Code:

Username: nullius
Post Count: 1620
BTC Address (must be SegWit): bc1qgm5r8s5lsud2exv2a0h0xx3rncnst3eqn6gp5c

Eh, what the hey. There are so very few businesses on this forum whom I would advertise, anyway.

Advertising for ChipMixer is a statement that privacy and fungibility are good. It cuts against the current Zeitgeist of KYC-everything mass-surveillance mass-propaganda. I have noticed a disturbing increase in that, right here on this forum. In my opinion, ChipMixer is doing a public service by paying for advertising of a clean, reputable mixer.

Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on October 15, 2020, 03:25:51 AM

I am not going to accuse DS of being racist or a misogynist if he doesn't select me.

Well said. For my own part, I will add that I will bear no hard feelings if, from a formidable list of applicants, DarkStar_ prefers someone who doesn’t have a habit of sometimes disappearing, who admittedly may not be in the campaign forever (though I would not apply if I did not intend to stay in it for a decently long time), and who has not spent most of his time recently just kicking around in WO (where I have been enjoying the absence of all signatures—though money may sway my morals into making me return to signature-laden areas ;-).

(I also have recently been guiding people to a a n00b-friendly CoinJoin implementation, and would continue to do so. And if I am not hereby accepted, I will continue to carry an unpaid ChipMixer link in my signature, until the next time that I decide to do a total signature overhaul; this has nothing to do with that.)

Strictly from a business perspective, I may not be the best ad-wearer. Or maybe yes. DarkStar_ knows his business, as I do not.

@DarkStar_: This is an opportune, on-topic moment officially to request an idea that I have floated before:

Quote from: nullius on April 29, 2020, 11:15:38 PM

For my part, if I were a ChipMixer campaign member (which I am not), then I would ask DarkStar_ if he would pay me directly in ChipMixer chips. A ChipMixer voucher code is effectually a quasi-banknote, payable to the bearer on demand. It could be immediately redeemed, merged with other voucher codes, held in the form of a new voucher code, and then later split and withdrawn. If this is done right, then both timing and subset sum analysis would be infeasible. Blockchain spies watching outputs from ChipMixer would have no way of knowing that a financial transaction occurred off-chain.

Yes, that is basically using ChipMixer as a quasi-bank. I don’t like trusting them or anybody else for privacy; but I do trust them to not steal money. I myself have trusted them with much more than the amounts of campaign payments; and anyway, anybody who has a problem dogfooding ChipMixer should probably not be advertising their service.

Why should an advertiser for a privacy service take a publicly doxed flow of money—worse, with address reuse (!)—just because it is the way that most forum campaigns are run?

“Transparency” is overrated. I trust ChipMixer—and I could neither use nor advertise their service, if I did not! I trust DarkStar_. If either of them ever cheated me, I would tag and flag to hell.

A PGP-encrypted message with a ChipMixer voucher code would be my most preferred means of accepting payment. It is off-chain, private money transfer, plus dogfooding the product that is being implicitly endorsed.

It is just an idea. Not some sort of a conceited demand. But if I would advertise Chip in large part to make a point, I may as well make another point right now.