Quote from: Iranus on July 24, 2017, 09:56:59 PM

Quote from: LoyceV on July 24, 2017, 09:44:29 PM

Quote from: Iranus on July 24, 2017, 08:51:45 PM

Quote from: LoyceV on July 24, 2017, 08:38:00 AM

Note: I've never used BitMixer so I won't miss it's services. One of the reasons for not using it is that the coins I get back are most likely from someone who's trying to hide worse things than me Tongue

When you used Bitmixer, they would give you a "Letter of Guarantee" (mentioned here) so that you could prove that you sent funds to their site (signed message from their address + signed message from you = proof).

If the authorities came knocking, you could just prove to them that you sent your funds to Bitmixer, and therefore that the tied coins were not yours.

I've seen it, but I don't think it proves anything as it still requires the authorities to believe BitMixer is honest.

For the deposit, it certainly doesn't require that. The point is for them to sign a message proving that the address you're sending to is owned by Bitmixer. So as for the funds coming back to you, you can sign a message proving that you own the address that received a transaction of the same amount you send to Bitmixer, if that makes sense.

After that, the authorities can either believe a mixture of cryptographic proof and completely obvious reasoning, believe that Bitmixer stole your money and you just mysteriously received a transaction from a criminal at that time, or believe that you own Bitmixer. I'd say the former one is the only logical way that they could go.

Quote from: LoyceV on July 24, 2017, 09:44:29 PM

I doubt a judge would believe evidence created by the anonymous website that you claim laundered your money into coins wanted for something you claim you didn't do.

I don't see why not if you provide evidence that Bitcoin's signed message system is sound and you verify Bitmixer's signature.

Let's put it this way: BitMixer can sign a message now, claiming the address in my profile is their deposit address. The problem is not with Bitcoin's signatures, the problem is with having to trust BitMixer on this.
Of course BitMixer wouldn't do this in the past, as it gives me enough to destroy their reputation. But now that they've closed their business, what stops them from giving out signatures at request to be used at lawsuits from big money launderers?
If I go full paranoid, this could even have been a reason to close the site: save someone who's being charged with something. My point is: this signature isn't worth anything for a judge.