Topic: Mixers to be banned - page 44. (Read 23006 times)

So when must I alter this ad I am doing Dec 31 works?

The government approves of kyc.
The government has lots of guys with guns.
they will follow orders.


If they are telling you don’t use a mixer. Don’t use one.

So everyone needs to check rules of the country they are in and follow its rules.

And btc does not offer the promise of freedom it once did.

Yes, I think that would be sufficient.

This would also allow people to type a word which refers to one thing but happens to be a name of a mixer without risking a ban.

Signature campaigns are not important in a time like this, especially when we have LE accounts descending posting public warnings here.

---

How many times do we have to tell you that the mixing industry is not, at large, a scamming industry?

What's the difference between a mixer getting seized and some other service (pretending to) hold your funds hostage by KYC?

If there is a possibility that our forum will be directly affected due to mixer campaigns, then we all have to coordinate the decision. But if mixer can stop the campaign and take a different decision then it might be a very good decision for users like us. We still have a month to catch up, so if you think that it is possible to tighten the rules and run the mixer campaigns within this month, then you should decide to continue the mixer campaigns. If all mixer campaigns are stopped then many people will directly lose their jobs and many people are directly dependent on their jobs. So if there is a different plan without banning mixer campaigns, I think you should think about it.

I do not believe that will happen.

People will find ingenious solutions (DEX + BTC/XMR swaps).

But yeah, if you want to convert BTC to CBDC, good luck with that, you're pretty much fucked!

People tend to see the speck in the other's eye, and in Og's case he sees a lot of problems with mixers but apparently sees no problem with living in Arizona and advertising in his signature an illegal casino in the USA:

Why is Stake Illegal in US? | Alternatives

Back to the central theme of the thread, it's a bummer, but probably necessary to prevent greater evils, although it leaves the outlook for the future looking very bad indeed. Bitcoin transactions are on their way to becoming more and more like banking transactions, where the authorities know who is sending the money and who is receiving it. It's a thing that will take time if it eventually ends up happening that way, but that's the trend we're on.

It's reasonably safe to assume that a sig of this nature is a paid ad... at least for the purposes of this rule. I like the revision a little better, it makes it possible to e.g. post news about the next mixer being seized by the FBI.


Og might be thinking that someone excluded him for saying something nasty about mixers, but the reality is that he started attacking people for wearing Chipmixer signatures (like LoyceV and myself and a few others) after he got called out on his own shenanigans.

I get your point but somehow you skewed my point. What's the forum if not the users? If theymos is saving the forum users isn't he also saving the forum? Anyway, let's not overflog that issue as we seemed to have headed the same direction on that micro context.

The point of my argument concerning the authorities not even clamping down on banks is a way of showing disdain that much money laundering activities go on with fiat than we've in cryptos. Isn't this a case of giving a dog a bad name just to hang it. Authorities are doing the much they can to strangulate Bitcoin but the good thing is that they arrived a bit late now. As it's right now, I don't think any FUD can make Bitcoin dip to $20,000 until after this rally, no matter how bad that news is.

I couldn't care less about that; I'm more concerned about the government and their witch hunt in progress against crypto as well as Theymos's decision to ban even the mention of mixers.  I don't know if he was pressured to go that far or if he's just playing it very safe, but mixers don't have to be criminal by nature.  By that logic every cash register should be illegal.

I just looked at your trust page to figure out who left what, and I have no clue what you're talking about.  Did someone leave a neg for something you said related to the issue at hand, or do you have a persecution complex?  I'm genuinely curious.

Wouldn't that still violate the ad part though? I don't know how you would verify if somebody is being paid or not from this other than trusting what they said. Unless you track his wallet address etc, which can take time and it is probably easier to just ban any mixer sig. It doesn't matter where the user is being contacted since the promotion is still happening here. CMIIW.

It isn't about individual ppl it's about what's best for the forum. It's a decision which's going to affect sig campaigners but if we're after what's best for the forum it's a small sacrifice.

I'm trying to understand what we're allowed to post about mixers without breaking new rules. We can't get paid by mixers we shouldn't directly post URLs. If we're allowed to mention mixers by name in some topics ppl won't know where they can't post about it unless there's a sub started for mixers.

Seriously? I mean the proposed modification might seem like a step towards addressing concerns, it still leaves room for potential issues. By allowing users to mention mixers by name, even in a 'top 10 mixers' topic, you might inadvertently create a gray area.

People could find ways to indirectly promote specific mixers without violating the stated rules. The distinction between a casual mention and intentional promotion might become blurred. Considering the sensitive nature of the topic, a more robust and clear-cut policy might be necessary to prevent any inadvertent promotion or misuse.

Even a while ago a post (which is still in my draft) and I stopped my self from posting it when I read your this comments.


But based on your above new comments, I think i can post it? or no? I'm confused now.

This has long been coming and there really was no other possible outcome. Surely this will cause a bunch of people to become angry over the loss of income, but as I said, it was only a matter of time. I’m sure theymos held out as long as was reasonable to do so before making this difficult decision, but in the end there really wasn’t any other way to go.

Hopefully those who retaliated against me using the trust network for stating these uncomfortable facts before they became facts will rethink their actions.

Best post I've read so far.

There's a reason Satoshi designed Bitcoin in such a way that it would become truly decentralized eventually (initially it started centralized on a single PC -> Satoshi's computer).

What would happen to bitcointalk.org if theymos died? The forum would most likely die too.

Someone should design a decentralized forum protocol... maybe something like Nostr.

ps: TBH, I don't think most people here care about "freedom" or "decentralization", they mostly care about losing their precious signature campaign income. Let's be honest, shall we?

I've never visited this forum to make money, I'm merely here for discussions. That's the purpose of forums.

This will definitely happen if people don't take a stand against Digital ID.

I've tried to warn them, but to no avail...

Governments are NOT your friend.-

It's pretty "bleak" if you lose $1200/month.

For some people in poorer countries this is higher than the minimum wage...

What about multi hosting, deploying a website in multiple locations, and not picking as your residence one of the few places on Earth where the government is on a psychotic mission to eradicate individual liberty.

If you can't find a way to make a stand against central authority and oppression and would rather immediately bend over at the face of the slightest perceived threats, then crypto is not the place for you amigo...

I think this approach makes more sense. The way the "rules" were written generated a lot of doubts, as it seemed that all it took was for someone to say "mixer" to be penalized. This way, it is a little more enlightening. There is talk but without having links (this is what causes problems - I know), and without anyone receiving money (based on the forum).




Yes you can. As long as it doesn't have any links. And in turn, whoever is paying him to do so contacted him outside the forum.




You clearly don't know what you're talking about and have zero knowledge of website hosting services.

If for you the USA is bad when it comes to hosting, how good is Europe? Interestingly, SB was closed in Europe. And if you analyze carefully, you will discover that the biggest illegal content sites were closed in Europe.

Apart from the USA and Europe, where do you choose?
Russia, to be sanctioned for doing business in Russia, or for the Russian government to confiscate the website?
China, to be giving all the data to the government?
Latin America, to suffer from political instability and poor facilities conditions?

Don't talk about what you don't know. Investigate a little about website hosting, and you will discover that the best servers in the world are in the USA or Europe. If now, you complain about there being times when the forum is down, imagine if the forum was hosted outside the USA or Europe, it would always be down.

This makes little sense.
Astroturfing is a thing.
I can PRETEND not to be affiliated with a service, and still promote it.
Especially with mixers, there'd be a high incentive to do it since they're very starved of visibility.

Do we want bitcointalk to be a hub for mixer promotion while they come under increasing regulatory scrutiny?
Probably no.
If your assessment is that bitcointalk should not be associated with mixers and you want to stick with it, the OP proposal makes more sense.
Not saying that it's ideal, but priorities have to be set straight.

Leaving the window open for abuse always means that there will be abuse at some point.

Loosening up a bit is nice, but I would personally prefer a very clear set of rules regarding mixers because reading these two lines alone


It could be understood that I could still wear mixers' signatures as long as they don't contain a URL and my username isn't mixerABCD.

We have to think, why did satoshi exhaust his genius to build a trustless system for cash payments?
1. Money moves the world.
2. With financial incentives, it's easier to balance incentives.

When parties in a network have a financial interest to do their job right, this also acts as a disincentive to make mistakes, so the network is less likely to collapse.

Ok, so incentives are important. What would the incentive in a decentralized social network or forum be then?
Tough questions to answer.  
Many smart minds after satoshi have contributed towards creating decentralized social platforms, but all have so far failed to achieve widespread use AND censorship resistance at the same time.

Let's not kid ourselves. There is plenty of progress alright.

I understand that slow progress might be hard to notice in a fast moving space, but the progress on privacy and decentralization is still constant.
Think about it, going to Turkey for instance (along with many other countries), you'll see a booth to exchange FIAT for crypto in every other corner.
Adoption is making tremendous progress.
Under this setting, it's easy to transact in whatever way you like with crypto and never be noticed if you're careful.

10 years ago this would have been unheard of.
10 years ago also some individual got life in prison for running a free (as in freedom) peer to peer marketplace with bitcoin payments.
This hurt bitcoin's reputation tremendously.
These days, even though the "notorious" side of the economy has grown, it's peanuts compared to the whole crypto scene. That's because of how much the "legitimate" side has grown. And maybe things need to stay that way if we want growth.

It's not like we can't use btc and crypto platforms to transact in any way we want and do whatever we want. But maybe it doesn't currently help our cause to discuss such use cases in bitcointalk.org on the clearnet.
Give it a few years, with progress people will start seeing through the tyranny of the current financial system and governance structures at increasing rates.

Once the majority of the population realizes that buying prescription medicine from abroad to be able to afford to live (as many people use crypto for) is not a crime as it's characterized to be, compared governments freely getting to finance murderous wars abroad, maybe then we will not even need mixers.

Till then, we can work within the system's tolerances, grow, and if we don't trip and fall on the way, think about how we'll do big moves once time has matured.
Alas, changing entire systems isn't something that happens magically and we'll need more than just bitcoin. But bitcoin is surely a good tool. We need to use it wisely.
I think we can be confident that a revolution will happen within our lifetimes.

Only if you pay people for all the future ad revenue lost owing to your bizarre decision to host and manage this forum in the worst place in the world you could have possibly picked to run a crypto operation...

Can you do that, make something happen man, it's been what 10+ years since you took over from Satoshi, finally stand up for something in your life and make a name for yourself, I genuinely mean it.