Topic: Mixers to be banned - page 20. (Read 23840 times)

We've been instructed about what's allowed so ppl can't say they weren't warned about mixers bans. If ppl make innocent mistakes posting about mixers are they getting banned or receiving warnings. Have you decided what's the punishment being handed for breaking new mixer ban rules.

I would like to use this opportunity to deliver a political message to the world, I made it in a funny way.

I will go back and delete these posts after Christmas.

Any promotion in the signature is disallowed.


That is an unintended loophole. I edited the OP:

My friend, I will write to you again that I am not against Jambler or any other "legal" mixer, but I am against this theymos decision. Ignore for a moment the fact that you represent them (in some way) and you will see that there is no discrediting Jambler on my part ^{Will you believe me if I say that I should have been part of the new service, as a Jambler partner}, as far as I can see I am not the only one who talks about Jambler as an exception to this rule. You probably missed that, among other things, for example, I suggested more freedom for all official mixer accounts, and not for them to be PM only.

Go back a few days, the mixer ban rule started with the idea of completely banning any discussion about mixers. Now it has been significantly mitigated, although I think that it is still an excessive dose of censorship. I guess this discussion helped, although I am surprised that we did not hear the opinions or arguments of any active mixer representative here, even though they and their business are most directly affected by this decision.


Closing the mixer, as well as turning a blind eye to this problem, will certainly not force criminals to self-report their earnings and pay taxes on it. On the contrary, they will be pushed to create a more sophisticated method for hiding money. Unfortunately, I think instant no-KYC exchangers will be the next to be hit, which will drop some stable and reliable services with them.


Absolutely. The decision has been made and all this is a further useless discussion.

I agree. Anyone who uses a mixer should consider that they might be a honeypot. And that's why it makes little sense for a real criminal to put these services above Monero and coinjoins, which are trustless.

Sure, if mixers can be the cause to shut this place down, no matter how sad it might be, forbid them. It just makes little sense from a government's perspective. If I was a government official, I would want such services to run, because they would be central point of failures that I can go after. Forbidding them would push everyone (especially criminals) to decentralized, trustless solutions which I cannot control.

The thread is already becoming obsolete; every question about the intended ban have been answered, and theymos has already made his mind and is unwilling to budge. Locking it now will be the most sensible thing to do before my friend digaran transforms the thread into his signature Advert avenue.

With there being just another ten more days before the deadline of the bans, there is a question that comes to mind. Will theymos lock this thread soon after the ban or will it remain active?

After the ban, if it not properly moderated the final outcome of the thread could end up being used as a tool for for conspiracy theorists and signature spammers (not that there is any of that going on right now).

I am a strong believer in the right to privacy (even if some people take it what I believe to be too far), and a centralized mixer has the potential to enhance privacy. Also, however, mixers have the potential to give nothing more than the illusion of privacy and highlight your transactions to governments and other nosy people. ChipMixer being the exception (which was shut down by the government), I understand that all mixers have leaked the connections between all inputs and all outputs through their service via the blockchain -- all that is needed to make these connections is a small transaction through their service, or a series of transactions through their service.

The underlying root cause of the policy change appears to be the fact that mixers are getting seized/shut down by governments with increasing frequency, along with the risk that users (and participants of signature advertising campaigns) will be subjected to government sanctions if they attempt to cash out any coin received from mixers.

As bitcon becomes more mainstream, using it will become incrementally less private. There will be a balancing act between privacy, and the benefits of seeing an increased number of people using bitcoin (and layer 2 solutions, such as LN).

For the above reasons, although disappointing, I tend to agree with the decision by theymos.

That sounds like bypassing the wordfilter:

Can we use url shortener to use a referral link in our sig without any mention of mixing in our profile? and even without mentioning the name of the mixer, aka without shilling. Besides ref links don't pay unless someone use them. If this is also not allowed, please edit the OP.

---

What I have in mind is to have this in my sig space :

"Private lap dance for you gentlemen"
I know I have a sick mind. 😅

Discussion about mixers is allowed, as long as it's no advertising and not done by the mixer representatives themselves (not that I'm happy about that restriction, but it could be worse). I quote theymos:


URLs will be filtered, but the OP doesn't talk about "banning" anyone because of linking to mixers (besides mixer representatives) in a post anymore. I guess however means that wearing a mixer avatar to bypass the URL filter could be against forum rules and ban-worthy.

Somebody should tell that to Hostinger 

Why on April fool day? Lol

Probably theymos realised there's no such law, which is why he ease that aspect and restated that discussing mixers without sharing the url is allowed.

Theymos said he will do this, but he will only do that the day US will ban bitcoin.

that is pretty good since I did 400 posts a month

Pst, stop whining, go blow up something and let us worry about the law, 😂 but in case you are not in the loop, we make the laws ourselves around here, just open your eyes, Bitcoin is the new law of finance bitch. Now go back to hibernation.

Are you saying that you think Bitcoin’s recent runup in price is due to bitcointalk banning the advertising of mixers on this forum? Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but that’s how it seems. Anyway, I don’t think this news is something that would move markets. More likely it will cause people to attack those in signature programs that remain with the hopes to replace them, and the wider markets won’t care at all.

I suggest that starting from April 1st Bitcoin itself should be banned in this forum. Because of money laundering, terrorism, child porn, anti-Big Brother etc. usual bullshit.

What a sellout and pussy is the current owner of this forum. Show me a law that explicitly says that writing a URL is crime. Show me a law that states that talking about crypto mixers is a crime. Probably there are such laws in some totalitarian states. Then just move the forum to somewhere where it is allowed to discuss these things. Not discussing good and bad mixers will only benefit scammers to advertise their scam service trough facebook/instagram/google ads and delay bad reviews to build up. People will use mixers anyway.

Here is an idea, I will go make a probably free one page site to include all sorts of Bitcoin related services, including mixers, then I'd put my referral links on my site, then advertise my site in my signature, that way any services recommended by me would know how much traffic I direct at them since my readers would use my ref links.

So now, people will have to be so helpful and constructive to intrigue the viewers to click on their link and then use the services listed.  This is great to exonerate this platform from any future complications and place the responsibility on members alone.😉

The sites will be banned from Bitcointalk, which means [banned site] covers it.