Topic: Mixers to be banned - page 32. (Read 23912 times)

Because the service is getting grayer. Law enforcement and government are going after any of the m**er that they have got a very tangible evidence that require them to tagg to the case. Bitcoin m**er is illegal, but government always wants to oversee everything, our privacy is a crime and by so doing they can tagg it as illegal because they believe that some money laundering activities are going on in the m**ers. If m**ers are banned from the forum, it's not banned outside side here, although depending on your country policy too.

The new policy draft is an improvement, I think. However, there are two items I'm agreeing about with @examplens post here:


To allow efficient communication of mixers with users for support reasons, I would propose that an "official" discussion topic about every mixer could be allowed, but without any advertising elements. And the accounts representing the mixers could have to limit themselves strictly to this "official discussion/support thread".

The other limitations seem relatively reasonable although I'm still thinking that mixers that are an legitimate entity in the country they operate, and show real effort to prevent to be used by criminals (e.g. using blockchain analysis like described by @garlonicon and @Wind_FURY, setting a threshold for mixable amounts, and/or doing minimal KYC, such as asking for an email or phone) then they should be excepted from the no-mixer rules, perhaps on a case by case basis.

It's an improvement.

My question for you: what makes services such as those in investor-based games different in that they are allowed to post ANN threads? They're contained in that section, there are warnings and such services are arguably more shady than mixers.

No one denies that he can do what he wants, but since it looks like that he is williing to adjust the mixer ban rule slightly, I don't think that its pointless to discuss it.

After all, its been only a couple of days, its not like we are pondering on this for weeks or months. And it is a big decision, probably the biggest one in years so no wodner that many people have something to say on the matter.

I guess it will be accepted by theymos, but he is the one making the rules (he said about KYC, not about "blockchain analytics company", so I don't know if it is treated differently or not). Because if I would be the one to decide, I wouldn't ban mixers. However, I wouldn't start running a centralized forum in the first place, so I am not the right person to make that decision.

Though it's a difficult and tough decision, I can acknowledge that its crucial move for the forum's long-term survival. things are still in the early stages, and we have plenty of time to handle this. I believe there's still room for improvement before imposing banned in this regard. moreover, I don't think giving too much importance to new account holders is really necessary. Creating these accounts is easy, and getting banned after engaging forbidden topics is not a big deal for them. And most of these accounts generally end up getting banned or receiving negative tags. It's a matter for existing account holders to digest the idea and act accordingly.

A mixer with KYC would definitely defeat the purpose of trying to get privacy and pseudonymity.

But let's not put KYC in the conversation. I was merely asking about a mixer hiring the services of a blockchain analytics company to filter out inputs from "nefarious sources", which therefore might make the mixer not liable to be taken down by law enforcement. The hiring of the chain analytics' services serves as a "protection" of the mixer.

Would that, in your opinion, have a chance to be reconsidered to advertise in the forum?

This is a good idea because most of the time newbies are not really interested in looking for the rules and regulations in order to understand the things we have in this community and they simply post some of the things they want to promote even though it is not allowed and when they got banned temporarily, it should be served as good warning and if they are a sincere person who wanted to further learn about crypto industry, they will be back and follow the rules at the same time their actions will be more healthy for the forum and its users as well.

You had been warned long time ago that BTC doesn't offer true anonymity, unlike XMR.

You had plenty of time to adapt, but you refused to do so. It's your fault.

Adapt to what? Mixers are not banned in outer world, what will be banned is just their promotion on one exact forum, this one. So you can  further do with mixers whatever you want as previously.

And as for promoting, I don't know how do you think anyone can adapt? Mixers will use another places for advertising and forum users will just wear some other signature or not wear any. It doesn't matter much a month or a year to change that.

I guess it could be, if it would mean some kind of KYC will be there. But then, the bigger question is: why anyone would want to make such a service? Making a casino, an exchange, or some blockchain game will be more successful than any KYC-based mixer. And I guess if someone will want to make a mixer with KYC, then it will not be advertized in this way.

According to thymos, the above stated rule is an amendment to what have already been said in the OP and It provides an answer to your question.

Mixers should have been allowed by the end of 2024. Then people would at least adapt. And giving a warning just a month before the ban is at least an ugly act

My bad if someone has asked this question and answered. It has been 22 page of discussion here and going through all these pages require a huge time.

Will the profile related to the mixers (ANN creator) be archived too? For example, [banned mixer], [banned mixer] has their whole domain name and extension on their username. Technically, if they use the forum as natural, they will still be promoting their mixer.
It doesn't make much sense to allow them to post while it's kinda weird to ban someone for using such an username.

They don't search for that, but the burden of proof is on me. If they question my taxes, I'll have to be able to prove where the money came from.

I think this is very clear.

I would rather not mix with such a service because mixing + KYC would defeat the purpose of doing it for privacy. Haha. It would definitely be better to merely deposit your coins to an exchange, then withdraw later if a user wants to break the link from his/her UTXOs and start with a fresh wallet. Plus that at least wouldn't alert the authorities that you might be "hiding something".


But in the context that a mixer is looking for approval to advertise in BitcoinTalk, would a mixer that uses the services of a blockchain analytics company be reconsidered?

Theymos mentioned that if a mixer uses KYC, then it is allowed. And your proposal is more or less KYC, because then, you "Know Your Customer", and you know, if some coins are allowed, or not (instead of allowing all coins).

Well, it depends. You know, a coin can be marked as "tainted", but there are more ways to mix your coins, than you can imagine. For example, imagine a mining pool as a mixing service: you send you coins as a fee, and you receive your coins in the coinbase transaction. Of course, that kind of mixing is for whales, or for a large group of users, but it is still possible. And it can be used to bypass a rule, that "My mixer definition says to assume that zero miners are evil".

Edit: And yes, it can be done trustlessly. For example, we have Taproot, which means, all miners can create a huge N-of-N multisig. It can be required in the first place, to turn coins into fees, and in the second place, to give each user his on-chain coins over time. It can be spread between many coinbase transactions, it depends how huge a given mining pool is. And also, not all users have to go on-chain immediately. They can stay in a "coin pool", behind a single N-of-N multisig, as long as they want. If you think about a CoinJoin with a multisig in the middle, you will get the idea:
And then, imagine the first transition from coins into multisig, can be done by fees. And the second transition can happen in many coinbase transactions, and can take a lot of time. Also note that it is possible to use "Proof of Work coupons" called "shares" in the process, so it is possible to make it compatible with existing centralized mining pools. Which means, if you want to mix 0.01 BTC, then all you need, is to send 0.01 BTC in fees, and get some shares, produced by some miner, as a reward, and then claim your coins in the same way, as that miner would claim his reward from the mining pool.

Edit: Also note that while the regular CoinJoin can be easily marked as such, in this specific case, if you have a huge multisig in the middle, it is equivalent, but it is less tainted. Because then, you can pretend, that you just sent your coins to a huge entity (called "exchange"), and then you got your coins back. And also note that N-of-N multisig can be done outside Taproot, even on P2PK.

So, if you want to mix your coins, this kind of CoinJoin is much better, than if you have direct transaction with M inputs and N outputs. Because then, you can call the address in the middle "exchange", "mining pool", or whatever, and make it legal in many jurisdictions, including new rules on this forum (of course, talk to your lawyer before applying any of that, if you want to pay taxes, based on this model; disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so take it with a grain of salt).

That indicates more CoinJoin apps and more community-operated coordinators to be set up in Wasabi, and probably even start utilizing the Lightning Network as an off-chain privacy layer on top of Bitcoin to be used alone or in combination with CoinJoin apps.


Plus I noticed that "decentralized privacy solutions" is the subject-matter of the topic, and I'm merely curious. Did the community's reaction towards Wasabi's decision to hire the service of a chain analytics company helped set off theymos' decision to ban all centralized mixers? Or was it already on the table before Sinbad was taken down?


Would it help mixers if they use the services of a blockchain analysis company to filter out "tainted" inputs from entering their liquidity pool? That would have an argument that a service isn't part of the "darknet", no?

It does not contain any definition of a "mixer" (unless it will stay as it is in the first post).

I think it is very similar, because the problem is not about "Starting Jan 1, 2024" paragraph, this is fine (so, in that case, both versions are good enough for me). The problem is in "Definition of a mixer", because if anyone will try to bypass the rules, then that person will say: "It is not a mixer, it is just a CoinJoin, just a Lightning Network, just a Full-RBF, just Monero, or just not-yet-listed-but-allowed-x".

It depends. If the purpose is to ban certain mixers (those, which could be seized), while leaving other mixers unaffected, then it is fine, people will just switch from one kind of mixers to other ones (or start advertizing casinos or other things, to be 100% safe).

I wonder if there is a need to explicitly create the list of allowed and disallowed things. Because I guess the biggest issue will be with those users, who will not be 100% sure, if something is allowed or not. And then, some of them may be disappointed, that a certain mixer is allowed ("Why you allowed it theymos, it is a mixer!") or not ("Why you rejected it theymos, it is just a CoinJoin!"). But, I also guess that kind of list could also cause more harm than good, so I don't know, how to handle it properly, and I am happy, that I am not responsible for making such decisions.

Edit: I wonder if it is a good idea or not, but I will share it anyway. It is not needed to share the list of banned things in plaintext. It is possible to write a program, that will check, if user input is acceptable or not. And then, it is possible to create a message, for example: "Your signature mentions a mixer, and this is not allowed" or "Your post mentions a mixer". Then, people will know for sure, without any need of asking "Can I advertize X?". Because then, the word "X" will be included in the blacklist, or in the whitelist. And something like that will be needed anyway, to check if users follow the rules.

Edit: Also, it is not needed to even store the list of banned things in plaintext (but I guess it will be easier to do so). We have hash functions, by the way. And the list of badwords can be stored in the same way as passwords: as salted hashes, if it is ever needed to reveal it (but I guess it will be just a plaintext on server side, and it will remain hidden).

I agree with you. I recommend notifying each person taking part in the subscription campaign with a personal message a few days before the end of this entire process, so that later there will be no unpleasant incidents with bans and the like. It is reasonable to do so. Many may not even know about this situation.

Of course, everything turned out sadly with the mixers. I thought that this issue would be resolved somehow with a better final option, but it didn’t work out.