Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Wednesday August 02 2017, @05:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the shake-it-up-baby dept.

BitMixer, the world's most popular Bitcoin mixing service has announced last weekend it was shutting down operations effective immediately.

Bitcoin mixing is a process of taking money from one account and breaking it into hundreds or thousands of smaller transactions to transfer it to another account.

For years, it was believed that Bitcoin mixing is a safe way to transfer funds anonymously from one account to another, mainly because there was no technology to track all the transactions and reveal the destination account.

In a statement, the BitMixer owners said they were shutting down the service after realizing that Bitcoin was a "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," the BitMixer team wrote.

"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," the team also wrote, issuing a warning for fellow Bitcoin mixers.

Source: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/technology/internets-largest-bitcoin-mixer-shuts-down-realizing-bitcoin-is-not-anonymous/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by EvilSS on Wednesday August 02 2017, @06:32PM (5 children)

    by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 02 2017, @06:32PM (#548044)
    Translation: We don't want to end up arrested for facilitating of money laundering and other illegal activities.

    Even if that was never their intent, it would not be hard for a government to make the case that they were doing just that. Best get out while they are still free.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday August 02 2017, @07:55PM

    by JNCF (4317) on Wednesday August 02 2017, @07:55PM (#548090) Journal

    Yup. There will still be mixers, they'll just need to be careful about getting doxxed.

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 02 2017, @10:40PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday August 02 2017, @10:40PM (#548146)

    Also: check the audit trail and see how much they managed to siphon before shutting down.

    Mens rea for laundering is writ large on their business plan, I can't imagine a plausible defense that would let them operate long term.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:16PM (2 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:16PM (#548391)

    >Even if that was never their intent...

    Exactly wat service do mixers offer *except* money laundering?

    • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Thursday August 03 2017, @05:53PM (1 child)

      by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 03 2017, @05:53PM (#548442)
      Well I'm sure they would argue that it was a "privacy" service for the tinfoil hat brigade who want to obfuscate their perfectly legally obtained and spent coins, and it's technically valid use*. However in practice I'm sure it's probably the least statistically significant use of their service.

      *I am not going out on a limb and say it's a legal use, no matter how legit some of the users may be. But it's a use that wasn't intended to be money laundering in the strictest sense. Also not saying that the owners never intended it to be used for illicit purposes either, because let's face it, that's probably where 99.999999% of their business by volume was coming from and unless they are complete idiots they knew it.
      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday August 04 2017, @01:38AM

        by Immerman (3985) on Friday August 04 2017, @01:38AM (#548546)

        Now I'm wondering just how specific the laws against money-laundering are - I could easily see them being worded such that the obfuscation itself was illegal, irrespective of the origin of the money stream being obfuscated.