What if an AI entity decides to start mining BTC? What is the IRS gonna do? 
They are going to ask to change the algo of such AIs or charge the owner of these entities with a crime.
Or are you referring to AIs with human rights?
Topic: Mixers to be banned - page 4. (Read 23809 times)
They are going to ask to change the algo of such AIs or charge the owner of these entities with a crime.
Or are you referring to AIs with human rights?
What if an AI entity decides to start mining BTC? What is the IRS gonna do?
This is bound to happen within the next 10-20 years...
Hopefully USA will be humbled by then.
This is bound to happen within the next 10-20 years...
Hopefully USA will be humbled by then.
The top 4 pools as we speak mine about 75% of the blocks. This means that even if 4 pools started censoring transactions based on federal orders, there would still be 1 in 4 blocks that would ignore all the censorship bullshit.
What happens when they decide to ignore any block containing a blacklisted transaction? 
the new law is different.
if I mine 10k and take it from say viabtc on may 1st I have two weeks to file a special form. or a felony and s committed.
What if you solo mine a block? Are you supposed to declare who paid you $400k? Would they want a name?if I mine 10k and take it from say viabtc on may 1st I have two weeks to file a special form. or a felony and s committed.
Quote
too small to self mine and simply report kyc on me.
Like: "I, philipma1957, created this money out of thin air"? Weird laws! 
I still don't see what difference it will make if a few large hash power holders "bend their knew". There's still hash power that is not under their control, and as long as the mining farms don't attempt suicide by intentionally reorging, there cannot be censorship.
Censorship is
Quote
Any regime or context in which the content of what is publically expressed, exhibited, published, broadcast, or otherwise distributed is regulated or in which the circulation of information is controlled.
source: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095558166So by definition, censorship already exists as far as BTC transactions are concerned, the foundation is there and some miners already practice it, so we are past that point already, what you are describing as something that "can't happen" is "banning" transactions, as long as there exist blocks that are mined by any miner that is not participating in the censorship, a complete ban is not possible.
The great danger of all that hash power in the U.S or any other country for that matter, is the fact that they are all subject to the same rules, written by the same group of people, which is why I have always emphasized that the physical centralization of hash power is a lot more dangerous than the centralization of the mining pools, it's worth noting that any hash power that is located in any U.S puppet counties is also subject to same rules.
Bear in mind that I had the same concern when the hash power resided in China, with the expectation that back then another huge portion of the hashrate was located in the U.S. and many other places that are not subject to the CCP's rules, the CCP ban on mining brought great damage to BTC centralization and we won't see it until it's too late, the U.S government/lawmakers will eventually crack down on a dozen things BTC related, every U.S miner will have no choice but to abide by the law.
This may be too far stretched but I'd imagine the next big move from them would be the usage of a whitelisting approach rather than black listing, whereby only KYCed addresses are allowed to transact freely on the blockchain, every U.S miner would need to include only the whitelisted transactions, and excuses such "I don't construct my own blocks" isn't going to cut it.
You may still argue that if 25% of the hashrate is out of the U.S reach, all those transactions will still go through once every 4 blocks, but that will also make those transactions a lot more expensive and eventually probably even worth a lot less since they won't be able to "mix" with the other transactions, it would be like having forked BTC without actually forking it, that's very bad for the fungibility of BTC.
I think it's quite evident that governments worldwide and especially the U.S did not attempt to destroy BTC a decade ago when doing so was relatively easy, simply because they understood exactly how it works and they allowed it to grow, and they had a plan of how to control it when the time comes, and as far as things seem to me right now, they have already got the keys -- it's all those large miners located in the U.S.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 6524
Fully-fledged Merit Cycler|Spambuster'23|Pie Baker
Btw, do you still tell your clients that you have 65 positive feedbacks?
Quote
Is it better now?
Very impressive! Must bow down to that!
Quote
But I doubt that many people will blame him, since at least in public he keeps away from any controversy. I don't remember him intervening when I had big arguments with Royse777 neither in icopress or Gazeta vs Royse, or in other controversies
I dont like controversy. Besides, I have worked with both Royse and Gazeta. It was a nice experience. Regardless of my trades with Royse and Gazeta, we talked a lot about lots of other things but no dirty forum discussion.Side note here, since I saw my name mentioned -- I was not aware of a particular friendship between Little Mouse and Royse. Also, I confirm that Little Mouse and I had some deals in the past and they worked in a professional and nice manner.
the owner of the warehouse will mine by himself and stay under the 10k numbers by exclusively using nicehash.
Can you speak a little more to this. I guess I haven't kept up with the new law you're speaking of and have some research to do. Feel free to point me in the right direction.
How does using Nicehash mitigate this new law? Do they not require KYC up to a certain point?
I get that this may not be the right topic to explore this further, so feel free to respond via PM if you have the time. Thanks!
I also want to say that I think many in the community are disappointed that you can no longer continue your solar mining. It was a great project to follow and your growth/dedication to the project was commendable.
Now 10 k cash or 10 crypto is equal and I need full kyc from the entity that sent me the cash or the crypto.
I'm referring to this, the rule "everything over $10k (from an unknown source) must be explained" existed long before the creation of the first mixer, nor is it specifically aimed at mixing Bitcoin.
But Kucoin is still operational and legal. It wasn't seized, and certainly it is not a darknet website like SB became.
This is the reason why mixers were banned. They are not having just small legal problems, they were getting seized and that may be a problem for the forum.
This is the reason why mixers were banned. They are not having just small legal problems, they were getting seized and that may be a problem for the forum.
Seized, because an anonymous person is behind it. If the mixer were legal, it would also be subject to fines in the event that it does not have KYC.
The SEC is now suing Uniswap because of similar reasons and the epilogue of this will be very important for the further development of decentralization and maintaining privacy. If Uniswap loses this case (this will affect all Defi platforms), they must be closed/seized, because they have no way to implement KYC.
I suggest that Bitcointalk ban all Defi platforms as soon as possible, and wordfilter their domains, why wait for a verdict and risk the forum being identified as a place where such services are desirable?
There is increasing pressure on privacy, it is sad to see a forum that "aims to allow about as much freedom as is reasonably possible", the first to take such drastic steps.
Not that I'm talking about this because of fucking profit from signature campaigns, the ban could only refer to promotion, it didn't have to be a complete expulsion from the forum. (I already suggested this earlier)
I always reported my mining income. over or under 10k.
the new law is different.
if I mine 10k and take it from say viabtc on may 1st I have two weeks to file a special form. or a felony and s committed.
this is far stricter then telling the irs on my tax returned I earned 120k gross income from mining .
in both cases I report the gross income from viabtc. but new law means when I exceed 10k I must report on a special form within two weeks.
old law the 10k did not need to be reported until I did my taxes at years end.
if i were theymos I would not touch mixers with a ten foot pole for bitcointalk.
I get it if you are not USA based you are saying wtf?
but if you are USA based the new rules are very restrictive.
I have yet to figure a legal work around and simply won’t mine much this year.
Pools is not their problem. It's miners who own the hash power. They can shut down the top 4 pools, and they'd have only achieved a temporary network interruption. And since they can't break into places and shut down mining farms, then they can't stop what's happening.
When miners are actually companies listed on the stock exchange it will be easier for a government to take over a mining farm than pools.
Foundry is almost completely private, no hobby miners allowed, just people you can see their farms from the space station, all those will bend the knew faster than when stumbling over a rock.
Plus now even smaller pools or farms are immune, look in that list:
Binance pool - Hello CZ, you want your passport back?
Mara pool - not even counting this one, they will do the censorship even if not asked for
Luxor? - based in Seatle
SBI Crypto - it's owned by former Softbank Japan, common...
And the halving will only make things worse.
The top 4 pools as we speak mine about 75% of the blocks. This means that even if 4 pools started censoring transactions based on federal orders, there would still be 1 in 4 blocks that would ignore all the censorship bullshit.
What happens when they decide to ignore any block containing a blacklisted transaction?
fork and shattered?
DeFi was supposed to stand for "Decentralized Finance". If they can be shut down, they're not decentralized and don't deserve to use that name.
You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if they call themselves they are decentralized or not and what they deserve.
It can very easily happen that domains (and everything else recognized as their resource) are seized, which will put them in the same group as mixers.
The pressure is increasing, and Bitcointalk admin & members decided to close their eyes and turn their heads.
However, the front end can be banned, and the developers can be punished, like tornado cash...
But the smartcontract can still be used , their api is still running in ethereum blockchain for those who knows how to use it.
But the smartcontract can still be used , their api is still running in ethereum blockchain for those who knows how to use it.
In that case, anyone who starts a similar service or one based on this protocol is against the law and risks sanctions.
Isn't that a similar scenario where the mixers are currently?
and theymos is ignoring the dangers facing bitcointalk or is being proactive?
I get that many members on btc do not give a fuck about USA law.
But I don’t get what you are saying about admin closing its eyes.
I suggest that Bitcointalk ban all Defi platforms as soon as possible, and wordfilter their domains, why wait for a verdict and risk the forum being identified as a place where such services are desirable?
DeFi was supposed to stand for "Decentralized Finance". If they can be shut down, they're not decentralized and don't deserve to use that name.yep I am too big and too small at the same time.
big enough to be hurt by new usa law but too small to self mine and simply report kyc on me.
We had 1.4 million infrastructure and gear.
800k solar and 600k gear.
the owner of the warehouse will mine by himself and stay under the 10k numbers by exclusively using nicehash.
he could run into an issue if btc moons. he earns about $3500 a week and coin is sent weekly.
he is not so sure if he will be bothered under the 10k rule by taking a weekly payout.
If my gear was there we would be at $7000 a week which none of us felt safe to under new laws
its easy if you are doing $10000 plus a day as you certainly will get better treatment from pools
but if you just squeak out the 10k weekly or monthly pools may say no.
my smaller foot print will allow me to be well under cut off numbers.
but you force 1.4 million invested to sell off and reduce with new laws.
When miners are actually companies listed on the stock exchange it will be easier for a government to take over a mining farm than pools.
And tell them what? To which pool they're not allowed to mine?Foundry is almost completely private, no hobby miners allowed, just people you can see their farms from the space station, all those will bend the knew faster than when stumbling over a rock.
I still don't see what difference it will make if a few large hash power holders "bend their knew". There's still hash power that is not under their control, and as long as the mining farms don't attempt suicide by intentionally reorging, there cannot be censorship.What happens when they decide to ignore any block containing a blacklisted transaction?
Off-topic, but how many times have we made this conversation? I get a deja-vu. Probably more than five.Attacking the network is a financial suicide. That's what happens. Is it possible to happen? Of course. Is it probable? I'd say no. Do the pro-censorship pools have to retain this attack forever? Yes. The conclusions yours.
True decentralization is pretty impossible.
Don't give up! 
I was out of arguments, almost accepted defeat and stompix came to the rescue.
Yep.
True decentralization is pretty impossible.
They’ll go after farms when everything else fails…
Yep.
True decentralization is pretty impossible.
They’ll go after farms when everything else fails…
Pools is not their problem. It's miners who own the hash power. They can shut down the top 4 pools, and they'd have only achieved a temporary network interruption. And since they can't break into places and shut down mining farms, then they can't stop what's happening.
When miners are actually companies listed on the stock exchange it will be easier for a government to take over a mining farm than pools.
Foundry is almost completely private, no hobby miners allowed, just people you can see their farms from the space station, all those will bend the knew faster than when stumbling over a rock.
Plus now even smaller pools or farms are immune, look in that list:
Binance pool - Hello CZ, you want your passport back?
Mara pool - not even counting this one, they will do the censorship even if not asked for
Luxor? - based in Seatle
SBI Crypto - it's owned by former Softbank Japan, common...
And the halving will only make things worse.
The top 4 pools as we speak mine about 75% of the blocks. This means that even if 4 pools started censoring transactions based on federal orders, there would still be 1 in 4 blocks that would ignore all the censorship bullshit.
What happens when they decide to ignore any block containing a blacklisted transaction?
True, however… Just like how they have been doing it with mixers, they’ll hunt down them pools which don’t comply.
Pools is not their problem. It's miners who own the hash power. They can shut down the top 4 pools, and they'd have only achieved a temporary network interruption. And since they can't break into places and shut down mining farms, then they can't stop what's happening. Where are they gonna host these miners their website then?
In the worst case scenario, where the world government starts shutting down every miner website, we can still migrate to decentralized mining, with P2Pool. It's not popular, because centralized pools are more convenient, but it works. Monero already uses it to decentralize its hash power: https://p2pool.io/#pool.Un-stop-pa-ble.
The gubbermint: -Do not mine block #13123313123123, that is a federal order.
The miners: -Sir yes sir!
You mean, "The mining pool: Yes sir!". As far as the miners are concerned, they're incentivized to mine on the most profitable pool, which is the one that censors no transaction. The miners: -Sir yes sir!
They only need to send the order to the biggest 3 or 4 pools and there goes your decentralized mining.
The top 4 pools as we speak mine about 75% of the blocks. This means that even if 4 pools started censoring transactions based on federal orders, there would still be 1 in 4 blocks that would ignore all the censorship bullshit. And at this point, the pro-censorship pools would have just accomplished loss without censoring anything. True, however… Just like how they have been doing it with mixers, they’ll hunt down them pools which don’t comply.
Where are they gonna host these miners their website then?
On an onion domain? Good luck. They would be lucky if they could get 1% of the total hash rate then.
The gubbermint: -Do not mine block #13123313123123, that is a federal order.
The miners: -Sir yes sir!
You mean, "The mining pool: Yes sir!". As far as the miners are concerned, they're incentivized to mine on the most profitable pool, which is the one that censors no transaction. The miners: -Sir yes sir!
They only need to send the order to the biggest 3 or 4 pools and there goes your decentralized mining.
The top 4 pools as we speak mine about 75% of the blocks. This means that even if 4 pools started censoring transactions based on federal orders, there would still be 1 in 4 blocks that would ignore all the censorship bullshit. And at this point, the pro-censorship pools would have just accomplished loss without censoring anything. Mining is also supposed to be decentralized and yet, we see people closing down their farms...
Decentralized means it keeps working after someone shuts down their farm.It is not decentralized if all the farms have to follow the same orders coming from a singe centralized authority, which is the gubbermint.
The gubbermint: -Do not mine block #13123313123123, that is a federal order.
The miners: -Sir yes sir!
https://hashrateindex.com/hashrate/pools
They only need to send the order to the biggest 3 or 4 pools and there goes your decentralized mining.
DeFi was supposed to stand for "Decentralized Finance". If they can be shut down, they're not decentralized and don't deserve to use that name.
You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if they call themselves they are decentralized or not and what they deserve. It can very easily happen that domains (and everything else recognized as their resource) are seized, which will put them in the same group as mixers.
Mining is also supposed to be decentralized and yet, we see people closing down their farms...
Decentralized means it keeps working after someone shuts down their farm. You're probably talking about GitHub which is centralized and owned by Microsoft.
How did Satoshi commit code during the first years? When did they start using GitHub?
Although I suppose taking down Bitcoin from GitHub could be considered a violation of free speech... perhaps...
I remember something similar about cryptography not allowed to be exported from the US back in the late 90s (Gene Hoffman had wrote a story about it). He found a clever workaround:
https://hoffmang9.github.io/free-speech/the-history-code-is-free-speech.html
How did Satoshi commit code during the first years? When did they start using GitHub?
Although I suppose taking down Bitcoin from GitHub could be considered a violation of free speech... perhaps...
I remember something similar about cryptography not allowed to be exported from the US back in the late 90s (Gene Hoffman had wrote a story about it). He found a clever workaround:
https://hoffmang9.github.io/free-speech/the-history-code-is-free-speech.html
Git is a version control software, I misused the word. I wanted to say “repository” and i believe sourceforge was the king shit back in the day. I can’t really remember but bitcoin code was hosted on sourceforge at first then it was moved on to github. There was another drama about it which I can’t really remember its details.
Quote
SourceForge is a web service that offers software consumers a centralized online location to control and manage open-source software projects and research business software.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceForge Mining is also supposed to be decentralized and yet, we see people closing down their farms...
The difference is that shutting down a mining farm or two doesn't really influence the Bitcoin network, whereas in 99.9% of DeFi, there's a small group of people behind the "DAO" that has significant control over the decision-making processes. Sooner or later, I expect Bitcointalk to become an onion site... no more clearnet access!
I highly doubt it. The administrators of this place have been identified, as far as I know, and if bitcointalk turned into a darknet site, then the 1226 BTC in forum reserves could be confiscated by the authorities. I suggest that Bitcointalk ban all Defi platforms as soon as possible, and wordfilter their domains, why wait for a verdict and risk the forum being identified as a place where such services are desirable?
I hope you are just being sarcastic because if we keep going on this trajectory and the agencies ban even more stuff then soon we will have no crypto companies or services allowed on Bitcointalk.
I suggest that Bitcointalk ban all Defi platforms as soon as possible, and wordfilter their domains, why wait for a verdict and risk the forum being identified as a place where such services are desirable?
I hope you are just being sarcastic because if we keep going on this trajectory and the agencies ban even more stuff then soon we will have no crypto companies or services allowed on Bitcointalk.
I suggest that Bitcointalk ban all Defi platforms as soon as possible, and wordfilter their domains, why wait for a verdict and risk the forum being identified as a place where such services are desirable?
DeFi was supposed to stand for "Decentralized Finance". If they can be shut down, they're not decentralized and don't deserve to use that name.I suggest that Bitcointalk ban all Defi platforms as soon as possible, and wordfilter their domains, why wait for a verdict and risk the forum being identified as a place where such services are desirable?
DeFi was supposed to stand for "Decentralized Finance". If they can be shut down, they're not decentralized and don't deserve to use that name.They can’t shut the platform down however they can always catch its devs and punish them. If btc becomes a problem in the future, that’s exactly what they will do to btc. (The other possibility is that they already have the btc devs on their payroll, which is not a small possibility imo)
When you connect to the internet make commits, push code to git, promote your service etc it is damn hard to stay anonymous for a long time. maybe you can stay anonymous against average people but we are talking about the gubbermints which own all the infrastructure. If they wanted to know who you are, they will know it and that’s all they need.
How did Satoshi commit code during the first years? When did they start using GitHub?
Although I suppose taking down Bitcoin from GitHub could be considered a violation of free speech... perhaps...
I remember something similar about cryptography not allowed to be exported from the US back in the late 90s (Gene Hoffman had wrote a story about it). He found a clever workaround:
https://hoffmang9.github.io/free-speech/the-history-code-is-free-speech.html
Jump to: