never withdraw directly to an exchange

ok, people say to never directly withdraw to an exchange, but always first to your wallet.

let me picture that for you.

scenario 1
gambling site withdrawal => exchange = a no, because they can see it's from a gambling site, and close your account.
ok, clear.

so, you should do,
scenario 2
gambling site withdrawal => your wallet => exchange
not clear. i mean, if an exchange can see if the transaction was gambing related in scenario 1, they also SHOULD be able to know by looking one transaction further that it's still a gambling related transaction... right? especially with a new unique address, you get your commission, let's say 0.5123 btc. you deposit this balance to an exchange. exchange checks where it's coming from apparantly, your wallet address should be clear. IF they would look one step further though where that btc is coming from, they can see it's gambling related.

maybe they are not checking further than one step at this moment. can be a matter of time before they will i guess.

Maybe you could bundle several payments into one, so that the amount won't be 0.5123 but for example 0.684? And then send that 0.684 first to yourself (generate a new address for this) before sending it to the exchange? Or maybe split the amount into 2 deposits to the exchange?
This adds 2 layers of "difficulty", and I doubt the exchanges can investigate into too many layers.

it's true that there are several ways of avoiding this. but it's funny as every gambling affiliate site is more or less is giving the advice to do a/b/c, gambling site/wallet/exchange.

if you do already a/b/c/d , so gambling site/your wallet/new address in your wallet (not exact same amount)/exchange it will already become more difficult. if you transfer the complete amount i guess they can't say with 100% certainty it's going from same owner to same owner, but i would say 99% certain in this case already if it would be the ONLY payment to that new address in your wallet.

i guess sooner or later exchanges will catch up and will be able to dig deeper.

I wouldn't send the same amount to my own wallet. Should be a different (higher?) amount.
Yes they might catch up, but if they go 100 levels deep then they will find gambling related transactions much more often, even from people that never had anything to do with gambling (generating false positives). If you hold a ten year old $100 bill in your hands, it probably was already in the hands of a criminal some time ago...

Maybe someone with a depper and not only theoretical knowlegde can step into this thread.

While some exchanges like Coinbase might have a problem with BTC payments from gambling sites, other exchanges like Binance might not be so fussy. Alternatively, you can use a Bitcoin mixing service :)

Yes, Coinbase should be the most picky and I read that 6 hops should be enough. Mixing them in between may be wise, but also even more suspicious. However you can try to deposit the coins to some exchange that is not so picky and then withdraw for example to your wallet. It is not a casino with bonus, there should not be a rollover. Or deposit to low picky exchange, trade something, but in not so crazy way ofc and then withdraw. If CB asks where are the money from you can always show screen from binance or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strider1973

This adds 2 layers of "difficulty", and I doubt the exchanges can investigate into too many layers.

---

They could investigate that far back, if they wanted to. In most cases it would be trivial to detect "suspicious behavior".

My theory is that many/most exchanges do the absolute minimum compliance checking to satisfy their banks/regulators. I don't suspect many will do more unless forced to do so by economic/criminal charges pressure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yeahfree

maybe they are not checking further than one step at this moment. can be a matter of time before they will i guess.

---

Yes, it is a matter of time before traditional banking/government lean on the exchanges so hard for KYC/AML that more thorough checks are done. Failure to comply will mean cutting those exchanges off from traditional banking channels and that will be the end of said exchange unless crypto-currency becomes more widely adopted, completely uncontrollable, and governments don't find creative ways to force citizen compliance (they will).

This could be a long way off, or right around the corner.

Even if you get away with it now, AI will (already can I'm sure) determine if your transactions were in compliance or not.

Another thing is that you really should believe in crypto into some extent. That means you should hold some coins. Then you should do FIFO policy of coins and the new coins should lie at your address for some time and you should exchange the old coins. Why? Because the most dirty money must turn around quickly.

Also if you are true hodler, you should actually buy bitcoins for fiat. If you go selling to an exchange where you bought like I did, they will love you and the compliance will be even less strict. I got limits 10M USD/month for payouts from one exchange only because I was an early buyer and they could see I still hold the coins.

To be honest, I do not understand why should anyone sell bitcoins, especially now before halving. Just keep them. Unless you are 100% US/BTC affiliate, the fiat should cover your expenses even with all the crazy things that are happening. Bitcoin is the savings account and pension fund. It is so obvious bet for a decade and it will for sure last through 2020 halving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sherlock

Unless you are 100% US/BTC affiliate, the fiat should cover your expenses even with all the crazy things that are happening.

---

For US traffic affiliates, I don't know of any programs (offshore, not the few regulated markets) where affiliates actually are paid in USD. It is all crypto now I believe. Well, outside of low 3/4 figure payments that could be made (with high fees).

What I'm saying is that I think grey market affiliates are pretty much stuck with crypto, for good or for ill.