Topic: Mixers to be banned - page 33. (Read 23912 times)

is mixing wrong? No. Is it used for money laundering? I suppose so, but more people do it for privacy.
Now should the army disarm? Because if we follow that logic, weapons are also used for evil, so what is the solution?
die being controlled, then there is no way out.

If in “X” a user uploads something illegal, the company is guilty, no.
X simply bans the user and deletes all references to it.

The question is why doesn't bitcointalk do the same?
If social networks are not responsible for what users publish, why should bitcointalk be?
A forum is a social network, if something is not illegal, it is not.
but from the point of view of the survival of the forum, I understand that this happens, although I am not 100% sure that it is the best decision in view of the moral bases with which bitcoin was born.

You got me to laugh 😂 thanks.

Do new joiners receive sort of welcome message which makes them aware of such restrictions? If a newbie links mixer unawares of rules, and gets a ban, definitely not a good idea. One warning should be given before banhammer, imho.

I’m neutral on this. Tough call, to be sure, but some of us gave theymos like $20 a long time ago and expected him to run the forums in perpetuity. And he has indeed kept the lights on around here.

The best argument for banning mixers though is because if the government can stop a mixer, then you have risk if you promote/permit them.

Let this be an impetus for creating decentralized privacy solutions that can not be stopped.

That's true, at least, he did do his best to explain to us and was willing to listen to what the community had to say, although, it's almost obvious that his decision was already made and there was nothing that any of us could say to make him ditch the change altogether, but ya, at least we did negotiation the mixer discussion part!

As for the mixers, we could at one point in the future see the rules change, meanwhile, this ban could serve as an excuse/reason for them to actually evaluate the feasibility of advertising their mixer services here, the average mixer spends a few thousand dollars weekly here, there exists a chance that they would generate a better revenue with the same or less amount spend elsewhere, I personally do not know a better forum than this one -- but mixer services and campaign managers will probably strive to find other places to carry on.

Everything is clear now, IMO,  there is nothing to discuss anymore, he said this is the rule, so now this is the rule, anyone unhappy, introduce 1 man that could replace theymos in the entire crypto community, any alternative is either a fraud or a traitor, unfortunately we have failed to make a worthy leader out of anyone. The one we have now is not perfect but is unique.

---

Just wish he had more time for other stuff. (no hints, cause it's obvious). ✊ (domestic violence signal) lol.

I think the text is much better and clearer. This way people better understand what is involved here.

Basically what is restricted are direct advertisements and direct links to mixers.

loyce a 50 coin block hit in 2011 was worth 500 dollar

a 50 coin coins are now worth 2.1 million bucks.

So our guy has a 50 coin block he is usa citizen he reported the hit in 2011

paid tax on it say 20% or 100.

USA law has a tax record of you owning 50 BTC at a tax basis of 500 for it.

You did your 2012 taxes and showed you have it.

Now it is 2023. you want a Tesla  you move 3 coins directly to coin base

coinbase knows you have 47 coins from that block. you do not want coinbase to know

that.

In theory only the feds (USA) know you have the coin cause you did report it in 2012.

So you send 3 coins to an address then send them to a mixer then send the coins to whom ever.   you report to usa fed government.

yeah the coins have 3 x 10 = 30 cost basis and the rest is taxable 3 x 41990 = 119970 to be exact.

you kept you remaining 47 coins hidden or private if it is a legit mixer.

and you fully comply with usa IRS rules.

Basically if in the USA this is close to the only legit way to use a mixer.

Much like I write a 100k check  from a 2.1 million bank account the receiver of the funds does not know I have 2 million sitting.

This is not a good solution. It is necessary to enable them to communicate directly and publicly with their users.
The most frequent complaints about the problem come from newly registered users of the forum and it is certain that they will not come to Meta to check these conditions. How the hell will they know that support is active if the ANN thread is locked?
By limiting communication to PM, the strength of this community is completely marginalized, and it was often of crucial importance for the final and correct solution of certain problems.


Obviously, I went too far with the assumption that you have a guarantee from theymos that Jumbler is in compliance with the new ban and above censorship. My assumption is based on the fact that you will not enter such a complex situation without the official approval of the owner of the forum.
This is not an invitation for trolls, given that the whole thing obviously gives new features to the Bitcointalk forum I would like to hear the opinions of reputable members. Also, don't blame me if this annual event loses its sponsor, I'm not the one who introduced the ban. On the contrary, I am expressly against the mixer-ban rule and I give full support to Jambler and its partners. Finally, to all legal mixers/services.

---

If the Sinbad mixer caused all of this, wouldn't the measure of banning the person behind that mixer be sufficient, and every return is considered ban evasion (the rule that, after all, applies to all banned users)?
Even earlier, there were suspicions and links that Sinbad was the successor to Blender, shouldn't the administration have reacted then?

Seems you have made your decision. Hopefully soon you can move to Argentina.😉

I read all of the comments. Some people didn't like the change in policy at all, of course, but continuing with the status quo isn't going to happen. Some people found the policy too vague/subjective. Some loopholes were identified. Some people found the original policy too constraining. Taking these comments into account, I adjusted the policy to this:

Probably not.


My goal is not to act in the best interests of the state. If that was my aim, I'd probably continue to allow mixers. My goal is to put in place as few restrictions as possible while keeping risks (for bitcointalk.org and its users) at reasonable levels. Centralized mixers have qualities which make them especially risky in ways which other things do not.


If the middleman can steal coins, it might be a mixer. But those sorts of things usually use cryptographic techniques to prevent the third-party from actually having custody of the coins at any point.


My mixer definition says to assume that zero miners are evil. Lightning is not a mixer under my definition.

The goal of my definition is to include the mixers that we're all familiar with, and to ideally also cover all ways of obfuscating these types of mixers, without any false-positives. If things very unlike mixers are covered by my definition, then this may be a flaw in my definition. But in reading all of the comments here, I've so far not been convinced that my definition is flawed in either classifying too many or too few things as mixers.

Problem with your reading comprehension?

...and Monero ?

I admire how you subtly illuminate what I shared with you (although I did this because sooner or later I would have been asked, and also because I support openness). Perhaps, thanks to your efforts, a lot of trolls will join this discussion, and this annual event will lose another sponsor.

• First of all, I didn’t say that I received approval, I said that “I asked”, although I would call it "leniency" .. besides, this is a temporary measure until I announce the results of the event (for now that's all I can say).
• It’s good that you mentioned the campaign .. if you noticed, my signature includes information about sponsorship and an extremely accurate advertising slogan of what Jambler essentially is (namely software, and the opportunity to make money on short-term investing).
• Jambler existed in the form in which it exists now even before the ban, so it makes no sense to talk about some kind of loophole.

In that case, I would strongly recommend to @theymos a middle ground where linking to mixers is forbidden, but marketing them as a legitimate service without any direct links is allowed.

Signatures have become the life blood of the current de facto state of this forum, and I can only envision views and activity going down even further if they take a big hit...

It's not about the a few dollars you get / post at all, but rather the cost benefit analysis of posting here vs a more popular platform.

Here sometimes, I prepare some financial analysis, and especially in the local section I know only 4-5 people are actually reading it, if at all. That number would actually be lower if there is no incentives left to post here...

It's time and energy better spent if I post it on a popular social media platform, both for professional reasons, and for intellectual engagement, where I know at least 1000 organic people are going to engage with it... It's just common sense.

So if I were the admin of this place and seeing activity consistently going down over the years, I would be passionately seeking to increase the incentives for people wanting to be here, instead of discouraging them even further with my whimsical precautions that I just declare on the spot, that's against everything cryptos stand for in the first place...

It is time for all members to get over this announcement, it is not the end of the world just because mixers will be banned.

Yes many members will no longer be earning as much if they manage to get enrolled on other signature campaigns but there is nothing more to discuss here. This forum is controlled by theymos and he has made a decision that we have to adhere to if we want to remain members.

I hope theymos locks this thread and pins it Meta board. Let us all move on.

You are confusing things!
If the authorities adopt the same style of action that they adopted in relation to torrents, yes, the forum would have many problems and so would all those who announced it.

In previous posts, I have already explained what happened to many blogs and forums that simply linked or advertised torrent sites. Note that torrenting is not illegal, but a website that has illegal torrents, the entire website will be harmed. Unfortunately, there were many who were penalized simply because they linked to PirateBay, even if that link was to legal content.

Sometimes, we have to understand how far we can go, to avoid very big problems.

Just like today, it is not allowed to post affiliate links on the forum, it will no longer be allowed to post mix links.

---

EDIT:

@theymos has already adjusted the rules. You can mention services, as long as there are no links.

If we are already talking about loopholes, how should we understand Jabler.io, which does not fall under the announced ban?

They are a mixer gateway, connecting investors with "pure" coins and mixer users. Despite all the bans, they are still allowed to remain present, as they are the main sponsors of this year's Bitcointalk Community Awards contest. Even the manager announced their promotional campaign in the future.
icopress says that he asked and received approval from theymos, so I wonder what's going on here. Jabler only offers mixer software, and investors for a certain percentage and that is acceptable for the forum, while ordinary mixers are prohibited.

Is the solution for other mixers to pretend that they are a franchise of a new service?



This may be the background of everything, but then you don't punish everyone and you don't introduce censorship. Some mixers have been around for years without any problems. now they lose that right.

Is there any stats on how many people currently getting paid by mixers? Did you ever think to be a person that destroys hundreds of jobs?

---

Of course I know the goal of this forum was never to become a place for people to earn money, wait wasn't the primary purpose to discuss Bitcoin so that you could mine/trade Bitcoin to earn money? Later on people found easier ways to earn. All good.

But you are responsible for all these people, they are kind of depending on you as a leader. Do you have any plans to help them?  And if these people are not important here, then if they leave, who will be left here?

With great power, now this is the responsibility, from a perspective of capitalism, they don't have any rights to demand anything, but what is your opinion about their rights? @theymos.

Or, sometimes, a decision is wrong on every level, and no amount of 540 degree mental gymnastics can justify censorship and pandering that go against the fundamental philosophy of why crypto emerged in the first place.

In your and apparently @theymos's line of "preemptive" thinking, the forum should be shut down today because you can't predict which criminals will show up here tomorrow or what service / entity USA might decide to sanction next, so better to go home and drink a tall glass of milk...


On the other hand, intellectuals around the world understand that governments and states have their own amoral and often sinister agendas,

that many rules and regulations are ridiculous and downright harmful, both on an ethical and pragmatic level, and that smart individuals can congregate to formulate a better alternative for themselves, and for humanity; a notion I would have thought wouldn't be so alien in a forum made for crypto enthusiasts...