4 ms·
> No, but it's reasonably suspicious. And if whatever service you use to "mix" your money is connected to crime, it's not unreasonable for you to have costs inv
by xur17 2y ago
> No, but it's reasonably suspicious. And if whatever service you use to "mix" your money is connected to crime, it's not unreasonable for you to have costs involved with defending yourself.
If I'm sending crypto to a friend, they can see my account balance, and my entire account history. It's perfectly reasonable for me to want to hide this.
I ran into this exact use case a few years ago, and ended up depositing into a centralized exchange, immediately withdrawing it to my friend's account, essentially using the exchange as a "mixer".
- unboxingelf 2y agoAlbiet a KYC mixer whose database will inevitably be leaked. But I digress.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> If I'm sending crypto to a friend, they can see my account balance, and my entire account history. It's perfectly reasonable for me to want to hide this I never said there aren't reasonable reasons to want to mix. Just that it's also reasonable to cast that activity as suspicious. It's not an enforcement priority to parse through just yet, but both bank compliance departments and law enforcement are buying Chainalysis et al's mixer decloaking data for a reason.
- xur17 2y ago> I never said there aren't reasonable reasons to want to mix. Just that it's also reasonable to cast that activity as suspicious. I agree. The problem I have is that the federal government is making it illegal to obfuscate the source of funds, in this case by going after mixers, the most reasonable way to obfuscate your identity when making transactions.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- saalweachter 2y ago> If I'm sending crypto to a friend, they can see my account balance, and my entire account history. "I've created a public ledger, only to realize it's a public ledger."