Quote from: mocacinno on August 22, 2017, 11:14:13 AM

Quote from: LoyceV on August 22, 2017, 09:40:20 AM

Quote from: mocacinno on August 22, 2017, 05:43:16 AM

Wouldn't that be something completely different than the current way bitmixer works? In my opinion, the power of bitmixer lays in the fact that the chips are pre-generated before you even deposit any funds into your bitmixer session.
If you were requesting different chipsizes, chipmixer would either have to generate these chipsizes on request before any deposit happened, or they would have to generate them afterwards (which would not seem like a good idear to me, bitmixer would lose some of its appeal to me)

Did you forget what you're advertising?

Good catch, i meant chipmixer offcourse Grin

(all these years of bitmixer being the only reliable mixer around made me develop a habit of typing bitmixer)...

I'll edit the first post!

LOL. An ex-bitmixer campaign member perhaps? Cheesy

Quote from: HeRetiK on August 23, 2017, 07:27:44 AM

Quote from: btcton on August 23, 2017, 06:05:10 AM

Hey, I was reading through your FAQs and I found the following excerpt:

"Our goal is to make Bitcoin value independent of its blockchain history. Some governments and corporations wants to invalidate its value by claiming they are connected to something immoral like gambling. Every time you withdraw from ChipMixer, we give you cryptographically signed receipt that proves you have received those funds from us. Since the disconnection of history is proven, there can be no loss of value."

I understand how ending up with bitcoin from an address related to a an address linked back to illegal or immoral activity could make you seem suspicious of something and how the receipt can claim the money is sourced from a mixer. However, couldn't this also be used the other way around to say that the money was gotten from a mixer and therefore it was originally from an illegal activity/money laundering. Of course, this is a backwards way of thinking and completely wrong, but just an example of times in which forces such as the government are looking for reasons to steal the money and this might not fully help. It is always good to have the option, however.

Better to look suspicious than to look guilty of a crime you didn't commit. In general innocent-until-proven-guilty still has to apply, everything else is just conjecture. Question being of course whether they will make mixing itself illegal in a given legislature (ie. defining the usage of a mixer as money laundering).

I personally don't use bitcoin mixers, but does withdrawals only come from one or a few addresses? Because I'm pretty sure not all people that use mixers are actually guilty of a certain crime. I could see myself using a mixer in the future if I would like to move my bitcoins into another wallet using a mixer mainly just so that my funds somewhat are untraceable(not because I did a crime); but at the same time I definitely wouldn't want to look suspicious. This might come of as a turnoff for innocent people wanting to use mixers. Undecided