Topic: Bitcoin mixing is NOT money laundering, per se - page 6. (Read 4155 times)

Bitcoin mixers is a good tombler, which however helps to mix different transactions and send as ananymous. But people choose to use the negative side of it. I believe the inventor never invented it for negativity maybe for fast and secure transaction to avoid Crypto hackers from tracing a transaction.

But in other words it is also another means of criminal to remain anonymous. And use it for atrocious dids. One thing is for sure, everything that has an advantage also has disadvantages. So we can not deny the fact that it can be use for money laundering. Its just like gun, there is a popular saying that "Gun dont kill people, people kill people" because gun can not on it's own kill a human, except it is use for such.

I don't understand why people claim BTC is not fungible, but XMR is.

Bitcoin is fungible. I can send you 0.1 BTC and you can send me back 0.1 BTC and it will be exactly the same.

USD is fungible. I can give you $10 and you can give me $10 and it will be the exact same thing. Provided that the bills are not damaged of course.

XMR is fungible. I can send you 10 XMR and you can send me back 10 XMR and it will be exactly the same.


Monero (XMR) is indeed more private, being untraceable, meaning that you can't link the sender with the receiver.

However, Bitcoin and USD are both fungible. Indeed in Bitcoin you can go back to the coinbase transaction that created the UTXO that you own. But, so what? History doesn't spoil fungibility. If it did, then you wouldn't lend your friend $50 to buy his favorite PC game, because he would never be able to send you back the exact same dollar bill.


Personally I mix my UTXOs. The reason is not that I am afraid that the UTXOs I own are linked with illicit activities. I do it because I don't want anyone to know how much I own. The history of my UTXO isn't erased after the coinjoins. The only thing that happens is that I make my UTXOs unlinkable, so if someone sends me 1BTC, they will always know they have sent me 1BTC but thanks to coinjoins they will never know which path this UTXO has taken on the blockchain. And YES! Monero has this by default!

So? Centralized exchanges are scams, which exist only to make profit for themselves at the expense of your security and your privacy.

Why? So we can sacrifice the very core of bitcoin so we can all make some profit? That's not why I'm here.

I already use Monero (and Zcash isn't private), but that doesn't mean I'm giving up on Bitcoin and letting it be taken over by governments and centralized exchanges.

A typo at the wrong time doesn't help if you're trying to make a point so thanks for fixing it. I've understood it now & agree about non custodial mixers giving privacy to ppl. I don't know how Zcash works but if ppl want to substitute a mixer for coins they've got try XMR because Monero's a privacy coin.

Enforcing every coin to go private would surely shake the investors as regulators would be completely hostile to it. That's what I like with bitcoin. Privacy is not mandatory on a protocol level.

How the state treats you financially based on your economic activities is nowhere related to fungibility. Taxation on inheritance being different than in your monthly income is nowhere related to cash being fungible.

blackhatcoin has not idea what fungibility even means


just look at how they treat invested fiat(capgains) different to employment income or inheritance..
look how they treat lumps of $1000 different to lumps of $10,001 at the borders

bitcoin is treated differently eg spent with merchant vs deposited to cex
the issue is not bitcoin itself. its due to being declared a recognised currency in 2013

Yes. That's what I've meant. Please excuse the typo. If each Bitcoin were non-fungible (unique), it would be a hell of a lot easier to identify tainted coins. With BTC's current state, governments can only guess which coins belong to whom and where. They've censored centralized mixers hoping people don't get access to privacy.

Would you imagine if developers added ZKPs or other privacy technique to Bitcoin? That would create a lot of controversy, possibly resulting in mass delistings from mainstream crypto exchanges. With institutional investors getting in the game (Blackrock, Fidelity), it's best to keep Bitcoin as is. If you want privacy, just use a non-custodial mixer or a privacy coin such as Zcash or Monero. Lets hope BTC stays decentralized forever.

You're wrong because bitcoin's fungible that's the way Satoshi created it. Bitcoin's got nothing to do with identifying dirty or tainted coins on the blockchain. Bitcoin was created as fungible that can't be denied but if we're talking about govts wanting to control crypto by regulating it's a separate point.

No. Bitcoin is fungible. There are no dirty coins, there are only people claiming they provide a service which can de-anonymize the blockchain to an extent, and which is evidently inaccurate and based on utter guesswork.

The transparency of Bitcoin is not to make transactions identifiable, but to retain the property of open-source, free software.

Misinformation appears to be pretty effective based on your post.

Bitcoin is not fungible, so dirty coins can easily be identified on the Blockchain. The transparency of BTC is not a bug but a feature. It's a great way keep an eye of the flow of transactions on the network. This can help detect malicious actors on-chain. Addresses don't have an ID linked to them, so there's no way to tell the coins belong to you unless governments use surveillance/analytics tools. Using a new address for each transaction, avoiding centralized exchanges, and using a mixer would be your best best to help protect your privacy.

Unfortunately, it's hard to remain anonymous when regulations are becoming stricter by the day. There so many limitations aimed to make your life impossible. Governments have done their part by shutting down as much centralized mixers as possible. The public now believes mixing is a very bad thing (thanks to government propaganda and misinformation). Non-custodial mixers will survive, but they will only be used by a small number of people. Expect privacy on Bitcoin to be a contentious subject for a very long time. No one can predict the future, so lets hope for the best. :/

taint is a term even early adopter/dev bitcoiners use for the UTXO path back to its proven creation (coin-reward).. its a real thing.
even back then discussions were said about "blacklisting" "colouring" "tracing" coins

its actually part of the audibility of bitcoins open ledger, that each bitcoin has a origin/spending path

taint existed before mixer/obfuscation services existed
taint existed before any chain analysis company started operating
taint existed before any government cared about bitcoin

yep "taint" has been a buzzword in bitcoin for 12+years.. is not something the government invented

however if dex/de-fi traders use bankwires for fiat trades, they are not immune.

Governments will do what's in their best interests. Mixers and truly-decentralized cryptocurrencies pose a threat to banks' very existence. You think governments will let this pass by? They will do everything in their power to try to reduce crypto's dominance in the mainstream economy. That's by either regulating it or making it "illegal".

I see no future for Bitcoin mixers, unless they stick to being "non-custodial" (which means decentralized). Tornado.Cash was a non-custodial mixer, but that didn't stop the US government from sanctioning it (although it was still possible to use it by interfacing with smart contracts directly). This will be a never-ending battle between crypto and governments + banks. With centralized exchanges getting ahold of the crypto market, we could say governments have some sort of control over crypto. They will have trouble regulating DEXs, though. Who knows what the future of crypto will be?

I don't know what would happen if they wanted to register their exchanges in Seychelles but if they aren't falling under American regulation there shouldn't be a claim on their users trading data. If the biggest exchanges challenge the govt in court it's going to help the smallest exchanges stay in business.

Yes, it is true that Bitcoin is not money laundering, but exploitative people only use Bitcoin from fiat to Bitcoin, and then they go through Bitcoin mixing to hide their true identity. Because the Bitcoin mixer hides the address, the person who holds it cannot be identified.

It seems that the money seems to be passed through the black market; the system seems to be like that. So it is very true that Bitcoin is a money launderer; it is indeed a digital currency, and if it is true that it is a money launderer, it will not last for sure for 14 years in this industry.

I think that these exchanges are going to risk losing a part of their clients if that's what it takes to be able to transact in the country.
What choice do they really have? Give up users or shut down. They can also fight the government in court but that could take time and be expensive. Only the biggest exchanges will try this.

Do you think the governments don't know it that people will run away from centralized exchanges if they start sharing information about every transaction with the IRS and other 3 letter agencies?
It's great news for them because less legit exchanges means less legitimacy for the crypto ecosystem and slower adoption. In other words less competition for CBDC.

If decentralised exchanges aren't going to be affected by American regulation it's something cryptos ppl have to start getting used to it now. I didn't complete my test on Bisq but it's got a positive rep so it's user number's going to rise.

Centralised exchanges are a central part of the bitcoin ecosystem so if they're surrendering their users to American regulation they'll see smaller profits. If they push them away they'll use decentralised exchanges setting a different way to trade so it's going to hit their profits.

Exactly. Banks will be the only entities allowed to "mix" or obfuscate transactions. The rest of the people will be forced to comply with KYC/AML in order to keep using Bitcoin. There's nothing we can do about it, especially when "Wall Street" is in the game. It has always been about money, power, and control. Eventually, no-KYC centralized mixers will be shut down for good. You will only be able to mix your Bitcoin through a non-custodial mixer.

Of course, it's likely doing such a thing will give you serious consequences in the long run (jail time or fines). After all , governments don't want people to enjoy true financial freedom and privacy. Being a "slave" to the current monetary system backed by banks is what governments like the most. As long as Bitcoin can be controlled via centralized exchanges, don't expect Fiat to go anywhere soon. Just my thoughts

And because of that, it's plain stupid for the Bitcoin ecosystem to voluntarily hand over that power to the government. Centralized exchanges, third party payment processors, even mixers buy the notion of taint nowadays.

Let's hope it will remain that way. I can think of regulations which target the members of the DAO as well. That wouldn't make the network susceptible in the same sense, but it wouldn't be completely immune.

Will probably be called banks.....

More and more banks are entering the Bitcoin business. In Germany at least, we can see that banks are slowly integrating Bitcoin into their business. Advising customers, buying Bitcoin and managing it (Wallet hosted from banks) . The customer does not have to worry about anything....

I think that breaking up the transaction history (mixing) will also be allowed in the future. But this work will be taken over by centralised institutions like banks.

Other countries usually copy America's model, so they will end up "banning" centralized mixers for good. What we will see in the future is a new wave of mixers that are fully KYC/AML compliant. It will look good in the eyes of the government, but it will defeat the whole purpose of "anonymizing" your BTC transactions. At least, we'll have non-custodial mixers to keep us by. I know they will be "illegal" for mainstream use, but people will resort to this option if they want to obtain true financial freedom and privacy. Everything will be done under the radar of the government.

With institutional investors getting in the game, it should only be a matter of time before regulations become stricter. All with the excuse of preventing money laundering and tax evasion. I've thought criminals used Fiat currencies for said purpose? You can see the govermment has other intentions besides "legalizing the industry". It's all about power/control. As long as BTC stays decentralized, there should be nothing to worry about.