The term JavaScript appears 4 times in this Bitcointalk thread and 5 times on the web. Java just one. Thanks to your understanding of technology for correcting this typo.


I have not broken any promise, you have omitted my last post:


and you have preferred to test the web when it was not operational and was undergoing maintenance. There is no JavaScript or logs on the web.



Once again I don't know where you get that data from, do a certificate test before speaking.

SSL Report: www.[banned mixer]
Protocols
TLS 1.3   Yes
TLS 1.2   Yes




First, it is a blacklist in your opinion, for other people it would be a whitelist so thanks for including me.

Your list is opaque. If you are going to include me in your Blacklist Whitelist for Scoring, you should include more mixers (much older) from this forum. But Why aren't they on your list if you already know them?  I guess all you wanted is a link to your thread to give you visibility. And I recommend you include in your opaque and unreliable list all the mixers that uses scoring. Until you do, your whitelist is worthless.

Next time, Please wait until a website is not under maintenance to analyze it, so as not to confuse users as you say.

---

No, but US and EU users should be aware of the laws of their countries, this text is just a reminder of how the panorama is.  Even so, you are right and I still have to modify it a bit, give me time.

Sure we are going to see things like that and more, but not here


No, your transactions will not be blocked.

---

Hello, thanks you guys for your support, it is true that we have been online for a month and that some problems have arisen that have been solved and I am still working to try to improve this service.

If it's a typo, why do you continue calling TLS (which you are indeed using), SSL? To me, it still seems you are mixing terms up, but I agree that this is a subjective opinion and I cannot prove it as a fact. It's just the most likely explanation for me.

Are 'unstable' and 'starting to utilize Cloudflare' the same thing to you? For me, this qualifies as breaking promises. Websites don't automatically fall back to Cloudflare when they get unstable, if it has not been actively installed and configured by the operator.
You could just as well take the whole webpage offline, fix your bugs and bring it back, all without setting up Cloudflare, which you yourself state is a privacy issue.

Why is it not offline if it's not operational?

Just quoting your own words:

So this somewhat confirms my assumption that you're not typo'ing but using some terms interchangeably when they're in fact not really interchangeable. But this is all relatively unimportant to me; the important bit is the fungibility 'UTXO scoring' issue.

It's not complete, that is true. I warmly welcome you to add more taint proclaiming services as a reply in that thread, so I can add them to OP.

With all due respect, I am a humble poster. I think my threads already get lots of visibility; much more than I could ever have hoped for, and I am very grateful that other people get value out of what I post.

It is unreasonable to ask someone to maintain a complete list of such services; hence why I cannot feasibly make a whitelist (of fungibility promoters), but have to create a blacklist instead, that displays who actively pushes for BTC taint and against fungibility.

As it is a blacklist, I do find it useful as a first indicator for users who want to quickly check whether a service that they're considering using, has already been 'community-flagged' as a taint promoter. It does not guarantee that any website not on the list is 'safe', though, as stated in OP:

Like I wrote before, please feel free to add more services who openly state that they 'filter' or 'score' UTXOs based on blockchain analysis. This would benefit everyone.

Not sure that you understand the severity of the issue of casually 'temporarily using Cloudflare'.
Not using JavaScript or not keeping logs is pointless, if users' traffic, i.e. plaintext transaction information is literally decrypted and cached on Cloudflare servers. It threatens the whole concept of your service as a mixing site.

This explains why you ignored my post:
You're attacking Bitcoin's fungibility while trying to use it to make your service look good. That's like misleading users who don't understand the basics of fungibility.

---

---

The way a service responds to criticism tells you a lot about how they operate. In your case, it doesn't look good.

---

---

That's cute. Here's the opinion of Bitcointalk's Administrator:

That's neither the idea of mixing (1), nor is it how this mixer operates (2).

(1) Mixing usually refers to exchanging 'coins' (UTXOs.. let's call them coins) for other coins that are not linked to the ones you put into the mixer. A common use case for this: a certain Bitcoin transaction links a coin to your identity, e.g. by getting paid for a signature campaign. Both the sender (campaign manager) as well as potentially other users (in case that a public spreadsheet exists or people apply publicly with a Bitcoin address) now know this coin belongs to a certain forum user. By mixing this coin, someone can exchange this 'linked' coin for another, (or multiple smaller) unrelated coins of similar total value.

A mixer's job is not to exchange 'dirty' coins for 'clean' coins, at least if we assume that these terms refer to a coin (not) having been used for illegal activities.

(2) This mixer does absolutely not take 'Bitcoin from any source' like you claim, and that's the big issue here. It subjectively discriminates between coins and reserves the right to reject you from mixing. This makes them an unreliable business partner at the very least.

Again, that's not what Thormixer aims to do - in fact, they deny you access to the service if your coins have a 'dark history' - whatever that even means, since there is no definition of this, anywhere.

Then, please do help me make the list more complete. Add those mixers along with a link to the source (ToS, FAQ, anything official) proving that they don't accept all coins equally, as a reply. I will check and add them to OP.

Sorry, strawman. We claim it's bad for privacy, not for security. I hope it's easy to understand why we claim that. If not, read the starting post of [Blacklist] of unreliable, 'taint proclaiming' Bitcoin services exchanges again.

I am not advertising for a mixer right now, but even if I would, I'd only advertise promote ones that align with the principles of Bitcoin and my own privacy standards.
There is no particular reason I 'picked out' Thormixer, it just popped up in this board when I visited it again after a while.
You can believe me or not; facts are facts though and in this case, it is a fact that Thormixer's policies don't align with Bitcoin core values.

That is a bold assumption and absolutely incorrect. Actually, it's defamation.

I have never done any paid (positive or negative) review of anything. Instead, so far I did 2 reviews of devices that I paid full price for, out of my own pocket. I also chose not to provide an affiliate code, to make my reviews and recommendations completely unbiased.

Another (much more likely, don't you think?) explanation: people have limited time in a day and as we are not paid by anyone to review all Bitcoin services in existence, we can only focus on one or two things at a time, have a thorough look at them and move on.
Not that I need to prove this to anyone, but just to show that we already criticized other products before:

• Wasabi Wallet: https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/5405325.0
• Ledger Nano X: https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/5358741.0
• Ledger Nano S: https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/5370521.0
• Ledger Nano S Plus: https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/5376279.0
• ColdCard: https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/5033058.msg57911569#msg57911569
• Lightning Labs LND: https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/5386437.0

Says who? There is no consensus about what "clean" or "dirty" means. There are companies that sell this idea for a profit, and it's in their interest to convince people like you that their services have value. They don't even share their criteria. What if you discover after accepting it that a "clean" coin was used for bad things nobody knew about at the time? You can never be absolutely sure what happened in the past.
The "taint" BS is an attack on Bitcoin's fungibility, which means any Bitcoin user should oppose this as it's a threat to everything Bitcoin stands for. Bitcoin can't exist if some coins are worth less than others.
Start analyzing the history of dollar bills, and you'll find cocaine on almost all of them. Try to refuse them at a bank, and demand clean bills. See what happens.

As long as it's stated clearly enough for any curious user to see, I personally think there's value in having some mixers that "clean" coins while having others that don't. It should be up to the user to choose — sure it's probably 100% best for privacy if the mixer is well known and doesn't "clean" coins, but there are certainly situations where the user 100% needs to not receive his own coins back.

I think we can all agree that it doesn't matter where a Bitcoin was before it was in your wallet, but your employer or government certainly might not understand that yet, and it's unfortunate, but sometimes you have to play in the bounds of the rules in which you live. As long as it's made clear, I think there's no huge need to change that feature of Thormixer.

What makes you think your government will think Bitcoins coming from a mixer are better than your own Bitcoins?

That's because it's impossible.

Hello and good luck with your service.

But what does this really mean? I understand I giving you coins and you giving me another coins back with a fee of 4%.
But why would somebody want to mix their bitcoins? What if the coins I get is in bad standing? How can you see that you only accepting "clean" coins and not "bad" coins?
The only coins I own is coins I bought myself from an P2P exchange. Should I mix them? And if yes, why? It only giving me less BTC. Why is your BTC better then mine?
I paid for my coins with money I earned myself. How did you get your coins?

I understand that people that have stole BTC don't want to show that this BTC was going to a wallet they can be traced to, but for what other reasons? and how can I be sure I got "clean" BTC?
I am sure its a lot of other reasons, I don't try to be negative, but I don't really understand this service. My feeling is that you buying an imagine that your coins now is clean and fresh and not a real service.
But I'm sure I'm wrong, and that's why I'm asking so I can understand.

Don't misunderstand me, I am all for privacy. I am just asking what do I actually get here and how can I be so sure I get what I pay for and not just an imagine and less BTC?