Topic: The absolute insanity Congress is writing now... - page 4. (Read 1486 times)

the thing you dont realise is.. bitcoin is a PUBLIC ledger, you have no right to privacy in PUBLIC
if you want privacy you have to create that privacy for yourself away from the PUBLIC
(this common sense notion applies to many things in the real world)

bitcoins whole security model is to be able to publicly audit every transactions provenance right the way back to its coin creation origins.. this provenance chain of custody of value that coins transfer to, from one address to the next is defined as having a taint of X based on certain things of its history
and a utxo's 'taint' is rated as a scale and can go from white(clean) gray(suspicious) dark(dirty)
taint is not a verbage to say its dirty by default.. as taint is not a yes/no thing.

the reason financial monitoring analyst services do actually analyse and tag utxos with a taint of x is because bitcoin became defined by law as currency around 2014-ish
which then caused financial jurisdictions of financial laws to then apply to bitcoin also
so the consequence of those lobbying for "mainstream recognition" ended up with the financial laws having jurisdiction

yes before 2014 bitcoin was defined as private property and there was not much financial analysts could legally do (could not demand services to disclose personal information on customers that used bitcoin)

but things have changed negatively in regards to how governments are involved in bitcoin and how they delegate money service businesses to monitor customers deposits and withdrawal history and share info between each other, by law.

if you dont want services monitoring your stash as much and you dont want them tagging your stash, you are probably better off avoiding using mixers that services get triggered by. and instead learn all the triggers(from source info or regulations, not bloggers emotional rants) and then avoid the triggers and then you can just hide in public amongst the masses of other transactions.. (vanish into the crowd)

in short. taint is a thing and its actually worth you knowing the triggers of what makes financial services tag certain utxo's with a taint rating, and how to lower your utxos rating to avoid services from noticing you and sharing information they have about you


its not just depth..
if you think it fizzles out after (random number) 10 child transaction depths, you also have to be aware that the depth only fizzles out if that depth is separated by X time

its the same as fiat. doing 1 payment of $9,900 a year doesnt trigger any reporting. so you can do it for 10 years(10 times) and it not be a big deal
however do it 10 times within x months.. and they will treat that 10 actions as one action of spending more then $10k over a period, and report it as such

so when hopping value over 100 addresses in a short period of time, even if its way more than 10 times within that short time. they treat it as one act of TUMBLING and tag the destination funds as same owner as the origin funds 100+ parent transactions ago

in short..
spamming the blockchain with address hopping. ends up being called tumbling which gets you highlighted as a red flag, and tagged as the funds 100+ tx ago being same owner as latest.. thus defeating the point of address hopping

Yep, pretty much. It's the sad reality.

Every privacy-oriented service is already in the striking zone. LocalBitcoins has started demanding KYC long time ago. LocalMonero has shut down, probably because it seemed too risky to continue operating after the recent events with attacks in privacy services.

---

It's absurd how frequently we introduce the concept of "taint" into discussions about privacy. Those who believe certain bitcoins are "tainted" have fallen victim to a narrative that only harms the space.

The thing you do not realize about this discussion is, we do not care at all about the concept of Taint and we are not using Atomic Swaps or other obfuscation methods to find a 'cleaner' Transaction history.  We want PRIVACY, not hiding from crime.  Do you still not understand this?

I do not Atomic Swap Bitcoin to Monero and back to take a crime off my name.  I do NOT care about the history my Coins have, unless they can be linked to my identity.  Concept of Taint does not exist in my eyes.  I have a long history of Bisq Transactions and I have not looked up even ONCE to see whose Bitcoin I received.  I have no idea whose Bitcoin I currently own and it would be stupid to look that up.  Being paranoid of the history of your Bitcoin possibly having a history of related to illegal activity is equal to being just as paranoid about receiving Cash bank notes from the Cash registry of a shop.  Who knows?  The notes you are receiving could be part of the payment for a hit.  Are you burning bank notes out of this fear?

I am choosing to not re use Addresses so fewer people can link the Bitcoin I have to my identity.  I am choosing to obfuscate my history so fewer people can link the Bitcoin I have to my identity.  I do not care about having a 'clean' history, but to make it much harder for any body to know which is my main stash of Bitcoin, what I am paying for on a daily basis, which Addresses belong to my person.

If you want to support the ridiculous concept of Taint and care so much about every single thing being under control then you are better off using Banks.  Or support Craig Wright who says the vision of Satoshi was to make Bitcoin a 'clean' Currency that morphs accordingly to the laws.  Bitcoin was not created for that, there are better alternatives if that is your ideal.

But you will likely only choose to ignore every thing I said anyway and you will continue thinking and saying we are using obfuscation methods to hide crime and to clean up our such dirty Transaction history.  So I have no idea why I am even bothering to answer any more really, it feels like I am talking to a wall.

I don't think they'll get Bitcoin from their "customers", but I can imagine they use their cash to buy Bitcon P2P. I have no idea how often it happens, but it's always on my mind when someone wants to spend a large amount of cash to buy Bitcoin. Or they could be scammers.

First of all, a drug dealer who is using BTC is a stupid drug dealer.

Second, you actually don't have to worry about receiving tainted BTC if you use atomic swaps in conjunction with mixers (or even better, if the mixer did this itself). Chain analysis fizzles out after a certain depth in the transaction chain so the only tags you will have to deal with are the ones related to mixing.

yep
most mixing is dirty coin mixed to other dirty coin.. this is why the scammers/fraudsters/hackers and just plain scum of the world keep trying desperately to try to get innocent people into thinking that innocent people need to use mixers too.. how else will the scum get clean coins if no clean coin users give away their clean coin...
the whole point of idiots scaring innocent people into thinking they NEED mixing too is to make innocent people give up their clean coin.
those intensely promoting mixing NEED dont care about the repercussions on the innocent people who give up clean coin for dirty coin. as long as the scum get the clean coin they dont care about the other person


fresh minted coins have no taint at all. think about it, work it out. find ways to sell/spend/'treat as fee' your tainted coins to get fresh coin.
and no i dont NEED to use that process, its just one of many i mention that have in recent years become publicly known thus no longer a secret way to do it even though it was a way to do things more when it was a secret previously
(in coming years it will be lesser used because governments are infringing on miners jurisdiction, trying to get miners to register their PoW power and rewards amount thus narrowing down the amounts that dont fit the model, to short list those doing the deals)


bitcoin never was fungible. thats the point. if it was fungible then the promoters of mixers would not be demanding swap services.. they know its not fungible in their heart even when they make posts saying bitcoin is fungible.. again if bitcoin was fungible they would not need to swap coins.. so by them demanding everyone should swap coin for mixing and such. they are admitting coins are not fungible

everyone knows satoshis stash if moved will cause market influence. everyone know that when you sell coin your reason for the sell has different tax implications.

when it comes to fungability though.. in any currency.. its not a yes/no thing its actually a scale.. and its these regulations and drafts of new defined uses of coins that show that different uses have different levels of fungability rating.

once you understand bitcoins are monitored on a SCALE of suspicion on a SCALE of fungible on a scale of x,w,z then you can start to learn how to get those numbers down to not reach a threshold to be highlighted intensively by monitoring services, and slip under the radar


and as this topic (once clarified the actual congress involvement)
using mixers has a high suspicion rating,
using tumbling alone has a lesser suspicion rating
using a single use address has a less rating

but using singe use addresses+tumbling has the same suspicion rating number as mixing, hense they want to define it as the same as mixing

what ever happened with atomic swaps with monero. you could swap into monero and then swap back into bitcoin maybe? the thing people don't realize about stuff like that is, the bitcoin you end up with might have an even worse history than the bitcoin you wanted to get rid of to protect your "privacy". what happens if you end up with some drug dealer's bitcoin and the government then suspects you are selling drugs and getting paid in BTC?   people don't think about that they just think how badly they need to get rid of their current bitcoin...and you have to think about it, some people want to mix their bitcoin because it really is dirty so i'd say there is a certain chance you could end up with theirs.

i still don't quite follow franky. is that what you're doing?  

i think this whole thread is a good example of how bitcoin is not fungible. not enough!

sending coin to a CEX and withdraw from their other hotwallet is a way to swap coin taint. but it comes with services then monitoring and knowing what came in and out

using a CEX as a mixer was only good years ago before regulations..

there are many other methods to do it to get clean fresh coin with no taint. work it out, learn how bitcoin works to learn the simple way. and do it. hint (coin as fee in deal with pool to get fresh minted coin(its what the meme bloat scammers do))

satoshi sent funds to hal, then reused the same address half a dozen times more.... 15 years later no body has found satoshi

one way to mix your bitcoin is to send it somewhere like coinbase and then send it back to another address but you would probably have to change the amount maybe split it up into a few transactions maybe going to different addresses. people are not dumb. if you sent 0.245 btc to coinbase and then within an hour, the blockchain shows 0.244 btc going to some other address. even if the receiving and sending addresses are different, it doesn't take a genius to link those.

but that's mixing for dummies. or how to sell your bitcoin for dummies without anyone knowing who you are, as long as you trust coinbase not to publish your name to the blockchain next to your transactions.

mixing can come at a cost too. funny thing is, people using ethereum, they use the same address ("account") over and over and over. until the cows come home and yet somehow, privacy doesn't seem to be anything they worry about. i dont know why. maybe it's two different mindsets.

north korea according to western social media? or personal experience?


funny part is you want to talk all about self sovereignty and anti-gov stuff but then you NEED government to write laws..

how about realise if you want self sovereignty. you should use your own brain.. rather than need someone else to defend you or coordinate processes for you
(hint we dont NEED core to govern us, although many have settled for letting core control bitcoin)

like i said in other posts i dont need mixers for me to remain "private" i know how bitcoin works and how to avoid tagging my data to bitcoin or vice versa

when people think they NEED others to do things to defend you or NEED governments to write "privacy for dummies" laws and have cops defend peoples "rights" its so that people then dont have to bother controlling themselves and instead the lazy people then reveal their info and the cry "nasty man used my data i need to cry and i need to call someone to defend me"

just simply defend yourself and do things for yourself like learn how the world works and know how to act and engage/disengage with the world around you for your own benefit

i personally do research on governments and bitcoin and many topics. not to side with any group or be pro government or pr tax.. its actually the opposite.. its to know governments wont disappear so instead of crying they exist, its better to just know how to operate in the real world to then know how to work around them for my benefit

as a side note
these days i see many people want core to govern bitcoin even when core do things that dont benefit bitcoiners.. and thats why its better to learn what these governors of different regimes are upto specifically(not the click bait misrepresentation) and learn how to counter them work around them or against them..
yes call them out on their bullshit and try to get them to change. but not rely on them as your parent/guardian
anyone sucking up and saying they need other peoples permission are missing the whole point

in short
you dont need a mixer or a tumbler.. and infact using a mixer or a tumbler is exactly what will get you noticed more when your intention is to hide
.. think about it

and yep those advocating to add a mixer and tumbler into cores software code is going to cause more problems for users and more jurisdictional invasion by government.. 

To me it seems EUSSR is slowly turning into a totalitarian regime that wants to monitor everything (check DAC7 and DAC8).

Marketplaces like LocalBitcoins/LocalMonero could be outlawed in this dystopian future.

It's very consistent with this agenda.

Wanna know what's the difference compared to USSR/Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany? These regimes didn't have high-tech equipment to monitor everyone effortlessly.

If only Stalin/Hitler had microchips and cheap fiber/wireless communication... and AI of course.

Bonus links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act
https://x.com/RealPatrickWebb/status/1797404225703477542

---

I'm just kindly asking everyone in this thread to pause and realize that oppressive regimes have been the status quo for humanity since the beginning. From the Roman Empire and the Persians to the Qing Dynasty of China and the Russian tsars, hundreds of years before Jesus was born up until a century ago, a few totalitarian motherfuckers oppressed the populace and treated them as animals. And if that isn't shitty enough, it took the horrors of massive genocides resulting from the World Wars to start ... "laying the path" toward freedom.

It's only recently in humanity's calendar that ordinary people have begun to enjoy even a small measure of freedom. And now, there come these gimps who say people don't need privacy, the prerequisite for freedom. What a sham. Your descendants would feel sorry.

Freedom isn't free. It isn't a "natural default" like oxygen, and it certainly shouldn't be taken for granted.

Exactly what I was going to write after reading what Franky said.

Every body suspects us for wanting Privacy because every thing is seemingly so prosperous, good and well in their lives.  This is only until the worst comes and takes you entirely unprepared.  Bad regimes existed before, even in countries that were going great.  It just happens unfortunately, and you never know if your country is next.

I remember back when Taliban took control what happened and I would not want me, my family, you, Franky or ANY of us to be in that position.  The Taliban were reportedly on a man hunt and what they were using was the Facebook profiles of Afghan citizens.  You did not support Taliban?  Expect them at your door at any given time.  I did not stick to the story to know how that unfolded and hopefully those people are safe.  But how does that sound, Franky?

From a BBC article, this is what Facebook had to say,
Source https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58277175

Now tell me Franky.  Why would I do this to myself?  Why would I want to be in this position?  I rather have no Social Media and I rather have my Government not know how I am using my Bitcoin.  Our names could be on a target list of a bad regime in the making and I do not want to be found if they make it.  To Taliban the target was the opposing citizens.  For this one it could be particularly Bitcoin users like me.

And yet again, this is so ridiculous and weird.  I have to explain why I want no body to know what I am using my Bitcoin for.  What the hell is so suspicious about it?

I never wanted any body to know what I am using Fiat for, and I never touched a gram of illegal substances, I never took the life out of some body, I never became a Terrorist, I never Laundered Money!

Try doing that when your government is North Korea. That is what human rights are about. It's easy to say you don't need it, as long as you have it. Until it's gone, and it's too late to realize you no longer have that freedom.

I don't need laws for the obvious in life, but there's a law about privacy, and you said there isn't.

you quote a article of international law that does not mention finances.....
and then you say you dont need laws, yet you just quoted a law

Embarrassing would be the last adjective I'd use, but so be it, if you want. You want privacy, because it's none of our business what you're doing with your money. Same goes for "honest people" who mix their coins.

Or... You know, obfuscate your Bitcoin activity. That's "something to protect yourself".

Article 12 from Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
So, here's my truth: I don't need laws to protect my privacy. I can simply practice it myself.

"human rights" are LAWS made by other people..
i dont NEED other people to write laws to tell me i have the right to silence.. i can simple not speak
i dont NEED other people to write laws to tell me i have the right/freedom of movement.. i can simply move
i dont NEED other people to write laws to tell me i have the right/freedom speak.. i can simply speak

people WANT things to make their lives easier. but its not a need its a want

if you want to speak.. then just speak.. you dont need someone else to give you permission

..
oh one last thing
financial privacy has never been a human right,, centuries of evidence proves it

when bitcoin is a public ledger you should understand that its public and then personally do something yourself to protect yourself, such as YOU not revealing yourself.. yep YOU defending and protecting yourself and controlling your own actions and assets is the ultimate definition of self sovereignty.. if you need others to write laws to give you permission .. then you become controlled by that entity that wrote that
and you can only then use that permission AFTER THE FACT by fighting infringements in court after the fact

how about learn that instead of you needing some law maker to give you permission to privacy so you can then use that law in a court after an event.. to instead learn you are in control of your own actions and you can prevent issues.. rather than letting things happen and cry how you have been infringed after the fact 'coz a law is needed to defend me'

i personally dont need laws, rights or constitutions. as you know for many years i speak my mind and dont care who gets offended by the truth..
i dont cry that its my "right to speak".. i just speak my mind

As much as I don't like certain laws, I'm not comfortable with (the potential consequences of) breaking them.

So you don't NEED a basic human right but you WANT it anyway? What's with the semantics?

Exactly!

Fix your quote, you're not responding to my post.

that would be kind of an invasion of my privacy and i'm not sure it would benefit me in anyway.


no it's just things i would rather not be talking about that's all.

i don't know. maybe its an incorrect assumption. i don't have full statistics, you know...i just assumed it.

that would be really embarrassing. if i had to do that. i think if i did that, i would feel smaller than an ant and then disappear off the forum.