Topic: Is there a chance we get a takedown notice? (Read 1607 times)

Mixers to be banned.

The authorities answered my question. Yes, there appears to be that chance. 

Locked.

Thank you for having the balls to even post this philipma. I’ll co-sign it so the trolls can target me instead, but your opinion is clearly that of common sense. I’m sure it’s how a vast majority of this forum feels as well, but retaliation here is real and most people don’t want to be involved in the drama. Especially when those defending money laundering here are paid well to do so, while average users are not. It just isn’t worth the fight. Luckily, I love sticking my dick in the hornet’s nest.

And here we go again


https://gizmodo.com/tornado-cash-money-laundering-charges-1850767649


https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/23/two-founders-behind-russian-crypto-mixer-tornado-cash-charged-by-u-s-federal-courts/


Another USA money laundering charge against a mixer.

Now Bitcointalk is a USA based website

and I still see many ads for mixers on the website.

So from me a former I.R.S. employee

if you are a U.S.A. based person avoid mixers.

As they paint a target on your back.

I can not make it any clearer than this. I would if I knew how but I hope that this is clear enough.

Splitting is also mixing. You're somehow in favor of the former but not of the latter.

But you don't have proofs. What you do with the addresses you actually belong is irrelevant. The authorities will never question which address you own. If you receive coins from a criminal, without knowing anything, and you split your coins across addresses (aka, mix it in your wallet), you can only prove that you're the same entity who owns all those mixed coins; you can't prove you are not the criminal. Just as "I don't have access to that address" says nothing, so does "I have access to that address".

Secondly, privacy protection for once more is irrelevant to "proofs". I don't have to prove anything until proven guilty. And as long as I'm innocent I don't want third parties to link my identity with this Internet board. How difficult is this to understand? Splitting doesn't help. It might obscure minimum for some individuals, but not for a chain analysis company. Chain analysis could easily de-anonymize me the moment I spent my "split" funds to a merchant.

Should I explain you for once more than if regulations become tight, miners can leave the borders of the country?

If they're interested in their income, they should ensure Bitcoin remains censorship-resistant.

You can also do this with a mixer. It gives you receipt. What you sent, what you received. Why doesn't this count as proof? Also, what if you split your coins, and if asked, say that you spent them? What then? What could the authorities do to a criminal who wants to get away with it likewise?

Dude , do you make things up just to continue argument? In what way splitting my money has to do with a mixing service ? At what point did i say that splitting is bad for bitcoin users ?

Maybe you don't understand the meaning of what tou have quoted . I'm not good in english , but i think the meaning is easy to comprehend ( if you try to ) .
So before accusing me that i din't read your attached document , try to understand what it says and how what i've said so far ensures that you can't be accused if you have the proof of your transactions . Also try to think how you can prove that you're not a part of ML/TF by taking part into an anonymous ring .
In case you don't get it you are proving my point . Could my address pose risk ? Not if i have proofs . Can my address potentially be used to avoid AML/CFT ? Not if i have proofs .

No rational(?) home miner might do what you say . But home miners are only a small portion of the current hashrate . Should i explain why big mining facilities can easily be forced to follow regulations or do you get it by yourself ?
What you fail to understand is that miners are interested mostly for their income . Politics are for a part of users that have nothing to lose . 

You said something and i showed that untraceability doesn't apply in all cases . I agree that in small sums paper money is untraceable . If you were getting millions of dollars per day from illegal activity would you try to spend them in such small quantities ? Why do you think money laundering is hard in real life ? 

Because i'm not getting involved with other peoples funds , duh . I can prove that i'm the sole owner of the adresses that funds were split .
"A cryptocurrency tumbler or cryptocurrency mixing service is a service that mixes potentially identifiable or "tainted" cryptocurrency funds with others, so as to obscure the trail back to the fund's original source.This is usually done by pooling together source funds from multiple inputs for a large and random period of time, and then spitting them back out to destination addresses. As all the funds are lumped together and then distributed at random times, it is very difficult to trace exact coins ."
That's the definition of a mixer , a pool that mixes users money . And getting paid to do that . So it is a money laundering service ( mixes legal with illegal money ) and a money transmitter ( gets a fee to send funds from a user to another ) .
What problem causes to me that lie ? I don't get it . That's exactly what i say , i'm not lying , i'm not exposing the owner of those funds . If there's a need to prove that i'm the owner i can do it . That's privacy .

Nope. Not necessarily. You can mix your funds and transmit none to some non-regulated party. But according to your opinion, that's bad for Bitcoin users as well.

From the PDF I linked above, which you didn't even take the time to open:
No rational miner stays at a pool that censors transactions. Rejecting a block doesn't mean that the transaction will not confirm later. You just need one pool that hasn't gone full authoritarian, ergo one pool that isn't inside the borders of that one country.

If I give you $10, and you give them back to me, is this recorded anywhere? If I give a banknote to a merchant, and he gives me no product, is this transaction recorded anywhere? You can surely defend your position in the court, but you can't prove that the transaction took place.

I'm still trying to figure out why splitting your coins across your wallet should not be considered mixing. You say that you can prove the route of the coins. So what? What if you decide to lie, and say that after a few routes, you gave the money elsewhere, and they somehow ended up back to you?

Do you understand what's money laundering ? A mixer is a combination of a money laundering service and a money transmitter . Stop trying to defend mixers and try to understand the basics . I know it's hard as you're biased , but your bias doesn'nt change reality .

As i have explained in previous posts , regulators should do their work , without regulations you have anarchy . Bitcoin specifically gives you the ability to prove that your activity is not suspicious . If you don't understand what regulators are trying to do try to study it and understand it better . Can you point me to a spot in their report that says self custody is prohibited ?

Nope , PoW consensus doesn't work that way . You just need the majority and pools can reject a block that comes from a non compliant pool that's outside of their ruleset . Look at how much concentrated is the hashrate today ( which will become more concentrated in the future ) and you can easily see that enforcing freezing addresses gets easier day by day .

Can you prove that chain analytics companies have the personal data of exchange customers ? Exchanges have that data by default as they need to do KYC . That doesn't mean that every company associated with them have the customers identity data . Don't try to make a point out of nothing .
Privacy violation fines don't necessarily mean that they are selling customers identity data . For example GDPR fines https://www.enforcementtracker.com/
I do agree though that KYC procedures should change ( and bitcoin can help with that ) so you can prove your identity without the company knows detailed data about you . And that's what we should aim as community , not try to make things worst by acting outside of law because privacy rules are not applied 100% . To do so , we need to understand what privacy is and at which spot our privacy is not applicable .

Paper money is not untraceable . Have you heard of cases that police did arrest someone by using marked banknotes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marked_bill ?
As for the prosperous societies , you have to understand that we are reaching a key point . In these past societies the interaction was mostly physical and it was based on trust . We are turning our interaction to mostly electronic . If anonymity prevails that would be the time that we can see disastrous results . Without trust a society can't work . Without identities a society can't work .
Look at the mess that happens in the social media . As most people tend to act anonymously ( and not pseudonymously ) the whole section is a f**k up . Imagine if that happened to the real world , total anarchy or fascism would prevail . Look at the paradigm of TAY https://www.cbsnews.com/news/microsoft-shuts-down-ai-chatbot-after-it-turned-into-racist-nazi/ . Imagine if we raise our childrens in such manner , by teaching them that they can do whatever they want and have no consequences . Will the upcoming society become prosperous ?

NGL, that kinda defeats the point of using a mixer if they have to give them user information.

Its about the US government declaring mixing services (like ChipMixer) to be money transmitter businesses. This means they are required to register with FinCEN if they want to service US-based customers. If they don't, the US will declare them an "illegal business" and come after their operators, especially if they have direct links to laundering funds on behalf of criminals or sanctioned entities (like North Korea's Lazarus Group).

This is about money transmitting services. A mixer can be much broader than that. Mixing can happen without losing custody of the money. Point me to a law that forbids you from being anonymous on your Bitcoin transactions.

Note that the US is much more hostile and regulative to Bitcoin than that. According to FATF, even self-custody is considered a suspicious activity.

This isn't effective, unless all pools and all miners of those pools operate inside the borders of one country.

Do semantics matter? The result is an exchange that shares everything you do with carriers like chain analysis companies and anybody else who requests them. Sure, GDPR applies, but the perpetual fines from large multi-nationals about privacy violation should tell you a lot about their business model.

Just a side note: there have been prosperous societies operating with paper money, which is completely anonymous and untraceable, in far larger scale than with mixed bitcoins. How did that happen?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61921520

I stand for the right to privacy . Governements by definition must have access to our privacy when it is provably needed , otherwise there can't be any form of civilised society . The problem is that big companies don't respect our privacy . And i think that there should be draconian laws for anyone ( private entities ) that violates it .
But that doesn't mean that we should move to the other side which is anonymity . Imagine a society where everyone is anonymous . That means there can't be any trust , anyone can lie or do harm and have no consequences . Where that would lead ?   

If these terms are not linked to the internet, then, the definitions are correct. Hence, I don't think anonymity on the internet is "full" privacy because we can't be always careful. Full privacy is having nothing to do with the internet. Nguyen practiced anonymity; he made contents on this forum and reddit with information that had no clue to his real identity, but he faced a loophole on paypal. Except a person limits their usage of the internet which is rare, they may not attain full privacy. We need emails, browsers, ISP etc to firmly utilize the internet. Tor, Vpn, hushmail etc can guarantee us anonymity by changing or keeping safe our IP, but that won't work if we are the target of the government. The privacy law has been compromised with the use of tracking tools and third party apps. Once a person's anonymity is raising dust on the internet, that is he/she spreads bad news, carry out illicit businesses or breaks laws, they can easily get traced. Those software that claim to guarantee anonymity online can work for an average user, and fail an illicit user. I'd say that both anonymity and privacy is a term for the real world, that shouldn't be added to the internet. As it'll be hard to attain full privacy online. I don't think, currently, Satoshi is using the internet, that's anonymity.

This makes sense, but that doesn't mean I like it. Privacy is a right, but it's implementation relies on trusting others. Our government for instance made many privacy laws, and the same government violates those privacy laws. So I have the right to privacy, but I don't get it.
If, however, I'd be anonymous, I don't have to rely on others for my privacy. I can control it by myself.

Agreed.

Anonymity refers to the state of having completely no identifying information about an individual. Privacy refers to the state of being able to control which information is tied with your identity. This is why I argued anonymity is "full" privacy.

Don't change the subject... The subject isn't whether sacrificing custody is a safe choice; it obviously isn't, in comparison with not doing it. I used the word "safe" privacy-wise.

Forget about custody. To whom I trust my money is none of your business. What you're arguing is that mixing is a bad practice. Not if decentralized mixing is better than centralized.

Point me to a law that forbids mixing.

Lol. That's not address freezing. Confiscation happens all the time. Freezing an address means you have to change the protocol; and not any protocol, the most freedom preserving protocol on the planet.

Oh, so Binance's partnership with Chainalysis isn't financially bonded. Sure. 

If you're not convinced already, in a world where large companies get fined for privacy violation all the time, that they take advantage of it financially, then as I said, I don't know what to say.

Seems that you got the whole concept of privacy and anonymity wrong . Privacy has to do with protecting your actions while your identity is known to the parties you want to be known . Anonymity has to do with your identity and not necessarily with your actions . Someone can see what you do but he has no ability to know who is doing it , including authorities . That's why the law protects your privacy but not your anonymity ( except special occasions like whistleblowers etc ) .
Quote from proton ( https://proton.me/blog/anonymity-vs-privacy ) :

"What the law says

The right to privacy is a common legal concept enshrined in over 150 constitutions worldwide. It is, for example, incorporated into:

    The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights(new window) (Article 12)
    The European Convention on Human Rights(new window) (Article
    The Swiss Federal Constitution (Article 13)
    Various amendments to the Constitution of the United States

The “right to anonymity”, on the other hand, is not so clearly defined and does not enjoy the same legal protections (if any at all)."

By using anonymity you abandon all your rights , because you are nobody ( anonymous = he who has no name , no identity ) . You can't go to a court as an anonymous , because courts are for cases between entities , and an anonymous is not an entity .
So your saying that anonymity is full privacy is totally wrong as privacy and anonymity are two terms that overlap only by a little . Of course , privacy and anonymity is a philoshophical and legal concept and unfortunately most technical students can't grasp it . And the most important , they can't understand the consequences to the society when they are advocating for anonymity .

A perfect example of the consequences of anonymity on this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlT5SdLeXtM  

It's safer to trust someone else with your money ? Do you think that the people who lost their coins still think that it's safer to use mixers ?
And from what i recall you are a proponent of don't trust , verify . Why trusting someone in this case ?
And the most important . Is it safer to use an illegal way with anonymity that can lead to the loss of your coins ( even if you are not seeking anonymity but privacy ) , or a legal way that has privacy and you have the control of your coins ?


Nope . That's childish . Do you live in this world or in a fantasy world ?
How many users do you know that were not part of illegal actions and had their coins confiscated ? You are trying to prove that when authorities are able to freeze addresses they will do it for everyone . No , it's the same as with banking accounts . They are not freezing every bank account just because they can . There has to be a reason .


They are doing due dilligence which is legal , not selling personal information , try to read what i write . That's from where the argument started , you still prove my point .
" And if you can prove to me that someone can connect my identity to all of my addresses than i'll say i'm wrong and i have misunderstood what privacy is . "
Does any of what you quoted means that i don't have privacy anymore ? They have managed to de anonymize one of my addresses . What happens with all the rest ? I really don't see your point , maybe because there's no point .
Blockchain analysis is a useful tool that the people that have to hide something hate and affraid . These are the ones that they don't want to have even one address de anonymized because it will point to their real identity .
I don't have such a problem .

This "lost in the crowd" is the situation where you don't want the rest to know who you are and what you do. It's the definition of privacy. Anonymity is full privacy.

Let me ask you the same question: if splitting your coins across your addresses is a safe privacy technique, why don't the overwhelming majority of privacy interesting Bitcoin users do it? Answer: it's not safe.

What you say is exactly the same as what I say. "Freezing" addresses in a censorship resistant network requires the encroachment of each individual user's freedom.

Kindly use a search engine:
- Coinbase the most anti-Bitcoin organisation. Make #DeleteCoinbase great again
- Binance's partnership with Chainanalysis to detect "Dirty" Coins..
- What Do Centralized Exchanges Consider as Taint?

Or if you're that bored and unable to verify an argument, use ChatGPT now that's trending:

Because they want anonymity , not privacy . They need to be lost in the crowd . The bigger the crowd the more the chances of getting lost .

There are more chances to happen what i say than what you say . Bitcoin is a clever invention that solves the problem of traceability and forgery . We can both follow our paths and time will tell .

kindly provide cases . I might be wrong .

I don't have have a problem if the authorities have info about me , on the contrary i want them to have info so i have proof in case that something goes wrong . For example if a murder or a rape happens and i can prove that at that time i was not present at that spot that's a plus not a minus . Proving a negative is one of the most difficult things if you don't have proofs .
If a paedophile can be arrested i want that to happen , even if have to give away a small portion of my right to privacy . A society can't work if each one of us is looking only his own prosperity and good .
I agree on the big tech companies part , and the only thing that can save humanity by these vultures is bitcoin . The problem with these companies is that we are the product . They are "selling" us to the advertising companies . If the model changes they will fall apart . If the advertising companies can pay you directly ( if you want to ) their role is finished . That's why satoshi wanted micropayments and electronic cash . To solve the 402 payment required problem https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Status/402 .

We see things differently . I believe that authorities should have access to my information in some cases . I want full privacy from interactions with anyone except authorities .


If an AI matches me with a criminal i will have proof by my phone carrier that probably i wasn't there during a crime . The odds of two identical persons being at a spot at the same time are close to zero . Stop oversimplifying things just to prove something . I need surveillance cameras to have my photo and my phone carrier to prove my position during that time . As i said proving a negative without evidence is one of the hardest things .
As for the coded bias , it's the perfect example of why code shouldn't be law that's been promoted by cypherpunks .
And for supporting mixers , be my guest and provide liquidity to criminals . It's your choice as you will face the consequences . We have reach a point that regulators are getting mad . I will support people that act inside law , not those acting against it . The orwellian future has to do only by little with surveillance , it has to do mostly with the change of history , destruction of language and education , and the will of people to "nail" even their own family members . Have you ever thought that 1984 could be mentioned to Stalin's Russia ?

Let me put it this way, if you don't understand the argument: if splitting coins across your wallet is a clever, privacy-protecting technique, why do criminals use mixers? They must want some pretty decent levels of privacy. So why not splitting?

That is not a healthy mindset. Anything can change hypothetically. Bitcoin can be made illegal if regulations get really hard. Your right to encryption, privacy-- freedom in the end-- can change if regulations get really hard.

Have you taken a few seconds to use a search engine before asking me these questions? Don't be surprised if you do it.

They don't need any of that data to identify you. You saw how the Fed has over 140K data points on the Chipmixer operator, and most of them were from Google and mobile phones. And don't think it's just the feds who can identify you at will - these Big Tech companies are already doing that just by browsing the services - registering not required as they can use your IP address, user agent, and GPS location, your carrier can also track you, your ISP, as well as every 3rd party all these guys sell this information to [which ironically can include stalkers and other criminal personalities!]

You, like everyone else walking on this earth, have a right to privacy, but it's not just in not sharing things. It's by taking appropriate precautions to limit the data you share with services, as well as limit the services you use in the first place. Even when you think you're doing everything possible, your face still gives you away even when you walk on the street - farcical recognition.

And once we get to that territory, it's no longer about whether you are doing criminal or even suspicious activity. It's wherever an AI identifies you as matching good enough to some other guy who did those things. Once we reach that point, nothing is going to save us, because you'll never be able to get rid of your signature - the collection of data points people have about you. It'll be stored on other people's servers forever (you should also watch Coded Bias documentary, as I told Jollygood).

By supporting the use of mixers for legal activity, you're pushing back alternate Orwellian futures even if it's by a few nanoseconds.