Re: Mixers to be banned
by on 11/12/2025, 15:29:17 UTC
⭐ Merited by NotATether (10) ,Don Pedro Dinero (5) ,d5000 (3) ,LoyceV (2) ,ABCbits (2) ,xLays (1) ,Free Market Capitalist (1) ,vapourminer (1) ,TryNinja (1) ,BITMIXER.IO (1) ,joker_josue (1) ,AakZaki (1) ,dkbit98 (1) ,Mia Chloe (1) ,JayJuanGee (1) ,Cyrus (1) ,Charles-Tim (1)
A new mixer from the Seychelles announced itself on Bitcointalk 4 days ago, and started a signature campaign today. It's pretending to be an "exchange" that can split deposits into multiple wallets "100% private without KYC":
This is a clear violation of the mixer ban.
This is a clear violation of the mixer ban.
Yep, that's a mixer. Thanks.
By the way, after observing the Trump administration for a while, I've decided that I will not change the rules to allow:
- Paid links to mixers.
- Mixers operating here, such as by having official accounts or having official announcements posted.
While the Trump administration is massively better than the Biden administration regarding persecution of privacy-protecting services, this seems partly to be due to general chaos at the agencies and a deprioritization of this kind of thing, rather than a real pro-freedom ideology; you can see in e.g. the Samourai and Paxful cases that they will go after privacy-protecting services when convenient. Moreover, right now is the best environment that we're ever going to get: I think that Trump may get progressively worse on these issues as he and his subordinates get annoyed by specific cases of money laundering, and after Trump, whether Democrat or Republican, it's almost certainly going to get a lot worse than now.
I am thinking that I will change the rules to allow:
- Unpaid linking directly to mixers in posts, as long as the mixers aren't also "illegal darknet sites" (which is a term I need to more exactly define).
- Easing the enforcement of indirection. For example, in the past we would not allow sig ads which point to an article talking about and linking to a mixer. But it's probably OK now if this kind of thing is allowed.
I haven't decided yet on the exact language of those rule changes, though, so the existing rules stand for now.
What exactly are we accomplishing here?
I've said this before, and I'll reiterate: My goal is not to stop anyone from doing whatever they want. You're thinking as if I'm trying to help governments in achieving their goals, which I'm not. The rules are not designed to be effective at doing anything in the wider world. The point is to prevent bitcointalk.org from being viewed similarly to "that gas station where all the drug dealers hang out". Places like that end up under increased surveillance, and eventually the authorities usually find some excuse to shut them down.