Quote from: Kruw on September 25, 2024, 11:57:17 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 25, 2024, 05:39:22 AM

The topic is currently a nit-picking debate between pro-centralized-mixers and anti-centralized-mixers. Can I be the moderator of the debate?

There's no debate necessary since there's never a reason why you would send your coins to someone else's wallet in the first place - The whitepaper immediately informs every new Bitcoin user that there is no need to go through a financial institution and the main benefits of Bitcoin are lost when you use a trusted third party:

Quote from: satoshi

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.

Another "because white paper" again. Haha. Plus Satoshi was talking about there's no need to go through a centralized entity to SEND a transaction from one peer to another peer. But users have the freedom to send their censorship-resistant money wherever they want. - And mixer's receiving address is merely another peer in the network, no?

Centralized mixers, like centralized exchanges, are merely providing a service for the community. It's either you want to use it or you don't. It's the users' choice.