Topic: Are no-KYC services banned? (Read 1034 times)

According to theymos' definition, that may be the case.  But, in my understanding, if a tool is utilized for coin mixing, it qualifies as a mixer.  And if it lacks a central point of failure, it can be considered a decentralized mixer.

Really?  Then what term would you use for a protocol that mixes your inputs?  A "joiner"?

No it's not a mixer, and there is no anything centralized that could control transactions.

You invented your own definition of mixer that is not corresponding to reality.

Do you combine your inputs with those of others when using XMR?  You do.  So it's a mixer.  We can refer to the other users as "mixers" instead of attributing it solely to the network, if you're concerned about the semantics. 

You'd need to clarify what constitutes an "input" in physical cash

So the cash register at the supermarket is the mixer: I get different inputs in return for the inputs I give them.
Since we're talking about non-KYC services on the forum, maybe it's good to follow theymos' definition of a mixer:

So the cash register at the supermarket is the mixer: I get different inputs in return for the inputs I give them.

So the cash register at the supermarket is the mixer: I get different inputs in return for the inputs I give them.

Since we're talking about non-KYC services on the forum, maybe it's good to follow theymos' definition of a mixer

Do you combine your inputs with those of others when using XMR?  You do.  So it's a mixer.  We can refer to the other users as "mixers" instead of attributing it solely to the network, if you're concerned about the semantics.

Definition of a mixer

For clarity, here is a detailed definition of what we mean by a "mixer". Most people know intuitively what a mixer is and don't have to read this.

Something is considered a mixer if it meets all of these requirements:
 1. It has a feature advertised for taking property, improving its privacy somehow, and then returning roughly the same type of property.
     a. Even though you can sometimes use non-mixers to mix coins by depositing and then withdrawing, this doesn't make it a mixer because this is an incidental use of the service; the service isn't advertised as privacy-enhancing.
     b. If a site is not primarily a mixer but has a mixer function, such as a mixer function on a gambling website, then the whole site is considered a mixer.
     c. If the site takes coins, gives you a possibly-transferrable IOU, and will convert this IOU back into mixed coins much later, then the temporary conversion into a different type of property does not prevent it from being considered a mixer.
     d. If the site internally converts your deposit into other things as part of its mixing, but ultimately the point of the product is to get your original type of property back, then that's a mixer, not an exchanger.
 2. It is possible for the mixer to steal property passing through it. Assume that the sender does everything as correctly as possible. Also assume that no miners/verifiers on the base-layer cryptocurrency are evil. But assume that every other actor involved is evil (everyone able to vote in a DAO, every coordination server, every counterparty, every member of a multisig, etc.). Ignore short-term software bugs which are expected to be quickly fixed.
 3. The service does not collect KYC-type info from all users. (This is not an endorsement of KYC generally, or a condemnation of non-KYC services generally. Non-KYC services of other types are still allowed, and in many cases they are a good idea.)

Examples of things that are not banned mixers include exchangers (unless they have a mixing function), CoinJoin-supporting non-custodial wallets, and Monero.

That's like saying dollar bills are a mixer. Every time you spend it, you're missing money with other people's money.

Every time you spend XMR, you're mixing your input with other people's XMR.

Monero is not a mixer.

Torrents are not used as money, that is a big difference
And it is very hard for torrent files to be taken down, and whenever some website that is hosting torrents gets taken down they just create another one.
This can't be compared with mixers exactly since there are more centralization there, but there is always a chance that someone creates more decentralized way of improving privacy on bitcoin.
I don't have anything against kyc if it is optional and not mandatory for everything we do on internet.

I return to the torrent examples. In the 2000s they were heavily persecuted by the authorities, with dozens of people arrested for running torrent sites. But they did not disappear and today they continue to operate. Did the authorities simply stop worrying? Certainly not. It is true that the mode of consumption has changed, but even so, torrent sites have managed to structure themselves in a way that reduces or makes it more difficult to experience problems.

decentralized mixers like Monero?

Something similar has to happen with mixers. It is true that in many cases, mixers have a direct impact on governments, due to tax avoidance.

What strategies do you propose for resisting it?  Because from what I see, there aren't any.  We're simply a minority, and our strengths lie in writing and developing software, which is indeed powerful, but it doesn't entirely solve the problem.  

It was not allowed for having too many similarities with a mixing service, the non-kyc part was not the issue.

Lmao.  "We get your coins, we give you other users' coins, but please don't mistake us for a mixer".  Right, got it.    

True enough, sadly.  And most will pay the price in the end.  But as long as enough of us persist in doing things the right way, some will still have a chance at freedom.

it is extremely difficult to convince people about adopting this approach. 
(...)
And truth be told, most won't. 

Don't sign over your personal details for KYC.  Don't acknowledge "taint" (and avoid using services which do).  Don't give up ownership for the sake of convenience.  Then they can't control you.