Pages:
Author

Topic: The Paradox of Privacy and Decentralization: Banning Mixers on Bitcointalk.org - page 2. (Read 681 times)

legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 2162
Community Response and Impact:
How has this decision been received by the broader cryptocurrency community? Does it affect the way we perceive and use Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies?


Bitcointalk is not Bitcoin. It's not like the Bitcoin software banned mixers. It is a sign though that Bitcoin ecosystem is changing and becoming more in-line with government demands. But Bitcoin ecosystem will always have many faces, and mixers or darknet markets will always be a part of it. They can't be separated because no one can stop Bitcoin transactions from happening.
legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
Quote
cough cough satoshi-dice cough cough
This is strange. You don't support Ordinals, but you support Satoshi Dice? Why? One kind of spam is acceptable, and another kind of spam is not? Because yes, if your model pushes more data on-chain, instead of pushing less, then it can be considered as a spam.

ordinals are large junk meme transactions
spam (including privacy spam) can be charged independently at a higher rate
for instance a fee formulae where utxo that moves with less then X confirms pays more

my tickly throat was not to say more spam is better. it was actually that services need to act smarter with what they advertise

The real solution is to make transactions smaller, not bigger, and to make less of them, not more, while preserving coin flow. Which means, if you have Alice->Bob->Charlie, then making Alice->Charlie transaction is better, because then Bob can gain more privacy, if he needs that. However, expanding it into Alice->Dice->Bob->Dice->Charlie is not going to help anyone, it will just raise the fees for everyone (unless you introduce difficulty-like adjusted maximum block size, but then what would stop mining pools from abusing that, to store their Ordinals, or even to push altcoins on-chain, wrapped into bitcoin UTXOs?).

also things are not alice->bob->charlie in real life
EG
alice buys something from bobs shop
bob pays his employee charlie..

in the real world its not upto alice to pay charlie. alice should not be organising how much charlie gets paid, or ensuring charlie gets paid when bob sells an item, nor completely avoiding bob and just handing funds to charlie

as for mixers
its not
alice->mixer->bob

its actually
alice->mixer reserveZ
dave->mixer reserveZ
fred->mixer reserveZ

mixer reserveG-> fred
mixer reserveS ->bob
mixer reserveK-> dave(or back to alice new unused address)

yes the mixer should pay higher fee and there should also be some other mixer->mixer in the middle incurring more fee's
but they should pay more fee by spamming every block with low confirm age, for the privilege of priority
where only those with low confirms re-spending so fast should pay more then base fee.. whereby others with confirm age over 1 day get to pay flat rate base fee
sr. member
Activity: 980
Merit: 237
The decision to ban mixrs is caused by the laundering activities that has been a way criminals and terrorists make untracked payments and sponsor terror as I learnt, hence the reason why the government is bent on putting a limit to the decentralized network by banning privacy tools that are undetectable.

Still, one clear fact they ignore is that the concept of money has evolved pass even the decentralized network, wherebeit transactions can also be completed by using precious metals and possessions of high value.

Apart from the fact too that forum members who campaign for this mixng platforms would be this left without a campaign or displace those low ranking members currently in different campaigns, the impact would create better opportunities to earn still from BTC and would strengthen its poise in the being decentralized, no matter how it's regulated by any SEC.
hero member
Activity: 2478
Merit: 695
SecureShift.io | Crypto-Exchange
Other than a handful of members, I don't think the majority of this forum members patronize the different mixer platforms that are being promoted here daily. Hence banning them should not have any great impact on the community or the forum in general but refusing to comply with the government authorities' request will be the major problem.
I think the administration of this forum made the right call, this prevents unsolicited attention away from the forum by any means necessary. The authorities are ruthless when it comes to policy violations and have a way of punishing the offenders.

Satoshi is all about privacy which to some extent this forum is and decentralisation which this place is not but would he/them have welcomed the idea of mixers platform knowing what they are used for, i doubt it very much. Privacy and decentralisation are accompanied by transparency which can not be said with mixers. Thankfully there are privacy coins in the market for users who need the mixer service. This is not an issue imo.
legendary
Activity: 2814
Merit: 1192
Most of the services came under the radar of regulatory bodies that found illegal activities underway.

Here's a thing to consider. What if this or that nation delegalizes something? Does it make it wrong? Should an international forum try to appease every single jurisdiction around the world?
Where's the line that when crossed it becomes too much for the forum to handle?

We allow people to trade bitcoin here, because it's a bitcoin forum, so why not allow them to mix? If the only reason for that is that it's illegal in some countries, then how many countries have to consider it illegal for the forum to take action? I doubt that mixing is illegal in El Salvador.
member
Activity: 77
Merit: 89
Quote
cough cough satoshi-dice cough cough
This is strange. You don't support Ordinals, but you support Satoshi Dice? Why? One kind of spam is acceptable, and another kind of spam is not? Because yes, if your model pushes more data on-chain, instead of pushing less, then it can be considered as a spam.

The real solution is to make transactions smaller, not bigger, and to make less of them, not more, while preserving coin flow. Which means, if you have Alice->Bob->Charlie, then making Alice->Charlie transaction is better, because then Bob can gain more privacy, if he needs that. However, expanding it into Alice->Dice->Bob->Dice->Charlie is not going to help anyone, it will just raise the fees for everyone (unless you introduce difficulty-like adjusted maximum block size, but then what would stop mining pools from abusing that, to store their Ordinals, or even to push altcoins on-chain, wrapped into bitcoin UTXOs?).
hero member
Activity: 2114
Merit: 603
I think Satoshi Nakomoto would just consider this as good approach. The mixers are getting banned because of valid reason. Forum does allow own hearts towards technology that is supportive and meant for Bitcoin escalation. However, peeps are not using it for the way it is meant. Most of the services came under the radar of regulatory bodies that found illegal activities underway. Now I think we don’t need to explain in detail what these are and for what they are being used but prime result was money laundering. I’m sure theymos has taken serious action against these services considering any of them could be involved with such activity. Now we do not want forum quality drop or get serious flags just because our forum is allowing them to advertise. That’s what Satoshi might have thought.
legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794

The problem I see with this is that it is just one more step in saying goodbye to privacy in Bitcoin. Mixers have been banned here because it won't be long before there will be regulations expressly prohibiting them. I said it some time ago: services that serve to obfuscate the origin of funds cannot have much future.

The casinos that have been so important in the history of Bitcoin and Bitcointalk will have to end up operating like fiat casinos, with everyone perfectly identified from the beginning among other things.

We are on a seemingly unstoppable path of loss of privacy in general, and Bitcoin is not going to be an exception.


It won't be that. I believe it will be wallet apps that will start having features that will "warn" users that they are about to receive a "tainted" input. As more users become "taint-aware", the moment they receive a "tainted" input, it's going to be a game of hot-potato.

- Users would sell those "tainted" coins as soon as possible, making the price of "tainted" Bitcoins lower than "clean" Bitcoins.


b. invent a new service that does not even mention privacy/cleaning, mixing.. and is more creative with how it takes in deposits and withdraws .. cough cough satoshi-dice cough cough


Isn't there an upgrade that would make transactions for opening Lightning channels indistinguishable from normal transactions?

you dont need a bitcoin upgrade. you just need to think smarter, lightning can do some changes and fix their flaws, even flaws in regard to how recognisable a channel lock format is
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1018
Not your keys, not your coins!
The decision to ban mixers is not the creation of the bitcointalk community
After 14 years, you still talk about the creation of Bitcointalk community?

Welcome to a new Bitcoin forum is a start of Bitcointalk community creation and it was in 2009.

Now if you talk about the community, it is about its current and future, not its creation.

Bitcointalk, a place of decentralized ideologies, has banned the use of mixers starting Jan 1 2024.
It is not a decentralized forum and not for decentralized ideologies.

What is the Bitcointalk's purpose?

Welcome message
The purpose of the forum

This forum exists to provide a platform for the free (but ordered) exchange of ideas. If you have an idea to express, then it is probably possible to do it here as long as you follow the rules.

A lot of people come here primarily looking to make money. The forum administration is very happy that people are able to use the forum in order to better themselves; indeed, one of the reasons for Bitcoin's creation was to break the artificial barriers which prevent so many people around the world from attaining prosperity. However, if your attempts to make money conflict with the forum's primary goal of enabling discussion, then you are swimming upstream, and you will not be sucessful in the end.

If you view the forum as some sort of "job" where you complete some basic tasks and get paid, then you will almost certainly be disappointed, and the forum administration will not be sympathetic. If you do make money using the forum, then it will be through innovation and entrepreneurship, not any sort of mindless busywork.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823

The problem I see with this is that it is just one more step in saying goodbye to privacy in Bitcoin. Mixers have been banned here because it won't be long before there will be regulations expressly prohibiting them. I said it some time ago: services that serve to obfuscate the origin of funds cannot have much future.

The casinos that have been so important in the history of Bitcoin and Bitcointalk will have to end up operating like fiat casinos, with everyone perfectly identified from the beginning among other things.

We are on a seemingly unstoppable path of loss of privacy in general, and Bitcoin is not going to be an exception.


It won't be that. I believe it will be wallet apps that will start having features that will "warn" users that they are about to receive a "tainted" input. As more users become "taint-aware", the moment they receive a "tainted" input, it's going to be a game of hot-potato.

- Users would sell those "tainted" coins as soon as possible, making the price of "tainted" Bitcoins lower than "clean" Bitcoins.


b. invent a new service that does not even mention privacy/cleaning, mixing.. and is more creative with how it takes in deposits and withdraws .. cough cough satoshi-dice cough cough


Isn't there an upgrade that would make transactions for opening Lightning channels indistinguishable from normal transactions?
legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
The problem I see with this is that it is just one more step in saying goodbye to privacy in Bitcoin. Mixers have been banned here because it won't be long before there will be regulations expressly prohibiting them. I said it some time ago: services that serve to obfuscate the origin of funds cannot have much future.

The casinos that have been so important in the history of Bitcoin and Bitcointalk will have to end up operating like fiat casinos, with everyone perfectly identified from the beginning among other things.

We are on a seemingly unstoppable path of loss of privacy in general, and Bitcoin is not going to be an exception.

thats where things need to be more creative

before bitcoin was a currency. satoshi-dice worked great because it was not gambling currency. and though people used it as a mixer it never advertised itself as such

now that bitcoin is defined as a currency asset, people need to read the regulations and find the exceptions
new methods can be made where it doesnt involve a "service provider" (VASP)
if people cared more about privacy instead of middlemen service provider income, they can find ways.. only problem is the so called privacy guys care more about promoting/offering a service for a fee.. so they end up shooting themselves in the foot by accepting a payment/commission for offering a service

bitcoin isnt the problem. centralised services (vasps and MSB) are
everyone knows governments cant attack the network, they get court orders on service providers
sr. member
Activity: 532
Merit: 250
We are on a seemingly unstoppable path of loss of privacy in general, and Bitcoin is not going to be an exception.

If this happens, that will be a huge blow to the bitcoin community. We don’t anticipate for that to happen even as this signs are showing that we may witness that in the future. For the future of bitcoin, measures have to be taken to combat the effect and anything that will destroy or annul the existence of bitcoin in the future. The decentralization and complete privacy is what we have been anticipating for and I hope it continues to remain so without the government having a control of it or anything that will drive away the interest of the public from adopting it more.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 2017
The problem I see with this is that it is just one more step in saying goodbye to privacy in Bitcoin. Mixers have been banned here because it won't be long before there will be regulations expressly prohibiting them. I said it some time ago: services that serve to obfuscate the origin of funds cannot have much future.

The casinos that have been so important in the history of Bitcoin and Bitcointalk will have to end up operating like fiat casinos, with everyone perfectly identified from the beginning among other things.

We are on a seemingly unstoppable path of loss of privacy in general, and Bitcoin is not going to be an exception.



legendary
Activity: 1792
Merit: 1296
Playbet.io - Crypto Casino and Sportsbook
The Ideological Conflict:
At its heart, Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. Mixers, which enhance transaction privacy, seem like a natural ally to this cause. Yet, their banning on a platform dedicated to decentralization is contradictory. Does this signify a shift in the community's values, or is it a necessary compromise?
The world is in a constant state of change and the same is happening with the BTC-community. This is an inevitable phenomenon. Those who don't change and adapt to change will gradually die out. The forum is also trying to adapt to changing external conditions. Progress is impossible without change.

Legal and Ethical Considerations
The rationale behind banning mixers often revolves around legal compliance and preventing illicit activities. While these are valid concerns, do they justify stepping away from the principles of privacy and decentralization?
This is an attempt at compromise so that the forum can continue to exist and a step ahead of the opponent.

Community Response and Impact:
How has this decision been received by the broader cryptocurrency community? Does it affect the way we perceive and use Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies?
BTC-community includes many people, sometimes with radically different points of view. Accordingly, no matter what decision the forum leadership makes, there will always be dissatisfied people.

Speculating on Satoshi Nakamoto’s Perspective:
If Satoshi Nakamoto were to witness this, what would their reaction be? Would they advocate for absolute adherence to privacy and decentralization, or acknowledge the need for some regulatory measures?
What kind of reasoning can there be about Satoshi Nakamoto’s point of view if he is not here and the probability of his appearing here is zero? This point can be safely ignored and not even discussed.

The Future of Decentralization and Privacy in Cryptocurrencies:
Looking forward, how do we balance the ideals of privacy and decentralization with the practicalities of regulation and legal compliance? What developments might we anticipate in this domain?
The future of Decentralization and Privacy is in great doubt. Only negative changes should be expected for crypto users. Why did you want the regulators to so easily allow money flows to be drawn to them, bypassing them? Conflicts of interest are inevitable.
hero member
Activity: 3206
Merit: 940
Quote
The Ideological Conflict:
At its heart, Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. Mixers, which enhance transaction privacy, seem like a natural ally to this cause. Yet, their banning on a platform dedicated to decentralization is contradictory. Does this signify a shift in the community's values, or is it a necessary compromise?

Why do you think that decentralization and privacy are connected? Bitcoin is decentralized and transparent. Transparency isn't something bad.
If you really want privacy, just use altcoins like Monero. I don't remember anyone saying that it is mandatory for Bitcoin to become 100% private.
BTC mixers will be banned from Bitcointalk, but that doesn't mean that they are banned from the entire crypto community. Theymos just doesn't want problems with the authorities for promoting mixers, that are involved in illegal activities. Even after Jan. 1 2024, you could find BTC mixers on the darkweb(or somewhere else) and use them(at your own risk).
Just like other forum members have mentioned:
1.BTC mixers are centralized, so you are kinda contradicting to yourself, by saying that mixers are crucial for privacy and decentralization.
2.Somebody using a BTC mixer clearly has something to hide, which always has been suspicious.
If you aren't doing something illegal with Bitcoins, then why would you need a BTC mixer in the first place?
sr. member
Activity: 728
Merit: 388
DGbet.fun - Crypto Sportsbook
Bitcoin is decentralized not the Bitcointalk forum, even if you don't have an account registered on this forum you can still read posts and topics, there is no form of Tor security that can keep posts and replies and others hidden so this forum is far from decentralization.

The idea of getting rid of mixers on this forum isn't generally a bad thing, I have been expecting such thing for years after I read about an Asian guy who have account on this forum that was able to steal and move around some money one way or the other, I can't remember much of the story but the news have Bitcointalk mentioned with his profile name.

I thought to myself that this forum can be on watch by the government, and this mixer of a thing can be the cause of it, so getting rid of it might not generally be bad for the future sake of this forum.
sr. member
Activity: 1708
Merit: 295
https://bitlist.co
Basically, we should still respect the decision of the forum moderators on this issue. But obviously, banning activity on the forum, in my opinion, will not reduce the fact that people will still choose to use mixers for their purposes.

But there is also a real disappointment here, when many service platforms have also contributed a lot to the introduction of bitcoin on the forum. I do not have many prejudices about this issue, but according to my observations, there is also a lot of opposition to banning its use. I also had a private conversation with friends about this issue, and most of them felt that the reason for the ban on the forum could bring better development to the forum.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1860
Irony is what we have in abundance here. If it doesn't shake us up that a Bitcoin forum allows shitcoins and even scam crypto projects not just to be discussed but even promoted, then why should it surprise us that it also avoids possible legal entanglements?

I'm not even sure if this forum is "a place of decentralized ideologies". I guess the huge majority of users here have accounts in various centralized Bitcoin-related platforms. How many users here have completely avoided submitting KYC, for example? How many users here have completely avoided custodial services?

However, to ban these mixers doesn't necessarily mean not supporting them and whatever it is they're made for. It's just that having them promoted here could mean having this platform shut down or even for the administrators or perhaps moderators to face a lawsuit. Will it be worth it?
full member
Activity: 2520
Merit: 214
Eloncoin.org - Mars, here we come!


 Bitcointalk, a place of decentralized ideologies, has banned the use of mixers starting Jan 1 2024. This decision presents a fascinating irony and raises several questions about the core values of Bitcoin and the broader crypto community.

The Ideological Conflict:
At its heart, Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. Mixers, which enhance transaction privacy, seem like a natural ally to this cause. Yet, their banning on a platform dedicated to decentralization is contradictory. Does this signify a shift in the community's values, or is it a necessary compromise?

i believe that we can still maintain anonymity without the use of mixers if we want btc to expand and be accepted by most, people needs to trust it


Quote
Legal and Ethical Considerations
The rationale behind banning mixers often revolves around legal compliance and preventing illicit activities. While these are valid concerns, do they justify stepping away from the principles of privacy and decentralization?
btc is still decentralized no one knows who are behind those addresses

Quote
Community Response and Impact:
How has this decision been received by the broader cryptocurrency community? Does it affect the way we perceive and use Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies?
those who were regular users of btc mixers might be against this but i think this is a step forward for the general public to be more accepting and less hesitant about btc itself
hero member
Activity: 1750
Merit: 589
I’m clearly divided in this situation, on one hand I know for a fact that banning mixers in the biggest crypto platforms on the planet’s going to be a major, if not audacious decision ok the moderator’s and staff’s part. But at the same time, I kinda understand the reason why.

Thing is, before mixers were a thing bitcoin is safe, secure, and while there are hackers here and there, it’s kind of manageable at a certain degree. When mixers entered the scene more prying eyes appeared out of nowhere, regulation became more pressing, and hackers/scammers found new and creative ways to get away with what we do.

Ultimately, despite these I don’t think condemning the methodology’s the way to successfully thwart threats, but since we got so little to work with, we might not really have a choice at this point, which is fucking sad.
Pages:
Jump to: