Topic: Why gambling and mixing called bad actors in bitcoin - page 4. (Read 646 times)

again as said in many topics about mixing. people forget that regulations are real ,. READ THEM and learn

its not about the fud of simple buy a candy bar and be treated as a criminal if you cant prove provenance of funds

its about a % risk where there are thresholds

if a kid handed a $100 for a 99cent candy bar asking for $99.01 in change THEN the store would question the $100 bank note and double check its not a counterfeit
if the kid handed a $1 bill the cashier wont care and just give the kid the candy and 1 cent without thinking twice about it

and yes in drug infested cities of street dealing kids, candy stores do raise their eyebrows when they see gold bling wearing teens hand out $100 bill like confetti
and thats even for candy stores not regulated to KYC customers. shop keepers till get suspicious. they accept it but they do get suspicious about the $100 bank notes and the shop keeper then keeps an eye on that customer if they are a regular and start to ask about their life because its out of the ordinary

i do laugh that the quoted person wanted to compare mixers to candy stores... but oh well

with exchanges its the same your given a risk rating.
if all your deposits are all mixed sourced then you have a higher risk rating than someone that does not use a mixer
meet a threshold and they start to look closer at you

deposit $10. dont worry.. however deposit $1k-$10k-$100k, then expect to be on a watch list with more involved investigation reporting the higher the risk/amount is
government, regulators and authorities dont chase after criminals or suspects over $1-$10. they want the big fish

Bitcoin mixing and online gambling have been given the stink eye in the crypto 'hood. True, they've got ties to shady dealings and sketchy conduct, but I'd argue it's mostly 'cause peeps lack the information on these services. Take Bitcoin mixing, a wicked tool for upping privacy and security in cyberspace. Scrambling transactions and making the blockchain go incognito, mixers thwart Big Brother and cyber baddies, adding a shield against their prying eyes.

And let's gab about online gambling, a legit, wicked fun way to blow off steam, if you play it cool and use a safety net. Plus, it's a boss force for spreading Bitcoin love and keeping the dough flowing in the ecosystem. So, I get why peeps might give 'em the side-eye, but we need to dial up the nuance and knowledge. By recognizing the pros and cons, we can have a smarter chitchat about their place in the Bitcoin universe. Suit up!

You are taking the point of view of the governments and not the one from the community, casinos and exchanges are widely regarded as two of the most important industries on this market, and as long as they have their papers in order I do not think there is any kind of controversy when it comes to their services, mixers on the other hand provoke different reactions, with some being in favor of them as they increase our privacy while some may be against them as they could help some criminals to get away with their crimes.

Mixing is not an "adopter". It's an activity done to hide the trail of transactions. Yes gambling can be told as number 1 activity done using bitcoin and it's bad because of general nature of gambling itself, it has nothing to do with bitcoin specifically. Talking about centralized exchanges, the difference is that centralized exchanges are not created for the sole purpose of mixing Bitcoins, also i believe they keep a complete trail of how money is moving around, so traceability is obviously not erased in such cases. I assume the mixers delete this history as well.

one person gone from money worth buying a shirt(around $25) to buying a lambo, through his discipline.
first he losed most of his saving gambling emotionally  then figured out a way to profit from it, simple strategy make reasonable amount in a day and end the gambling session on losing day.
but to do that need discipline to stop.

---

maybe small or new exchanges can be bad actors,
but exchanges are very helpful to buy bitcoin and they have high liquidity. keeping crypto on exchanges for long time is not good.

Everyone has their own perspective on the use of Bitcoin mixers and gambling. While some law enforcement agencies dislike mixers as they can be used by money launderers and hackers, many people also have a negative view of gambling due to its addictive nature. It's relatively easy for gamblers to use Bitcoin to gamble, which is why Bitcoin gambling is often associated with bad actors. However, even if Bitcoin gambling didn't exist, there are plenty of fiat payment systems that gamblers could use, so it's not fair to attribute all bad behavior to Bitcoin gambling alone.

Gambling and crypto mixing are constantly considered bad actors in the crypto space because of there disadvantages that most people focus on and the historical aspect of what has happened which is associated with gambling and crypto mixing with illegal or unethical activities.
From my own understanding, gambling is not considered a bad actor only in the crypto space it was also considered a bad actor in real life due to religion believe, people's personal understanding, and experience. Nevertheless, the bad actor of gambling mostly occurs through abuse and uncontrol of buzz which usually lead to addiction, debt, and possible fraud problem. It is also possible for gamblers to misuse their fiat or cryptocurrency to trigger their addiction which will technically lead to significant financial losses.

Crypto mixing or tumbling is something that involves the provision of privacy in the cryptocurrency space and the FinCen recognized and welcomes it. However, people see it as a bad actor due to some people use it to facilitate money laundering and other illegal activities.

It is kind of a mixture of hypocrisy and the stigma which is left from the earlier days of Bitcoin, when it was regarded as a tool which was only useful for criminals and money launderers.

The fact is that Bitcoin and the people behind this new kind of money did not invent either gambling or money fungibility. Gambling is almost as old as humanity itself and if someone tells you that Bitcoin gambling is bad, then you should ask them back what they think of casinos in real life and whether if they are against people having freedom on what to do with their own hard-earned money.

On mixing, one must wonder if every time to go to the store to buy a candy and pay with a bill, the vendor would ask you about the entire history of the bill from its printing years ago until the day you got it to pay for candy. Even though you are not a criminal but rather the most honest person in your city 

They are trying to associate Bitcoin to alleged problems which already were around before computers were even conceived.

This can of mindset is rubbish and should be discarded just as you rightly said,  gambling and mixing services are the biggest adoptors and that is correct, and you have made the right choice to ask thos questions for clarification and with the numerous replies you got from this thread you should be ok with them already.

But just to serve as a head up for your ops, you shouldn't worry about what is called bad actors or not but in due time you will realize that the gambling industry most especially is the biggest adopter of Bitcoin and also Bitcoin mixing is one of the most used for mixing services.

I think it's because perhaps, some bad actors use bitcoins to launder their money in casinos so they are not detected in doing money laundering. After all, when they buy bitcoins on the black market, they transfer the money to the seller and the seller either sends the bitcoins to another wallet or sends them directly to a bitcoin mixer. So perhaps, that's why bitcoin mixers are often seen as providing money laundering services when they are not.

Bitcoin mixing is like a double-edged sword that can be used for good and bad, depending on the person using it. So actually, what to chase are bad people who use bitcoin mixing for bad things but it won't be easy to trace them because they are also smart in hiding everything.

This is simply a question of morality and not legality. For gambling yes in the distant past it was perceived by different jurisdiction to be an activity for people who are not able to find jobs to engage themselves, feed their families. It was peculiar classification of unemployed people, better definition for laziness and those looking for easy virtue. Back then the above description is the way African society see gambling and gamblers, a terrain for unsuccessful people, drunks and unuseful hands.

Also, you already understand what bitcoin mixer is. When a mixer company receive bitcoin from different people and utters or mixes them so that the original traceable identity will be lost and you can't trace the wallet where it was sent out from or whatever quantity sent or to be delivered afterwards. You see by simple understanding, it appears as if it is an illicit act but the debate about mixers is on the intent but not really on the process, the intent of which is to maintain the decentralized operations of bitcoin. So you now see different understanding and government alleging money laundering, drug paddling and other nefarious activities against bitcoin mixing. This is the background understanding of the reason associated with gambling and bitcoin mixing as bad actors but IMO, it all depends on the intent for mixing which I believe is for freedom exclusion of third party and the reason for gambling rate apart from fun is decrease in access to job.

So if you agree with this mundane analysis, you would understand why they are being associated as bad actors because if you look through the mirror of morality then you could see those vices.


Exchanges scamming investors who innocently hodl coins with them should be considered as such. They are bad actors because they discourage people from investing and growing bitcoin. The law should be implemented against them however, it is better to invest wisely, not your key not your coins.

The one who accuses mixing and gambling as "bad actors" is simply someone who dislikes Bitcoin.

The mixing service is actually very useful for people to remain anonymous regarding their ownership of crypto assets. It makes it untraceable, thus ensuring that one's personal assets are safer from both cyber threats and serious physical threats. In my opinion, the government will be disadvantaged by the existence of Bitcoin mixing because they cannot accurately trace the assets of their citizens. Unhealthy competition is beginning to arise, as the government uses its power to try and dismantle the mixing industry by framing it in popular media.

Meanwhile, I find that gambling with Bitcoin is more comfortable than gambling in person at a casino. Perhaps the gambling industry feels threatened and is also framing the use of Bitcoin for gambling as "bad actors."

This is what has been said again. People accused or call it bad name because of their selfish interest. But I believe nobody that has come here in the forum will still have that mentality again. As it is now in the whole world, there are two major actors in economics perception. The pro-government and the pro bitcoin. The pro government are the people who see bitcoin as a bad actor while the pro bitcoin also see the government their enemy in progress. But the exchange are not bad actors but they are mediators between the government and the nbitcoiners.

I want to clarify the question back to you, are Bitcoin actors or individuals themselves abusing the power of decentralization?

Because basically it is impossible for us to generalize Bitcoin as a whole as the bad actor behind the ongoing action? have you ever heard of humanitarian donations in the form of Bitcoins? so we talk about actors, both individuals and specific groups. So it is difficult to find the background that a fully centralized exchange provides facilities or access to any crime. They have enforced KYC/AML, so neither CEX nor Bitcoin as an option can be assigned to any category of criminals , except users who must be prosecuted.

Let's just be clear here, mixing is not that bad, perhaps there are bad actors (terrorists, drug dealers, hackers and others), that might take advantage of mixing services or tumblers. And that's where the whole notion that mixing service is really bad and just cater to this kind of individuals. However, I think majority are using mixing for their privacy and anonymity.

As for crypto based gambling, I don't see wrong with it, gambling is the first use case of bitcoin for all we know.

So that argument is very flaw in the beginning, maybe those who tell that mixing and gambling are bad are those who are anti-bitcoin.

Firstly we must recognize that Bitcoin can achieve its goals and objectives without gambling and mixers. Bitcoin is a currency that is used for transactions and investments. Both gambling and mixers are services that adopted bitcoin or affiliated themselves with the coin.

We should also know that almost every good product or service can be misused by negative actors. Drugs are essential in the medical field but bad actors convert them to harmful substances. Guns are used for hunting and self-defense but criminals use them to commit atrocities. I can mention more examples. Using bitcoin for gambling is like using fiat for staking, it becomes a problem when it leads to addiction or is used for criminal activities like money laundering.

Mixers are wonderful services that promote privacy and I am a fan because it suits my way of life. I have never been engaged in any criminal activity but I like the mixing services. But it doesn't need that criminal elements will not take advantage of this great product. And the use of this service by criminals doesn't make the service bad.

I don’t see anything bad in bitcoin mining and online gambling, the only reason why I think bitcoin mixer is tag as a bad actor is because they believe it’s used for illegal activities, they believe most stolen bitcoins is always sent to bitcoin mixer just to lose track of the bitcoin. Also they see online gambling as a bad actor because they believe it leads to gambling addiction. But most of them are wrong, not everyone that uses bitcoin mixer use it for illegal activities, some use it just for privacy sake and online casino those not leads to addiction, only if you choose to be addicted.

They'll link to anything they want to just to give that bad impression for bitcoin. Look, they're already concluding that mixers and casinos are bad things but aren't they looking at the good side of it that it increases someone's privacy if he uses a mixer?
Whilst in gambling, is there any different from it as someone does bitcoin gambling and those that are gambling in the traditional casinos? I don't think that there's that much difference on it as it's just someone who gambles bitcoin as the currency and someone goes to the casinos that gambles with fiat, they're bias and simply hate bitcoin.

Both services are, from the viewpoint of the government, bad actors because they make it so much harder to pin out the money launderers and other undesirables, as the government would view them...

The Bitcoin community itself would not consider these services as bad actors unless they are scams. Ironically, unregistered/unlicensed gambling casinos as well as anonymous mixers can be considered shady because if they decide to scam their clients, there is nothing the clients can do since the services are out of the government's reach.

If you were to ask me, I would consider the government itself a bad actor (too much incompetence and corruption in politics), but a necessary one to keep such services in check.

Gambling source is included in high risk money because not all countries are allow to gamble and some people who live in restricted jurisdiction can gamble as long as the casino doesn't restrict their jurisdiction. They also can use VPN despite their internet provider blocking the casino domain, usually the casino will ask to verify KYC to make sure the gambler not lying.

Mixing source is included in high risk because the government don't like privacy and want to control or monitor everything.