Mixer is a tool to make you stay anonymous, so assuming you did right and know what you're doing, how can someone able to know your location and knocking your door? you must be leave your identity somewhere and it's already kill the purpose of mixer.
Using mixer will be expensive because the current regulations is full of KYC, so it's not gonna be easy to stay anonymous.
It is super easy to mess it up, by mixing outputs of separate transactions together. For example, I have a UTXO that is freshly mixed. Then I pay something online and I receive the change. If I then mix the change with other UTXOs that haven't been processed by mixers or coinjoins etc, you can definetely make a mistake. So I underline a sentence in your response, because it is important that we do things properly. No tool is safe against human error  |
|
|
|
Similar to 2017, Bitcoin is under attack. This time the codename of this attack is Ordinals and the problem with this type of attack is that it creates an incentive for regular newbies to participate in this attack.
Fees won't go down as long as this attack continues and this attack will continue until bitcoin core developers fix the exploit Ordinals scammers are abusing to perform their attack and unfortunately the dev team doesn't seem to be interested in fixing this exploit! so we need to find another way...
Would it be a huge speculation to say that "someone" attacks bitcoin to prove it is not good enough? Perhaps they plan to create a fork and introduce it to the world? Take mempool block 0 for example, the one waiting to be mined. It is full of dust... |
|
|
|
If you're not doing anything illegal, then nobody is going to show up at your door and harass you. The worst thing you have to deal with is just exchanges requesting enhanced verification from you and most likely a source of funds document if you send mixed bitcoins there.
Mixers are still not classified by governments as illegal.
Luckily we can use Robosats, BISQ and many other options that are P2P exchanges and will not censor transactions. Btw, if anyone has more options in this regard, feel free to share them. There is also this website here: https://kycnot.me/ which has a lot of good value tools |
|
|
|
This is a quote from one of the articles you mention: Ocean's debut comes as some legacy mining pools have been the subject of controversy for censoring certain transactions, as "censorship resistance" is considered by many Bitcoiners to be a cardinal principle of the largest and original blockchain.
I mean, it will be "censorship resistant", but at the same time, their decision to refuse to relay Whirlpool transactions, isn't it considered censhorship? I'm all for adding more flexibility to the settings users can change but this sounds like a malicious centralized move. Not to mention that you don't need to ban other implementations such as Knots if you run a full node like bitcoin core. The only difference in Knots is some of the standard rules and there is a reason why they are called "standard rules", they are preference not a ban worthy offense. For example your node may decide not to relay txs with fee rate lower than 10 sat/vb but that doesn't mean your node should be banned!
According to o_e_l_e_o's original post, Knots is run only by 0.4% of the current nodes. If you ask me, as I mentionned above, I agree that banning wasn't something I had in mind until now. I am ok with identifying if some of my peers constantly reject my transactions and manually banning them, but I don't really want to make a ban using a "wildcard" or something like that. But Bitcoin is fantastic because anyone is allowed to do whatever they want with their nodes. Their nodes their rules. |
|
|
|
When it is about quantum computing the cryptography used in Bitcoin it's obsolete, it need it need a (new) different way of ciphering called Quantum-Proof cryptography!
This is when Bitcoin will need to have a serious fork in order to make it bullet-proof against quantum computing threats. But in this case, cryptography will face issues as a whole. It won't be bitcoin only that will need to change. |
|
|
|
You explained it well with arguments but people still can't understand. They follow very primitive logic that more is better, they can't understand that the whole Thesaurus and a tiny BIP wordlist, both of them are equally safe for generating 12 or 24 words seed phrase. To be frank, no one ever had a problem with it, no one's wallet has ever been hacked by bruteforcing seed phrases and I don't really understand why are people looking for solutions for a problem that doesn't exist.
Maybe people don't understand, maybe people are lazy to dig into the documentation of how BIP39 actually works. I don't know what exactly the problem is. You can read and try to understand BIP39 at various places where it's explained. For me a nice spot is here: https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/mnemonic, it's visual, some explanatory code for code nerds and lots of details and links. Who doesn't understand that? It's certainly laziness, I can tell you from personal examples that people don't want to bother learning new stuff. learnmebitcoin.com is indeed a great website. Personally I love reading "Mastering Bitcoin" by A. Antonopoulos which is one of the best books I have ever read, but it is a bit more difficult. Then again, anyone can read both, but the question is, are they willing to do so? Most people think what Synchronice says, that the more words, the more secure the phrase is. I would give a point though to those that don't know what a bit is in computer science. Unfortunately (and fortunately too) Bitcoin requires basic computer knowledge. But I find this as a strong positive of Bitcoin's. Bitcoin is an incredible amalgam of Cryptography, Math and Computer Science. But luckily we are here to help and be helped. |
|
|
|
It's pretty disingenuous in my opinion for the Ocean mining site to say "Blocks Found: 11,633", when in reality they've found 2.
Exactly! Has the hashpower been increased during these years? That's a loss of 0.5 BTC per block. When you have not even mined a single block in 15+ days, that's a significant amount of fees to be throwing away through your censorship policies.
Incredible... Unless something changes and / or JD throws a lot of money at the pool I see it slowly dying since miners as a rule follow the money and not mining certain transactions means less money.
Does JD have anything to win from Ocean mining? I thought Luke was the creator / maintainer of both Ocean mining & Knots. |
|
|
|
On another note, things not looking so great for Ocean: https://ocean.xyz/dashboardWith the hashrate they claim to have they should be finding around one block a week, but it's been 15 days since their last block. Seems like a number of their miners are giving up on them and their total hashrate is gradually falling. It's all about profitability. If the miners stop earning sats for their work, they will eventually move to other pools. I saw that ocean mining has found many blocks in the past, but only 2 in 2023. Have they been working in the past (before 2017)? |
|
|
|
The device generates 128 bits and the output is 12 words (128 digits, 0 or 1), or 256 bits and the output is 24 words (256 digits, 0 or 1), and so on.
So the entropy's output is always a binary number, that can be 128 digit long or 256 digit long.
After this phase, the binary number has to be hashed, and the output will add 4 digits (128 becomes 132, 256 become 260), always taken between 0 and 1.
You are nearly there, but for 256 bits of initial entropy, after hashing it, you will keep the first 8 bits of the hashed value instead of 4 for the 128 bits. So briefly: 128 bits of entropy + 4 bits checksum = 132 bits split into 12 segments of 11 bits = 12 words 256 bits of entropy + 8 bits checksum = 264 bits split into 24 segments of 11 bits = 24 words Please refer to this link for more info https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook/blob/develop/ch05.asciidoc#mnemonic-code-words-bip-39 |
|
|
|
Hi everyone. I have a question. The BIP39 provides the word list in many languages, right? (see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039/bip-0039-wordlists.md) There are just 2048 records. However, English has more than 20.000 words (ChatGPT says around 30.000.....). My question is: In the future, can the entire word list be completely replaced by a more comprehensive and agreed-upon BIP?
Or is it mathematically impossible to proceed with that substitution?Thank you in advance Hi. Let's examine how BIP39 works. So, your device generates 128 bits of entropy (assuming you want 12 words seed phrase). Then the entropy looks like this: Then the entropy is hashed with SHA256. From the output, you will hold only the first 4 bits. So now you have 128 bits of entropy + 4 bits that are called "checksum". We will split these 132 bits into 12 segments of 11-bits each. Imagine something like: 10001001011
11000100100
...
01000100001
Now we will convert those binaries to decimals: Let's go to the BIP39 wordlist and check where these numbers correspond to: Now, following this process you realise that the max decimal you can get with 11 bits is 2047 (index starts at 0). So the max number of words you can have is 2048. What would be needed if we wanted more words? Larger initial entropy (more bits) or the same amount of bits but less segments to be split into. Is it necessary, or is it better? No! the fact that your seed phrase is selected from a set of 2048 words makes it super secure, so anything higher is an overkill. But, higher entropy doesn't mean more secure? Yes, it does, but when we talk about bitcoin private keys, you can only get a maximum of 128 bits of security. This means that even if you create an entropy of 2000 bits to produce a private key, there can be someone who will generate the same key by solving the ECDSA algorithm, without messing with the size of the seed phrase at all. Therefore, I believe there is no need for larger seed phrases or more english words in them. We must focus on securing the backups properly and not on trying to increase security in this regard. |
|
|
|
Are you in favour of this approach though? I don't see why not. You want your node to broadcast your transactions, and other nodes to relay them. If you found a node was arbitrarily rejecting all your completely valid and completely standard transactions based on some local setting, then being connected to that node is a hindrance for the purposes of broadcasting your transactions. That node will also not relay to you other users' completely valid and completely standard transactions which you want to learn about, for the same reason. So replacing that node with another node makes logical sense. If you found one of your peers was refusing to relay all your transactions but you didn't know why, would you not simply replace it with another peer? Sounds reasonable but as you said, you need to inspect your logs and see which nodes reject your txs, don't you? I am reading their code now and it looks like there is no way of knowing the if a machine is running Knots. So you have to manually check the logs and then setban |
|
|
|
You can always do this manually using setban in Core, though. Are you in favour of this approach though? To be honest, banning in Core, seems like something I wouldn't consider doing before these things happened. I mean it never crossed my mind until now that I should ban other nodes from my node. |
|
|
|
Not a surprising move, really. If Knots are going to refuse to relay Whirlpool transactions, then Samourai are simply not going to connect to any Knots nodes with their software to ensure their transactions continue to get good propagation. There will also be people who do not run Dojo but won't want to connect to Knots nodes for the same reason.
I believe it is also a decision based on their values. Of course there is a need to do it, but I think this move is also symbolic. Now, Umbrel offers a docker image of Samourai Server. I think that if you use umbrel and enable this feature, then essentially you run a Dojo node on your machine. Don't you? If so, you can easily connect your Samourai & Sentinel wallets straight to this server. And again, if you can do this, people can use this feature on their Umbrel nodes. There are many people I know who use Umbrel and perhaps this will make it easier for them. Do you have any info regarding this? Because if this is the case, then the percentage of people running Dojo can increase significantly. This is unlikely to make any meaningful difference to the wider network though, given that Dojo is about 3.1% of all nodes, and Knots is about 0.4% of all nodes.
Any move supporting our privacy is welcome, no matter how big the impact is. |
|
|
|
Why not just swap it to monero and back to bitcoin? He is using a a centralized exchange. There is possibility that the exchange may still also seize coinjoin coins.
Yes, I am in favour of this method. I use it a lot in general. In fact, there is nothing wrong with also keeping these funds in XMR and use XMR, because I don't consider XMR a s**coin but a proper altcoin, but this is on OP to decide. Then OP could have a clear distinction in his head that any new Bitcoin UTXO isn't linked with the previous UTXOs that come from the mixing service. The only catch is that should OP wish to get back to Bitcoin using a reverse swap from XMR, there is no way to know where the new BTC utxos come from. So, in case those utxos come from the same mixing service, he will not have gained anything. However, there is no way to know if any UTXO you receive, from now on, is linked to the mixing service we talk about. This is why I suggested coinjoins. I support coinjoins is general, no matter where the inputs come from. Bitcoin is money and as long as it is used widely, you will eventually receive money coming from illicit activities, just like the FIAT money you receive every day. We should learn to use coinjoins as a habit. It is not mandatory, but it is clearly a good option! |
|
|
|
I just saw this topic. Personally I use exactly what Charles-Tim suggested above: 1. Whirlpool coinjoins, from Sparrow which has this feature enabled (if you want) for hot wallets. For details check Nathan's video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIHoNaQdzP0&ab_channel=theBTCcourse2. Jam, which is actually a UI for JoinMarket. Very easy to use. For details check Ben's video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbyjG2upGO8&ab_channel=BTCSessionsTechnically, I could send coins from sinbad campaign , right? Even if in the past those coins came from their address.
You could and you should, in my opinion! As I said in another thread, I would mix my UTXOs from this campaign (I wasn't part of it, but hypothetically) and send them to a wallet specifically created for this purpose. I wouldn't wanna mix these inputs with other inputs I have. I know you specifically mention CoinJoins, but if you wanna go a little further (I think you do, since you mentioned exchanges) you can read here: https://kycnot.me/search?type=exchange and find more tools to ensure your privacy. One tool I use a lot is UnstoppableSwap which allows me to basically swap between Bitcoin and Monero in a fully self-custodial way. Technically you could get rid of these UTXOs you own switching to monero and then follow the same steps in reverse to get fresh Bitcoin back.
P.S in case you choose Whirlpool coinjoins, make sure to remember that it creates change UTXOs in an account that it calls "Badbank". Treat these UTXOs carefully. |
|
|
|
I am on Cretan shores for a while and it does not feel good to drink alone  In fact, you can not drink alone when in Creta. Sorry for bumping older posts, but I just realised it wasn't that old, just 2 months old  (And as I said, I have read all the posts 3 times already lol) |
|
|
|
So if i wanted to use my balance on that address, i would need to mix it with a mixer so that my connection with Si#D$$ is lost ?
Or with coinjoins. You could use whirlpool for example. To be honest, personally I would: 1. create a wallet specifically for this mixing service's payments. 2. start doing whirlpool coinjoins and let them go to the wallet created on step (1). 3. avoid sending any other transactions to this wallet (any of the addresses of this wallet). 4. if you need to send out of this wallet, just do it from the fresh coinjoined UTXOs. In my opinion, you will be able to use the UTXOs anyway in the future. However, if everything has gone wrong and all the miners decide to reject these inputs, you want to have them as separate UTXOs. Don't mix them with other ones you may have. |
|
|
|
A private key in Bitcoin is 128 bits, no matter how many words you choose to use as a seed phrase. This is because Bitcoin uses Secp256k1. In fact, every measure you take (24 words instead of 12, multisig, passphrase etc) only help in case the seed phrase backup is exposed. No matter what measure you take, the private key in Bitcoin will offer 128 bits of security. The best explanation you can find is here (conversation with o_e_l_e_o): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5393030.msg63258028#msg63258028 |
|
|
|
Besides contributing to the network, I would like to gain access to the data stored on the blockchain to conduct different types of analyses. I want to set up my wallet on the node as well.
May I ask what exactly do you want to do? For personal reasons? -Should I aim for 16GB RAM or already go for 32GB RAM?
-Is a 4TB SSD sufficient or should I also look for a harddrive with more storage space, given that Ordinals increase the pace of data growth on the Bitcoin blockchain?
-What other hardware is crucial for my purpose? I am happy about any any additional feedback on that.
Prefferably aim for: 8GB RAM 2TB SSD Anything higher than that is good but not necessary / mandatory. |
|
|
|
Using multisig wallet as an extra layer of security is not necessary and may only make things more complicated.
Just keep in mind that this security only helps in case one backup is lost or stolen. In general, the level of security that bitcoin provides is 128 bits. This Is infeasible to be violated, but what we do here, is we add another security layer on top of that in case any backup is lost. I will guide you to my post here where I explain how many bits of security OP's suggestion adds, compared to my suggestion. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5477341.msg63312153#msg63312153Just notice that using multisig essentially adds another 128 bits of security on top of the initial ones. It is similar to using a strong passphrase (128 bits +) security wise. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
