[...]
- Was Jambler doing the mixing in the background? Yes.
- Was Jambler advertising itself as "taking property, improving its privacy somehow, and then returning roughly the same type of property"? No.
- Was that required criterion to classify it a mixer? Yes.
So, according to his precise criteria, it's not a mixer. It's a mixer if we slightly change the criteria, just as Coinbase is a mixer under the appropriate criteria.
Let's get a little more complicated.
If Jambler is classified as a mixer and all requests coming from its partners are mixed through the Jambler engine, addresses, it is logical that then Jambler's partners are not mixers, but only some kind of promotional channels.
In that case, partners Mixtum, Webmixer etc... would have to be acceptable here, because they are not mixers and they do not operate coin mixing.
Whoever snitched, you (all) are a shame. A hit on privacy and sovereignty just so you can have a few moments of power, revenge, jealousy, whatever may be. You are not a “hero” trying to “save the forum”, you would probably sell out satoshi for the US gov if you had the chance and enough to win, either be because of a personal vendetta or because you would profit with it.
I'd rather blame all of us who casually dropped out of the discussion when theymos announced the new rule. We had to fight for a better compromise then, this case is only a consequence of that.