I didn't want to engage in more discussion about this, but I wanted to react to misinterpretation of Techshares words.
I think that if this continues, anyone whose financially-motivated opinion is/was that "Yobit isn't a scam" will need to be tagged.
If someone thinks mixers exist to launder money for scammers he's righteous to red tag people wearing their signatures.
If you don't see a difference between something that exists with the sole purpose of scamming (X10/investbox) and something that may be used by scammers (mixing) then there is no limit to absurdity you can push this argument to.
Who said there's no difference between them and who said YoBit isn't a scam?
Someone here used non sequitur, which is pretty much what's happening here.
His point wasn't that Yobit isn't a scam, nor that ChipMixer is a scam.
His point was if you label someone a scammer based on your opinion, it will inevtibaly lead to degradation of the Trust system.
Tagging the website owner if there's proof is legitimate. Tagging random user who participated in their signature campaign isn't.
I believe that's his point. Not saying YoBit isn't a scam or that ChipMixer is a scam.
your opinion can be bought for pocket change.
If I know I would never scam anyone and I'm tagged as a scammer, what is it left for me to believe other than thinking the policy is wrong?