Coin.ph exchange BTC addresses in the Philippines are connected to each other.

[YOSHIE]

I simply do not know if this was caused by the previous incident.

At first I thought so, but my intention changed...this is not true, if I continue...plus more nonsense like what was said though:@Polar91 at that time. Crazy.

Maybe @Avirunes, quick to realize me, with the address of the swallow he posted:

walet: https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/00000dd86b2f6402/addresses which contains more than 2 million addresses and someone to hold that much addresses would be insane. IIRC I think that is coins.ph wallet.

There are thousands of accounts that do the same thing, this is a bad phenomenon that is currently experienced by the philippines.
Maybe the coins.ph exchange company should be aware of it and rearrange the shipping and outgoing strategies of each individual who makes a transaction.

The only thing that comes out of this thread is that there are lot of Philippines in that campaign.

Maybe, but not a basic reference, even though the majority of the community in the Philippines is fine, as long as they understand the existing campaign rules.

This happens in many exchanges and not only in coins.ph. I hope I have cleared the doubts you are going through. Let me know if you have further questions.

You did it, before everything went crazy.

Yes.  There is just nothing to bust here—and insofar as has been shown on this thread, there is nothing wrong with the exchange.  (Not that I approve of keeping bitcoins on any exchange, but that is a different subject...)

Yes...that's not supposed to happen, but at least for coins.ph exchange companies, have to review the largest exchange community in this bitcointalk forum...maybe they consider it normal, but just the opposite.

Maybe it's better for coins.ph companies to use one community one address exchange, in transactions from wallet 3 & d, etc.
so coins.ph address becomes the main address for each community in the Philippines.

[nullius]

There are thousands of accounts that do the same thing, this is a bad phenomenon that is currently experienced by the philippines.
Maybe the coins.ph exchange company should be aware of it and rearrange the shipping and outgoing strategies of each individual who makes a transaction.

Would you say the same thing if a Filipino user were to run a Filipino-language version of some CoinJoin-style protocol, that linked (and mixed) together the inputs and outputs of, say, a hundred different individuals who post in the Filipino local?

For that matter, what would you say if a large proportion of Filipino users started sending their money into ChipMixer?  After that, it would be infeasible for you to discover who owned what.

Or what if everybody were to just start using the Lightning Network, which never exposes transactions to the blockchain at all?

Yes.  There is just nothing to bust here—and insofar as has been shown on this thread, there is nothing wrong with the exchange.  (Not that I approve of keeping bitcoins on any exchange, but that is a different subject...)

Yes...that's not supposed to happen, but at least for coins.ph exchange companies, have to review the largest exchange community in this bitcointalk forum...maybe they consider it normal, but just the opposite.

Maybe it's better for coins.ph companies to use one community one address exchange, in transactions from wallet 3 & d, etc.
so coins.ph address becomes the main address for each community in the Philippines.

Why does an exchange have an obligation to make blockchain analysis easier?  I think that it is rather the opposite:  I would prefer an exchange that made it very difficult to figure out who owns what coins.  Much more difficult than what coins.ph is doing.

To be clear, coins.ph is NOT running a privacy service.  The described behaviour is NOT a privacy feature, and is NOT providing anybody any significant privacy.

This discussion is just too close to an attack on actual privacy services.

By analogy, it is like complaining that the use of CGNAT makes it difficult to associate users with IP addresses.  No, CGNAT does NOT give you any significant privacy.  But a demand for ISPs to make it easy to associate individuals with IP addresses would be too close to an attack on Tor and other privacy services.

It is beneficial that many forum abusers lack the opsec skills to evade very basic analysis of blockchain evidence, IP evidence, etc.  (And it is probably not good to talk too much about this in public—hint.  Let them keep making dumb mistakes.)  However, that itself is not a reason to demand a change of behaviour from other parties, such as exchanges—or down the slippery slope, privacy services.


FWIW, I also think that the chance is nil that an exchange will change its wallet handling based on this discussion here in Reputation.  I doubt that they will put their engineering team right on this—when nothing is actually broken.


Edit—Addendum:

To be clear, I am absolutely against blockchain transparency.  You may quote me on that.  Transparency is the opposite of privacy.

The Byzantine agreement produced by the blockchain is its ingenious feature, and its only good feature.  Otherwise, the blockchain as a global public ledger is a terrible concept.  Broken by design.  (Fixed by the Lightning Network.)

(This is why I’m not “Bitcoin-rich”...)

One of the reasons that I avoid many business sections of this forum is that there are too many misguided traditions about publicly posting txids, etc.  Basically, it is a culture of self-doxing.  And let’s not get started on such things as the various demands in mid-2018 for Lauda to dox the money of 5000 investors—just because, “transparency”.  WTF?

And I object to a demand that a business change its wallet handling so that innocent Filipino users who did nothing wrong will have their coin ownership absolutely trivial to trace.  Please focus on busting the abusers!  Nobody is harsher than I am with that; I cheer whenever a forum abuser gets busted.