Topic: Mixers to be banned - page 50. (Read 23912 times)

If there's a third party reviewing all transactions and filtering them in coordination with the coinjoin provider, does that still allow transactions to be private? Asking for a friend.

Oh and how about if this party's filtering is in compliance with state authorities demands? Does that mean CoinJoin is actually NOT a replacement to mixers? Also asking for a friend.

You banned mixers just when I was about to tell you guys about my awesome cinnabon recipe. But fine. Guess you don't need to know how awesome life can be.

But in a more serious tone, if this is what is required to keep Bitcointalk safe from lawsuits or other, then thats fine. But it does seem a bit like Theymos is jumping the gun on this. Advertising ban, I understand. But merely talking about specific mixers is not allowed? What is this, China?

Not much will change for me as there are better ways to be anonymous. Bitcoin is not one of them, and was never meant to be such.

I guess it's yes we can talk about mixers but we do not allow to mention their sites, name of service, links, or guide them directly by saying "Search it using this keyword" It is considered a "direct recommendation" you are guiding him/her to a mixer.
About the news with the mentioned name of the mixer service, I think it should be fine because you redirecting people to the news and its service is already closed.

You'll be banned I'm sure.

@theymos
Sorry to bother you, but I have a concern based on these comments.

Will you reject any image that shows the name of a mixer?  

Bitcointalk still allows freedom of speech and support decentralization.  If you check out the past mixers that got into trouble by the government citing aiding in helping mix hacked coins and it has become a recurring theme and theymos took the safe option rather than getting in trouble.


The reason why the authorities are able to track the hacked coins to these mixers is because it is transparent and it is clear to any government that BTCitcoin will not aide in money laundering .

I couldn't resist highlighting the irony in this.

OP mentions the word "mixer" 32 times, but never specifies it as "Bitcoin mixer". I see a new market for KitchenAid to advertise in signatures on Bitcointalk, starting 4 months from now! If I search the word "mixer" on Google, all I see is pages filled with this:

It looks like "we" have given a completely different meaning to an existing word.

It will depend on status of the company.

If it is a dead company (seized, shut down, scam exited), I think no problem to talk about history.
If it is a live company, still in operation, you will be banned because you indirectly direct people to that company.

ChipMixer
Tornado Cash
Sinbad

I'm not a designer, but something like this...

It's not funny how privacy seems to be a great offense to the government because they actually want to see through every individual's privacy to be in control of everything. Be that as it may, Bitcoin was not designed in such a manner; mixers only helped to bring about more privacy for users.

Although the decision you have taken is to also protect the forum, honestly, the government is attacking Bitcoin in many ways. Even if mixers are banned from being advertised on the forum, the government will still find another successful mixer to bring down.

Indeed It's sad news for the first day of the month, December, that mixers, which are usually the highest-paying campaigns, are to be banned from the forum.

Thank you for communicating the upcoming changes and for sharing the much needed new policy. If I’m not wrong Sinbad is the 3rd mixer in the last 18 months that have been sanctioned by the U.S. Govt.

Bitcointalk.org holds significant importance as a forum within the bitcoin community, serving as a valuable space for discussions, insights, and collaboration. It's crucial to maintain a positive image and ensure that Bitcointalk is not labeled as a platform endorsing or promoting potentially illegal activities.

By proactively addressing concerns related to mixers, the forum aims to uphold its reputation as a responsible and compliant space for not only Bitcoin but cryptocurrency enthusiasts in general.

If I say theymos’s this decision plus stoping the advertisement reflects his commitment to fostering a constructive environment while respecting legal and ethical considerations within the broader crypto landscape.

Also I think this topic should be pinned for sometime in the meta section and also a linked to this topic should be added in mprep’s topic Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ

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.

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.

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.

Use Monero and/or DEX. Bitcoin was never superior in protecting your privacy compared to Monero.

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.

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..."

No, this is a great thing to happen.  Listen to Satoshi:


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.

Are you sure about that?

I have written proof about my claims.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.