Merely "viewing coins in the blockchain" isn't blockchain analysis. It would require much more than a proprietary algorithm to be considered a chain analysis company, such as access to personal data from exchanges. They neither inspect and visually represent blockchain data. Just as the default coordinator from Wasabi is neither a chain analysis company if it was rejecting coins from a particular list of UTXOs some company gave to it.

For the multiple time, it isn't funding chain analysis.

The point isn't if the end user can tell the difference. The point is if there's a difference. And there's a difference between funding a chain analysis, versus not funding it. There just is. The result isn't the same.

They aren't funding blockchain analysis, that's just bullshit.

They do however claim that in order to use their service, you mustn't be involved in some illicit activity, so some coins are blacklisted. So they do censor.

There's objectively difference between checking someone's coins, perhaps to comply with regulations, and using someone's coins to fund surveillance firm to spy on them. There just is.

How do you evaluate a cryptocurrency? I don't want to be called the Bitcoin maximalist, I feel more like an altcoin opposist, but I want to be as objective as possible. To me, a cryptocurrency is valuable if it fulfills at least the following criteria:

• It's decentralized, permissionless, censorship-resistant and robust.
• The network can continue working without a company or an organization.
• There is no premining.

If you follow those standards, then you'll find less than five valuable cryptos.

Indeed. I should be doing that. Thanks for pointing out, and I'm honestly concerned how I hadn't done my self-criticism about that yet. It's easier to pinpoint strangers' mistakes than ours, apparently. I'll be resigning the signature campaign at the end of this week.

My morals are worth more than that.

To the person who lost their coins, none. To the person who still uses it to gain privacy, it says a lot. Centralized entities frequently face shutdowns, which is precisely why we have bitcoin in the first place. Yet, the very act of confiscating them demonstrates that these entities are indeed useful.

Do what you want with your money. The fact is that a mixer (or at least, a good mixer) is a service specifically designed for that purpose. It guarantees you privacy.

If you really think about it, though, the difference in between, is that the CEX comes with shitcoins. If you're concerned about multi-platform services, then you want to trade shitcoins. If you're concerned of converting cryptocurrencies and doing off-chain swaps, then you want shitcoins. If you don't find enough liquidity on DEX, then you want shitcoins. I have been buying and selling bitcoin with absolutely no problem, and with sufficient bitcoin liquidity all the time in DEX.

I'm being paid to promote it, but that doesn't mean I use it or I recommend it, just as I don't oppose it as service. Neutral stance, just as with any other advertised mixer here.

Nice strawman, but I never argued mixers don't get confiscated. I'm merely saying they weren't blacklisting anyone.

You're correct, and yes, I have taken the time to read their privacy policy, which is why I'm not endorsing anyone to using this particular mixer.

There is another difference: the mixer acts as the liable entity for tumbling everyone's coins together. You don't gain this from an exchange.

The previous mixers advertised in this place did not have the same privacy policy and never blacklisted anyone.

You may have had, and you don't know. I have come across lots of merchants, one of which was sending me addresses to deposit, and until I asked, they were using Binance. So, I do have sent coins to exchange.

Which part of "it isn't designed to offer privacy" don't you understand? Of course and you can make an account anonymously, but that isn't my point. Your coins could be confiscated for either being "tainted", or your account could be terminated for using a "banned IP address". Can you gain privacy from such service? Perhaps. Is it suitable for that purpose? No.

The user does not interact with an exchange that might deem his coins as "tainted". That's enough of a service to me. Now, if you want to know the procedure, make a reply in their ANN thread.

Correct, but you have also said that it links your transactions no matter what, and that transaction links are created by Whirlpool coinjoins, both of which are incorrect.


Now please can we stick to the point and not to semantics?

Yes, because an exchange isn't designed to offer on-chain privacy.

MixTum says they're mixing your coins with investors' coins. I'm not sure about the exact procedure they follow, I don't believe they're just randomly selecting an exchange and sending your coins there, under their full name. You can ask them that question in the appropriate thread. I am not obligated to provide an answer, nor am I able to.

I rephrased that particular sentence. I meant that the individuals themselves link transactions, and it's not fault of the whirlpool coinjoins. They do create toxic change, but that wasn't your initial warning.

Μπορείς να μου εξηγήσεις ποιο είναι το πρόβλημα με τις ηλεκτρονικές ταυτότητες; Ψεκασμένους βρίσκω αυτούς που βγαίνουν στο δρόμο με τους παπάδες και μιλάνε για τσιπάρισμα, ναι.

I prefer paying with a debit card, than doing all sorts of jumps across exchanges trying to clean what's clean already. I do have noticed what you're saying about certain services, though, and I admit it's annoying. Most often, they happen to accept lightning or there exist alternatives. Or debit card is acceptable, which as said is better sometimes than paying with bitcoin.

Your initial warning was that Whirlpool coinjoins create toxic coins transaction links, whereas it's the individual themselves that consciously does it:

Thanks. I must have misread. It would make more sense if he was talking about consolidating mixed with unmixed inputs. Consolidating unmixed with unmixed change, and deeming this as software flaw is another level of intelligence.

Why is MixTum relevant? When I refer to mixers, I don't specifically refer to the one I carry in my signature. I refer to the best ones according to reputation, pricing, effectiveness and coinjoin or XMR.

So, pardon me, but the solution to this problem in your opinion is to buy the fucking verification and comply? All my life I dreamed of crypto as permissionless.

Routing failures is one of a kind. It's been 7 years and the failures in transaction finality are very apparent. From my experience, one channel is just not enough, even with the most reliant and well connected node. And I'm not talking about high-value transactions, barely the minimum ($1-$30).

But if only that was the only problem. To retain self-custody, you still need to run a full node 24/7, or have an Electrum-like lightning wallet, with watchtowers. And then other problems like backing up in an easy, non-digital way. Ultimately, there isn't lots of development.

And sometimes it is unexpectedly pricey to use a centralized exchange, as it takes arbitrary commissions like "20,000 sat for withdrawal". And that implies the user does have an account already, otherwise it takes more time to create an account, deposit and withdraw than do it a la mixer.

That's a concern only if you're using a centralized exchange beyond mixing. People who don't use them, don't buy the taint thing.

How confident are you that money coming from an exchange will be deemed as "clean" by every other exchange? I wouldn't be so sure that an exchange can "come to the rescue" and make the bitcoins acceptable by everywhere, because the manner which chain analysis companies deem them as "clean" / "taint" is entirely subjective and can differentiate across their industry.

I'm all in for mixing coins coming from exchanges. I'm against using exchanges as mixers.

No. You're continuing to quote the post where an individual consciously decided to consolidate Whirlpool coinjoin toxic change with other toxic change. I have used Whirlpool with Sparrow, and I have never had my toxic coins consolidated with my coinjoined.

What does the fact that I'm wearing a signature with MixTum has to do with me recommending people to not use exchanges as mixers as they aren't designed for that?

There are no "tainted coins". There are only tainted businesses. Ratimov uses a lot of exchanges which don't treat bitcoin as fungible. You shouldn't be using an anti-Bitcoin service in the first place.

By using the software bech32p2pkaddress, which takes as input a public key and builds a raw transaction wherein you spend UTXOs and create new P2PK UTXOs. You can read how it works in this medium article, asides from the Github repo.

As you can see from the software above, there is no script needed to spend the P2PK output. Bitcoin Core will normally allow you to spend the P2PK output if you give the private key in WIF and the TXID.

There are definitely more software to try out. According to this SE post, python-bitcoinlib does provide the utilities to create and spend P2PK.

How can Full RBF lead to chaos? 0-conf transactions can be double-spent, and that is true since 2009. This particular node policy will only standardize it. Nodes could have configured that out long before Full RBF, and I'm pretty sure some mining pools did pre-configure likewise.

Consider using talkimg for uploading images on bitcointalk, as it's specifically created for that purpose.

That's why it's called "toxic", so you avoid consolidating it with the coinjoined inputs. In fact, in Sparrow, it's pretty much impossible from the GUI to create a transaction spending both the toxic change and the coinjoined inputs.

I would warn users on using Wasabi, as it's caught into being flawed software: https://twitter.com/wasabistats

The answer is as simple as "because it isn't designed to do it". Exchanges share tons of stuff, which user owns which addresses, trading volumes, etc., with governments and chain analysis companies. As I've already shared, there's even a site[1] which takes as input an address and returns you to which exchange it belongs. It's also more expensive.

[1] https://www.walletexplorer.com/

That implies you're buying the term "tainted coins". This thread has nothing to do with this. Wanting privacy doesn't mean wanting to pass the made-up "legitimate coin test" from chain analysis companies.

And also, tainted coins are completely subjectively interpreted. A "tainted coin" can be a block reward, because the miner used "tainted coins" to earn the transaction fees. "Tainted coins" are only destroyed if you don't buy them as concept.

First of all, I'd kindly ask you to lower the height of your images as they take too much space.

The vending machine owner is at a loss, indeed. That's why they shouldn't be releasing the product under a 0-conf transaction. That was less likely to occur before Full-RBF, with RBF disabled, as it'd require to convince a mining pool operator to double-spend your transaction, but currently it's just really trivial. But, that's the normal state of the network; no confirmation, means can be double-spent.

Now the vending machine owner has two options;

• either make the user wait for 1 confirmation (nobody's going to wait 10 minutes for a coca cola, I know), or:
• adapt with second layers, like lightning.