I just noticed your signature for example. You are carrying a signature for RAZED.com and It says "NO KYC".
Money goes in, the player makes a 99% win chance bet, wins, money goes out.
How is that any different than a mixer?
Let's report RAZED too, I think that's also a mixer. Yes there is a 1% chance to lose everything but that's the price of using a no-kyc mi... I mean a casino.
Someone with 100 btc can register 100 different accounts on that casino, do 100 different 1 btc 98-99% win chance bets, mathematically he will lose 1 or 2 of them, withdraw his coins and sail away. I am not particularly talking about this casino in your signature space, I mean every other no-kyc casinos. What I am saying applies to all of them.
Since players need to make bets before they withdraw, the player can make the safest bets and then withdraw. That way they don't risk pretty much anything. The house edge becomes the mixer fee.
No, I did not conclude that Hhampuz did anything wrong with this new signature campaign. I only shared that he was careful with services that look like mixers and he sent PM to theymos for clarification. I only guessed that Hhampuz did the same this time as well.
Moreover, I remember that in one post Hhampuz said that he stopped promoting mixer services after the mixer ban in the forum as well as lawsuit cases around. I tried to find that post but failed to find it.
I don't think it's necessary to compare Limbo and Razed in this discussion.
I found this
No-KYC exchanges, casinos, etc. are very intentionally not banned. This service is different in two important ways:
First, referring to the
mixer definition, it "has a feature advertised for taking property, improving its privacy somehow, and then returning roughly the same type of property." It allows BTC->BTC "trades", which satisfies the "returning the same property" part, and it advertises itself as improving privacy of the returned coins. So it's a mixer. Most no-KYC exchanges neither allow BTC->BTC "trades" nor advertise their service as improving the privacy of your coins somehow, whereas a mixer would have to do both of those things.
Second: If somebody posted on the Currency Exchange board and offered to trade your
stolen coins for clean coins minus a fee, or linked to a website meant to effect such trades, that would definitely be disallowed due to the prohibition on illegal trades, even before the mixer ban. The service in question here does
not use the phrase "stolen coins": they say "dirty coins", which is definitely different and could include some legally-sourced coins. But when I look at
all of their marketing materials holistically, it all feels too close to the stolen-coins-trader example. So I'd lean toward banning this particular service even if they didn't meet the mixer definition. "Make your dirty coins clean" is not something that typical no-KYC exchanges advertise.
