Topic: Mixers to be banned - page 22. (Read 23908 times)

This is too restrictive. It would be very useful if they had public communication with their users, solving any issue behind closed doors is not ideal. If it would be feasible for mixer accounts to be limited to posts only within their ANN, which will be excluded from the bump feature. That seems like a fair solution to me.


This is contrary to the mixer ban rule. The forum is excluded from any connection with mixer services, but the promotion of mixer creation is allowed. Plus this exception favors Jambler's partners over independent mixers. Indirect presence is provided to them.

blenders vs mixers.

Whats a blender:

here are some of the best blenders.

https://buyersguide.org/blender/t/best?

not a joke just a way with words.

With your permission I will be exploring all possible loopholes to bypass the ban, publicly, in order to find exploits and eliminate them.

No. They're definitely not allowed after Jan 1. But I might not bother to remove old ones.

Yes, since Theymos hasn't decided yet about the removal of the mixer avatar. However, things may change weeks later.

Does this imply that mixer avatars have not yet been banned? And it could be worn after January 1st.

Note that the timeline will be something like this:
 - Sometime on Jan 1 (at an arbitrary time, not midnight), the wordfilters will be put into place, the announcement threads will be locked, and mixer-run accounts will be put into PM-only-mode. If any threads/accounts are missed after all of the other ones are affected, please report them. If new wordfilters should be added, please post in a topic in Meta about it.
 - Sig-campaign (etc.) threads which appear not to be soliciting new promotion might not need to be locked at all, and wrap-up-related posts can still happen there. We don't plan on going through all of the sig-campaign threads and locking them all. But if they're continuing to generate promotion, they will be locked.
 - Mixer sigs will be affected by the wordfilter on Jan 1. After a few days (ie. not immediately on Jan 1), signatures containing any of the wordfiltered URLs will be blanked. I haven't decided yet whether I'll remove old mixer avatars: if I do, it won't be for at least a few weeks after Jan 1. (New mixer avatars definitely aren't allowed.)

Generally, please only report new stuff: not old posts, remnant signatures, posts related to merely wrapping up a campaign, etc. And remember that merely talking about mixers is not banned.


Jambler is not itself a mixer, so it'll be allowed. (It's pretty borderline, though, so I might later reevaluate whether it's exploiting a loophole which should be closed.)


That sounds to me like a mixer using Monero as part of an internal mixing system, but it's difficult to say with just a hypothetical.

Didn't theymos cover this? I think he was pointing out this with the below quoted part.


Altcoin Announcement has the same feature.

My guess is he thinks his method is not a mixer.

Your idea would be a mixer.


ie he thinks he has a workaround.

With Bitcoin, there's a argument to do so. But PrivacyG was talking about Monero, where it doesn't make sense to give a private key instead of making a transaction.

Because centralized mixers are just "like an exchange with increased risk". They collect funds first (equivalent to "deposit" on exchanges), and then you have an option to "withdraw" them. But yes, some services, for example ChipMixer, simply give users some private key.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210826060722/https://chipmixer.com/faq
And yes, they are partially right. Partially, because it is possible to create a transaction, that will be flexible, for example signed with SIGHASH_SINGLE|SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY. But then, anyone in the network can tamper with that, not only the receiver of those coins. Also, they could use Homomorphic Encryption, and allow the user to change the transaction in this way, but it is hard.

Another option is to allow the user to construct the withdrawal transaction, and just sign the coins from the mixer. And then, if that kind of transaction would be known upfront, then it could be trustless (but then, it is possible to attack the mixer, and find out, which coins they own, by attempting many unsuccessful queries).

Why give users a private key, instead of sending Monero to an address? It sounds like an exchange with increased risk.

Now we are talking about it. 😉

Which means, there is no need to worry. Some people will just clear their signatures, or replace them with something else. It is not a big deal, some campaign managers already switched to the new signatures, which will be allowed. And users will also do that soon.

Why is no one worried about it 😂

I just realized mixer threads are not bumped to the top of the list when you post in there, which is a good thing, wish we had that feature on all altcoin boards, and other ponzi/scam boards, then unsuspected souls would also be saved from them.😉

Yep thats why this thread is so long. I have no Idea of the exact amounts given away by all the mixer signatures on bitcoinalk. But there were hundreds of people doing the signatures. So say 500 x 150 =

75000 a week . I am sure that is lower but its is a loss form a lot of people .

For me, that's clearly an exchange. If you get a private key, then you have got coins - that means, you just have exchanged Bitcoin to Monero. These coins are now under your control. While in the exchange process, the exchanger could have stolen your coins, it was clearly an exchange process.

From my point of view, it would be only a mixer if the website presents itself as if the point of the operation was to return to Bitcoin later. For example, if on the landing page you see the heading "Step 1: Exchange to Monero", and then a button is displayed leading you to a "Step 2: Exchange back to Bitcoin". That would be perhaps the kind of service that theymos described in rule 1d.

I'm not even sure about that, because in theymos' rules there is the following interesting word:
... in my opinion isn't enough for the service to be considered a mixer, or directing you to use it as a mixer, because it's simply common sense and you could read it as an advice in every Bitcoin blog or forum. The point of the website model you describe, is still to exchange one coin to another.

In other words, if the described service was a mixer, probably all non-KYC exchanges would be mixers - and theymos' rules clarify clearly that exchangers are not mixers.

If all of what you said happens on the same site, it is a mixer, unless they have 2 sites with different names, one changing BTC for Monero, the other changing your Monero for Bitcoin. You see? There are many ways to bypass bans, I have been saying this for years, banning things is not the solution.

I zoned out for a while and now have a lot of pages of unread messages.  I wonder if this kind of website would be considered a Mixer.  It might fit 1c from the modified OP but maybe it does not.  I do not understand 100 percent.

What if a Service pops up.  They take your Bitcoin and send you a Monero Private Key.  It looks like an Exchange but it is not.  They never call themselves a 'Mixer' nor do they seem like one at first glance.  The functionality is exactly like Chip Mixer but the Currency you receive in the end is not Bitcoin but Monero instead.

But the Service has two sides.  The first side of the website where they take Bitcoin and give you Monero.  Then there is another page where they take Monero and give you Bitcoin.  When you enter their website there is a clickable link for Privacy Enhancement where they provide tips for who wants to use their rights to Privacy.  They do not advertise themselves as Mixer or Privacy Enhancement tool but they advise to swap between Bitcoin and Monero regularly to keep up with their Privacy.

Is this considered a Mixer or does it avoid the definition and implicitly the ban?