[jackpeterfletch]

> Have you ever considered there may be legitimate use cases for such technology?

Ok, so we all are well aware of the illegitimate use cases for which crypto mixers are used - in vast volumes daily.

What are the legitimate use cases for which they are commonly used?

[greggh]

For activists working on causes where powerful people would like to unmask them. You can use mixers to end up with crypto for VPNs and other privacy services that aren't connected to your identity. Obviously you have to take 20 other steps as well. But this is in my opinion a very legitimate use case for this technology.

[jackpeterfletch]

That definitely happens.

Meanwhile we know that these mixers are being used enmasse to sell exploitative content, fund terrorist organisations, evade tax, run scams, hacks, the list goes on, and on, and on, and on.

[derangedHorse]

The problem is that the existing financial system also allows all these things. I have personally known many people who have lost money from a scam that their bank allowed them to transfer ridiculous amounts of money to. I also know people who have had their bank accounts arbitrarily frozen without prior notice.

If I have the risk of running into both these problems with the existing financial system, why not use Bitcoin? The problem is if I'm using Bitcoin, and want dollars to buy something from a vendor who doesn't accept it, I have to use a potentially hackable exchange that will then have my on-chain and personal information.

If I want a separation from the rest of my on-chain funds from those I send to an exchange, it's only logical to use a mixer. Even if I were Bitcoin only, I'd still want this level of privacy (unless all my transactions were digital and my on-chain identity was pseudonymous to all).