Quote from: Synchronice on Today at 02:56:15 PM

[...]

Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 11:35:27 AM

On this case, Jambler actually do the exact opposite of mixers in the sense of laundering money; receiving tainted money and sending them all clean and shiny. Jambler do a Blockchain check prior to accepting transaction. When the result come negative, they reject the transaction and return the fund to the originating address, ultimately fighting against money laundering.

So, does Jambler function like Wasabi wallet?[...]

Actually, what I talked about and tried to propose is that if the initial purpose of mixers banning from the forum is to protect the forum [as a whole] from being stamped as [for the lack of better words] accesories-to-criminal-activities due to repetitive money laundering incidents done through several mixer platforms, then banning Jambler is not necessary, since they perform blockchain analysis prior to accepting the fund and will return the "deposit" back to the originating wallet if the score [I used the word "tainted" here, though it probably not the best word to use] is negative, i.e. their origin is questionable.

In other words, I initially assume, SOP-wise it is quite safe to say they can not be used as a money laundering platform, so the initial concern that lead to the decision to ban mixers is not needed on Jambler, nor to put them on the same category. But explanation from BlackHatCoiner, that it is still possible to launder bitcoin through the partners of Jambler made me have to re-think it deeper and consider if I stand corrected.

In five words or less: I was talking about procedure.

Thus, procedure-wise, whether it function like Wasabi or not? I don't think so too. They don't have the same SOP, and working on the completely different protocol.