It is good to remove things that bringing problem to the peace in the Forum. And this not the first time users in the forum have said that mixers should be ban or stop working in the forum after the melodrama of CM. After the sieze of CM then Sinbad came to an existence and everyone used Sinbad to mix and participate then later in the month or there about whilewind came to the forum and compete with Sinbad and other mixers follow suit. And mixers became popular in the forum and those who have not heard the name heard and see and those who have not used it before, used mixers to mix coins from one wallet to others. I also used a mixer and it it very much interesting.
Now forum users have seen the important of mixers and the usefulness of mixers so if mixers are remove automatically from the forum, it might disturbed some users so is there any other terms and conditions (rules) given to them before they can operate in the forum? Because their present here is also making the forum more actively. If the ones that are running in the forum can change their features to the two examples in the OP, will they be allow to operate in the forum? Or if any other one that coming have the same features with above two examples in the Op will it be allowed? This is bitcoin forum and it is good to steer clear with criminal elements that will tannish the name. Thank you for your drastic decision to clean the forum.
Topic: Mixers to be banned - page 50. (Read 23006 times)
but what next are we going to ban?
I am not theymos to give 100% real answer but probably everything that creates threat for this forum. At the moment, threats are things that are associated with darknets. I don't think Theymos will ban anything in near future. Probably the next thing might be DEX or CoinJoin wallets but at the moment they are okay.Will crypto non KYC casinos be next as they too can be used for mixing.
I am not theymos again but I'm 100% confident non-KYC casinos are not the next thing to be banned because casinos are regulated. Some casinos registered in Costa-Rica are able to provide service without asking for KYC. If someone launders money through casinos, that is not Theymos's problem. People launder money through banks and exchanges but promoting of them doesn't create any threat because this business model is accepted and regulated. There is no official certificate to run mixers but casinos, exchanges and so on exist and are controlled by governments. It's not bitcointalk's problem if any particular company does something shady, it's a type of business model that is considered to be helping illegal activities that creates threat for this forum if it gets promoted here.The government are winning and there's nothing we can do about it.
Use Monero and/or DEX. Bitcoin was never superior in protecting your privacy compared to Monero.Oh well, I guess some people will stop (shit)posting... 
Campaigns run by mixers were paying more than others and were able to afford people who post high quality posts, so, I don't think some people will stop posting because they weren't posting shit posts. There are a few exceptions of course, I don't argue with that.Theymos, are we able to mention mixer companies? Can I say: Bitmixer was the first bitcoin mixer in history, chipmixer was the most profitable company, Guys, does anyone remember the time when mixers were legal?
Will we be able to mention company names without suggesting them to other people?
Also, can we talk about kycnot.me or mention it in our posts? This is a dictionary site but it's not exclusively about mixers, it's about overall non-kyc companies.
I would just like to see this point clarified. What is considered directing someone to a mixer?
If someone says:
"We can use a mixer to break your connection"
"There are services that mix the currencies of several users, and that way you can try to increase your privacy. Search on Google."
"Yesterday I used a very good new mixing service, different from all the others we usually use. Search for 'new btc mix' and find out."
Of the three sentences, which are found in this rule?
If someone says:
"We can use a mixer to break your connection"
"There are services that mix the currencies of several users, and that way you can try to increase your privacy. Search on Google."
"Yesterday I used a very good new mixing service, different from all the others we usually use. Search for 'new btc mix' and find out."
Of the three sentences, which are found in this rule?
Of those three examples, the first and second would be OK because they don't direct people to a specific mixer.
Thanks for the clarification.
In short, we can talk about its existence, we cannot mention names. Or can names be said without there being a direct recommendation?
For example: "Yesterday mixxptoabcd was closed by the US authorities, follow the news..."
So, to sum up. If a service:
- is taking property and returning roughly the same property,
- advertises itself as providing privacy,
- requires user to forfeit custody of coins,
- and does not collect KYC
is illegal in this forum.
Really sad turn of events for the Bitcoin forum.
- is taking property and returning roughly the same property,
- advertises itself as providing privacy,
- requires user to forfeit custody of coins,
- and does not collect KYC
is illegal in this forum.
Really sad turn of events for the Bitcoin forum.
No, this is a great thing to happen. Listen to Satoshi:
I have a feeling it's going to be easier to discuss about making a bomb than how to mix some coins.
- Hey, how can I gain privacy in Bitcoin?- Use mixers!
- Cool, which one?
- WTF, you want to get banned sir?
If you want to gain privacy on Bitcoin, you have to use coinjoins. Mixers do not provide privacy because the operator can track each withdrawal to its corresponding deposit.
Oh well, I guess some people will stop (shit)posting...
I know someone who made $1200/month (not a lot of money in the USA, but still plenty enough in poorer countries).
If people don't like Theymos' decision (that's fine), they should start a decentralized forum, because bitcointalk.org has always been centralized. Deal with it.
I know someone who made $1200/month (not a lot of money in the USA, but still plenty enough in poorer countries).
If people don't like Theymos' decision (that's fine), they should start a decentralized forum, because bitcointalk.org has always been centralized. Deal with it.
I think you do not know that the mixers have the best posters and are the best paying campaigns.
None of the mixer participants is shit poster.
I have written proof about my claims.
SNIP
Isn't Bitcointalk signature space just like another banner ad on the internet? People advertise illegal things on Google ads and use many other ad networks too. While Bitcoin mixers are not completely illegal which you agree. Google, Facebook,, or some random ad networks do not even verify what was advertised on their service. BitcoinTalk has no connection with the mixer companies. It's just a public forum where people talk about crypto currencies and many other things. Bitcointalk do not monitor any service. It's absurd to punish the entire industry just because of some random big companies were seized.
I would just like to see this point clarified. What is considered directing someone to a mixer?
If someone says:
"We can use a mixer to break your connection"
"There are services that mix the currencies of several users, and that way you can try to increase your privacy. Search on Google."
"Yesterday I used a very good new mixing service, different from all the others we usually use. Search for 'new btc mix' and find out."
Of the three sentences, which are found in this rule?
If someone says:
"We can use a mixer to break your connection"
"There are services that mix the currencies of several users, and that way you can try to increase your privacy. Search on Google."
"Yesterday I used a very good new mixing service, different from all the others we usually use. Search for 'new btc mix' and find out."
Of the three sentences, which are found in this rule?
Of those three examples, the first and second would be OK because they don't direct people to a specific mixer.
If this decision is to protect the forum, I believe that no matter how difficult it is, it should be taken.
Indeed, even if unfairly, the authorities are attacking the mixers on all fronts, the forum could be affected. Therefore, the best way to keep the forum neutral is to avoid any connection to mixers - even in a completely indirect way.
I would just like to see this point clarified. What is considered directing someone to a mixer?
If someone says:
"We can use a mixer to break your connection"
"There are services that mix the currencies of several users, and that way you can try to increase your privacy. Search on Google."
"Yesterday I used a very good new mixing service, different from all the others we usually use. Search for 'new btc mix' and find out."
Of the three sentences, which are found in this rule?
Indeed, even if unfairly, the authorities are attacking the mixers on all fronts, the forum could be affected. Therefore, the best way to keep the forum neutral is to avoid any connection to mixers - even in a completely indirect way.
- Going forward, directing people to mixers in new posts/edits will be totally disallowed, and doing so could lead to a ban. Many mixer URLs will be wordfiltered-out, and if
you bypass the wordfilter, then that'll definitely be ban-worthy.
you bypass the wordfilter, then that'll definitely be ban-worthy.
I would just like to see this point clarified. What is considered directing someone to a mixer?
If someone says:
"We can use a mixer to break your connection"
"There are services that mix the currencies of several users, and that way you can try to increase your privacy. Search on Google."
"Yesterday I used a very good new mixing service, different from all the others we usually use. Search for 'new btc mix' and find out."
Of the three sentences, which are found in this rule?
Oh well, I guess some people will stop (shit)posting...
I know someone who made $1200/month (not a lot of money in the USA, but still plenty enough in poorer countries).
If people don't like Theymos' decision (that's fine), they should start a decentralized forum, because bitcointalk.org has always been centralized. Deal with it.
I know someone who made $1200/month (not a lot of money in the USA, but still plenty enough in poorer countries).
If people don't like Theymos' decision (that's fine), they should start a decentralized forum, because bitcointalk.org has always been centralized. Deal with it.
I think you do not know that the mixers have the best posters and are the best paying campaigns.
None of the mixer participants is shit poster.
Bitcointalk.org aims to allow about as much freedom as is reasonably possible. But this is not a darknet forum, and with mixers looking "grayer and grayer", it's no longer reasonably possible to allow linking to mixers. Even though "a cryptocurrency mixing service is not necessarily illegal," a clear pattern has emerged where mixers pop up, last for a little while, and then get taken down by law enforcement once they get too big. Allowing mixers to be posted on bitcointalk.org before they seemingly-inevitably get declared illegal and seized is not sustainable. Therefore, linking to mixers will no longer be allowed, just the same as linking to darknet sites is already not allowed.
Given the current situation, I completely understand your decision. But at the same time, it seems to me that banning all mixers on the forum is too drastic. By the way, the Dutch regulators(FIOD) aren't the only ones who recognize the fact that mixers can be used for legal purposes. For example, here is a quote from a FinCEN document in which they also recognize this.
Quote
FinCEN recognizes that there are legitimate reasons why responsible actors might want to conduct financial transactions in a secure and private manner given the amount of information available on public blockchains.
FinCEN also recognizes that, in addition to illicit purposes, CVC mixing may be used for legitimate purposes, such as privacy enhancement for those who live under repressive regimes or wish to conduct licit transactions anonymously.
FinCEN also recognizes that, in addition to illicit purposes, CVC mixing may be used for legitimate purposes, such as privacy enhancement for those who live under repressive regimes or wish to conduct licit transactions anonymously.
So maybe you shouldn't ban absolutely all mixers on the forum? Alternatively, you could set certain criteria for mixers, and if they meet them, then allow them to stay and advertise on the forum as before.
I'm curious myself if there were any formal requests or warnings received
We've received no warnings or requests to change policy from law enforcement regarding mixers.
It will help to know if the stand of the forum is that mixers are injurious to the public like darknet
I would prefer to allow them. I don't view using them as unethical, and I don't care about reputation. But this kind of thing is far from the core mission of bitcointalk.org, and the costs far outweigh the benefits.
It wouldn't be illegal to continue allowing mixers here. That's why we're able to offer a 1-month grace period. But allowing them has become too risky/problematic, and it's only going to get worse. Imagine 5% of all active forum users being sanctioned due to being paid directly by mixers, or all participants in a big signature campaign being targets of a search warrant, or our service providers suddenly banning us due to being "associated" with mixers, etc. I think that the crypto community is near the start of a multi-year squeezing campaign against mixers; similar to the cannabis industry in the US, or Operation Choke Point, or what happened with Backpage, or the deplatforming of Parler.
non-KYC exchanger converts your BTC to XMR
That's allowed unless the site is also a mixer due to eg. allowing BTC->BTC "exchanges" or advertising BTC->XMR->BTC exchanges as a way of mixing coins.
Theymos, I understand this decision had to be taken to save the forum from alot of accusations in aiding fraudulent activity in the future but what next are we going to ban?
I don't anticipate the need for major new restrictions in the next couple of years, but it could indeed happen. Maybe Bitcoin will be banned in the US someday, and then I'll have to either shut down bitcointalk.org or find a way of moving it to some remaining territory of freedom in the world. That's the problem with centralized forums. I wish that more work was being done on creating decentralized, uncensorable, but also usable forums. I would love nothing more than to be able to shut down bitcointalk.org due to some decentralized solution making it obsolete. Find me a 501(c)(3) nonprofit working on this, and I'll donate to it.
To be clear: not all .onion sites qualify as darknet, right?
Correct. And something can also be darknet without having a .onion. By "darket" I mean something that wouldn't be able to exist for long outside of the shadows because it's being suppressed by the state.
Quote from: LoyceV
How about old avatars? Many inactive and even banned users still have an avatar from a Bitcoin mixer.
It's not a priority, but I might blank them at some point.
Quote from: LoyceV
Since that doesn't have any real links to mixers, it may be OK. Probably we'll leave it alone at the start and see how it looks after a few months.
If I understand correctly, all communities here that post related to mixers will be filtered out or deleted automatically starting January 1, 2024. Is that right?
So does this also mean we won't see signature campaigns related to mixers? And does that also mean that the signature campaigns of the mixers here on the forum platform are only until December? right?
So does this also mean we won't see signature campaigns related to mixers? And does that also mean that the signature campaigns of the mixers here on the forum platform are only until December? right?
AFAIK, alts haven't been banned.
Yes i know it, but i don't see the point to join someone only for 4 weeks or less i was looking for a long term campaign like the new of tumbler.
linking to darknet sites is already not allowed.
To be clear: not all .onion sites qualify as darknet, right? I assume I can still link to non-illegal sites (such as protonmailrmezxxxxxxxxxx.onion). Can you clarify this? I already saw some confusion about it earlier today.So many mainly clearnet services have .onion website alternatives to combat censorship.
Facebook is among them.
Online library websites also, Zlibrary. Just off the top of my head.
Also file sharing websites like TBP do this to overcome government DNS blocks. There's so many legitimate anti-censorship uses to the TOR service, it'd be a shame to completely have this blocked in bitcointalk.
- Hey, how can I gain privacy in Bitcoin?
- Use mixers!
- Cool, which one?
- ....
- I don't know, I think I wrote my recommendation once. Just look in my post history.- Use mixers!
- Cool, which one?
- ....
If tomorrow Gov declare Bitcoin btc as a money laundering source then we will see Bitcoin word in blacklist and also we will change domain??
If that were to happen I would suggest the nocointalk dot org domain be reserved, or someone should develop a full TOR version of the bitcoin forum 
Oh well, I guess some people will stop (shit)posting...
That is some good part, but there is still some users that will continue their shitpost because its their style life.
Oh well, I guess some people will stop (shit)posting...
That is some good part, but there is still some users that will continue their shitpost because its their style life.
This notice made me a little sad. I was hoping to join a new campaign and had already counted that income in my budget. Oh no!! Anyway
Oh well, I guess some people will stop (shit)posting...
I know someone who made $1200/month (not a lot of money in the USA, but still plenty enough in poorer countries).
If people don't like Theymos' decision (that's fine), they should start a decentralized forum, because bitcointalk.org has always been centralized. Deal with it.
I know someone who made $1200/month (not a lot of money in the USA, but still plenty enough in poorer countries).
If people don't like Theymos' decision (that's fine), they should start a decentralized forum, because bitcointalk.org has always been centralized. Deal with it.
Bitcointalk.org aims to allow about as much freedom as is reasonably possible. But this is not a darknet forum, and with mixers looking "grayer and grayer", it's no longer reasonably possible to allow linking to mixers. Even though "a cryptocurrency mixing service is not necessarily illegal," a clear pattern has emerged where mixers pop up, last for a little while, and then get taken down by law enforcement once they get too big. Allowing mixers to be posted on bitcointalk.org before they seemingly-inevitably get declared illegal and seized is not sustainable. Therefore, linking to mixers will no longer be allowed, just the same as linking to darknet sites is already not allowed.
To avoid disruption, there will be a grace period: Nothing will change until Jan 1, 2024.
Starting Jan 1, 2024:
- Existing mixer announcement topics (and a few topics that have no value without mixer-links) will be locked and archived.
- Going forward, directing people to mixers in new posts/edits will be totally disallowed, and doing so could lead to a ban. Many mixer URLs will be wordfiltered-out, and if you bypass the wordfilter, then that'll definitely be ban-worthy.
- Any remaining mixer signatures (etc.) may be deleted. Anyone persisting in advertising mixers will be banned.
- In most cases, old posts will not be deleted. Nobody should be banned for old posts.
You do not need to go edit/delete your past posts. Links will be automatically wordfiltered-out as of Jan 1, or in a few cases mods will archive or delete posts, but you will not be banned for old mixer-related posts.
It will continue to be OK to discuss mixers in a general sort of way. Just don't direct people to mixers: don't link to a mixer, don't link to a directory with links to mixers, don't tell people to "Google ASDFmixer", don't link to a mixer's telegram, etc.
Definition of a mixer
For clarity, here is a detailed definition of what we mean by a "mixer". Most people know intuitively what a mixer is and don't have to read this.
Something is considered a mixer if it meets all of these requirements:
1. It has a feature advertised for taking property, improving its privacy somehow, and then returning roughly the same type of property.
a. Even though you can sometimes use non-mixers to mix coins by depositing and then withdrawing, this doesn't make it a mixer because this is an incidental use of the service; the service isn't advertised as privacy-enhancing.
b. If a site is not primarily a mixer but has a mixer function, such as a mixer function on a gambling website, then the whole site is considered a mixer.
c. If the site takes coins, gives you a possibly-transferrable IOU, and will convert this IOU back into mixed coins much later, then the temporary conversion into a different type of property does not prevent it from being considered a mixer.
d. If the site internally converts your deposit into other things as part of its mixing, but ultimately the point of the product is to get your original type of property back, then that's a mixer, not an exchanger.
2. It is possible for the mixer to steal property passing through it. Assume that the sender does everything as correctly as possible. Also assume that no miners/verifiers on the base-layer cryptocurrency are evil. But assume that every other actor involved is evil (everyone able to vote in a DAO, every coordination server, every counterparty, every member of a multisig, etc.). Ignore short-term software bugs which are expected to be quickly fixed.
3. The service does not collect KYC-type info from all users.
Examples of things that are not banned mixers include exchangers (unless they have a mixing function), CoinJoin-supporting non-custodial wallets, and Monero.
To avoid disruption, there will be a grace period: Nothing will change until Jan 1, 2024.
Starting Jan 1, 2024:
- Existing mixer announcement topics (and a few topics that have no value without mixer-links) will be locked and archived.
- Going forward, directing people to mixers in new posts/edits will be totally disallowed, and doing so could lead to a ban. Many mixer URLs will be wordfiltered-out, and if you bypass the wordfilter, then that'll definitely be ban-worthy.
- Any remaining mixer signatures (etc.) may be deleted. Anyone persisting in advertising mixers will be banned.
- In most cases, old posts will not be deleted. Nobody should be banned for old posts.
You do not need to go edit/delete your past posts. Links will be automatically wordfiltered-out as of Jan 1, or in a few cases mods will archive or delete posts, but you will not be banned for old mixer-related posts.
It will continue to be OK to discuss mixers in a general sort of way. Just don't direct people to mixers: don't link to a mixer, don't link to a directory with links to mixers, don't tell people to "Google ASDFmixer", don't link to a mixer's telegram, etc.
Definition of a mixer
For clarity, here is a detailed definition of what we mean by a "mixer". Most people know intuitively what a mixer is and don't have to read this.
Something is considered a mixer if it meets all of these requirements:
1. It has a feature advertised for taking property, improving its privacy somehow, and then returning roughly the same type of property.
a. Even though you can sometimes use non-mixers to mix coins by depositing and then withdrawing, this doesn't make it a mixer because this is an incidental use of the service; the service isn't advertised as privacy-enhancing.
b. If a site is not primarily a mixer but has a mixer function, such as a mixer function on a gambling website, then the whole site is considered a mixer.
c. If the site takes coins, gives you a possibly-transferrable IOU, and will convert this IOU back into mixed coins much later, then the temporary conversion into a different type of property does not prevent it from being considered a mixer.
d. If the site internally converts your deposit into other things as part of its mixing, but ultimately the point of the product is to get your original type of property back, then that's a mixer, not an exchanger.
2. It is possible for the mixer to steal property passing through it. Assume that the sender does everything as correctly as possible. Also assume that no miners/verifiers on the base-layer cryptocurrency are evil. But assume that every other actor involved is evil (everyone able to vote in a DAO, every coordination server, every counterparty, every member of a multisig, etc.). Ignore short-term software bugs which are expected to be quickly fixed.
3. The service does not collect KYC-type info from all users.
Examples of things that are not banned mixers include exchangers (unless they have a mixing function), CoinJoin-supporting non-custodial wallets, and Monero.
Can't blame you. These have always made us look bad, even if they're not necessarily always used for illegal things. People who do need them only need to look on the darknet for 2 minutes to find one. I feel we have outgrown that type of thing here..
This announcement isn't a surprise to me. I suspected that theymos will do this long ago. I got a clue of this when one staff member revealed that theymos instructed the staff and moderators not to participate in mixer campaigns. It was then I knew that the days of mixers are numbered in here.
Where else will mixers advertise? I mean where do they advertise apart from the forum. Darknet?
Where else will mixers advertise? I mean where do they advertise apart from the forum. Darknet?
Jump to: