Subnostr

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," but when Caesar sees others seeming to not agree with him about what is his, he becomes a cruel oppressor. He will not easily give up his control over his subjects, and neither ought we expect it.

Mixing is a technique to obfuscate one's identity when considering transactions, which is as much a protection against tyrants as it may be an evasion of justice. It seems to me to be morally neutral, like owning weapons or driving cars. It is not the provider of the means but the user who should be held responsible, and that is the point. The DOJ is wrong for this.

nostr:nevent1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgnwaehxw309ahkvenrdpskjm3wwp6kytcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtcqyr372jsum5f9r455dlzrgkwfd2p4pvjywcz3e6pvgs0sn8fxs4la2p0078u

hodlbod 1y ago

Mixing should be protected too, but it's important to distinguish between mixing and coinjoin. They were not violating MSB laws, because they were not taking custody of the funds. They were only coordinating peer-to-peer coinjoins.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

James A Lewis 1y ago

Good to know. Whatever it is, it is a service that further obfuscates identity in Bitcoin, which is too similar to "money laundering" for the three-letter agencies' taste. The fact is that money laundering is not itself a crime either, but only a technique to hide other crimes.

Theft, fraud, and extorsion precede or are followed by "laundering", and the "laundering" doesn't make the crime worse but only justice more difficult to achieve, which one may call obstruction only in the case that another crime has been or is being committed. (Note: a crime anticipated is not yet a crime. That's another path to further tyranny.)

If no other crime is being or has been committed, "mixing" and "coinjoin" only protect a user against a greedy tyrant, no matter what that tyrant says.