Take the 2-minute tour ×
Bitcoin Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Bitcoin crypto-currency enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm interested in mixing services (0% taint) that are compliant with the most conservative anti-money laundering laws.

My goal is to have anonymity between peers in a transaction, but to remain accountable to government oversight.

share|improve this question
2  
Then you woun't use mixing. Simply trade coins 1:1 by depositing with a hosted (shared) EWallet and then withdraw the same amount. You will get different coins when you withdraw. –  Stephen Gornick Nov 28 '12 at 20:03
    
@StephenGornick What is the difference between mixing and an e-wallet that uses different coins? The only thing I can come up with is taint, which may exist in the hosted wallet. I then infer that 0% taint == remixing , therefore an anonymous wallet service must offer 0% taint and remix. –  makerofthings7 Nov 28 '12 at 21:01
    
Mixing eliminates trace between coins in and coins out. An E-Wallet may do this but if the same amount comes in and the same amount goes out, that gives a clue between the two transactions. But if you simply want to receive coins that have no funds derived from your deposit, you don't need mixing for that. You give me 1 BTC and I return to you a different 1 BTC. What you receive is free of taint. –  Stephen Gornick Nov 28 '12 at 23:34

2 Answers 2

"AML-compliant" bitcoins are not anonymous/anonymizable by definition since most AML laws require the origin of funds to be traceable to real person, at least for bigger transactions. The "tainted" bitcoins are completely different thing, you should be completely fine accepting them in good faith if you have sender's real life ID. Law does know nothing about "taint", that's completely bitcoin-related invention, since cash nor goods usually have it. It's yet to be proven how it would be considered by jury.

IANAL, you should do some own research on this.

share|improve this answer
    
I disagree with your opening statement: "AML-compliant is not possible by definition". A side process (manual ID and key verification) can always be used to identify the sender and the recipient of the coins. The merchant just has to maintain transaction documentation, similar to the PCI laws of today. The "anonymous" feature of bitcoins is not that different that US dollars with a serial number. –  makerofthings7 Dec 2 '12 at 21:22
    
Yes I do agree that the degree of taint really doesn't matter with AML laws. It's a function of the bitcoin technology and as long as the merchant validates the users and logs the transactions for gvmt audit, I see no reason why AML compliant can't exist regardless of taint. –  makerofthings7 Dec 2 '12 at 21:23

IANAL, but I guess, you will need a mixing service that verifies your identity and documents this fact (or whatever AML laws require). I am not aware of such a service.

However, it would make sense: You'll get untainted coins and no one except the mixing service, you and potentially the tax authorities could connect your identity to the (old and new) coins.

share|improve this answer

protected by Community Jul 1 at 21:48

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.