because “dirty” coins were transferred from your side and there is no exchanger’s fault.
That's a bunch of BS! There are no dirty Bitcoins, all Bitcoins are equal. You should really stop promoting this attack on Bitcoin by pretending it's normal. It's not.
The exchanger has no access to your funds.
Meaning: the exchanger doesn't own any funds and just uses a third party.
To avoid such situations we highly recommend to make self AML checking before an exchange using existing AML-check services.
I highly recommend to avoid any service that uses arbitrary reasons to block your funds.
We have discussed this concept earlier. We will reiterate, despite the fact that some crypto enthusiasts do not accept the situation that most of centralized services investigate incoming means sources, it doesn’t make the very situation disappear.
If you are interested in our position, we as well do not share the policy of total AML-control, but in practice, over 90% of exchangers use custodial wallets for their work, which have various kinds of limitations, including “cleanliness” check.
By the way, the funnier the advertising in your signature looks the more zealously you deny the fact of ubiquitous implementation of AML. 😊
To avoid such situations we highly recommend to make self AML checking before an exchange using existing AML-check services.
I have few questions about your recommendation,
1. Which
legit AML checking service can be used by an individual? Some result from google search either show service for big company or service with some scam accusation.
2. What will happen if result of AML check result used by individual and the exchange/BestChange is different?
There are indeed a lot of offers on the market, but the majority of them are just resellers of one global player, Crystal Blockchain, that’s why the majority of results from absolutely different services will be identical. But we all allow it that results may differ, in this case the situation will be analyzed on a particular basis. It is highly likely that that if the user’s source will have sufficient credibility then their check results will be used, there is no hindrance for that, it’s a question of agreements.
What will happen if result of AML check result used by individual and the exchange/BestChange is different?
That's the problem: there is no
official AML check that's valid in all jurisdictions, but there are
companies trying to
sell their interpretation of which addresses are good or bad. Those companies now have a financial interest in convincing people "taint" exists, in order to sell their "services".
Do you have any real proof of lobbying within this sphere? Your theory looks beautiful and logical, but without specific proof it’s just conspiracy.
A more logical scenario is that first a request for a service appeared, and only then the service itself, and not vice versa. The fact that this market is non-competitive is a huge problem, there is no doubt about it, and we will be delighted if community members create their own alternative risk-based assessment services, instead of criticizing the existing monopolist. If you close your eyes and turn away, the problem will not be solved by itself.
Centralized services are in the legal field of a particular country, while the blockchain is outside of any jurisdiction. If you want to "legalize" cryptocurrencies in the local economy, you will need to comply with international rules and the laws of a particular country. It's a fact, there's no getting away from it. The only question is whether the community will be able to create enough alternative services with a high reputation to avoid in the future the political partisanship of the monopolist, or continue to inflate "separatist" sentiment and remain a passive observer.
