Bitcoin Forum

Hello everyone,

I'm working on a project aimed at enhancing security in the cryptocurrency space. Have you ever experienced being locked out of your exchange account due to receiving tainted funds unknowingly? And have you ever thought that for your clean coins you can charge a much better price?

We've developed a free tool that allows users to verify the origin of their funds before accepting them from third parties and helping to get and maintain your coins clean. Currently available for BTC with other chains coming soon.

You can check out the tool here: scoremycrypto.com (http://scoremycrypto.com)

I'd greatly appreciate your feedback on our tool and any suggestions for improvement. Your input will help us make the crypto world a safer place for everyone.

Thank you in advance for your time and insights!

Best,
Alej

First of all, nobody can give solid feedback when your tool got filtered by this forum. And since each exchange may use different way to determine whether certain coin is "tainted" not, people would question how useful is your tool.

I appreciate your point! Indeed, different exchanges may have varying methods for assessing coin legitimacy. While it’s not a foolproof solution, it’s a proactive step towards safeguarding your transactions and avoid being blocked or related with tainted funds. You can give it a try and your feedback is valuable as we continuously refine our tool to meet evolving needs.

Sorry @OP but your project is really like a shit.

Bitcoin is fungible, every satoshi(s) flowing in CEX, DEX, wallet etc are same, they're Bitcoin and have a same value. Why you're trying to make Bitcoin becomes non fungible? just like a government and centralized exchanges that restrict freedom.

I don't care with their "tainted" or "clean" bullshit terms.

Why should that be, when BTC is fungible, no utxo should worth more than another of the same value. 'clean' or 'tainted' coins is simply bullshit that is promoted by the government and centralized services to attack BTC's fungibility and steal coins from bitcoiners.
That's why using p2p exchanges is a better and safer option.

"taint" and "clean" are not words that are associated with Bitcoin. 1BTC is equal to 1BTC.

Exchanges can filter as they wish, but that doesn't determine how Bitcoin operates and should not shape the attitude of Bitcoin holders. If miners start filtering coins on a high scale, then we will have a major problem.

- Jay -

We must not allow the concept of “clean” and “dirty” currencies to be the basis for accepting transactions, otherwise there will be two prices for Bitcoin and bitcoin will be quickly destroyed.
How accurate is the tool? Will AI algorithm be able to track every transaction in Bitcoin and know its details, or how will anonymous transactions be classified?
Why are coins coming from mixers classified as high risk?
Will the code be open source or do I need to trust your service with my IP address?

I see you fixed the link. Anyway, i just tested it, but it seems your website isn't working properly.

https://i.ibb.co/mX4Fkk0/i.png (https://ibb.co/Tbtq661)

For reference, i tried checking address bc1qxhmdufsvnuaaaer4ynz88fspdsxq2h9e9cetdj which supposed belong to Foundry USA mining pool.

I tried a random address from the website.

I'm curious why does an unknown category get to have a medium risk level? if it's unknown, how do we know it's at medium level? or is it not actually 'unknown'?

https://talkimg.com/images/2024/05/10/1atkD.jpeg

source: https://scoremycrypto.com/result/bc1qklv6qtc66gfv6cpt7ae3m2uqe37lk96pdpempl

I agree with you guys that fungibility is one of the fundamental properties of bitcoin but, unfortunately, CEXs think otherwise. So, such a tool can indeed be helpful for those who have no other option but to use CEXs.

I got the same error message. I also tried few other addresses belonging to well know exchanges.. same error message.
I assume their servers can not handle addresses that have a long transaction history!

I just tried with some address from https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html (https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html) and i have few thoughts.

1. Why do you bother list category with zero percentage?

https://i.ibb.co/4mjfbCh/b.png (https://ibb.co/3r0sxVg)

2. Sometimes i got this kind of error. Although after i refresh the page, it shows the report correctly.

https://i.ibb.co/xG5rXgm/c.png (https://ibb.co/L6psYgQ)

3. When i check address listed on https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20220914 (https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20220914), it shows 3 different risk (100%, 10% and Low). It would confuse people who use your service.

https://i.ibb.co/qdp3VKs/d.png (https://ibb.co/XbtrM1s)


That makes sense, especially since currently anyone can use this service for free.

That's the point.

We don't like taint and believe that all bitcoins are equal. However, they will give you all kinds of trouble if your coins AML score are higher than a certain threshold.

If you don't believe me, just open any exchanger on Bestchange and see for yourself.

Even if you don't believe in taint, you need to know what the AML score for your addresses are, because without this information, the exchange could report you and you could get into trouble even though you did not even do anything. You can't walk blindly and deprive yourselves of this information.

It's important to note (hmmm... ChatGPT-like ending eh) that running your coins through a mixer or any sort of coinjoin will completely destroy the traces of origin and will in most cases keep the AML score low enough that smaller exchanges and other services won't bother you.

On a separate note, I would like to know what system OP is using to get these scores from. For sure it is not in-house. Such things don't exist. Telegram AMLbot is the only cheap scoring service I am aware of.

Also, I would like to report one complaint.

In order to get a detailed breakdown, I have to enter my email address in order to get info about my address. This inexplicably ties my email i.e. identity  to my address. Why? It's not necessary. Just post the report directly in the site with the option to download it if you want. But don't require email to received detailed reports.

This also made me give up on further testing. I have 4 different categories, I still have to enter my email address 4 more times to complete the report. I have no idea why a site like this should collect email addresses, even if it is planned that this will someday be a paid service, there are other ways.

While I understand or perhaps appreciate your intentions behind this tool, this could also be interpreted as tolerating or even condoning a very bad practice. I think we need to resist rather than give in to this folly of grading what are otherwise fungible coins. I admit this has practical uses, but this also doesn't help the fight against centralized companies ang governments assigning labels to Satoshis.

Bitcoin is electronic cash. It is as fungible as hard cash. However, there isn't a tool used by everybody which screens bills and coins for cocaine residue, for example, to declare them dirty or not. A $10-bill is a $10-bill whether it's coming from a banker or a garbage collector or a drug peddler or a pimp. The $10-bill of a whore can buy as much as the $10-bill of President Biden. Why can't we do the same with Bitcoin?

I'm afraid this tool doesn't actually make the Bitcoin world safer. It does the opposite. It makes the Bitcoin world submissive to the rotten world of governments and fiat.

One address of mine has a risk score of 39%. It's only used as a signature payment address. What if no centralized service accept it because it doesn't have a low risk? Should I just accept their verdict? Isn't it our responsibility as Bitcoin supporters to oppose such absurdity?

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone! I’d like to address some of the key points you raised:

• Technical Issues: We’re working on improving the timeouts issues with larger addresses.
• Tainted Coins and Fungibility: I get that labeling coins as "tainted" is controversial. While Bitcoin is fungible, regulations are becoming stricter, and we have to navigate that reality, even if we don’t like it. I completely agree that it’s a pity and personally hate this direction of things. But ignoring the fact that we are moving in a kind of submissive direction could be problematic for some of us, especially in the future, when buying a house or any real-world asset, having tainted coins could be problematic if the counterparty requires clean coins.
• Unknown Medium Risk: We classify unknown categories as medium risk to be cautious. We are working on the documentation to explain that.
• Email Requirement: Requiring an email is temporary while the tool is under development. We noticed that it’s controversial, and will review this.

We’re going to continuously improving the tool based on your input. Looking forward to future discussions and constructive feedback!

Best,
Alej

I understand you. It’s a tough balance between practicality and principle. The tool isn’t meant to endorse the practice of grading coins but to help users avoid problems in the current regulatory environment. We share your concerns about maintaining Bitcoin's fungibility and are committed to continuous improvement based on community feedback. Thanks for your perspective!

@bitcoin_safer
Is there anything in place to prevent dust attack transactions ^{[especially the unconfirmed ones]} from having an impact on the overall risk scores?
^{- Out of curiosity, what is the max backward hop distance it can cover at this point for each of the categories?}

RE: unknown medium risk

IMO, I find it too much... is this becoming a standard in CExes?

For instance, unless necessary, many of us try to use a fresh address whenever possible. Not to mention, most wallets work in a way where once an address has been used, the 'receive' function will then automatically switch to a fresh address. Won't a lot of these addresses hit the unknown category hence creating more friction with users.

In any case, I'm interested in reading the documentation. Could it be other aspects of your findings are gonna be addressed as well?