[ANN] ChipMixer.com - Bitcoin mixer / Bitcoin tumbler - mixing reinvented

[NotATether]

A belated response, but as I was totally unaware that this even happened, I'm going to leave my comments about it here:

Am I reading this right, does this mean that Google received a complaint from the .online domain and it got the original .com domain removed from searches because of this?

That would be amazingly dumb! Does this mean Google just follows any BS claim without verifying anything? But when it's about taking down a reported phishing site, they don't seem to care? It doesn't make sense. The word "stupid" doesn't even cover it!
I would expect Google to have more than enough data to determine which site is the original creator of the data. They're a search engine, it's their core business to know these things.

Now on to the obvious question right now, can we simple users do something about this?

I'm starting to think of adding this to /etc/hosts:

Code:

127.0.0.1       google.com

Reporting to google for fake misleading ads is one thing and I did that a lot of times, but here is something that I guess is a bit more complicated, so stick to reporting the xyz domain as a phishing website via the safebrowsing report tool or is there something else we can do about it?

It would be interesting if a scammed user sues Google over this. They're actively promoting a scam, despite being reported to them many times. But I guess victims value their privacy too much for that.

Google is no internet sheriff. They lost their "force for good" title more than a decade ago. Now they only care about keeping their profits up which means that they will turn a blind eye towards malicious stuff unless there is severe public pressure on them to block it.

It's one of the reasons why ChipMixer has the largest signature campaign here, and has near total penetration on Bitcointalk.

[1714264819]

1714264819

[DireWolfM14]

Google is no internet sheriff. They lost their "force for good" title more than a decade ago. Now they only care about keeping their profits up which means that they will turn a blind eye towards malicious stuff unless there is severe public pressure on them to block it.

It was quite telling when about 4 years ago they removed the phrase "Don't Be Evil" from their literature, murals, and Code of Conduct.  At least they finally acknowledged that the phrase conflicted with their business practices, and didn't hide which is a higher priority for them.

It's one of the reasons why ChipMixer has the largest signature campaign here, and has near total penetration on Bitcointalk.

The influence the forum has on the crypto community is often underestimated, in my opinion.  Despite being constantly under attack in various ways, including limiting their search engine returns Chipmixer is one of the most popular bitcoin mixers around, and as far as I know they only advertise here.

[moejoejay]

@Chipmixer

Is it possible to design the FAQ-Website in an way that is able to load with the highest security settings in Tor.



best regards 

[ChipMixer]

Is it possible to design the FAQ-Website in an way that is able to load with the highest security settings in Tor.

Thank you. It will be changed at next update.

[moejoejay]

Thank you. It will be changed at next update.

ure welcome
Glad to help

Some Security consideration cases come to my mind:

1.  Withdraw from CHP with Import Private Key in Electrum --> Spent the coins.
2.  Withdraw from CHP with Import Private Key in Electrum --> Sweeping in Electrum --> Spent The coins.
3.  Sweeping directly from CHP to an Wallet --> Spent the coins.

On an anonymity sight could someone explain the differences ( may in slightly easy words im not really a pro )  

best regards

[LoyceV]

1.  Withdraw from CHP with Export Private Key in Electrum --> Spent the coins.
2.  Withdraw from CHP with Export Private Key in Electrum --> Sweeping in Electrum --> Spent The coins.
3.  Sweeping directly from CHP to an Wallet --> Spent the coins.

Questions to clarify before answering:
1. Does "CHP" stand for a ChipMixer chip? Do you mean Import instead of Export?
2. I'm confused: you get the private key from chipmixer, you don't export it from Electrum.

Generic answer:
When sweeping a private key, it gets added to your wallet. If you already had coins in that wallet, they may get linked together when you make a payment and don't use Coin Control. The same can happen to your change later on. The Electrum server may also be able to link several of your addresses together.

[moejoejay]

1. Does "CHP" stand for a ChipMixer chip? Do you mean Import instead of Export?
2. I'm confused: you get the private key from chipmixer, you don't export it from Electrum.

@LoyceV
Hello

Yes u right i mean Chipmixer and of course Import not Export. My fault.


The Answer is a little bit to common for me, especially for the difference ( if there is one ) between 2-3.
For my understanding 1 is almost clear  , u have to trust CHP and ure off the blockchain until ure spent the coins.
but may im wrong so Correct me if its the case  

But on 2-3 im not really sure if there is a difference.

And futhermore i think if ure get off the blockchain over chipmixer and coming back over an sweeping transaction u have still the anomymity gap between these ones or so i think its still a good anonymity level.

May an easy example will help to explain this further and to figure out if my assumptions are wrong or not.
  

best regards



 

[jackg]

1.  Withdraw from CHP with Import Private Key in Electrum --> Spent the coins.
2.  Withdraw from CHP with Import Private Key in Electrum --> Sweeping in Electrum --> Spent The coins.
3.  Sweeping directly from CHP to an Wallet --> Spent the coins.

On an anonymity sight could someone explain the differences ( may in slightly easy words im not really a pro )  

One sweeps your coins directly to an address, one gives you a code/list of private keys in a specific format you can import into electrum and another gives you a code you can import into any wallet your like or just copy them down somewhere encrypted iirc.

Sweeping funds into electrum may denonymise you if you don't have tor enabled and the server collects logs. You risk linking your withdrawn funds to that electrum session too so parts 1 and 3 might be safer anonymity wise as you can sweep funds to multiple wallets and connect to different nodes.

All three can suffer privacy risks if you do them too quickly though too. Sweeping funds from chipmixer directly to electrum can mean your mixing is more likely to be traced. Waiting a random number of days (1-7) or adding additional steps can be ways to bypass this though if there's a particular worry - it'd already take a lot of effort to match your inputs to your outputs though if you withdraw immediately but depends on how much you deposit (the larger the deposit the easier it may be to be traced).

[LoyceV]

May an easy example will help to explain this further and to figue out if my assumptions are wrong or not.

I'll make up an example for all 3 scenarios, and I'll rewrite your questions a bit.

1.  Withdraw from CHP with Import Private Key in Electrum --> Spent the coins.

Let's say I deposited 0.02347273 BTC to ChipMixer on January 1, 2021. I got a 0.023 BTC voucher. Yesterday, I deposited 0.00482361 BTC to ChipMixer and added my voucher. I withdrew a 0.008 BTC chip, and got a voucher (0.019 BTC) for the rest.
Today, I start up Tails OS (which connects through Tor), import the 0.008 BTC chip into Electrum, and spend the coins. I make sure to spend the full amount, without creating a change address.

2.  Withdraw from CHP with Import Private Key in Electrum --> Sweeping in Electrum --> Spent The coins.

I shortened the question a bit: there's no need to import private keys if you're sweeping them.
Tomorrow, I'm going to use my voucher on ChipMixer, and withdraw a 0.002 BTC and 0.004 BTC chip. I take a voucher (0.013 BTC) for the rest.
I import both private keys in my normal Electrum installation (which I already have on my PC). I click Wallet > Private Keys > Sweep, and enter both private keys. After the transaction fee, I receive 0.00599617 BTC on the next unused Bitcoin address in my Electrum wallet. I use the Coins tab, select this input, right-click my mouse and click Spend. I spend 0.00456817 BTC and receive 0.00142685 BTC on a change address. I go to the Addresses tab, and Label the address: "CHANGE from CHIP, do not mix". Then, to avoid sending it accidentally, I click right-mouse and select Freeze.
This is slightly less anonymous than #1, but still pretty good, as it won't link any of my Bitcoin addresses on-chain. But the Electrum server I'm connecting to knows all the addresses in my wallet. If it keeps logs, my anonymity could be compromised.

3.  Sweeping directly from CHP to an Wallet --> Spent the coins.

This is basically the scenario (#2) above. The level of anonymity will largely depend on the wallet you use: if you use an Android wallet from your home IP address, it's likely someone can link your addresses together. If you use a web wallet for all your Bitcoin transactions, it's even worse.

I think #1 is the most anonymous method if you're limited to Electrum. You could probably do a bit better if you use your own Bitcoin Core wallet on Tor, but that is more work.

[moejoejay]

@LoyceV

First of all

Real good explainations.
Brings me further in my understanding for mixing.  

Let's say I deposited 0.02347273 BTC to ChipMixer on January 1, 2021.

Its a real long intervall not really neccessary or ?

 

I make sure to spend the full amount, without creating a change address.

Is this only possible to spend the entire funds from the wallet, or are there any other duck-tape fix-all for this except the option "do not mix" in scenario 2 .

Should i use "Use multiple change Addresses" option in electrum  if i use scenario 2. ? 

This is basically the scenario (#2) above.

This was one of my main questions cause i wasnt sure if its a difference if u sweep from chp directly or later in electrum.

You could probably do a bit better if you use your own Bitcoin Core wallet on Tor, but that is more work.

I think for my intentions electrum is more than enough


best regards

[LoyceV]

Let's say I deposited 0.02347273 BTC to ChipMixer on January 1, 2021.

Its a real long intervall not really neccessary or ?

Not really, but you asked for this:

On an anonymity sight

For anonymity, it's great to have an old vouchers at your disposal. He's a real life example:

due to my intent to expose the blockchain data from this transaction, I decided to use an address from ChipMixer.  The address was obtained using ChipMixer voucher codes that I set aside for this potential purpose in November.  I always keep a moderate amount of money in Chip vouchers, just in case I need to do something bad for my privacy.  The money for these vouchers may have been deposited by me anytime in about the past three or four years; thus, any blockchain observer who identifies Chip inputs will not find it feasible to guess which were mine.

I make sure to spend the full amount, without creating a change address.

Is this only possible to spend the entire funds from the wallet, or are there any other duck-tape fix-all for this except the option "do not mix" in scenario 2 .

It depends: if you're not careful, "change" always has the risk of linking it to some of your other addresses later on. But small change also leeds to extra transaction fees, and if fees go up, it might not be worth sending at that point.
I prefer to get rid of change, one way is using an instant exchanger (on Tor, of course) to convert it to Bitcoin Lightning Network, or Monero, or plan your payments such that you can pay for multiple services at once.

Should i use "Use multiple change Addresses" option in electrum  if i use scenario 2. ?

I don't think that helps: multiple change addresses can hide which address is your destination address, but it gives more and smaller inputs and thus higher transaction fees later on.

[moejoejay]

I prefer to get rid of change, one way is using an instant exchanger (on Tor, of course) to convert it to Bitcoin Lightning Network, or Monero, or plan your payments such that you can pay for multiple services at once.

Which instant exchanger is reliable for this ? could u suggest one ?

what is the difference to cut it out the change from electrum with freezing  or additional steps to avoid change balance  like exchanging into lighting or Monero from an anonymity standpoint.

is always safer to exchange bitcoin into another crypto for avoiding changing. ?

best regards



 

[NotATether]

I prefer to get rid of change, one way is using an instant exchanger (on Tor, of course) to convert it to Bitcoin Lightning Network, or Monero, or plan your payments such that you can pay for multiple services at once.

Which instant exchanger is reliable for this ? could u suggest one ?

what is the difference to cut it out the change from electrum witrh freezing  or additional steps to avoid change balance  like exchanging into lighting or Monero from an anomiymity standpoint.

is always safer to exchange bitcoin into another crypto for avoiding changing. ?

best regards
 

Fixedfloat seems to be good for swapping between coins, including Lightning Network.

Privacytools.io lists a bunch of private crypto exchanges and instant swappers that you can also try out, and some of here also support LN.

I would put the change by itself in its own LN channel and then you can use it for such things as micropayments. Do not mix your change with your other UTXOs.

[LoyceV]

Which instant exchanger is reliable for this ? could u suggest one ?

I've used FixedFloat for this, but only for small amounts. For privacy, using different exchangers is even better. BestChange has many options (but again: be careful who to trust).

what is the difference to cut it out the change from electrum with freezing  or additional steps to avoid change balance  like exchanging into lighting or Monero from an anonymity standpoint.

As far as I know, frozen inputs (or addresses) on Electrum are still communicated with the Electrum server when your wallet is running. Now that I think about it: the same happens to all addresses within Electrum's gap limit: both unused and used addresses are checked with Electrum's server.

is always safer to exchange bitcoin into another crypto for avoiding changing. ?

I'm not sure what you mean.

In general: there are many ways to compromise your privacy, and many ways to avoid it. It really depends on your needs, and how much privacy you're looking for.

[moejoejay]

@NotATether:

I would put the change by itself in its own LN channel

So u mean like send the certain change funds with coin control to an established LN over swapping for example with integrated swapping in electrum.

@LoyceV:

I'm not sure what you mean.

I mean to create multi exchanges with an none KYC services like swapping to obfuscate the change funds.

Avoid change is only possible with donation or an exact payment where in and out txes are equal or

best regards

[n0nce]

@NotATether:

I would put the change by itself in its own LN channel

So u mean like send the certain change funds with coin control to an established LN over swapping for example with integrated swapping in electrum.

His suggestion is that you take the change UTXO and send it (in full - not to create even more change) to your own Lightning channel using a submarine swap provider such as https://boltz.exchange/.

Avoid change is only possible with donation or an exact payment where in and out txes are equal or

Correct; you either send a UTXO to the destination in full, or you generate change. No way around that. Therefore, you either overpay (there are ways to only overpay slightly and still be private [1]) or generate change and need to decide what to do with it.

[1] One way to accomplish that is to be very diligent with coin control and have a wallet just filled with ChipMixer chips. Of different sizes. When paying for something, you combine those to just about cover the requested amount. For example: You have 3x 0.001BTC, 2x 0.002BTC. When you buy something for 0.0029, you take one of each and pay 0.003BTC.

@LoyceV:

I'm not sure what you mean.

I mean to create multi exchanges with an none KYC services like swapping to obfuscate the change funds.

Like Loyce, I don't understand what this means. Do you want to 'obfuscate change' by exchanging it for Monero and exchanging it back, instead of mixing it or sending to a Lightning channel? What is a 'multi exchange'?

[LoyceV]

I mean to create multi exchanges with an none KYC services like swapping to obfuscate the change funds.

I'm still not sure what you mean. Can you make up an example?

Avoid change is only possible with donation or an exact payment where in and out txes are equal or

Or by carefully selecting the right input site, or by increasing the transaction fee a bit, or by carefully paying multiple addresses at once, or by changing the amount you're sending. The latter is often possible when you're topping up a service.

[1] One way to accomplish that is to be very diligent with coin control and have a wallet just filled with ChipMixer chips. Of different sizes.

This is the scenario in which the Electrum server you're using knows those addresses all belong to the same wallet. That may or may not be a problem.

[n0nce]

[1] One way to accomplish that is to be very diligent with coin control and have a wallet just filled with ChipMixer chips. Of different sizes.

This is the scenario in which the Electrum server you're using knows those addresses all belong to the same wallet. That may or may not be a problem.

Gotcha; I did assume that whoever cares about improving their privacy sets up a personal Electrum server as one of the first steps..

[LoyceV]

I did assume that whoever cares about improving their privacy sets up a personal Electrum server as one of the first steps..

I assume only a small percentage does that. Example: me. I've never setup my own Electrum server. If I have to download the full blockchain anyway, it's much easier to run Bitcoin Core instead. I'm not using the default Descriptor wallet though, because it makes importing private keys much more complicated.

"My" easy solution for privacy: Electrum on Tails OS, with as few addresses in the wallet as possible.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I assume only a small percentage does that. Example: me.

But an even smaller percentage, I presume, does like the comfort of the Electrum client, and runs a Bitcoin Core node, but not an Electrum server. Electrum is such a lightweight software, and includes features such as mnemonics that makes backing up easy and safe. Bitcoin Core doesn't have seed phrase option for example. Besides, what's so difficult with running a server on top of your node?

"My" easy solution for privacy: Electrum on Tails OS, with as few addresses in the wallet as possible.

That's a good habit for chips, if you don't run your own Electrum server.