Topic: Are no-KYC services banned? - page 3. (Read 1034 times)

This ''exchange'' blatantly cloned another reputable service that exist for years, but I am not sure if it fits directly to mixer category.
By that logic even Lending services between members should be questionable in bitcointalk forum.
Maybe word of advice for everyone is to avoid terms like ''dirty'' and ''clean'' bitcoins in future.
And we wouldn't be in this mess now if Bitcoin was full fungible  

I said before that he opened Pandora's box with latest change in forum rules, but he was probably forced to do it.
You can see that many services are now shutting down their non-kyc business that has any connection with US.

They are banned in some countries (or soon will be), believe it or not, especially if cars run on gasoline.

Are cars, guns and knives under attack by the government just like privacy tools and crypto are?

Would you say cars, guns and knives are in risk of getting banned just like no-KYC services are?

This is my interpretation:
Talking/marketing about committing crimes = banned.

Cars, guns and knives can be used to commit crimes, but as long as you don't talk about this = ok.

---

---

Disclaimer: I strongly dislike the notion of taint. There are no bad Bitcoins, but there are bad people.

So basically, talking/marketing about cleaning coins = banned.

No-KYC service *can* be used to clean coins but doesn't publicly talk about this = ok

Is that it?

I don't know what the era of this current government dispensation is going to work on the digital networks we have today and bitcoin the most, we needed our privacy, government aren't allowing for that, yet we are claiming that bitcoin is not going to be centralized or regulated, but the government are wining edges over the use of bitcoin in such a way that it does not work as expected for our privacy through such compliance, it's better that we consider the needs of everyone involved in bitcoin as to their privacy and freedom which fiat cannot offer and let everyone get to anonymize their use with bitcoin, every one of us will not be engaged in using such privilege for scam or fraud, it's all about our financial privacy.

Actually, when the new campaign was posted, the notification popped up, but by the time I scrolled down to open it, I discovered that the thread had already been moved to archive, which I wondered why. 

Whether it's a KYC or KYC-free exchange, by right, an exchange is only supposed to trade an asset for another different asset and not the same asset for the same asset. If that exchange (Mrstorck) has the service to trade Bitcoin for Bitcoin, judging by what those who have tested the exchange are saying, then it's true it has a similar service as a mixer. For the record, non-KYC exchanges that don't offer such services are promoted here. 

The interpretation should be

"If a service is not allowed by forum rules, it will be banned here completely, not only restricted to a signature campaign or a banner advertisement (suspended about two years ago)."

Things are different nowadays because with new forum rules on privacy, mixers, non-KYC exchanges, both the service, their brand account and all types of advertisement in the forum, will be banned in batch.

I was going through the replies and found most users are condescending to each other. The whole argument again stands on the point, how to find dirty money or how to recognize dirty money? Ultimately it is @Theymos who banned mixer advertisements in the forum and it is his responsibility to decide whether a non-KYC exchange should be allowed to start a signature campaign.

The Sceptical Chymist, argument meant that in the future an exchange like MEXC Global cannot start a signature campaign as they don't know the source of the payment. We know mixers will take Bitcoin and the payment will be in Bitcoin whereas a non-KYC exchange will allow withdrawal in other cryptocurrencies. The problem with mixers is that they allow dirty Bitcoin mixing to get legally white Bitcoin. The concept was always clear but we are making it confusing but now it has been made complicated and in the future, I feel that non-KYC exchanges will not be able to advertise in the forum.

I never opened the website and neither did I take the campaign seriously because of the AML act they boastfully cancelled on their page, as it was no problem with their service. That can only tell you one thing, and that thing is "illegality." I think Bitcointalk has passed that already and kudos to Hhampuz to have painstakingly stopped the cooperation with them.

No service of that status will not mix your coin either directly or indirectly, thereby taking us back to the days when what we advertise here was being frowned upon by the law enforcers for one crime committed and the other.

Overall, I don't know if you guys pretend things that don't exist or what's your intention but it's not necessary to make a fuss. At the moment only mixers are banned and they are banned because as governments state, they are used for money laundering and for hiding the trace of funds that are used for funding terrorist organizations. Whether this it true or not is another case but the fact is that that's the reason why mixers are banned. Even officials wrote on this forum and warned everyone to not promote mixers.
Money can be laundered via exchanges, casinos, vouchers, NFTs, Ordinals and so on but this doesn't mean that they'll get banned. No casino tells you to deposit Bitcoins on their platform and withdraw to improve your privacy and hide traces, no casino asks you to do that, even not no-KYC ones and even they have a Curacao license. So they are safe.

Just don't make a wrong conclusion. At the moment Bitcoin mixers are banned but soon decentralized exchanges and privacy enhancer wallets might be banned. Any company that runs a financial service without a license will be banned. Theymos can't control whether any institute, business or organization owns a license or asks for KYC documents but he definitely can prohibit marketplaces that sell illegal things and also mixers and privacy enhancer wallets that are entitled as money laundering tools by the government.

What if you deposit "clean" LTC, for instance, and receive "dirty" BTC that you weren't expecting?  All this time I've been in the bitcoin space and I don't even know how to tell if coins are on some government's shit list or the like (though I know there's a website somewhere where you can check to see).  There are a lot of small, non-KYC exchanges based out of god-knows-where with god-knows-what kinds of ethics that might just not screen deposits.  In any case, I think it's already been established that the issue here isn't the 'no-KYC' part.

I'm just really, really hoping there isn't a slippy-slide-slope that y'all have mentioned whereby it'll be decreed that no mention shall be made of no-KYC exchanges henceforth, nor signature campaigns to advertise same, nor ANN threads to draw attention to said exchanges and so forth.  At that point, it would be clear the US government will have clubbed bitcointalk so badly that what's left will be a crippled, voiceless, and scared community--likely infiltrated by all sorts of alphabet agencies from around the world, too.

Any centralized service can claim to keep no logs while in fact they do. So logs or not is kinda besides the point.

The thing here is if you for example wanted to deposit to an exchange, companies like Coinbase tend to follow the trail of coins and if your transactions are tied to a "tainted" address (which may include casinos) then there's a high chance you might be asked questions or they might even close your account which could cause troubles. So for users feeling insecure depositing or withdrawing coins to a casino if they get their coins from an exchange like Coinbase then some basic mixing kinda helps ease the stress of potentially being caught and having your trade account shut down.

But as a side effect this can also be utilized with people that don't have as pure intentions as avoiding their trade accounts being shut down. It could also be indirectly used for people wanting too hide their tainted coins involved in trafficking and whatnot. You can never know really. With bitcoin being traceable these problems arise everywhere. You may be depositing coins to have some fun and if you end up winning and withdrawing profits, by the governments standards you could be partaking in a "money laundering operation".

Who do they offer privacy from? Other players, random internet users, or governments? I assume the casino logs all transactions and winnings.

You can do that. But if you'd offer such a service on Bitcointalk without KYC, it's part of theymos' "mixer definition", and not allowed. It's like the elephant in the room: everyone knows about it, but as long as you don't mention it, it's okay.

There will always be loopholes, and this may become a risk for lenders at some point.

The same rules apply as for trading.

Too bad, if Mr.Stork Exchange remove BTC withdrawal, their service would be fine.

It should be fine till now, currently the forum only restrict BTC to BTC trade.

What about lending? someone can use lending as a loophole to trade same coins.

Let's say I had 0.5 BTC, but no one knows if I already have Bitcoin and I posted a genuine application on there, especially if my account have a good trading history and promise to pay high interest rate. I don't think there's no one will want to trade when I offered big return.

No-KYC exchanges, casinos, etc. are very intentionally not banned. This service is different in two important ways:

First, referring to the mixer definition, it "has a feature advertised for taking property, improving its privacy somehow, and then returning roughly the same type of property." It allows BTC->BTC "trades", which satisfies the "returning the same property" part, and it advertises itself as improving privacy of the returned coins. So it's a mixer. Most no-KYC exchanges neither allow BTC->BTC "trades" nor advertise their service as improving the privacy of your coins somehow, whereas a mixer would have to do both of those things.

Second: If somebody posted on the Currency Exchange board and offered to trade your stolen coins for clean coins minus a fee, or linked to a website meant to effect such trades, that would definitely be disallowed due to the prohibition on illegal trades, even before the mixer ban. The service in question here does not use the phrase "stolen coins": they say "dirty coins", which is definitely different and could include some legally-sourced coins. But when I look at all of their marketing materials holistically, it all feels too close to the stolen-coins-trader example. So I'd lean toward banning this particular service even if they didn't meet the mixer definition. "Make your dirty coins clean" is not something that typical no-KYC exchanges advertise.

Such exchanges will not provide you 100% privacy from the point of government authorities when you are doing in an CEX with full KYC.

Most governments started treating cryptocurrencies as virtual assets which means they will not have any problem if our coins sources are not from the suspected list; they just need tax. This is the situation of current scenario and what governments will do when we start using cryptos rather than just cashing out is still a mystery and I agree with you on that perspective.

What if I use Bitcoin to exchange it for a shitcoin, and I use those shitcoins to buy Bitcoin again?


This. In the end, legislation will prohibit any movement of funds that is not perfectly identified KYC, as a bank transaction, regardless of whether it is from Bitcoin to Bitcoin or with shitcoins in between. I have been saying this for a long time and have been barked at for it, but anyone who does not see the way this is going is willfully blind.

You can expand this to bridges that allow users to bridge from one cryptocurrency to another cryptocurrency.

So if the expansion is right in the concept, will cryptocurrency bridges, from one blockchain to another, from layer 1 to layer 2, will soon be classified as mixers in future.

I am very curious that will bridges become next targets of SEC. and DOJI.

I use the onion site again and wanted to use it to exchange bitcoin for bitcoin and I saw that you are right. The site would be said to be a mixer because of that. An exchange should be a platform that one coin can be exchanged to another and not the same coin. If it is the same coin it is a mixer.