Topic: BitCloak Mixer - Important Feature Proposal: Blacklist Addresses (Read 282 times)

I wonder what is going to be the extra overhead if your mixer starts processing enough transactions. There's a reason bitcointalk moved away from Scammer tags towards the Trust system, evaluating evidence can be very time-consuming.

That's a good thing at the end of the day. If governments aren't chasing after mixers, and shutting down websites, there will be no progress, which means that you're by far not as "anonymous" as you think you are.

I'm obviously not cheering for mixing sites to be taken down, but this will help the existing ones to become better and less vulnerable. It's a massive win for the user looking to enjoy more privacy.

I'm not exactly sure yet if the blacklist feature is something I am comfortable with because I am against blacklisting in general because Bitcoin is meant to counter that, but it's an interesting feature on paper nonetheless.

Yeah, it can be done, you might even get something like a 99% accuracy in blacklisting addresses but that 1% that will pass will be exactly those guys that know they have done something wrong, want to erase their traces and they are good at it. Just like a fence will keep 99% of the passerby from walking on your lawn but won't keep a determined thief away.

It will end in a game on how much you are willing to spend on this and for what gains.
In addition, don't forget that you must have a quick reaction time and a team non stop on alert or you might learn an address has stolen coins a day after the thief has already used your mixer.

I must add that I understand you, this is to protect yourself from the faith of bestmixer but I don't think this is going to help, remember how Megaupload went down 
Besides, I'm very suspicious about that case as I have the feeling the owners were under scrutiny well before getting involved and the raid had less to do with the mixing but with their own activities

People can simply sent out their BTC into a new address and such blacklist would be useless unless if someone do really have the time to follow up if theres some movements of coins

into other address and input it up but its a hassle thing for someone to focus on and just like said above this would be prone to abuse and trolling so it would be still need of moderation.

Hello,


these checks can be configured to not block deposits with only small traces of blacklisted inputs.
In your example deposits would bounce back only if a blacklisted address is one of the main sources of
inputs. It would take a lot of testing and configuration to avoid issues.

Handling chains longer than 100 might be possible if we use a dedicated bitcoin server for this, depends on
how fast the checks execute.


Yes this is indeed to provide a tool instead of a written ToS, with limited functionality.
Providing a way to block funds 20 transactions away from a blacklisted address is hopefully better than nothing.
Offering this blacklisting feature mainly to authorities by email is the plan for now, also to limit potential abuse.
Will run more tests in the following days to see how deep these checks can go without being too slow.

Thank you,
BitCloak

I guess what BitCloak's trying to do here is establish some kind of evidence that they're putting that into practice, rather than just having a policy that's just lip service. Sort of like banks that have ToS prohibiting XYZ but not actually having any systems or tools in place to practically prevent XYZ. Apparently, doing something about what you'll say you'll do helps when defending yourself legally, least in financial world it does.

Looks like it's really heating up for the mixers with all eyes surely being trained on them. Interesting developments.

That's exactly what we're saying here, a "criminal" can send his bitcoins though 100 address link in a day for what...40$?
Are your scripts going to handle checking chains longer than 100 or 200?

And another problem,
Let's say address A is where some hacked coins went.
The "criminal" sends them to B which is localbitcoins, this dumps them to C and D (hot wallets) and then some end up in my pocket at E. Is your system going to blacklist me?

Very interesting feature although the possibility of this working effectively is minimum as it can be easily abuse and considering some decent amount of coins that get mixed has fraudulent origin, I can't just help but wonder how beneficial this idea is to your business operation.

Morally: The idea is perfect,
Business wise: Not that much.

So you're saying the authorities will be satisfied with just giving what to block and the mixer's confirmation that they've done it? sounds too good to be true tbh knowing that ppl who want to use it for illicit activities could still bridge those blockings.

Hello,

the process to block payouts to an address is simple, blocking inputs from an address
is more complicated because the mixer has to inspect multiple layers of input transactions.

Lets say address A is blacklisted and you move coins from A to B, C, D then deposit to a mixer address.
The blacklist check would look at the funding transactions of your deposit, find address D, look for funding transactions
again (going back) finding address C and eventually finding a match in address A.

This would translate in your deposit from address D being refunded because is related to address A.
Of course these nested checks cant go on forever, execution time and inputs count put a limit to make this feasible.

From a quick google search: according to some studies only a small part of mixed funds comes from non-lawful activities.
https://www.elliptic.co/our-thinking/bitcoin-mixers-assessing-risk-bitcoin-transactions

To answer the question "will you honor my request", in that case we wont because it can be safely ignored. For example a
request coming from any authority to ban ranswomware addresses would be accepted, if it comes with an explanation.
A minimum amount of moderation is probably required when accepting a request.

Even if is not perfect this feature is aimed to protect us. We believe in economical freedom, dont like this blacklist idea by itself
but it might be necessary for us in order to safely provide a privacy tool for users.

Regarding hosting, we are not based in Usa or Europe and run this service anonymously since the beginning.
Thanks for the feedback, is very appreciated.
BitCloak

serious question though: what is a mixer to do when they are sent a bunch of coins from, say, a prominent hack like the recent binance hack? send it back?

i don't mind having my coins mixed with darknet market sellers---assuming the mixing is done well---but i'd rather not walk around spending coins tainted by large scale thefts. it's an interesting idea, anyway.

Surely this won't get abused.. Ah, let me write a quick scraper that blocks all binance/adress xyz/ adresses...


I get it, you want to cover your asses, and from a business perspective i could understand it, but when you look at what the original purpose of Bitcoin mixers, or bitcoin in general was, (Providing economical freedom for all), it just looks like a poor attempt at caving in for an entity that probably doesn't care in the first place whether you do so or not. (As "Muh all mixers regardless of the purpose they're used for are bad, fiod.")

Also, considering most coins you're mixing are coming from darknet markets, are you also going to block all of those?
If i put in a request for all dream market/XYZ-drug market mapped wallet adresses to be blocked because they're engaged in "Illicit activity", will you honour my request? Or....  

...  


Or is this just a superficial message you're signalling to "law" enforcement?

doesn't make sense when anyone can send their coins to another wallet and then mix it thru bitcloak. the best solution for you is to host your site somewhere in the southpole, the less chance of authorities going there.  hosting servers are hardware, once its located your business is doomed just bestmixer.

Like idea, it's really good option to get an extra security for mixer and keep your job in a legal way, get rid of unwanted attentions but it's absolutely another task how you are going to make your "dream" come true.
What you say is something similar of badbuyerlist.org but I have no idea how you can make this process simple. I can just create a lot of adresses, still a lot of ones won't be discovered and I highly doubt people will report bad adresses because they may be hard for simple people to detect, it can even lead to an increased discreet from those who use mixers for bad things and make whole detection process a lot harder.

We would require at least a detailed explanation about why the address should be banned, and it must have a balance higher than X USD.
Yes it opens up to some degree of trolling as one could blacklist lets say a donation address from a forum signature.
In some cases we could easily determine a fake request. Usually most of the addresses where users receive payouts or store funds are kept private and not shared online. However it would be possible to appeal, if your address is wrongfully banned.


About your example: the mixer can detect address Y is related to address X (blacklisted) if they are not too far away. This feature is mainly aimed to protect the mixer service, unlike a written ToS this would let anyone (including law enforcement) block an address, similar to sending abuse notices for a domain take down.
Thank you,
BitCloak

Also, if my address X is blacklisted, I can just send my coins to address Y and start mixing from there.

It doesn’t sound like a solution to any of these issues.

---

Let’s not forget that BestMixer had a whole paragraph in their ToS about prohibiting “dirty coins” coming from drugs, ilegal websites, etc... and this didn’t stop the law enforcement agencies from shutting them down.

Personally I am curious as to what proof of claims you would be looking for if someone requested a blacklisting. Would there be an appeal process available to those blacklisted?

I can see the benefits of this thought process but it does open up to abuse since you will allow anyone to claim something crosses their line. Even if you don't want to you will essentially have to moderate the tool, or it will render your service potentially unusable by a large part of people due to trolls or vindictive individuals.

Important Feature Proposal:

Blacklist funds from and to specific bitcoin addresses.

Contact us with a btc/bch address you want to blacklist from the mixer and a valid reason,
this can be stolen funds, scammers, frauds, or anything that crosses your own line.
We do not want to research, moderate or choose if an address gets blacklisted, we only provide the tool.

The mixer could block inputs AND outputs closely related to an address, meaning no funds coming
from that address will be processed and no payouts sent. 100% of funds received would be automatically returned.

This feature should be implemented by all mixers to be more effective.
We want to avoid bad situations like bestmixer while still offering a 100% functional mixer to users in need of privacy.
Addresses in the blacklist could expire monthly and require a simple email message to renew, this service is free.

Please let us know what you all think as this is important, is this feature ok for you?
If no feedback, advice or tips will be posted here we will start to implement this after 24 hours.
BitCloak

original post here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51244049