Mixers should set up second level verification of address

[Wiwo]

With the recent climbing down of mixers and other privacy-enhancing services, by the authorities, the next big step to help mixers stay ahead of this is to set up a second-step verification of addresses that make deposits, this way, mixers can easily detect inflows from tagged address, this will help them to avoid being used by hackers such as the Lazarus group who have been responsible for the closing down of major mixers and other privacy-enhancing exchanges.


These privacy-enhancing platforms allow themselves via their operational model to be tools in the hands of those criminals, and for sure, it is very important for us to take some steps ahead, these address verification mixers could easily avoid getting into such troubles.

[PX-Z]

I remember i have talked about this in different mixer discussion threads on bitcointalk. However it depends on the mixer if they will really going to work with this CEX and the authority itself, it could have a backlash to them, but with an explanation for avoiding such things to happen, i guess its reasonable.

[TomPluz]

I guess this issue is going to be a kind of "tug-of-war" for privacy enhancing service providers especially mixers. On one hand, they don't want to be known as weak as cooperating with the government on this matter and on the other hand they must avoid to be an enabler of hackers especially the Lazarus group which victimized Bybit recently. As for me, since we already know the wallet addresses identified with this group of hackers, mixers should do something to protect their business and not be subjected to investigation and later on be shut down. I would understand a mixer that will honestly tell its users on what it would do on this matter.

[hugeblack]

If this is implemented, we will likely see KYC mixers soon.
There should be no classifications such as clean/dirty hacked coins, otherwise the entire concept of Bitcoin will collapse.

[ABCbits]

But how many people would use such mixer? In addition, how much it would help if criminal perform mixing before mixer's list of tagged address is updated?

[Charles-Tim]

If this is implemented, we will likely see KYC mixers soon.

If there are KYC mixers, then why are mixers still existing? If something like that began to happen, that means mixers serve no purpose anymore. I can easily make use of centralized exchanges for the mixing if mixers become KYC ones.

In fact, there are still non-KYC exchanges.

[Lucius]

This is something that I mentioned before, but the question is how many owners of mixers have the desire to filter addresses and transactions in such a way? This would somehow put them in a more favorable position when it comes to the authorities, but those same authorities would then have a mechanism to put any address on the black list, which would lead to such mixer not being too popular.

What would be next? AML score check for each address?

[Faisal2202]

With the recent climbing down of mixers and other privacy-enhancing services, by the authorities, the next big step to help mixers stay ahead of this is to set up a second-step verification of addresses that make deposits, this way, mixers can easily detect inflows from tagged address, this will help them to avoid being used by hackers such as the Lazarus group who have been responsible for the closing down of major mixers and other privacy-enhancing exchanges.

These privacy-enhancing platforms allow themselves via their operational model to be tools in the hands of those criminals, and for sure, it is very important for us to take some steps ahead, these address verification mixers could easily avoid getting into such troubles.

Well I guess using addresses to bypass this is not that hard for hackers who can get into the cold wallet of a centralized exchange that big. I hope you got the point, it's not about using the second level of authorization. Tracking them can be hard (still) because I guess they are not stupid enough to use only one mixer, they might be using a combination of obfuscating tools to change the original source.

The way EXCH is closing, which is not a mixer, is really sad, but I guess their decision was wise in this matter. Let's see how this year will go with the Trump administration. as Theymos, the admin of BTT, said, we have to observe his administration for this year so we can make further decisions on whether to allow the mixers again or not. I hoped things would go right, but this way, I think they won't.

[Zed0X]

This would be like opening a can of worms. If they were willing to do that now, who knows at to what extent they would cooperate with authorities in the future? Who is to say that they would just stop at blocking tagged addresses? As mentioned already, imposing KYC level verification is not out of the picture.

[hugeblack]

If there are KYC mixers, then why are mixers still existing? If something like that began to happen, that means mixers serve no purpose anymore. I can easily make use of centralized exchanges for the mixing if mixers become KYC ones.

Governments will love this., demand for it will increase. Mixed coins will be "clean/legal." You won't have to worry about them being frozen, yet you'll still enjoy some privacy by hiding your coins from your spouse, family, friends, or nosy neighbor. Governments will support this proposal because they will be able to easily track all transactions. However, such proposals will create two values ​​for Bitcoin (clean/dirty), and bitcoin will collapse in the future.

[gunhell16]

If this is implemented, we will likely see KYC mixers soon.
There should be no classifications such as clean/dirty hacked coins, otherwise the entire concept of Bitcoin will collapse.

Let's not let the bitcoin concept disappear just because of these unfortunate events. Because we know that the real concept of mixers in this field of the crypto space. And it provides a lot of help to community investors who want to maintain their privacy using mixing platforms.

I just hope that in the near future they will not require kyc, because what might happen is that it will seem like there is no difference from centralized exchange
platforms like that.

[kulkhan]

These privacy-enhancing platforms allow themselves via their operational model to be tools in the hands of those criminals, and for sure, it is very important for us to take some steps ahead, these address verification mixers could easily avoid getting into such troubles.

It also true that these address verification mixers could easily avoid getting into such troubles. But most people avoid mixers because they use mixers for For privacy.  But when second level verification of address will be mandatory then they will feel of lost privacy.

I think it has Advantages and disadvantages both. So mixers company should more analyses about second level address verification i think it.
 

[hugeblack]

I just hope that in the near future they will not require kyc, because what might happen is that it will seem like there is no difference from centralized exchange
platforms like that.

Unless the mixers are decentralized, expect anything to happen, including your data being recorded and sold to governments. Therefore, it is not unlikely that we will see KYC mixers if it brings them revenue and profits.

[ABCbits]

This would be like opening a can of worms. If they were willing to do that now, who knows at to what extent they would cooperate with authorities in the future? Who is to say that they would just stop at blocking tagged addresses? As mentioned already, imposing KYC level verification is not out of the picture.

FWIW, Wasabi Wallet (known for it's non-custodial CoinJoin) did a compromise with controversial blacklisted feature. But eventually they chose to give up by stopping their CoinJoin server/coordinator.

I just hope that in the near future they will not require kyc, because what might happen is that it will seem like there is no difference from centralized exchange
platforms like that.

Unless the mixers are decentralized, expect anything to happen, including your data being recorded and sold to governments. Therefore, it is not unlikely that we will see KYC mixers if it brings them revenue and profits.

Some people would joke that such thing is already exist and it's called bank.

[Kemarit]

I just hope that in the near future they will not require kyc, because what might happen is that it will seem like there is no difference from centralized exchange
platforms like that.

Unless the mixers are decentralized, expect anything to happen, including your data being recorded and sold to governments. Therefore, it is not unlikely that we will see KYC mixers if it brings them revenue and profits.

If this happens then we don't need mixers anymore?

Why not just CEX and their P2P?

But who knows, the market is changing and maybe mixers in order to stay up with their business will have to comply.