We have recently seen governments going into serious talks about clamping down on Mixer services. Their excuse is that these Mixer
services are being used to fund terrorism and for money laundering. {the usual Bull shit excuses} The real reason is their inability to
control the financial flow of money. In many instances these Mixer services are our last option to keep our finances private.
Unfortunately, our financial privacy is linked with "bad actors" using these services and we {legal users} of these services, will have to
sacrifice our financial privacy, if this last bastions falls.
We need decentralized mixer services to protect our financial data and transactions. { Why do they need to know how much money
you have, and what you spend it on? } Anyone??
services are being used to fund terrorism and for money laundering. {the usual Bull shit excuses} The real reason is their inability to
control the financial flow of money. In many instances these Mixer services are our last option to keep our finances private.
Unfortunately, our financial privacy is linked with "bad actors" using these services and we {legal users} of these services, will have to
sacrifice our financial privacy, if this last bastions falls.
We need decentralized mixer services to protect our financial data and transactions. { Why do they need to know how much money
you have, and what you spend it on? } Anyone??
How would an idea like this work (a decentralised mixer)?
Is it not easier to send a transaction through multiple mixers instead. I think you could probably add a recieving address of one to the sending address of another and then finannly output the actual transaction afterwards.
Do you mean having multiple people/client computers running the service in many different locations - doesn't it always require a central place for the website's interface (unless you use the PM system of a forum or an email)?
