Re: SCAM EXCHANGE: Openchange (Openchange.cash) (PARTIALLY SOLVED)
I find it hilarious that they wave around some random 'tainting service database website' evaluation as if it was definitive proof of anything. 
This is so unprofessional - either the people behind OpenChange are clueless of how all of this works or they are actually malicious. In both cases definitive signs of a service to avoid.
I don't have to explain why such a website link is no proof of anything. But just to reiterate: anyone can set up a little web server that does basic parsing of transactions and give them some random score. For all we know, such blockchain analysis can be (and often are confirmed to be) close with governments and other authorities; meaning they can directly censor people if we accept such websites' opinions as truth.
Most probably in this case, they flag anything that looks like it comes from ChipMixer as '95% risk' or whatever. I will check later with a ChipMixer withdrawal. Even if someone tumbled stolen coins through CM, there would be no way to return those funds to the legitimate owner, so there is no legit use in freezing them.
To OpenChange; if you're reading this: if the exchange you work with, uses such explanations to steal your funds; and then you try to pass these costs on to your customers, I'm sorry, but you're the stupid party in this business relationship. Your customers know that all this 'tainting talk' and 'risky transactions' is bullshit. Like: how is a Bitcoin transaction risky for you? It's the most irreversible way of transfering money; you got your coins, you're done. No amount of 'alleged risk' will result in an actual risk to your company.
This is so unprofessional - either the people behind OpenChange are clueless of how all of this works or they are actually malicious. In both cases definitive signs of a service to avoid.
I don't have to explain why such a website link is no proof of anything. But just to reiterate: anyone can set up a little web server that does basic parsing of transactions and give them some random score. For all we know, such blockchain analysis can be (and often are confirmed to be) close with governments and other authorities; meaning they can directly censor people if we accept such websites' opinions as truth.
Most probably in this case, they flag anything that looks like it comes from ChipMixer as '95% risk' or whatever. I will check later with a ChipMixer withdrawal. Even if someone tumbled stolen coins through CM, there would be no way to return those funds to the legitimate owner, so there is no legit use in freezing them.
To OpenChange; if you're reading this: if the exchange you work with, uses such explanations to steal your funds; and then you try to pass these costs on to your customers, I'm sorry, but you're the stupid party in this business relationship. Your customers know that all this 'tainting talk' and 'risky transactions' is bullshit. Like: how is a Bitcoin transaction risky for you? It's the most irreversible way of transfering money; you got your coins, you're done. No amount of 'alleged risk' will result in an actual risk to your company.
It does bring up the question as to why exchanges are relying on third parties to define tainted vs. clean bitcoin. Who gave these third party companies the authority to decide other than the exchange, and why do these exchanges think they're entitled to break the law based on some random third parties claims?
If Openchange was operating in the US, they would have their asses handed to them in their own hat for pulling this kind of shit. The AMLbot they purport to be using is registered to a company that's based in the UK. The UK must have some laws that protect consumers' funds from being frozen by rogue financial services. It seems that if the OP decided to sue, the company behind AMLbot could be held liable for providing misleading, or downright false information.
It's starting to look like any exchange that contracts with a third-party AML "authority" is only doing so to shift blame when they decide to abuse their power.