Pages:
Author

Topic: US DOJ Calls Bitcoin Mixing ‘a Crime’ in Arrest of Software Developer (Read 699 times)

newbie
Activity: 9
Merit: 0
I unquestionably anticipate that the US should take action against blenders, I'm amazed they haven't been putting indirect accesses or making their own to follow programmers once they blend assets after a serious wrongdoing. I anticipate that the US should keep this up and it being one among their enormous endeavors they were talking about prior this month.
member
Activity: 83
Merit: 15
I definitely expect the US to crack down on mixers, I'm surprised they haven't been putting backdoors or creating their own to trace hackers when they mix funds after a big crime. I expect the US to keep this up and it being one of their large efforts they were discussing earlier this month.

The title of the article is really poor, does give an impression that every mixer will get a special uber ride to jail. But the reality is that the guy made a service specifically to move around black markets, it gave me the impression that if you're not actively promoting illegal activities you should be in the clear if you want to use mixing platforms. However, I do see govts kinda don't want people to be completely off the grid anyway, and this could be used as a premise for future trials to eventually crack down on all efforst to fully anonimyze your funds, and that's what I think should be worrisome. But only time will tell.
legendary
Activity: 3220
Merit: 1363
www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games
etherdelta = non-custodial, not decentralized. they had centralized servers, order book matching, DNS registration, etc

the SEC noted this distinction in their case against etherdelta:

..

p2p trades (or mixes) done completely at the protocol level (without reliance on centralized third parties) don't fit that situation. the biggest issue for p2p trading is decentralized order matching, which is still a big challenge.

Interesting fact. For once, I've thought that the Etherdelta exchange was completely decentralized. But now I know more about the situation. This explains why the SEC required the Etherdelta developer to comply with securities. I guess that if software developers decide to make everything decentralized at the protocol level, mainstream governments wouldn't have a reason to prosecute them. As far as I know, there's only one true decentralized exchange called Block DX. It may survive a lifetime as governments will be unable to interrupt its services.

As far as mixers go, we need more decentralized solutions for Bitcoin in order to completely eliminate the need for centralized mixing services. While we still have the Wasabi Wallet, and JoinMarket, the much-awaited decentralized mixer called "TumbleBit" is still in active development and not ready for mainstream use. People will either need to rely on privacy coins completely (Monero, Grin) or trade Bitcoin in a P2P manner to prevent suspicion from the government (or they could use Wasabi Wallet while they're at it). Once TumbleBit is ready for mainstream use, you could expect people to use Bitcoin more thoroughly for privacy-centric transactions (as I believe it's the best solution around for privacy).

The current actions of the US government is just the beginning, as other countries will follow in eliminating centralized mixers from existence. Thankfully, we have decentralized solutions for preserving our privacy no matter what the government's efforts will be. The recent news should have no effect whatsoever in Bitcoin's growth within the mainstream world. Sooner or later, governments worldwide will realize that their efforts in diminishing Bitcoin's growth/usage will be in vain, leaving them with no choice but to join the "monetary evolution". India has already lifted its ban related to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies' usage within the country. Which means that countries will become more friendly to crypto and Blockchain tech as time goes by. Just my thoughts Grin
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1483
FinCEN targets central operators who profit from market trades, money transmitting services, etc. But I find it odd to see the SEC targeting the Etherdelta developer after being a decentralized exchange with no central operator. If they've still enforced securities laws on a decentralized exchange, they could easily make decentralized mixers' developers accountable too.

etherdelta = non-custodial, not decentralized. they had centralized servers, order book matching, DNS registration, etc

the SEC noted this distinction in their case against etherdelta:

Quote
Whether any decentralized exchange is “maintaining” or “providing” these services would be in general harder to prove if the “exchange” was truly nothing more than software on the Ethereum blockchain (what we could call fully decentralized), but it would be easier to prove if the decentralized exchange’s administrator was actively maintaining data outside of the blockchain that was essential to facilitate trades, such as an order book. In the SEC’s Cease and Desist order, they note that EtherDelta orders “reside[] on a centralized server maintained by EtherDelta and not on the Ethereum Blockchain.”

p2p trades (or mixes) done completely at the protocol level (without reliance on centralized third parties) don't fit that situation. the biggest issue for p2p trading is decentralized order matching, which is still a big challenge.
legendary
Activity: 3220
Merit: 1363
www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games
I don't think so. To qualify as a money transmitter in the second scenario, one would need to both develop the mixing platform and also profit from the associated money transmission.

It's arguable that a market-maker does neither. They are profiting from the bid-offer spread, not the mixing activity:

...

You would see the same distinction with an exchange. A market-maker on an exchange doesn't pocket trading commissions whenever trades are made -- the exchange operators do. That's who FinCEN is targeting, the ones who build the platform and are profiting from it.

That's certainly true, mate. FinCEN targets central operators who profit from market trades, money transmitting services, etc. But I find it odd to see the SEC targeting the Etherdelta developer after being a decentralized exchange with no central operator. If they've still enforced securities laws on a decentralized exchange, they could easily make decentralized mixers' developers accountable too. After all, the government would not want people to use crypto in order to obtain financial freedom. Once they see Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as a threat to the existence of the current monetary system, you could expect something like this to happen in the future.

We cannot discard the possibility of governments making developers accountable for decentralized exchanges, mixers, and other crypto solutions. The US government has been the most strict one when it comes to crypto/Blockchain regulation. They've taken down the mixer in question and could easily shut down others over time. Once people start using non-custodial Bitcoin mixers like Wasabi Wallet and JoinMarket, you could expect opposition from the US and other worldwide countries. The main excuse from these entities will be that decentralized mixing solutions open a pathway for criminals to launder money and evade taxes at will. While we know that Fiat is used more for this than crypto, governments don't see it that way.

In the end, this will be a never-ending battle between crypto/Blockchain proponents and governments with central banks. Governments will continue to pressure the industry until everything is completely centralized (dependent on centralized exchanges, and other services). After all, it's no secret that today's crypto land is largely dominated by centralized exchanges. It would be surprising to see centralized mixers enforcing KYC/AML sometime in the future due to government's pressure within the mainstream world. If that happens, I believe that people will be more inclined to using non-custodial mixers than anything else. The recent situation of arresting a mixer operator, is only the beginning. Just my thoughts Grin
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1196
STOP SNITCHIN'
I don't think so. To qualify as a money transmitter in the second scenario, one would need to both develop the mixing platform and also profit from the associated money transmission.

It's arguable that a market-maker does neither. They are profiting from the bid-offer spread, not the mixing activity:

Quote
A market maker or liquidity provider is a company or an individual that quotes both a buy and a sell price in a financial instrument or commodity held in inventory, hoping to make a profit on the bid-offer spread, or turn.

You would see the same distinction with an exchange. A market-maker on an exchange doesn't pocket trading commissions whenever trades are made -- the exchange operators do. That's who FinCEN is targeting, the ones who build the platform and are profiting from it.

Then in a decentralized "market-place" for mixing such as JoinMarket? Who's the target? That's a purely 1's and 0's tumbling scenario.

Nobody, not for unlicensed money transmission anyway. JoinMarket just links together liquidity providers with liquidity takers, who pay fees to each other. The developers of JoinMarket are not generating business income from release of the code, so they aren't considered money transmitters under this law.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
Quote
a person operating as the administrator of a centralized CVC payment system will become a money transmitter the moment that person issues anonymity-enhanced CVC against the receipt of another type of value
vs.
Quote
a person that develops a decentralized CVC payment system will become a money transmitter if that person also engages as a business in the acceptance and transmission of value denominated in the CVC it developed

Read bolded. JoinMarket "market-makers" are actually "liquidity-providers", that ask for a fee in exchange for providing liquidity. Is that considered a money-transmitter?

I don't think so. To qualify as a money transmitter in the second scenario, one would need to both develop the mixing platform and also profit from the associated money transmission.

It's arguable that a market-maker does neither. They are profiting from the bid-offer spread, not the mixing activity:

Quote
A market maker or liquidity provider is a company or an individual that quotes both a buy and a sell price in a financial instrument or commodity held in inventory, hoping to make a profit on the bid-offer spread, or turn.

You would see the same distinction with an exchange. A market-maker on an exchange doesn't pocket trading commissions whenever trades are made -- the exchange operators do. That's who FinCEN is targeting, the ones who build the platform and are profiting from it.


Then in a decentralized "market-place" for mixing such as JoinMarket? Who's the target? That's a purely 1's and 0's tumbling scenario.
full member
Activity: 1428
Merit: 135
★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!
Quote
a person operating as the administrator of a centralized CVC payment system will become a money transmitter the moment that person issues anonymity-enhanced CVC against the receipt of another type of value
vs.
Quote
a person that develops a decentralized CVC payment system will become a money transmitter if that person also engages as a business in the acceptance and transmission of value denominated in the CVC it developed

Read bolded. JoinMarket "market-makers" are actually "liquidity-providers", that ask for a fee in exchange for providing liquidity. Is that considered a money-transmitter?

I don't think so. To qualify as a money transmitter in the second scenario, one would need to both develop the mixing platform and also profit from the associated money transmission.

It's arguable that a market-maker does neither. They are profiting from the bid-offer spread, not the mixing activity:

Quote
A market maker or liquidity provider is a company or an individual that quotes both a buy and a sell price in a financial instrument or commodity held in inventory, hoping to make a profit on the bid-offer spread, or turn.

You would see the same distinction with an exchange. A market-maker on an exchange doesn't pocket trading commissions whenever trades are made -- the exchange operators do. That's who FinCEN is targeting, the ones who build the platform and are profiting from it.

I think monitoring a bitcoin mixer or software is good to monitor because today there is a lot of projects released by the people and they want to create those to spread into the world of crypto and gained a lot of users. Today there is a lot of software created just use to scam other people and also it is good we the US restricting the use of software also we want to avoid having future problems like not secured data and information. Still, we need to have a lot of verifications before we tell that bitcoin mixing is a crime because we all know it is decentralized we can restrict but we cannot control the market value of these coins and the use and purpose of it.
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1196
STOP SNITCHIN'
Quote
a person operating as the administrator of a centralized CVC payment system will become a money transmitter the moment that person issues anonymity-enhanced CVC against the receipt of another type of value
vs.
Quote
a person that develops a decentralized CVC payment system will become a money transmitter if that person also engages as a business in the acceptance and transmission of value denominated in the CVC it developed

Read bolded. JoinMarket "market-makers" are actually "liquidity-providers", that ask for a fee in exchange for providing liquidity. Is that considered a money-transmitter?

I don't think so. To qualify as a money transmitter in the second scenario, one would need to both develop the mixing platform and also profit from the associated money transmission.

It's arguable that a market-maker does neither. They are profiting from the bid-offer spread, not the mixing activity:

Quote
A market maker or liquidity provider is a company or an individual that quotes both a buy and a sell price in a financial instrument or commodity held in inventory, hoping to make a profit on the bid-offer spread, or turn.

You would see the same distinction with an exchange. A market-maker on an exchange doesn't pocket trading commissions whenever trades are made -- the exchange operators do. That's who FinCEN is targeting, the ones who build the platform and are profiting from it.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
What about Wasabi Wallet, JoinMarket, or some other, not yet invented, peer to peer/decentralized mixing? How would that be "illegal"? Why/how can the obfuscation of OUR UTXOs be illegal?

The mere act of mixing your outputs (decentralized or not) isn't money laundering because there is no proof of unlawful intent. This is true of cash, bitcoins or anything else. The issue isn't that output mixing is illegal. On its own, it is not.

Regarding money transmission law, US regulators have drawn a clear distinction between decentralized mixing protocols like CoinJoin and centralized mixing services. That issue is about who is a money transmitter and therefore is supposed to comply with MSB regulations, and who is not:

Quote
a person operating as the administrator of a centralized CVC payment system will become a money transmitter the moment that person issues anonymity-enhanced CVC against the receipt of another type of value
vs.
Quote
a person that develops a decentralized CVC payment system will become a money transmitter if that person also engages as a business in the acceptance and transmission of value denominated in the CVC it developed


Read bolded. JoinMarket "market-makers" are actually "liquidity-providers", that ask for a fee in exchange for providing liquidity. Is that considered a money-transmitter?
legendary
Activity: 3220
Merit: 1363
www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games
Bittorrent has caused untold billions of losses to content producers, in their and the government's mind at least, yet the the founder and developers are doing just fine out in public.

I can't see any software developer ever being held liable for what's done with what they create by others.

That's certainly true, mate. But we cannot discard the possibility of governments prosecuting cryptocurrency developers in the future, once they believe crypto and Blockchain tech to be a threat against the current monetary system. Expect to see a massive crackdown into Bitcoin if people begin using decentralized solutions on top of centralized ones.

Considering that people are still acquainted with centralized exchanges and mixing services, I doubt governments will become interested in making software developers liable anytime soon. We'll have to see how everything unfolds in the future as governments continue to shut down centralized mixers. After all, their excuse is that mixers are used for money laundering and tax evasion. Even if a mixing service hasn't done anything wrong, the central operator could be held liable for any illegal activities done on it. The only way the mixer operator can be relieved is if he enforces KYC/AML laws on people using its service. But this will greatly defeat the purpose of a mixer which is to provide privacy over one's crypto transactions.

Nonetheless, with the advent of non-custodial mixers, anyone can confidently obfuscate their Bitcoin transactions without governments being able to disrupt the service. Centralized Bitcoin mixers will eventually die because of the massive crackdown from worldwide governments. This recent event from the US DOJ shutting down a centralized mixer is just the beginning. First it was bestmixer, and now this one. The trend will continue until all centralized exchanges are shut down for good. Luckily, people will still be able to mix their Bitcoin using non-custodial solutions or even exchanging BTC to a privacy-oriented coin (like Monero) of their choice. At least, there's nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts Grin
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1196
STOP SNITCHIN'
What about Wasabi Wallet, JoinMarket, or some other, not yet invented, peer to peer/decentralized mixing? How would that be "illegal"? Why/how can the obfuscation of OUR UTXOs be illegal?

The mere act of mixing your outputs (decentralized or not) isn't money laundering because there is no proof of unlawful intent. This is true of cash, bitcoins or anything else. The issue isn't that output mixing is illegal. On its own, it is not.

Regarding money transmission law, US regulators have drawn a clear distinction between decentralized mixing protocols like CoinJoin and centralized mixing services. That issue is about who is a money transmitter and therefore is supposed to comply with MSB regulations, and who is not:

Quote
a person operating as the administrator of a centralized CVC payment system will become a money transmitter the moment that person issues anonymity-enhanced CVC against the receipt of another type of value
vs.
Quote
a person that develops a decentralized CVC payment system will become a money transmitter if that person also engages as a business in the acceptance and transmission of value denominated in the CVC it developed
hero member
Activity: 2702
Merit: 716
Nothing lasts forever
"This indictment underscores that seeking to obscure virtual currency transactions in this way is a crime"

That's what stands out to me. He was actively facilitating money laundering. That was his whole raison d'etre. He'd be just as nailed for doing the same thing in any other form.

It's a rather different proposition to some average person doing a Coinjoin type thing.
Good that you cleared it out because if bitcoin mixers were to be considered as illegal then I guess they should have termed TOR as illegal too.
member
Activity: 476
Merit: 88
Online Cryptocurrency Exchange
I feel like we still live in an approximately okay present, but the future looks horrific. Any attempt of having more privacy will most likely be seen as a crime..


Yes, the most forms of privacy in regards to the financial matters will be outlawed. This is why cash is slowly being removed in many countries (see Sweden), in business transactions in Europe you have limits for paying in cash (above some threshold you can legally pay only by a bank transfer).
As well FATF with its recommendations which are basically obligatory aims for outlawing privacy solutions like private coins, mixers and make each owner of wallet fully identifiable (just as bank account owners).
legendary
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1598
I feel like we still live in an approximately okay present, but the future looks horrific. Any attempt of having more privacy will most likely be seen as a crime..

You know, it's funny how I am literally able to hand a complete stranger a paper with the private key to some illicit-sourced Bitcoins and get them in big trouble because of it.

We live in a God damn shit world. Transparency apparently comes with its big cost too. It was somehow forseeable they'll count this as a crime though, all fun BTC-related stuff doesn't last very long anyway. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
the guy had no mercy:

Hi all!
Despite the huge profit we earn, we are closing our activity. Let me explain why.

I'm bitcoin enthusiast since 2011. When we started this service I was convinced that any Bitcoin user has a natural right to privacy. I was totally wrong. Now I grasped that Bitcoin is transparent non-anonymous system by design. Blockchain is a great open book. I believe that Bitcoin will have a great future without dark market transactions. You may use Dash or Zerocoin if you want to buy some weed. Not Bitcoin.

I hope our decision will help to make Bitcoin ecosystem more clean and transparent. I hope our competitors will hear our message and will close their services too. Very soon this kind of activity will be considered as illegal in most of countries.

Cheers,
Bitmixer.IO

he already knew that the authorities were hunting the mixers. it seems to me that it will not end well for mixer owners. Unfortunately governments will not accept mixers due to their nature

Bitcoin mixer services are just a tool.It can be used for illegal purposes or good purposes.The tool itself can't be illegal,but the person who

when it comes to laws, things get complicated, why do you think there is kyc? and how would mixers obtain a license and comply with KYC? I like a mixer, I like it a lot, I've used it a few times and to be honest whenever necessary, I'll use the mixers, but I don't see how the mixers won't be illegal


What about Wasabi Wallet, JoinMarket, or some other, not yet invented, peer to peer/decentralized mixing? How would that be "illegal"? Why/how can the obfuscation of OUR UTXOs be illegal?
legendary
Activity: 2590
Merit: 3014
Welt Am Draht
seriously tho, what legit reason do you need a mixer for if its not to "illegally" hide the origin of the bitcoin you are mixing?

whether it was obtained legally or not, the act of hiding it is illegal.

Imagine if the conventional banking world introduced a system that ran along the same lines as Bitcoin. Every time you bought a barbed wire dildo the place you bought it from would be able to see how much money you had, where else you spent it and what you spend in future.

It would take about ten minutes for the nearest banker to be dangling from a lamp post.

Wanting to keep your business to yourself is a perfectly sensible and necessary desire.

legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1100
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
the guy had no mercy:

Hi all!
Despite the huge profit we earn, we are closing our activity. Let me explain why.

I'm bitcoin enthusiast since 2011. When we started this service I was convinced that any Bitcoin user has a natural right to privacy. I was totally wrong. Now I grasped that Bitcoin is transparent non-anonymous system by design. Blockchain is a great open book. I believe that Bitcoin will have a great future without dark market transactions. You may use Dash or Zerocoin if you want to buy some weed. Not Bitcoin.

I hope our decision will help to make Bitcoin ecosystem more clean and transparent. I hope our competitors will hear our message and will close their services too. Very soon this kind of activity will be considered as illegal in most of countries.

Cheers,
Bitmixer.IO

he already knew that the authorities were hunting the mixers. it seems to me that it will not end well for mixer owners. Unfortunately governments will not accept mixers due to their nature

Bitcoin mixer services are just a tool.It can be used for illegal purposes or good purposes.The tool itself can't be illegal,but the person who

when it comes to laws, things get complicated, why do you think there is kyc? and how would mixers obtain a license and comply with KYC? I like a mixer, I like it a lot, I've used it a few times and to be honest whenever necessary, I'll use the mixers, but I don't see how the mixers won't be illegal
hv_
legendary
Activity: 2520
Merit: 1055
Clean Code and Scale
Doing bad stuff / code shit for bad purpose

is

a


crime
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
I thought this topic was about Wasabi Wallet, Samourai Wallet, and the JoinMarket, and that nopara73, and the other developers got arrested! Hahaha.

Mixing 1s,and 0s is not a crime. I believe, FIRST, the DOJ should declare, and fight in court, that Bitcoin is a form of "money". Cool
Pages:
Jump to: