Topic: [ANN] ChipMixer.com - Bitcoin mixer / Bitcoin tumbler - mixing reinvented - page 3. (Read 92812 times)

For the authorities, anyone who tries to hide their (mainly financial) activities is suspicious.
This is because usually only those who want to evade taxes, supervision or hide illegal activities, are looking to hide their money.

So, the important thing is for the person to keep a record of everything he does, even if it is in an anonymous system, in case something goes wrong, as you reported.

I agree with you. But here in Germany some have already been suspected of money laundering. They sold Bitcoin to someone and received money via a bank transfer. But the  account from the buyer had been hacked. Or a bank account was opened with stolen KYC data. However, how the criminals were able to open the bank account is not so important now. But the sellers had a lot of problems afterwards because their bank accounts were blocked for a long time and they had to deal with the police.
What I am saying is that someone can quickly become a suspect even though he/she/it is innocent. And the authorities have many ways to make someone look guilty.

Judge, 5000 bitcoins that were involving  in human traffic, drug, were sent to these 1000 address on coinbase, binance, please judge let's seize them. let's put everyone in the same bag as we did when we seizez everyones chips coins

They write "allegedly". This word means more than it seems.
When authorities use this term, it means they don't have clear proof of what they're claiming, so they use this term so they don't get compromising.

That is, to create a mandate, without wasting too much time investigating, they say that "allegedly all the money was used for criminal purposes". But, "allegedly it may also not have been used".

I've already wasted plenty of my life reading your long-winded shitposts to know better.  This isn't my first day here bub.

And you can "go figure" because I literally said I didn't.  

I'm not seeking drama, I just stated what I stated... you can move forth with your dramatic essays about this now-closed service.

I sincerely hope you are being paid well (not a signature campaign payment).  Not looking for a response to confirm it or not, I don't care.  No need to respond to this.

You're just fucking annoying. <3

Proceed!

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure someone would need more evidence than "judge, he sent 500 bucks to ChipMixer" to get a case going against you and me, no?

I am not going to proclaim to have any deep reasons for either getting involved in signature campaigns or for quitting... but I will try to outline my current memory of the matter.

Initially when I got involved with signature campaigns, I felt like I did not really know what they were. and then when I looked into the matter, I felt that I was somewhat agnostic to the whole matter, but since I was already posting several times a day, I might as well join a signature campaign and get paid for what I was already doing.. generally posting several times per day..

After a couple of years, I felt that I had enough experience with signature campaigns in that I was starting to consider that my participating in them was more cost than it was worth... .. for example, 1) switching campaigns from time to time because they close or changed their terms, 2)  sometimes frustration waiting to get paid or finding out that their terms were changing and figuring out how to deal with such changing terms... 3) getting accused of mistakes that the entity (sponsor) was making or that the entity was accused of being dishonest, so those holding the signature were accused of "supporting" them, 4) sometimes forum moderators, staff or even other forum members would state or imply that my having the signature affected how I was posting.. which I tended to deny it, even though sure I could imagine that the longer any of us might be part of any signature campaign then our posts might be affected or perhaps the appearance that we were biased might be affected, 5) around early 2018 theymos had removed the signatures from showing on the posts in the WO thread - which was (and still is) my most frequented posting and participation area of the forum, and 6) maybe there were some other minor reasons that I chose to stop my involvement in signature campaigns or maybe even related to the fact that a lot of entities paying for sponsorships might have a kind of tendency towards having kinds of shitcoining components, even though shitcoins were not completely my reason for stopping but could be part of my difficulties in getting back involved and maybe the main overall sense that my ongoing participation in any signature campaign was not worth it to me to stay involved in such.  

I don't automatically presume that a member is bias because of his/her participation in a signature campaign, even though my having had participated in a few signature campaigns, I, at least, have some experience in which I can relate to some of the motivations of getting involved in them, and even some concrete recognition and appreciation that the amount of money that might be involved could be life changing for some members.. so sometimes it does end up being relevant to have some attempts at understanding motivations of members and having some experiences that help to potentially better understand some of the processes of how signature campaigns might run and also how members might get caught up in disputes and/or drama around signature campaigns.

Overall, I do believe that it is good that the forum offers signature campaigns to members.. even though at this time, I would rather not personally participate in actually wearing one, even though I would not rule out ever getting involved in some project or potentially having some reasons to commercialize my own signature space or to use my signature space for solicitation purposes...


Yes.. does not seem to be a fair way to treat people who participated in this kind of a service, but if the Govt. wants to steal (or keep) your money, then they have to frame it in such a way that justifies it.. .. . and the govt agencies might well know (or calculate) that coin/token holders are not going to create a class action lawsuit to get their coins back.

FBI said 3 billions dollars , he faciliated3 billions in money laudering, same ammount that was run throw chipmixer all the time

The phrase says only that he facilitated money laundering. It does not say that all those who used the service did so for that purpose.

This type of observation is highly exaggerated and does not reflect the truth about known facts.

By reading this:  https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyber/minh-quoc-nguyen


I assume all people who used ChipMixer, even for their own anonymity are considered they did "money laudering

A set of wonderful posts which were both very well thought out and carefully articulated. At the same time they were highly through provoking too. Refreshing to read. Out of curiosity, were there any specific reasons why you quit signature campaigns around 2018 when you had already enrolled in several from 2015?

I quit participating in signature campaigns in early 2018.  Before that I participated in a few different signature campaigns between late 2015 and the time that early 2018 time that I quit.

BayAreaCoins is not even seeming to refer to something like that. He is just making baseless (and even seemingly representationally inaccurate) accusations and then wanting to get a response that either confirms or denies bullshit that he is just making up and that he really has no factual basis to be throwing it out there, beyond that he's potentially a "drama seeker" (giving him some benefit of the doubt in regards to motives... hahahahahaha).

I don't think JJG enrolled in a sig campaign ever.

Aren't you the smartest investigator that ever did live.

 


And, you admit that you did not even read the post.    Go figure?

JayJuanGee, I really hope someone pays you well for your shitposting all through these years.

You aren't here to learn... your paid... at least I hope.

I agree with you.

We likely have a limited budget of time, energy, psychology and financial value, and therefore, we have to choose how much to allocate (whether to bitcoin or to any other investment), including if we invest financially it is better to attempt to get to point that we are comfortable by what we know about our then situation and our future value expectations, and surely if we could predict the future, then the way that we allocate would likely change from knowing that fact, so we do the best that we can in terms of trying to figure out upside potential, downside risk and options that we believe that we have available.

I know that I am likely not really saying much because it can be a complicated process in terms of what anyone has going on in their lives at any given time, including if they are in a position in life in which they have any time, energy, finances and psychology that they can invest into any given investment, whether bitcoin or otherwise.

It seems to me that we are still early, so anyone who actually knows about bitcoin is way more advantaged than someone who does not in terms of figuring out an allocation and actually being able to get off of zero which tends to be one of the better of the first steps, and attempting to bring this somewhat back to the topic of this thread, there can quite a lot of confusion regarding various ways to hold bitcoin, and what kinds of risks could happen when involved in ways to attempt to preserve privacy - and then perhaps to end up with a kind of Chipmixer situation.. in which some value has been taken away, and in my more than 9 years in bitcoin, I have gone through quite a few of these kinds of incidents and either I lost coins or I had to move coins or I had to change some of my practices because of these kinds of events, including some kinds of confusion in terms of whether certain governments are finding which kinds of activities to be illegal?  to use them or to run them, and then what might be the thresholds in which any of our coins might be a target in which we are accused of doing something wrong merely because we are either using a service like this or maybe we are engaged in some related practice of moving our BTC around... and are we supposed to "declare" it? 

There are likely that there are reasons that there are ambiguities on both sides, but still sometimes any of us could end up losing out because we either become scared to use these kinds of services or we might even become scared of using bitcoin (or buying bitcoin).  Part of my own reasons to be on the forum is to attempt to learn about these various kinds of services, but I don't claim to have a lot of technical skills, so it seems that guys like me sometimes might even get scared about using these kinds of services because we might not feel comfortable enough to understand how much we are trusting in others and how much of the code is able to review, and we sometimes have to rely upon others who are offering these kinds of services.. and then even questioning how much they might be cooperating with authorities or other parties to share some of the data.. which then becomes a misrepresentation to users, and even if there might be some implications of illegality, several guys have already mentioned that the mere desire to try to stay private does not seem to be an illegal desire.

True, I should have made that kind of investment. But it's also easy to say that today.
Anyway, I made the investment that I thought I should make at the time and that I felt comfortable with. Because any investment we make, we must always invest an amount that we feel comfortable with.

Logically, it is now much more difficult to reach that amount. I don't regret it... actually, I regretted not having invested more in mining at the time, it was something I always wanted and never got. And now it's even more complicated.

Fair enough.  Thanks for the clarification...

Sometimes there are likely delicate balances in regards to second-guessing various prosecutorial discretion, and then how their announcements show how they might seem to be pursuing some matters, and of course, sometimes there could be other targets or there could be reasons why they had chosen not to pursue certain entities, including sometimes whether they might have gotten cooperation agreements that then justify not pursuing certain entities or persons.  For sure, we are not always going to find out everything that is going on, and sometimes there could be questions whether their pursuits are reasonably within the "public's interest" or if they might be purposefully choosing to scapegoat some and to provide too much leniency to others.


Well, if we go by your forum registration date joker_josue, then a mere $28 per week for 9 years would have gotten you to that amount of BTC (with a total of around $13,160 invested).  

That linked website (dcabtc.com) only allows for the tracking of DCA investing for a maximum of 9 years, so if you might be suggesting that you did not start investing in BTC around the time of your forum registration date, and we just go back 9 years from today, then you would have needed $46 per week to get to that 20 BTC amount (which would have been a total of $21,620 invested).

It seems that the later that any of us were to start to invest into BTC, then the more difficult it becomes to get to that amount of 20 BTC, and starting today, it might seem hard pressed to wonder how possible it would be to get to the accumulation of 20 BTC?

So if any of us want to get to 20 BTC and we are starting at a later date, then we would have either had to raised the amount that we invested per week or perhaps increase the amount of time that it takes to reach such a 20 BTC goal.. or perhaps make more reasonable (and reachable) goals?  

Personally I prefer to make individually-tailored goals that are more tailored towards where any of us might be at and where we could reasonably take ourselves.. and for example, any guys/gals/BTC HODLers who might have had left some of their BTC through Chipmixer, may well have ended up reducing the amount of their BTC and perhaps having to readjust their individualized BTC accumulation targets... whether 20 BTC is reasonable or not may well depend upon where any of us are at right now, and other factors, and then also there are also factors of how many coins do any of us believe to be practical to be processing or holding through these kinds of third-party services in which we might end up losing some or all of those coins (or at least vouchers for actual BTC).

There are a quite a few people who have had the fortune to find out about BTC for many years (such as 5 years or even 10 years or more), but then sometimes are not taking enough precautions to move some of their BTC, most or even perhaps a decent portion of their BTC to locations in which it is more difficult for their BTC to be taken from them in one form or another or for their BTC to get caught up in some kind of government proceedings, and even some users of Chipmixer might be a bit leery to even contact any of the authorities who had seized the coins in order to ask "when am i getting my BTC (that you took) back?"

I just asked them to give me about 20 BTC of that amount.   
I'm not a greedy type, for me that amount was enough... Maybe one day, that goal will come true. 

It was in the news, just over 1900 BTC was seized.