Topic: The rise of the no KYC exchanger (Read 864 times)

I'd rephrase that to: There must be a limit on the number of law abiding citizens. If you pass crazy laws, expect previously law abiding citizens to become outlaws.

Unfortunately, they do. This is reality, because privacy comes with compromises you wouldn't rather have when you don't feel you need it. But, in my example, apart from the teacher themselves, nobody else has to know that you talked with them face-to-face. So, it can't stand out.

You misread my post. Let's try this: "nobody has to know I have nothing to hide" (I think this quote was part of a short cartoon, but I can't find it back). If you only encrypt the sensitive messages, that makes them stand out.

This comes to mind:

That is going to be hard to do in some wallets that always generate new receiving address.
Let me remind that how they already banned wallets in some countries, that is all they need to do to force you to use only government approved wallet.

There must be a limit and common sense with being a law abiding citizen.
Otherwise you will soon have to comply with Bitcoin ban, or ban to go outisde because you rpoduce so much dangerous co2...

This ban would greatly help monero adoption 

I don't think anybody should have outputs that are as large as 1 BTC, if they are going to bounce it around to different merchants. It could cause some trouble if the payment or deposit is rejected for some reason and then they ask for a source of funds for those large inputs that are included in the transaction.

I'd think that 0.1BTC is the largest you should try sending around, but of course the next price cycle will make that much lower.

In that case, neither the PGP solution satisfies your need, because PGP signals that the message is sensitive.

It does help greatly. What you want to hide is the transaction in this case, not who you are. Think of this: what would you feel more comfortable doing? Showing to the merchant that you have 1 BTC in change, or just showing them no change?

Same here. It's not only schools, doctors do the same. To me, it seems like they try to cover their asses saying they did everything they could for privacy. Just yesterday, I had someone "explain" to me it's really secure (), because you need to login to get to the data....

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 05, 2024, 04:46:35 AM

If the message you want to transmit is very sensitive, better go and talk face-to-face with the teacher.

That's not really the point: nobody has to know my messages are not sensitive

Quote

The only exception to this rule is when the merchant does not care about their privacy, but accepts payment in private cryptocurrencies.

If the merchant knows your shipping address, that doesn't really help.

You don't have lots to do in that particular case, apart from resorting to laws like GDPR in case the third party sells you out. If the message you want to transmit is very sensitive, better go and talk face-to-face with the teacher.

If one of the two parties which exchange messages does not care about their privacy, then there won't be any guaranteed privacy, whether we have strong encryption software or not. It all comes down to how much you value this virtue.

The only exception to this rule is when the merchant does not care about their privacy, but accepts payment in private cryptocurrencies.

That set-up makes no sense to me technically. But who am I to judge. Schools are using all sorts of wacky old-school (pun not intended) software that I've never heard of.

I guess the "secure third party with a 2FA code" is just another website where you can read the actual message after you log in or something?

But I've never heard of this sort of approach being used anywhere until now.

All true. But: how many people use it? I have to deal with schools, and instead of using PGP to send messages, they use a "secure" third party with a "2FA" code send to the same email address. They don't care that said third party can access everything, because the third party told them it's secure when they sold it to them.
This, unfortunately, sums up how almost all privacy matters are dealt with in reality.
I can't help but think government loves this approach. Instead of using actual P2P communication with client-side encryption/decryption, the encryption only happens on the front end.

"If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy."-- Philip Zimmermann

When a government passes a law, they need to understand the implications. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you're pushing a law, or program, expect something to pop out in the other corner. Outlawing privacy will simply result in more outlaws. And in fact, I'd claim that outlawing privacy will incentivize conscious people to dive deeper into protecting their privacy. (Conscious, because truth-seeking individuals are the greatest threat to the government, and often, need privacy.)

Before strong encryption, people had to place trust on administrators to protect their passwords and private messages. These admins could be threatened to hand over everything to the government. Then, strong encryption became available to the masses, and raised the middle finger. Fast forward to the 21st century, and we have anonymous browsing to the Internet and currencies based on cryptographic proofs.

So, I say, let the bureaus kick the hornet's nest. We can code faster than they can regulate.

That's easy to fix: "All citizens are required to report all Bitcoin addresses under their control to government". The result will be no more privacy for law abiding citizens, while criminals don't care.

They can't ban mixing without banning Monero.

So you could just buy XMR with BTC --> send it to another exchange --> sell it for BTC.

Since they can't trade Monero then they won't know who was mixing coins or that any mixing had even taken place by design.

And the fact that most exchanges have already de-listed Monero, and you have a situation where the government has no way of telling who is mixing coins unless they go door-to-door.

That's going to be difficult to implement, every transaction "mixes" a bit. Unless they come up with the great plan of allowing only one registered Bitcoin address per person, which has huge privacy and security concerns.
Many things are illegal already, and most people just avoid doing them. I don't want to break the law. Not because I necessarily agree with all laws we have, but I don't like the risk involved of doing so.
Let's say mixing is illegal in your country, and you really, really want to mix coins. You can either break the law, or leave the country.

Isn't illegal YET, but with all the crazy new rule and regulations they can make anything illegal soon.
If they can start arresting people for posting something on twitter and social media than they can do much worse things.
Last I heard is that even accessing twitter in Brazil is now illegal activity...

With very loose/wide definition, you might as well as include all services which let you deposit and later withdraw using different UTXO. That would include all kinds of custodial services.

From the forum's perspective, I think this doesn't matter. "Mixing" isn't the problem, advertising mixers is what's banned. And theymos only created a definition of a mixer, he didn't define "mixing" itself.

In real life, I wouldn't call it mixing if you exchange money for a parking meter. But if you exchange a suitcase filled with money for another suitcase filled with money, most people will agree that's suspicious.

Is it beyond the definition of trade if I'm giving you my BTC in exchange for your BTC? Does it have to be ETH or LTC or some other coin for the exchange to fall within the bounds of trade?

What if the exchange is done solely for the sake of erasing the origin of coins? Is the intention enough to consider the transaction merely mixing?

Or what if a non-KYC exchange or a swap platform adds a feature in which a user can choose a similar coin for both send and receive? What does that make of the exchange or swap platform?

You'll have to go back one more step, to see who you're trying to hide from. KYC exchanges won't make you hide your trace from government, which is the part governments don't like. "Mixing" by itself isn't illegal. So if you're not doing anything illegal, and you like to run your Bitcoins through KYC exchanges, you're free to do so.

Yes.

Yep. They're, indirectly, mixers. They are not mixers according to theymos' definition, however, as they do not advertise themselves as mixers. You can call nearly everything a mixer, as "allowing to mix coins" is vague. Coinjoin allows you to mix coins, therefore Wasabi is a mixer, under this definition. What allows you to send coins to Wasabi? Every other wallet out there. So every wallet software can be potentially used to mix coins.

Non-KYC exchanges are often targeted by the feds. (Everything out of the feds' control is often targeted by them.)

It seems like mental gymnastics to me if we don't see that as a form of mixing.
What's the purpose of mixing coins? Let's go back to the basics.
To remove their trace from your identity and receive the same currency.

Well, doing a double step trade on an exchanger is fulfilling this goal. It's just a couple extra clicks.
So it's a fact that exchangers can be used for mixing.
It's also a fact that part of their transactions must be mixing.
The extent of this is up to question but we'll know how significant the authorities considered the impact of exchangers depending on how long it takes for them to be shut down.

As you say yourself, it is about two trades and it has nothing to do with mixing. You can do a similar thing with KYC exchanges, but the process is a bit more complicated.
I want to say that any identification of no-kyc exchanges with mixers is wrong. Although we have seen some more twisted interpretations, so anything is possible.

True. No-KYC exchanges can provide an option for those seeking more privacy in crypto transactions.  The reality is that  the boundaries between exchanges and mixers are not always clear and  some exchanges offer features like atomic swaps or privacy coins that can obscure the source of funds.  So, while a no-KYC exchange might not be a traditional mixer, it can still provide a degree of privacy.

However, I don't think that's the point here. The admin's decision to ban all crypto mixer advertising came after the government's intensive crackdowns and bans. I guess because of that decision, he doesn't have to deal with it on a case-by-case basis. Whether a similar situation will happen with No-KYC crypto exchanges (or any other services), we just have to wait and see. So far, this is not the case.

I've used Centralized no KYC exchanges for several years now.  I like using them because they're simple, quick and impartial.  No login, no account, no password.  Never used them for deceit or crime.

I know who the devs of some of them are (maybe not personally, but I know of them and their reputations) so I'm not worried about losing my coins but I don't swap huge amounts (God forbid I ever did lose my coins).

I've never swapped for the same coin.

Been using Sideshift.ai since 2019

There are many centralized services that can be used to obfuscate the origins of your funds. You can deposit BTC in a casino and you will receive a completely unrelated UTXO when you make a withdrawal. Just because something can be abused a certain way does not make them a mixer. Most instant exchanges do actually have some sort of AML or KYC policy that discourage illicit use.

Some exchanges don’t discriminate users based on transaction history and will accept coins from anybody, including criminals, this does not change the fact that the primary usage of instant exchanges is overwhelmingly legitimate. As long as there are people willing to use altcoins for speculating, spending, staking, earning yield on other chains, or farming airdrops these exchanges will continue to exist and provide a useful service.

I don't mind this definition but this is just a measure Bitcointalk took and it's not an effective KYC/AML measure.
If I go on an exchanger and start two trades, one entering BTC<->XYZ and the second as XYZ<->BTC then I complete a BTC to BTC passthrough effectively without falling under the category of "mixer" based on the above definition.

Recently, a definition appeared, if the exchanger does not have a swap option where the user will send BTC and receive BTC in return, it cannot be considered a mixer. Everything else is an exchange from one currency to another.


We need to stop measuring projects by their signature rates on the forum as soon as possible. This is just one of the marketing channels, I guess because it is easy to determine how much money someone spent on the campaign, a good part of the forum members look at the project only through the signature campaign.

FWIW, coin from different kind of exchange is treated differently. Here's a snipped example from AMLBot (i don't endorse this website),


So your theory doesn't sound plausible for me.

Well, I think it's a little different from an exchange mixer.

In a mixer, transactions are shuffled between thousands of movements, making it difficult to track the path of the coins, leaving it unclear who owns each coin.

On an exchange, the movement is already linear, even when exchanging crypto. For example, if someone uses an exchange without KYC to exchange BTC for ETH, it will be possible to continue to "follow" the user, since it is known that userX entered with BTC and left with ETH. Unlike an exchange with KYC, someone knows that userX is King Charles. On an exchange without KYC, we still don't know who userX is.

The thing here is, so long as your name is not attached to a transaction, it's hard to track.
BTC mixers also operated much like centralized clearing houses. It was obvious to third parties seeing the transactions to associate your coins with the mixer. So in a way, these coins were even more "tainted" than having to pass through an exchange.

If you use an exchanger to pass your coins through an exchanger, the pot they get mixed in is actually even bigger and much if not the majority of this money is from "clean" transactions so it's hard to be labeled as "tainted".

And to clarify, given that exchangers don't collect any user's identifying information, with some even operating via TOR, nobody cares if the underlying infrastructure utilizes Binance. With the right use of APIs and fresh addresses the exchanger can make it seem like the coins came straight through the exchange, but because of the exchanger the only name attached to these transactions will be the KYC'd account of the business owner. So if the authorities crack down on such service, they'd see hundreds of thousands of transactions with the name of one party, going to hundreds of thousands of different addresses. By all accounts, this acts like a mixer because it negates KYC/AML measures and makes transactions much harder to track from point of entry to point of exit from the exchanger.

Think about it, not it's not just BTC inputs and BTC outputs. It's coin x to coin y and potentially even from chan z to chain u... So going through any metadata to decipher the flow of funds become even more complicated unless they seize the data of the exchanger. Depending on implementation also, some exchanger transactions might also be completed without any transactions on the exchange, by utilizing own balances. Of course this is a matter of trust and an exchanger utilizing nothing else than the API of a centralized exchange would be easier to track. And given how opaque these services are it's hard to know what each one is doing.

I wanted to add with an edit of something I stumbled upon just after I clicked away from this thread: through this mixer review you will see that most of today's functioning BTC mixers will themselves shove out exchange coins which are considered "clean" among the crown that feels the need to use mixers. So the no-KYC exchanger is a very likely replacement for a mixing, especially given if mixers do the exact same.

On the Bitcoin-side, I agree. But on the fiat-side, where banks are involved, transactions with registered exchanges raise less questions than transactions with complete strangers anywhere in the world.

The alternative would be cash, which also raises questions for large purchases. And involves other risks.
I don't like it, but as long as Bitcoin isn't accepted when I buy a car, I have to go through banks and other centralized exchanges.

I have used plenty defi dapps, and not for once have been asked for kyc. It'd be better if you were to list names of dapps you used.

Thing with defi is, smart contracts are public, even if frontend were to compromised, or it were to be taken down, you can interact with smart contacts directly and withdraw your funds. I have done this twice myself.

If you are using something than you are supporting it.
Everyone who is constantly using and promoting KYC exchanges is effectively shooting themselves in the foot, while thinking they will be ''safer'' in future.
There are plenty of good non-kyc options available but I won't force anyone to use them.
  
They have this data 100% since all this chain analysis companies are in fact government agencies, especially after they arrest exchange owners and put them in jail like they did with CZ.
Maybe before there was mandatory KYC on exchanges some things could remain hidden, but with KYC all personal information is now permanently connected with bitcoin address history.

If you search "binance risk control" on Google, you will see some rant that their account got suspended either after deposit or withdraw request. I expect many centralized exchange have similar practice. So your idea wouldn't work, since i expect account belong to non-KYC exchange would get suspended few times before it's suspended permanently.


FWIW, some mixer these days claim they provide "clean" coin or coin which doesn't trigger exchange risk control.

Mods generally don't do anything by themselves, but someone made a report that one of the mods agreed with - which means that the topic was moved here with the action of at least two forum members.

---

I would bet that in addition to all those billions, CZ also gave a lot more to the US government, and that's why he only got 4 months in prison (if it can even be called that) considering the type of prison in which he is serving his sentence.


Source

You're still going with the mixer narrative, but you're wrong. Binance keeps track of every transaction anyone ever made, and so do most other exchanges. They're a lot like banks when it comes to keeping transaction records. The same goes for casinos.
If you're trying to hide your payment from your wife, then depositing and withdrawing to an exchange works very well. If you're trying to hide it from a government, they'll probably find it if they start looking. And if they automate everything and check everything, they'll find everything. Now that I think about it: I'd be surprised if chain analysis companies don't have access to this data already.

Frankly I don't mind that much about it to start another thread or move this one again. Mods gonna mod.


A non-KYC exchanger that uses third party exchanges to process transactions could very well be a good alternative to a mixer.
If executed well, it can be very hard to detect the transaction has gone through the exchanger service. Now for instance binance.com allows users to create new deposit addresses for each deposit, and I assume this can also be done via API. So not only is Binance supporting these services, it's even enabling them. So long as big exchanges tolerate such services they're gonna function.

But the reason they might be better than even traditional mixers, is that not only do you put in funds from one address and can receive from a different one, as a mixer is supposed to do. But also your funds can appear to be coming from a "clean" service like Binance for instance. So much money goes through Binance that it's now impossible to block all of it as "tainted" because millions of businesses and individuals depend on it for their daily transactions. Whereas a traditional mixer is easy to detect when used. So while funds come from another address, those inspecting the blockchain could easily tell you used a mixer.

Probably a few developers got wind of the fact that for everyday transactions most users don't need very advanced mixing like coinjoin and could just do with the funds coming out of an exchange. In the end of the day, fees of 0.25% to 1% that most exchangers have are much lower than what mixers used to charge too, so it's a win-win.

They will (probably) eventually be shutdown if not by the governments then the services they are using.
As has been pointed out instead of having people (users) complete KYC these regulated exchanges are letting other businesses take the responsibility of doing it.
This will only last till Binance (or some other exchange) gets hit with some form of lawsuit / fine and it all starts all over again.

There are other no KYC like https://exch.cx/ but places like that are less common then say simpleswap.io or godex.io/

-Dave

I'll just say that I'm not the one who caused the topic to end up in this board - but as @LoyceV says, it's now a question for the Meta board. You can move the topic to Meta yourself, but such things have not ended well in the past.

There is a demand but every company has a different approach and everyone promotes where they think they get the best cost-per-result ratio. Btw years ago, a very famous exchange Kucoin was running a signature campaign on bitcointalk.

That's not true, they have an advantage. I need to quickly exchange my Bitcoins into Dash, I'm too lazy to register on DEX or let's say I don't know what DEX is and I'm looking for an instant exchange, at the same time I want to get rid of KYC because I feel uncomfortable by doing this procedure. What I do next? I start looking for non-kyc instant exchanges.

Non-kyc instant exchanges aren't the alternatives of mixers. Yes, mixers got banned and non-kyc exchanges started promotion more actively but that only means that some people saw the opportunity of a new business after the ban of mixers. I wouldn't call it a rebranding or reshaping of mixers.

Depending on the country, this may or may not be true. There's one thing many of them have in common though: the owners are anonymous. Asking for KYC while you have no idea who you're sending it to a very bad. For all I know, they could use it for identity theft.

These services are trying to gain popularity with the word NOKYC but what happens is that if your coins are high risk most of them offer a refund instead of completing the transaction so I think we have moved from a stage where centralized platforms offered the possibility of withdrawing up to 100 BTC per day without KYC to a stage where you can get a refund without sending your documents.

As for the reason they do this, they want to make profits but they use crypto APIs.

In short, these services still do not violate financial regulations and are trying to find a middle ground.

That's a question to ask on the Meta board

I don't quite understand what mod would consider it makes sense why when I talk about how certain services get banned in Bitcointalk it is related to the services discussion board   Like really the thread had to be moved there from the Meta board? Whatever I guess but it doesn't make much sense.

Do you expect the country where that CEX is located to do anything about it? Well, they are corrupt from the top of the pyramid down to the clerk in the post office. I don't know what makes you conclude that they still work as well as before? I've had several hundred refs there since the day they were promoted on this forum, none of them are active anymore.

---

How can it be comparative if mixers paid $200 to $250 per week or even up to $300 per week (CM), and today the maximum is $120 for staff, while the others have a maximum of $100 - we are talking about more than a 50% reduction in pay rates - the same as they pay for gambling sig campaigns.


I drew a conclusion from what you wrote and that's my opinion - otherwise what's the point of a discussion if we can't try to conclude what your motive is for opening this topic? Something similar happened in the months before the mixers were banned from the forum, and some "prominent" members obviously had a role in this because they sent their "warnings" to all possible addresses.

As for politics, will the day come when we have to ask for permission to mention Bitcoin at all because some old fart will decide so in the country where all decisions are made? Some people obviously live in great fear of centralized systems that they have completely forgotten that they have a perfect tool for financial decentralization.

If you use any of these service as an on-ramp for buying crypto or an off-ramp for selling crypto to fiat or ordering a card then their partners require you to verify your identity.

I haven't seen any offers that get even close to $300 per week lately.

If that would be true, nobody would use centralized exchanges. I just checked the first decentralized platform I could find: it requires me to download, trust and run software. I'm not going to do that.

And that's the next problem indeed. The company that created "WBTC" loves pretending it's real Bitcoin, because they earn money from it. Meanwhile, that company is hiding in the Seychelles. It doesn't matter if the exchange is decentralized as long as the tokens are centrally controlled.

You're missing the point and started from the wrong assumption. You assume people want to mix their coins, I assume people don't want to touch anything "wrapped". The word itself is a scam. Lost "wrapped" coins are no longer a donation to everyone, they're a donation to the wrapper. Would you accept "LoycedBitcoin" if I told you it's exactly the same?

Anything that calls itself "DeFi" and uses a centralized website is a scam. I've always considered it to be just the next hype after the previous hype, and it's already replaced by several other hypes. All of it has one thing in common: it's created to make the creator richer.

Lol. That's less De, more Fi.

Many of the exchanges (and casinos for that matter) that didn't ask KYC when I started in crypto, ask for it now. Regulatory pressure and growing too big made them change their business. But it's like torrent sites: new ones are created every day. Some of them are scams, some use KYC as an excuse to scam, and some just do what they promise (at least for now).
TL;DR: I agree that they'll feel an increasing government pressure, but I expect a never ending cat and mouse game.

Decentralized exchanges don’t advertise on BitcoinTalk probably because it is easier to reach their core demographic through other means. They get much more bang for their buck by incentivizing users for completing tasks on Zealy or Galxe. A signature campaign just won’t get you that same level of engagement.


That Chainalysis article is two years old and security has greatly improved since. I can’t remember the last time there was a significant hack involving a cross-chain bridge. Centralized instant exchanges also get hacked. Shapeshift was once the most popular of these exchanges and they were famously hacked by one of their employees. FixedFloat suffered two major exploits this year alone.


There are hundreds of DeFi services out there and KYC is non-existent in 99% of them. There might be certain things like 1 Inch or Metamask branded debit cards that require KYC but these are issued by traditional financial institutions and don’t have much to do with DeFi. KYC-only pools are possible on Uniswap through third party plugins but I am not aware of any that are currently active.

The decentralized platforms are cool and all, but they are limited in what they support crypto-wise. The thing is, those platforms dont work so well with assets like actual Bitcoin or Litecoin - just Ethereum-based tokens and wrapped versions.  So I guess that explains why those centralized exchanges fill that niche for people wanting to trade stuff like Bitcoin without KYC.  And Im not really sure that there is a No-KYC exchange that is promoted here that supports exchange for the same asset you deposited, as you claim.

No, I've used maybe hundreds of DeFi platforms but I've never encountered this.
Bitcoin is my #1 forever but I'm not a purist. I know DeFi's weaknesses but I'll use things where there's opportunities for money to be made.
Care to elaborate on what you mean though as I'm curious?

It is comparative. Still the highest paid campaigns are of this kind. It would be too much of a coincidence that these services started coming around one after another and paying the most only after mixers ceased.

No please don't make assumptions like that about people's opinions.
I even said the opposite in the OP. And to take it a step further, the stricter this forum becomes on what are permissible uses of crypto the more harm it does to the community and even to the general spirit of using BTC.
But banning mixers was a necessary evil for this forum which I understand completely.

It's my predictions that no KYC exchangers will eventually start getting hunted down as notorious markets.
The amount of money that gets "washed" there is minuscule compared to cash transactions. But for the FEDs it's also a reputation issue.
Like for instance with z-library or thepiratebay or megaupload, they keep going after the initial owners even so much time later and so viciously, for mere piracy of movies that in no conceivable way could do harm.

If something gets labeled as a notorious market, it means it disturbs the status quo too much and American FEDs are tasked with taking the operators out of the way. We've seen countless examples in our own space as well. BTC-e is one of many. If you read the history what I'm saying is not out of the ordinary. It's a travesty actually. I hope it doesn't happen, but I also think it's unrealistic to not expect it.

So much for these advantages. Other than the no KYC aspect I'll recognize that it requires no account. I've used a few of them to test the water and I noticed by the addresses that send/receive coins oftentimes are associated directly with Binance.com. So there's little innovation here, it's just an intermediary for using a real exchange with a fee added on top.  

DeFi is catching up fast. Surely it's not pefect and there's a distinct lack of anonymous on-ramps. But these issues apply to most of crypto still to this day. Even in terms of buying BTC. What gives me hope is that also Atomic swaps are in fashion again. Monero is testing direct atomic swaps with ETH. Once this gets more liquidity we'll have a perfect untraceable and actually anon way to on-ramp onto DeFi. So the decentralized solutions are gaining ground faster than many people here realize.

I disagree. First of all, the only truly decentralized exchange is Bisq, any other I've seen is either semi-centralized, or requires you to buy a shitcoin. Second of all, here's how a centralized swap service might compete:

• It has plethora of options to trade your bitcoin with. In Bisq, the options for altcoins are less than 10.
• It is instant.
• It usually has sufficient liquidity.
• Can be accessed via a browser anonymously, without installing any software.

People use them, so that definitely speaks for itself. There is need for these services, apparently.

Oh come on, are we really going to go down this path, again? We're going backward from what the forum we envisioned a couple years ago. Wait... cross all that. Just in case I jumped into a wrong conclusion, allow me to be the one to "allow" you to clarify what you're trying to say here, because I've read your opening post several times, and the impression I get is as what I wrote on my first sentence. Unless I am wrong and that's not what you try to convey with this thread? What's the real message of this thread, again?

No government yet tried to shut down Yobit.com. The exchange still doesn't ask for KYC and is operating as good as it was back then. The only problem they have is that it's banned here. They have issues with altcoins withdrawal and some other accusations, other than that the exchange works fine as users are still using them. I reckon US authorities couldn't stop the exchange

The exchange today claiming no KYC seems not true even the ones claiming they are decentralized, it's still reachable by the government especially if they have the CEO tweeting on x.com. The government could just visit the guy and turn over their exchange.

I don't see similarities in pay rates if you are referring to sig campaigns and not something else - mixers used to pay over $200 a week for Hero/Legendary, and today the maximum any member can get is $120 a week.


What you actually want to say (and you didn't write) is that the admin should preemptively ban no-KYC exchanges because the forum could be under the magnifying glass of various agencies that think that privacy is something that should be sought and destroyed in every possible way?

I think you are going a bit too far in your speculations, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion...

Are you aware that a lot of DeFi services ask you to do KYC in order to access a number of features?

The tech and solution exist but they're unsafe.

Risk of cross chain bridge hack is not small and there are some big hacks on cryptocurrency bridges. If you want safety and security, you will not choose this option.

Vulnerabilities in Cross-chain Bridge Protocols Emerge as Top Security Risk.

I would prefer to do some middle steps to be safe than using cross chain bridges directly with higher risk.

It is another thing for consideration. Hilarious that DeFi services ask KYC but it makes sense because their founders can be requested by governments. DeFi platforms with well-known founders, big risk that KYC might come anytime.

Cross chain trading is a thing. You can trade in your BTC and have it pass through several chains to be traded to any coin or token you want on any almost chain. These solutions exist, and one site I linked in the OP (openocean) also has a mutli-chain widget.

The tech exists. And there's also some solutions being in various states of functionality for decentralized swapping of btc with monero and other coins. Some of these are also linked in the first response this thread received (kycnot.me). But the issue with these platforms is that they're not marketable if they're decentralized. For instance, atomic swaps for BTC<->XMR are in the main Monero wallet since 2021: https://www.getmonero.org/2021/08/20/atomic-swaps.html

That should mean that swapping of different cryptocurrencies is viable in a fully anonymous, untraceable decentralized manner. What's the place for centralized clearing houses without KYC then? Of course having a competitive disadvantage means that they need the advertising. But let's not pretend that there aren't better solutions.

Not even close to how it was back when Mixers were still allowed here

Look through the list of such services being advertised. It's just only one services that is new here, the other 2 were here even before the Mixer ban took effect, so It doesn't seem like "rebranding" as you insinuate.

Who wants to trade BTC ERC20 tokens or BTC TRC20 token when they have the real BTC?

The same DeFis have made some people lose lots of money due to "Vulnerabilities"

Another thing is, centralized platforms do have lots of liquidity and are simple to use as compared to Dexes. This is the bitter truth, and it's why most people who are new in crypto continue to use them even if they require KYC

Sometimes there is a lot of focus on decentralized elements without KYC or services without KYC, which could be in the path of authorities.

Not exactly. What prompted the authorities to attack some mixers was the fact that they clearly knew they were being used for illegal purposes. It's one thing for anyone to go to the mix and make an exchange, it's another for a criminal group to privately ask the mix to exchange 10BTC, offering a bonus of 1BTC to the owner of the mixer to do so.

That's kind of my point though.
Those looking to swap cryptocurrency from coin A to coin B, as the front for these operations claims, no one would be using them as there already exist cheaper and faster DEX solutions.
Since the purpose is to deposit BTC and mix it for most of their clients, a DEX won't do because the coins in many occasions have to pass through a centralized "wrapping" and "unwrapping" contract that could very well be pressured to enact blocks on certain addresses. Much like many Ethereum nodes now enforce OFAC compliance on the validator level.
Ofc there are also chains that have tried to decentralize their bridging process and make it more immutable but we don't see that discussed here probably because BTC to BTC mixing is more marketable.

WBTC and similar tokens are bad and very risky to use. They are not bitcoins like you said. Their value pegs to Bitcoin value can lose anytime, we can not know about future and pegs of these altcoin tokens. They are tokens, not coins.

Their pegs to bitcoin can be lost if some technical problems happen with these blockchains on which those tokens deployed or with problems from these token projects. At least there are two big risks, not only one.

Newbies will be confused with those Bitcoin tokens and don't know about these risks.

Definition of tokens

The problem here is with the assets. Sure, there are decentralized non KYC platforms but you can't use Bitcoin with the mentioned platforms. You can use WBTC, but not bitcoin. You can also not use privacy-based coins like Monero. It's just Ethereum (or EVM) based tokens.

I'm pretty sure that whoever is interested in non KYC platforms and only wants to swap tokens, is already using the platforms you mentioned.

There are some no KYC exchanges are advertising here but with some restrictions from theymos related to rules applied in Mixers ban months ago.

Mixers to be banned. See definition of a mixer in the announcement.

It's because in cryptocurrency market, numbers of true decentralized exchanges are limited. You can have many Decentralized exchanges from Coinmarketcap or Coingecko but true DEX are less than what they list.

Find true DEX there https://kycnot.me/

Very shortly after bitcointalk banned advertising, promotional threads and linking to mixers, there appeared a plethora of no-KYC exchangers advertising at the same or similar rates of payment towards their members.

If there's so much demand for no-kyc exchanges then why don't we see any decentralized finance platform advertising here? Instead we only see some wholly centralized closed source sites doing so. In the meantime anyone could go to 1inch.io or openocean.finance and access in USD billions worth of liquidity across dozens of different blockchains with varying degrees of trustlessness and none of them requiring KYC to access all of their liquidity.

Centralized no KYC exchanges have 0 competitive advantage to decentralized platforms. In a way, we're already close to Satoshi's vision in that regard thanks to the solutions that are available, and yet here on bitcointalk advertising is dominated by centralized platforms. Kinda ironic. The only advantage I see to centralized no-KYC exchanges is that you're able to deposit BTC on-chain and withdraw on the same chain simply with the funds coming from another address. If the goal was to exchange funds from one crypto to another then there would be absolutely no reason to use a centralized clearing house. But that's clearly not it.

While I personally have nothing against this type of promotion, it's quite obvious that this is a simple re-branding of the centralized mixer advertising campaigns. So it's not a question of if, but when will the feds start going after these types of websites too. Arresting their founders, seizing all user funds, pursuing aggressive extradition procedures, giving the administrators extremely long sentences by throwing the book towards them in court etc.

inb4 I want to clarify something:
I'm not making this thread to bash anyone. I respect that there's demand for these services so if they offer funds for promotion it's perfectly ethical in my book to promote them. After all it's not the act of transferring money that endangers lives. And nevertheless nearly all of the world's money laundering happens in USD, not BTC or crypto in general.
I just know that FEDs are ruthless and wanted to say what's on my mind. Maybe when the first no-KYC exchanger gets shutdown you'll remember me.