Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 06:22:37 PM

Quote from: OgNasty on Today at 06:06:01 PM

Using a mixer for privacy is like buying drugs with cash and posting video of the transaction on YouTube because you think you're safe since the transaction isn't trackable.

Perhaps one of the worst analogies I've come across with mixers. Lol. Paradoxically, people like you hate them. Maybe because you hate privacy.

I don't hate privacy. I hate fake privacy that gives people the feeling like they're being private when they aren't, to enrich a centralized service run on behalf of criminals to the detriment of Bitcoin's future regulatory actions. If you think that's a bad analogy, you don't understand the blockchain. I have signatures turned off, but clicked your profile to confirm what was already obvious... You're on their payroll and think this is an attack against you. It isn't. It's just me showing those unwilling to do the research just how ridiculous it is that people think mixers will somehow provide them with privacy. It won't and worse, it puts a target on the backs of Bitcoiners by regulators and gives them a talking point. If others are stupid enough to believe mixers provides real privacy, regulators will as well and crack down hard on all Bitcoiners as a result.

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 06:22:37 PM

Quote from: OgNasty on Today at 06:06:01 PM

Not to mention it's centralized and not at all how privacy should be occurring on the Bitcoin blockchain.

I'm all in for trustless mixing, but ChipMixer is the yet most effective and cheap method.

I'm all in for not having sex with sheep either, regardless of how much cheaper or effective it may be compared to humans. How do you like that analogy?