But there seems to be some confusion around promotion. It would be allowed to post even a positive review thread for ExampleMixer, just as long as you don't post the URL and you don't violate the other rules. Promotion is only disallowed in signatures, avatars, and profile-bios; not posts.
This is nice explanation. Because many were even afraid to call the name mixer. And that is why many people could not come and comment here or in any other threads that mixer is called. I like the clarification that it is only ban on signature, avatar, URL and personal text, but the word "MIXER" is not banned. Thanks foe this good information. 
Topic: Mixers to be banned (Read 23809 times)
This is a welcomed clarification.
No, but as a one-time exception I'll leave that thread, since I don't like deleting so many posts over a borderline case like this which wasn't otherwise acted upon for over a month. If somebody does the exact same thing in the future, it should be deleted.
If somebody doesn't have to look up the URL to visit the site after reading your post, using Google or some other such resource, then you're posting the URL in a disallowed way. This includes things like posting "examplemixer dot com", using a URL shortener, using a simple "click here to continue" landing page, etc. If there are two mixers which can't be disambiguated except by posting their full domain name, or if their official name is a full domain name, then that's an annoying situation, but it would not excuse posting their full domains.
But there seems to be some confusion around promotion. It would be allowed to post even a positive review thread for ExampleMixer, just as long as you don't post the URL and you don't violate the other rules. Promotion is only disallowed in signatures, avatars, and profile-bios; not posts.
If somebody doesn't have to look up the URL to visit the site after reading your post, using Google or some other such resource, then you're posting the URL in a disallowed way. This includes things like posting "examplemixer dot com", using a URL shortener, using a simple "click here to continue" landing page, etc. If there are two mixers which can't be disambiguated except by posting their full domain name, or if their official name is a full domain name, then that's an annoying situation, but it would not excuse posting their full domains.
But there seems to be some confusion around promotion. It would be allowed to post even a positive review thread for ExampleMixer, just as long as you don't post the URL and you don't violate the other rules. Promotion is only disallowed in signatures, avatars, and profile-bios; not posts.
Is obfuscating links allowed in a scam accusation?
No, but as a one-time exception I'll leave that thread, since I don't like deleting so many posts over a borderline case like this which wasn't otherwise acted upon for over a month. If somebody does the exact same thing in the future, it should be deleted.
If somebody doesn't have to look up the URL to visit the site after reading your post, using Google or some other such resource, then you're posting the URL in a disallowed way. This includes things like posting "examplemixer dot com", using a URL shortener, using a simple "click here to continue" landing page, etc. If there are two mixers which can't be disambiguated except by posting their full domain name, or if their official name is a full domain name, then that's an annoying situation, but it would not excuse posting their full domains.
But there seems to be some confusion around promotion. It would be allowed to post even a positive review thread for ExampleMixer, just as long as you don't post the URL and you don't violate the other rules. Promotion is only disallowed in signatures, avatars, and profile-bios; not posts.
What would happen if someone wanted to promote a mixer by mentioning their brand name (even with broken URLs) and in the process created a non-existent scam accusation for the sake of bringing their name to the community by circumventing the ban rule? Add to that, if the accuser then decided to make a post a few days later to claim the matter was resolved and he received his money, it would be painting the mixer in a positive light without a signature campaign or ANN thread.
I don't know. I guess theymos will have to clarify if scam accusations are allowed on them if he hasn't already.
Is obfuscating links allowed in a scam accusation?
URL is broken by space, meaning that you will not be redirected from the forum to the mixer, and since the post in scam board and its purpose not for advertisement, then there is no reason to delete it.This varies from ShortURL which still redirected the required page from the forum.
The only way to unambiguously mention a mixer without a link is to add a space. In the scam accusation, it is very important to specify the correct domain, because it is not always the same as .io or .com, for example. I don't see a problem here.
Also when you see the Theymos statement, it says the mixers can be discussed otherwise, most probably in the scam accusation section if there is to warn everyone of any mixer (and not to promote it).
And that URL shortening is not allowed.
- Mixer URLs will be automatically wordfiltered out, but you can still discuss mixers otherwise. Using link-shorteners or other obfuscation techniques in order to post URLs which would otherwise be wordfiltered is not allowed.
Is obfuscating links allowed in a scam accusation?
URL is broken by space, meaning that you will not be redirected from the forum to the mixer, and since the post in scam board and its purpose not for advertisement, then there is no reason to delete it.This varies from ShortURL which still redirected the required page from the forum.
The only way to unambiguously mention a mixer without a link is to add a space. In the scam accusation, it is very important to specify the correct domain, because it is not always the same as .io or .com, for example. I don't see a problem here.
Using link-shorteners or other obfuscation techniques in order to post URLs which would otherwise be wordfiltered is not allowed.
Is obfuscating links allowed in a scam accusation?This varies from ShortURL which still redirected the required page from the forum.
global moderator
Activity: 3990
Merit: 2713
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
They aren't allowed at all since he's promoting mixers. I deleted them.
I meant the topic title.I don't know. I guess theymos will have to clarify if scam accusations are allowed on them if he hasn't already.
They aren't allowed at all since he's promoting mixers. I deleted them.
I meant the topic title. global moderator
Activity: 3990
Merit: 2713
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
Using link-shorteners or other obfuscation techniques in order to post URLs which would otherwise be wordfiltered is not allowed.
Is obfuscating links allowed in a scam accusation?They aren't allowed at all since he's promoting mixers. I deleted them.
Using link-shorteners or other obfuscation techniques in order to post URLs which would otherwise be wordfiltered is not allowed.
Is obfuscating links allowed in a scam accusation? 
It looks like some scammers are now trying to take advantage of the gap left due to the mixer ban.
What should be done to users who register in the forum to post phishing/fake mixers?
Are they going to be banned or this is a situation where they just get tagged since it's not a real Bitcoin mixer but just a phishing site?
I wasn't expecting anything less - afterall, when Chipmixers left the forum, every other mixer took the chance to wiggle their butts - they all traded through the gap and unfortunately, that was a huge lose and mockery on CM's despair. The years of competition and monopoly ended, not until the government decided to pass in thorough scrutiny on every single one of 'em.What should be done to users who register in the forum to post phishing/fake mixers?
Are they going to be banned or this is a situation where they just get tagged since it's not a real Bitcoin mixer but just a phishing site?
As events have unfolded in 2024 I think we can say that his cautious decision was a good one.
In due time, we'll be toast if Theymos didn't take that drastic decision!I've never been against it right from the very first day;I always knew the govern's wanna have control - regardless how they'd go about it...and Yes, these has certainly ruined/slized in halve so many people's little earnings, and more have lost pretty much bigger, but I guess we haven't lost everything just yet [maybe until they decide how seclusive their censorships would be] Or maybe we all wake up to our forum's domain not responding anymore!
Edit:
Say for example, I said I would sell you this imaginary home for $10k if you paid me the money upfront and then I disappeared with the money, what would the judge say? "Don't be stupid?"
I don't think their criterion for an investigation vindicates cases like this regarding the context; I mean it does connotes one of the federal laws regarding crimes. They could decide to take up the case but, Dude shouldn't be daft to send out his funds for some imaginary Ireland at first! 
...many have the view theymos banned mixers to protect himself and the forum name from possible future scrutiny by various legal authorities.
I am not going to comment on the other question but about this I think it is no secret, and I would say more, not only the forum and himself, but also the participants in mixer campaigns.
It wouldn't be illegal to continue allowing mixers here. That's why we're able to offer a 1-month grace period. But allowing them has become too risky/problematic, and it's only going to get worse. Imagine 5% of all active forum users being sanctioned due to being paid directly by mixers, or all participants in a big signature campaign being targets of a search warrant, or our service providers suddenly banning us due to being "associated" with mixers, etc.
As events have unfolded in 2024 I think we can say that his cautious decision was a good one.
I know this is somewhat off-topic because it seems you were referring to the forum software not being upgraded but can you elaborate if it was a reply in response to someone stating theymos did not want to get himself in trouble?
Many of us are completely clueless about why the forum has ever been upgraded or the why the new one was never launched but when it comes to the mixer ban, many have the view theymos banned mixers to protect himself and the forum name from possible future scrutiny by various legal authorities.
Many of us are completely clueless about why the forum has ever been upgraded or the why the new one was never launched but when it comes to the mixer ban, many have the view theymos banned mixers to protect himself and the forum name from possible future scrutiny by various legal authorities.
I am sorry but that is what they want you to think. Along with they make knuckle and finger errors when they do an image.
There are still Chipmixer phishing sites, if we look at all such fake mixer sites, there are quite a number of them. It is also obvious that they are not the subject of any investigation, many of them stop working on their own and not because of a sanction.
I was making a big list of scam sites I have not seen many cases where any investigation was done or where any of the domains were seized.
Things through which ordinary people are deceived are not a priority subject of investigation like those where the state sees a possible evasion of income. It is more than obvious.
I was making a big list of scam sites I have not seen many cases where any investigation was done or where any of the domains were seized.
Things through which ordinary people are deceived are not a priority subject of investigation like those where the state sees a possible evasion of income. It is more than obvious.
Congratulations on this project, it's good to make this signage.
It's true that it may seem like these sites are never investigated or that nothing ever happens. But there are several factors to take into consideration.
For example, in the list you published today, there are already sites that are not live. Normally these sites only last a short time, until they make the first victim or victims. In turn, the creators of these sites are usually involved in other criminal activities, and many may even be caught, but there is no formal news on the subject. So, as there is no news about all the murderers who are caught. And these sites are not notified, because in most cases, they no longer exist when the criminal is caught.
C h i p M i x e r has been around for many years, do you think they looked at it a few weeks before closing? No. That was work that probably took years.
There are still Chipmixer phishing sites, if we look at all such fake mixer sites, there are quite a number of them. It is also obvious that they are not the subject of any investigation, many of them stop working on their own and not because of a sanction.
I was making a big list of scam sites I have not seen many cases where any investigation was done or where any of the domains were seized.
Things through which ordinary people are deceived are not a priority subject of investigation like those where the state sees a possible evasion of income. It is more than obvious.
It is interesting, for example, that phishing sites like fake mixers are not subject to similar sanctions or investigations. We have even seen them being advertised on G00gle and similar networks and nobody seems to have a problem with that, while services that do not have scam intentions are strictly punishable because they can be used for purposes that do not suit the US government.
It's a bit bizarre that someone behind the name of justice deals with it
It's a bit bizarre that someone behind the name of justice deals with it
In reality these things are also illegal and punishable by law. However, there are some aspects to take into account. The first is that a phishing site typically operates for a few months, then the owner uses several fake names and each new site they use, as well as the servers are typically hosted in countries that do not have major agreements with the US. This makes it longer for the criminal to be caught. It doesn't mean you won't get caught, it takes a lot longer.
Normally when we read about a site like this closing, it means that there were many months or years of work until they were able to gather the necessary information to reach the owner of the site.
C h i p M i x e r has been around for many years, do you think they looked at it a few weeks before closing? No. That was work that probably took years.
Scamming is a petty crime. You can only lose money by getting scammed. Hosting mixers(not directly but it is connected to money laundering), cp, selling drugs are some of the federal crimes.
See the full list:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edwi/federal-crimes
See the full list:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edwi/federal-crimes
It is interesting, for example, that phishing sites like fake mixers are not subject to similar sanctions or investigations. We have even seen them being advertised on G00gle and similar networks and nobody seems to have a problem with that, while services that do not have scam intentions are strictly punishable because they can be used for purposes that do not suit the US government.
It's a bit bizarre that someone behind the name of justice deals with it
Yep. BTT pretty much operates just like the USA does. You can scam people and mostly get away with it if you are smart about it and as long as you don't step on the Gov's or banks' foot. Phising is like that too. The gov don't care if you are careless or stupid enough to fall for these tricks.
Say for example, I said I would sell you this imaginary home for $10k if you paid me the money upfront and then I disappeared with the money, what would the judge say? "Don't be stupid?"
Scamming is a petty crime. You can only lose money by getting scammed. Hosting mixers(not directly but it is connected to money laundering), cp, selling drugs are some of the federal crimes.
See the full list:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edwi/federal-crimes
See the full list:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edwi/federal-crimes
It is interesting, for example, that phishing sites like fake mixers are not subject to similar sanctions or investigations. We have even seen them being advertised on G00gle and similar networks and nobody seems to have a problem with that, while services that do not have scam intentions are strictly punishable because they can be used for purposes that do not suit the US government.
It's a bit bizarre that someone behind the name of justice deals with it
Scamming is a petty crime. You can only lose money by getting scammed. Hosting mixers(not directly but it is connected to money laundering), cp, selling drugs are some of the federal crimes.
See the full list:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edwi/federal-crimes
None of these offenses in the list are allowed on btt. These are the stuff the gov hates the most. Theymos can’t give a rat’s ass if you have lost $100k to a scammer. If you sell firearms in the marketplace, that’s when it becomes serious.
I just remembered, Ver was selling firearms (he says they were firecrackers) on ebay :d
See the full list:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edwi/federal-crimes
None of these offenses in the list are allowed on btt. These are the stuff the gov hates the most. Theymos can’t give a rat’s ass if you have lost $100k to a scammer. If you sell firearms in the marketplace, that’s when it becomes serious.
I just remembered, Ver was selling firearms (he says they were firecrackers) on ebay :d
Jump to: