someone important announces a list of stolen coins they won't accept coins derived from, you must carefully check coins you accept against that list and return the ones that fail. Everyone gets stuck checking blacklists issued by various authorities because in that world we'd all not like to get stuck with bad coins. This adds friction and transactional costs and makes Bitcoin less valuable as a money.
There is more to read here Why privacy to understand better why it's not needed to be 'suspicious' about bitcoiners who aren't ready to display their anus to others.
Believe me or not within 5 years we will wee more persons looking to increase their privacy with BTC (especially when it will become heavily regulated, taxed,...) we will see more solution like Wasabi, Samourai, mixers,... more tech will emerge, BTC will improve itself and finally it will become a standard.
I always thought Coinjoin should have been included in Bitcoin Core from the start.
April 19, 2020, 11:59:34 AM
Debunk what agenda and use case you have. It cannot be a good one
So because I value my privacy, by your logic I must inherently be up to something shady or immoral? So why do you post under a pseudonym? I'll ask again for your real name, address, and all your email and social media logins. After all, you've just said that privacy is "not needed for normal people". Why won't you share that information? What have you got to hide?I suppose it makes sense that someone who shills for a privacy invading, centralized scam like BSV doesn't understand why the average person might value their privacy. Perhaps if the world wasn't filled with identity thieves like Craig Wright, some people might be less concerned with keeping their KYC data to themselves.
April 19, 2020, 11:36:58 AM
Lol, you re just on the track to enable, scale up crime.
Cash is used by many people, and some of them are criminals. Should we ban it?The internet is used by many people, and some of them are criminals. Should we ban it?
Tor is used by many people, and some of them are criminals. Should we ban it?
Encryption is used by many people, and some of them are criminals. Should be we ban it?
Mixers are used by many people, and some of them are criminals. Should we ban them?
Just because criminals use a service doesn't mean the service is untrustworthy, immoral, illegal, unnecessary, or unwanted.
Only criminal or dumb idiots try to hide
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, is such a mind-numbingly stupid argument that is beggars belief how often it gets repeated. If you are so unexceptional, so unassuming, so uninteresting, so meek, so pitiful, that you have nothing to fear by letting everybody and their aunt monitor your every action, movement, communication, transaction, then so be it. Please post your real name, social media profiles, email addresses, and passwords to this thread, so we can all take a good look around. Yeah, I didn't think so.Quote from: Glenn Greenwald
The old cliché is often mocked though basically true: there’s no reason to worry about surveillance if you have nothing to hide. That mindset creates the incentive to be as compliant and inconspicuous as possible: those who think that way decide it’s in their best interests to provide authorities with as little reason as possible to care about them. That’s accomplished by never stepping out of line. Those willing to live their lives that way will be indifferent to the loss of privacy because they feel that they lose nothing from it. Above all else, that’s what a Surveillance State does: it breeds fear of doing anything out of the ordinary by creating a class of meek citizens who know they are being constantly watched.
Quote from: Jacob Appelbaum
There is the inherently selfish response of ‘I have nothing to hide’. Well it is true that I am not ill. It is true that I am not blind. But I still want to live in a world that has hospitals. I still want to live on a street that has accessibility for blind people. And it is also the case that I want to live in a world where everyone has privacy, thus dignity, confidentiality and integrity in their daily lives, without having to ask for it, to beg it from a master. Because it is the case that when you ask someone for those things, they may not grant them. And then you will know that you are not free.
You just talking ppl into using it, cause you might need it.
Better inform ppl how bad mixers are. There is no proper discussion, cause it is shit, and not needed for normal ppl at all.
Debunk what agenda and use case you have. It cannot be a good one
April 19, 2020, 10:30:27 AM
Agreed. For this reason, did criminals find a new method to trick Chainanalysis and make it appear that they are regular people randomly mixing their coins?
Why would regular people who use bitcoin as a speculative investment want to mix their coins?
Why would regular people who use bitcoin as a speculative investment want to mix their coins?
It doesn't mean if a person automatically uses Mixers will then he or she be is in a process of doing an illicit activity. I've seen enough posts here in the forum on how they want to avoid KYC from using a DEX or other ways to exchange their crypto, I've seen enough posts on how they want to buy Bitcoin without verifying something or using their credit cards, I've seen enough posts on how they can transact online without providing any personal information, all of this posts/threads just implies that a lot of people still aim to have privacy because they value it too much that's why they use mixers as well. If Chainalysis assumes that everyone who are using mixers are criminals then they must do more better research than this.
April 19, 2020, 08:58:39 AM
Agreed. For this reason, did criminals find a new method to trick Chainanalysis and make it appear that they are regular people randomly mixing their coins?
Why would regular people who use bitcoin as a speculative investment want to mix their coins?
Why would regular people who use bitcoin as a speculative investment want to mix their coins?
Actually, I don't think many criminals who first used Bitcoin really understood its architecture the way the devs or enthusiasts did (to me, it explains why so many like SR and AB and other P2P sellers in US got caught so easily). But certainly, pre-existing laundering methods would have been applied - under/over-invoicing, obfuscating physical beneficiaries, etc. and then they probably topped up the act with Bitcoin.
Why would regular people want privacy? Seriously? Google it, friend. Or ask Vitalik Buterin or I dunno, others, how much spam he gets every day asking for crypto cause people knew his wallet address and how much he holds.
Also, a Chainalysis whistleblower basically admitted that forensics software like theirs may not be as sophisticated as we're led to believe: https://news.bitcoin.com/chainalysis-whistleblower-shares-company-secrets-in-explosive-ama/
April 19, 2020, 07:53:43 AM
Lol, you re just on the track to enable, scale up crime.
Cash is used by many people, and some of them are criminals. Should we ban it?The internet is used by many people, and some of them are criminals. Should we ban it?
Tor is used by many people, and some of them are criminals. Should we ban it?
Encryption is used by many people, and some of them are criminals. Should be we ban it?
Mixers are used by many people, and some of them are criminals. Should we ban them?
Just because criminals use a service doesn't mean the service is untrustworthy, immoral, illegal, unnecessary, or unwanted.
Only criminal or dumb idiots try to hide
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, is such a mind-numbingly stupid argument that is beggars belief how often it gets repeated. If you are so unexceptional, so unassuming, so uninteresting, so meek, so pitiful, that you have nothing to fear by letting everybody and their aunt monitor your every action, movement, communication, transaction, then so be it. Please post your real name, social media profiles, email addresses, and passwords to this thread, so we can all take a good look around. Yeah, I didn't think so.Quote from: Glenn Greenwald
The old cliché is often mocked though basically true: there’s no reason to worry about surveillance if you have nothing to hide. That mindset creates the incentive to be as compliant and inconspicuous as possible: those who think that way decide it’s in their best interests to provide authorities with as little reason as possible to care about them. That’s accomplished by never stepping out of line. Those willing to live their lives that way will be indifferent to the loss of privacy because they feel that they lose nothing from it. Above all else, that’s what a Surveillance State does: it breeds fear of doing anything out of the ordinary by creating a class of meek citizens who know they are being constantly watched.
Quote from: Jacob Appelbaum
There is the inherently selfish response of ‘I have nothing to hide’. Well it is true that I am not ill. It is true that I am not blind. But I still want to live in a world that has hospitals. I still want to live on a street that has accessibility for blind people. And it is also the case that I want to live in a world where everyone has privacy, thus dignity, confidentiality and integrity in their daily lives, without having to ask for it, to beg it from a master. Because it is the case that when you ask someone for those things, they may not grant them. And then you will know that you are not free.
Jump to: