Do you have any evidence that suggests that all users of mixers obtained their Bitcoin illegally?
This HN post is a criticism of the privacy of Bitcoin transactions. Mixers can improve the privacy of Bitcoin transactions. I don't see how your comment adds to this discussion, unless you think financial privacy is a crime - in which case your statement applies equally to cash transactions.
And why would I require that? I haven't accused all bitcoin users of anything.
> This HN post is a criticism of the privacy of Bitcoin transactions. Mixers can improve the privacy of Bitcoin transactions. I don't see how your comment adds to this discussion, unless you think financial privacy is a crime - in which case your statement applies equally to cash transactions.
The law thinks financial privacy is a crime, thus KYC laws, and as such it's on topic for any discussion of bitcoin privacy since said discussion should include the issue that you fix social problems with engineering. You can't break the law "because the protocol just works that way".
Make more sense?
As the name implies, this law only applies to (financial) businesses and their customers. Most Bitcoin transactions are P2P and hence there is no business/customer relationship and hence there is no KYC law applicable.
That's a bit of a nonsense statement. It's a P2P payment network so you have no way of knowing if most of the transactions going across it are between businesses and customers or person to person. Quite simply that's a claim you can't back up.
By the way, that is a valid opinion to have - it's just that not everyone agrees that it optimal in the long run for all personal information to be auditable by a government in real time.