Basic Concepts Of Bitcoin Mixers

[examplens]

There are many investors in bitcoins who know nothing about mixers and the services they provide. They are okay with just the anonymity that bitcoin provides, and because they have not been involved in anything illegal, they have had no reason to be concerned about their privacy.

It is not a must for every investor to use mixers.

"Illegal" with every mention of mixers or similar series is the narrative that governments want to impose. Under this pretext, services that offer more privacy are closed and confiscated. It is indeed about the desire for greater control of people and better insight into their privacy.

[bitmover]

--snip--
I usually consolidate my coins from mixers and split them in different addresses, so I usually never send directly from mixers (or from campaigns) to an exchange.

Most of the times, binance 

I have also send coins straight from exch.cx to a local exchange here in Brazil (Foxbit) and binance as well. Never had problems...

[Lucius]

*not anonymity
Let's not kid ourselves here, Bitcoin is not *anonymous* like Monero is. It is at best pseudonymous, otherwise we would not have to worry about all these blockchain analysis scrapers compiling data about our transactions.

Fortunately for all of us, Bitcoin is not anonymous in the true sense of the word, because the question is whether it would be at this level of recognition and "permission" today. It's no secret that practically from the earliest days, the world's most powerful three-letter agencies have been working on user identification and transaction methods - and they certainly don't do that because they're bored in life.

Bitcoin has become a threat since the Genesis block, but with time the idea of cryptocurrency is being suppressed, and the idea of digital gold and trading through futures & spot ETFs and through CEXs enables more and more control over those who use it.

Mixing bitcoins does not make them anonymous either, it just makes them a little more pseudonymous. It is a limitation of the Bitcoin protocol.

That's right, we also had the opportunity to see it on concrete examples of someone who posted a topic on BTT about how he managed to break some mixers, although all but CM at that time. Has anything changed today in the way mixers work - probably not much, but as I already wrote, a little imagination after mixing can make things more complicated for those who analyze the blockchain.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

If you're a bitcoiner and have the intention of making huge bitcoin transaction from one wallet to another, the you may have to make use of a bitcoin mixer, the reason for this is on privacy, you will not have to pass through the use of an exchange or make your transactions open to the public so that they don't know about what you're up to, with this, you can make use of a mixer, its affordable to use and reliable in most cases, we have the likes of coinomize.biz among others to render the required service needed.

[Tribalchief]

There are many investors in bitcoins who know nothing about mixers and the services they provide. They are okay with just the anonymity that bitcoin provides, and because they have not been involved in anything illegal, they have had no reason to be concerned about their privacy.

I wouldn't say that Bitcoin provides complete anonymity for its users, though I agree with the fact that most people in the crypto space are completely fine with the protocols of Bitcoin.

It is not a must for every investor to use mixers.

Of course, no one is literally saying that all investors must make use of it, but in situations where a particular investor is being monitored by the government, then we should expect an idea such as a mixer. Let me give you an example: We know about the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine (though it has lessened). I think it would be ideal for a Russian citizen of great prominence to use a mixing service for any form of trade with someone in Ukraine.

[dkbit98]

But with how Bitcoin community/devs value backward compatibility, it'll be optional privacy feature and those who use it obtain less privacy due to small amount of Bitcoiner who use it.

I don't think so.
There are a lot of people who are always interested in privacy for Bitcoin, they are just not so much advertised in news and social media.
New wave of bitcoin developers are coming and I think we are going to see positive changes in this direction soon.
Either that or people who care about privacy will just move to some other coins.

[examplens]

But with how Bitcoin community/devs value backward compatibility, it'll be optional privacy feature and those who use it obtain less privacy due to small amount of Bitcoiner who use it.

I don't think so.
There are a lot of people who are always interested in privacy for Bitcoin, they are just not so much advertised in news and social media.

It is quite logical that those who want more anonymity do not want to expose themselves in public.

[dkbit98]

It is quite logical that those who want more anonymity do not want to expose themselves in public.

There are some of them in public but not as nearly enough.
I am certain that Saylor and people like him who are only interested in profit dont care about privacy at all.
In fact they prefer for bitcoin to stay the same and that nothing changes, they could be the ones who could turn bitcoin into ideal surveillance tool with mandatory kyc for all wallets, addresses and transactions.