Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 08:27:17 AM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 07:39:37 AM

This is attacking our privacy and Bitcoin altogether.

This.

This isn't an attack against mixers - this is attack against bitcoin itself, against privacy itself. Here is how they are defining "mixing" for the purposes of this report:

Quote from: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-23449.pdf

The term “CVC mixing” means the facilitation of CVC transactions in a manner that obfuscates the source, destination, or amount involved in one or more transactions, regardless of the type of protocol or service used, such as:

(1) pooling or aggregating CVC from multiple persons, wallets, addresses, or accounts;
(2) using programmatic or algorithmic code to coordinate, manage, or manipulate the structure of a transaction;
(3) splitting CVC for transmittal and transmitting the CVC through a series of independent transactions;
(4) creating and using single-use wallets, addresses, or accounts, and sending CVC through such wallets, addresses, or accounts through a series of independent transactions;
(5) exchanging between types of CVC or other digital assets; or
(6) facilitating user-initiated delays in transactional activity.

And most importantly, simply owning your own coins, holding them in your own wallet, and using them as you like falls under (3) and (4). "Creating and using single-use addresses", for fuck sake! You know, the entire way bitcoin is supposed to be used in the first place.

3 & 4 is not about just having wallets or addresses!!!

its about the activity to then coin-hop funds down a path if multiple transaction taints which then make it appear funds moving along those addresses all belonging to the same wallet
EG if a VASP(exchange) had flagging tools that knows funds from address A are blacklisted.
and address A owner just moves funds to address B C D E before then depositing thinking a 4 taint hop to E address is sufficient taint distance to declare clean. however this would not to the VASP mean its sufficient distance to declare clean, just via taint hopping. because the very act of taint hopping becomes suspicious in of itself

the way they would vasp/services monitor or flag something as taint hopping is the way services did years ago. when people would spam every block moving a certain amount of funds to new addresses where in logical common sense real world utility, funds would not move to new addresses every 10 minutes several times