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

[Jating]

We are back online. Another mixer has sent over 7M requests to our .onion address (and it is not over yet). We have updated our code to mitigate this attack. Now every new session requires solving a captcha (sorry about that), but at least you can access ChipMixer now.

Ok. Thanks for the explanation. That's why I find it surprising that I wasn't able to access your site about a couple of days and no but to used other services that time because I have to mixed my coins and was eager to get it to my personal wallet. (sorry about that). But I will still used your services again. Just look it at the bright side, you are now gaining popularity, hence the attacked. I don't mind the solving the captcha as long as I know that my privacy here is being protected. Goodluck guys.

[1714584008]

1714584008

[1714584008]

1714584008

[pnbamania]

We are back online. Another mixers owner has sent over 7M requests to our .onion address (and it is not over yet). We have updated our code to mitigate this attack. Now every new session requires solving a captcha (sorry about that), but at least you can access ChipMixer now.

That explains why the service yesterday wasn't available for quite a long time. I have noticed that it is happening quite regularly that the service experiences a time out, while I must say that these by far aren't as severe as the time out from yesterday. It's a sign that ChipMixer is gaining popularity, which is what certain competitors can't accept. Is that same mixing service also responsible for previous time outs, or are these largely the result of more usage/demand?

I have a concern people, Let's say I send 1 BTC to Chipmixer and it commonizes into smaller chips, example 0.25, 0.1,0.1,0.5 etc etc.. and it gives me the keys all good. But when you spend the transaction and spend it anywhere it seems like it's very easy to pinpoint chip mixer transactions in a block.

Lets pick any block for example and see that there will be barely any transaction that's output is EXACTLY in 0.25 or 0.1 or 0.125  and if there are any transaction you can easily link them to chip-mixer transactions. I been scrolling through last few blocks and I can't seem to find any exact whole output.. when I did a transaction it was so easy to notice on block explorer in the block that was mined.

I suppose the only privacy we get is the fact that no one can pinpoint who exactly sent how much to chip mixer.

[DarkStar_]

We are back online. Another mixers owner has sent over 7M requests to our .onion address (and it is not over yet). We have updated our code to mitigate this attack. Now every new session requires solving a captcha (sorry about that), but at least you can access ChipMixer now.

That explains why the service yesterday wasn't available for quite a long time. I have noticed that it is happening quite regularly that the service experiences a time out, while I must say that these by far aren't as severe as the time out from yesterday. It's a sign that ChipMixer is gaining popularity, which is what certain competitors can't accept. Is that same mixing service also responsible for previous time outs, or are these largely the result of more usage/demand?

I have a concern people, Let's say I send 1 BTC to Chipmixer and it commonizes into smaller chips, example 0.25, 0.1,0.1,0.5 etc etc.. and it gives me the keys all good. But when you spend the transaction and spend it anywhere it seems like it's very easy to pinpoint chip mixer transactions in a block.

Lets pick any block for example and see that there will be barely any transaction that's output is EXACTLY in 0.25 or 0.1 or 0.125  and if there are any transaction you can easily link them to chip-mixer transactions. I been scrolling through last few blocks and I can't seem to find any exact whole output.. when I did a transaction it was so easy to notice on block explorer in the block that was mined.

I suppose the only privacy we get is the fact that no one can pinpoint who exactly sent how much to chip mixer.

You get chips that were created before your deposit. Yes, someone could see that you probably got chips from ChipMixer (though there is nothing stopping you from making your own "chips"), but they don't know that the deposit transaction was. ChipMixer has a very large volume so many many others will be getting chips the same size as well, so you don't know which chip belongs to who. There's no linkage between your chips and your deposit. If you don't want it to look like you are using a mixer, sweep the chip into other addresses and then forward to your final address after.

unless another "China bans Bitcoin" happens, we are ok.

But it's happened over 10 times! 

[ChipMixer]

I have a concern people, Let's say I send 1 BTC to Chipmixer and it commonizes into smaller chips, example 0.25, 0.1,0.1,0.5 etc etc.. and it gives me the keys all good. But when you spend the transaction and spend it anywhere it seems like it's very easy to pinpoint chip mixer transactions in a block.

Lets pick any block for example and see that there will be barely any transaction that's output is EXACTLY in 0.25 or 0.1 or 0.125  and if there are any transaction you can easily link them to chip-mixer transactions. I been scrolling through last few blocks and I can't seem to find any exact whole output.. when I did a transaction it was so easy to notice on block explorer in the block that was mined.

I suppose the only privacy we get is the fact that no one can pinpoint who exactly sent how much to chip mixer.

ChipMixer provides fungibility, not secrecy.

When you use CoinJoin or TumbleBit, you fungible bitcoins but it is no secret that you used it.
When you use Tor, it hides your connection, but it is no secret that you used it.
When you use Https, it hides your data, but it is no secret that you used it.

Fungibility means that every chip-sized transaction may be owned by anyone and there is no connection with previous transactions.

unless another "China bans Bitcoin" happens, we are ok.

But it's happened over 10 times! 

And every time it happens, mixed volume spikes to all time high.

[Kyraishi]

I have a concern people, Let's say I send 1 BTC to Chipmixer and it commonizes into smaller chips, example 0.25, 0.1,0.1,0.5 etc etc.. and it gives me the keys all good. But when you spend the transaction and spend it anywhere it seems like it's very easy to pinpoint chip mixer transactions in a block.

Lets pick any block for example and see that there will be barely any transaction that's output is EXACTLY in 0.25 or 0.1 or 0.125  and if there are any transaction you can easily link them to chip-mixer transactions. I been scrolling through last few blocks and I can't seem to find any exact whole output.. when I did a transaction it was so easy to notice on block explorer in the block that was mined.

I suppose the only privacy we get is the fact that no one can pinpoint who exactly sent how much to chip mixer.

ChipMixer provides fungibility, not secrecy.

When you use CoinJoin or TumbleBit, you fungible bitcoins but it is no secret that you used it.
When you use Tor, it hides your connection, but it is no secret that you used it.
When you use Https, it hides your data, but it is no secret that you used it.

Fungibility means that every chip-sized transaction may be owned by anyone and there is no connection with previous transactions.

unless another "China bans Bitcoin" happens, we are ok.

But it's happened over 10 times! 

And every time it happens, mixed volume spikes to all time high.

Well said. Some analysts deduce from the fact that your inputs are highly regular amounts that your transaction probably came from a mixing service, most likely chipmixer. However what chipmixer is actually trying to do is to make each chip equal to the other.

There is always potential for exchanges to block off coins that came from specific sources. Chipmixer mitigates this.

[LoyceV]

Well said. Some analysts deduce from the fact that your inputs are highly regular amounts that your transaction probably came from a mixing service, most likely chipmixer. However what chipmixer is actually trying to do is to make each chip equal to the other.

From what I've seen, ChipMixer typically creates several chips in the transaction, say 2x 0.064 plus 1x 0.032. If you create chips on your own and want it to look like ChipMixer's chips, you can't create 1x 0.064 and 1x 0.327. It's obvious the second example isn't created by ChipMixer.

[ChipMixer]

If you create chips on your own and want it to look like ChipMixer's chips, you can't create 1x 0.064 and 1x 0.327. It's obvious the second example isn't created by ChipMixer.

We usually do transactions the most efficient way, but we have a few ways of breaking inputs into chips. 1x 0.064 and 1x 0.327 is also a possible ChipMixer transaction.

[Rahar02]

We are back online. Another mixer has sent over 7M requests to our .onion address (and it is not over yet). We have updated our code to mitigate this attack. Now every new session requires solving a captcha (sorry about that), but at least you can access ChipMixer now.

LoL, such annoying attempt from another mixers, some people don't know how to run their business properly and prefer to attack other business. 7M is a big amount imo, and the part of 'not over yet' really have to be solved.
I'm okay with solve captcha for every new session, thanks for the update.

[biddicoin]

What happens if I open a "Session" and transfer BTC and then the site gets attacked and is not available for a couple of days?

BTC gone?

[mocacinno]

What happens if I open a "Session" and transfer BTC and then the site gets attacked and is not available for a couple of days?

BTC gone?

I guess it'll depend on wether or not you saved the session token. If you have the session token, you should be able to contact chipmixer and ask them to extend your session, and pick it back up when the DDos attack is finished.
Personally, i'd never deposit a single satoshi before saving the session token. In the pre-chipmixer days, when using bitmixer.io, the first thing i did before depositing anything was saving their letter of guarantee, which is the closes equivalent to saving the session token (AFAIK)

[cafucafucafu]

What happens if I open a "Session" and transfer BTC and then the site gets attacked and is not available for a couple of days?

BTC gone?

Could potentially be the case if you didn't have your session token written down somewhere. There is really no way for you to prove that you were the one that actually deposited the bitcoins especially if you're operating from tor.

But perhaps Chipmixer will on a case-to-case basis refund peolpe that experience this problem.

It's not guaranteed though - which is why it's always the safest thing to do if you save your session token.

[ChipMixer]

What happens if I open a "Session" and transfer BTC and then the site gets attacked and is not available for a couple of days?

BTC gone?

If you have a limited access to our service, please contact support. We can either extend your session (if your deposit is still pending) or issue a voucher you can use anytime you want.

I guess it'll depend on wether or not you saved the session token.

Good place to keep your session token is a deposit transaction description of your wallet.

7M is a big amount imo, and the part of 'not over yet' really have to be solved.

It was solved and 'not over yet' part did not disrupt our service.

[teairrrra]

Imagine I want to consecutively mix some bitcoins. I mix 1 BTC, then after a week another 2 BTC.
How can I be sure that the 2nd time I won't receive my own bitcoin from 1st mix?

bitmixer.io had "codes" that would tell them not to mix my previous bitcoins with following.

[LoyceV]

Imagine I want to consecutively mix some bitcoins. I mix 1 BTC, then after a week another 2 BTC.
How can I be sure that the 2nd time I won't receive my own bitcoin from 1st mix?

You can't be sure about that, but it doesn't really matter. I've asked a similar question before, this was the response:

There is no guarantee, there is chance and receipt. Chance means that if you send 1 BTC out of 100 BTC pool, you have 1/100 chance to receive the same coins. Even if you would receive the same, there would be no proof they are the same. It is like throwing a dollar into cup of dollars. Even if you pick the same one, they are fungible and there is no difference whenever you pick any of them. Receipt is a signed proof you have received funds from ChipMixer.

bitmixer.io had "codes" that would tell them not to mix my previous bitcoins with following.

Or so they said, but they also said to delete all data. Read this comment in their thread about it:

<playin' devil's advocate; not critical of service but seek answers>

https://bitmixer.io/faqs.html

What is a Bitmixer code?

After your first exchange you will receive a special Bitmixer code. This code makes sure that you will never receive any of the previous coins you have added to our reserves in any subsequent transactions you make with Bitmixer. In other words this ensures that you remain untraceable.

Day 1: I mixed U$100 worth of bitcoins and received a Bitmixer code so that when I mix subsequent coins I won't received what I previously mixed back. Fine!

48 Hours Later: I mixed another U$100 worth of bitcoins and received bitcoins back which none were of what I've mixed two days prior. Fine!

36 Hours Later: I mixed another U$100 worth of bitcoins and received bitcoins back which none were of what I've mixed two transactions prior. Fine!

Question: How were the last two transactions achieved given the following? ...

http://themerkle.com/news/interview-with-the-owner-of-bitmixer-io-a-high-volume-bitcoin-mixer/

Our servers are located in a country where US authorities can’t get access to the server without a local court order. Bitcoin is not considered as money here, so we can’t be a money-laundering service. We use encrypted disks. We delete all order data after 24 hours. We completely erase old bitcoin addresses from our wallet after coins are sent out. Even if the server is seized, they will find nothing.

Clearly, my Bitmixer code remains on file attached to bitcoin wallet addresses I've previously used, else there would be a strong possibility of me receiving some of the coins back that I may not want attached to me, but that would be an impossibility given that ALL order data is purged from your system within 24 hours, as stated above, resulting in the 3-LAs et al. finding nothing.

Further, I'll be paying you a fee to mix coins stemming from a nefarious act with the strong possibility that I'll be receiving coins stemming from a nefarious act tens of times worst than what I'm tryin' to hide. Surely, wouldn't that bring the feds to my door a knockin' a helluva lot quicker? It'll be pretty embarrassing for me to defend myself if accused of running a underage goat brothel when in fact I ONLY pimp out adult chickens and occasionally a matured goose (soon to pimp ducks - drakes and hens).

Humor aside, I look forward to your reply, devs.

Bruno

Three weeks after this comment, BitMixer closed.

[BitHodler]

I have been using Bitmixer for quite a while, and never have I even noticed anything that isn't right about the codes that Bitmixer provides, and thus the overall privacy aspect.

It feels quite depressing knowing now that in one way or another, whatever form of data is/was actually being stored, or the codes were non existent by default, where it would only act as a way to give people a (fake) piece of mind.

No matter how deep you try to look into something, you'll always miss out on various crucial aspects, which is why I am glad that certain people here are looking far deeper into a service than 95% of the people would.

[btcton]

I have been using Bitmixer for quite a while, and never have I even noticed anything that isn't right about the codes that Bitmixer provides, and thus the overall privacy aspect.

It feels quite depressing knowing now that in one way or another, whatever form of data is/was actually being stored, or the codes were non existent by default, where it would only act as a way to give people a (fake) piece of mind.

No matter how deep you try to look into something, you'll always miss out on various crucial aspects, which is why I am glad that certain people here are looking far deeper into a service than 95% of the people would.

It really would have depended on what exactly the codes themselves mean. For example, the codes could just be hashes of the Bitcoin addresses that were involved in the input of the mixing transaction. In this case it really wouldn't be much of invading people's privacy because Bitmixer just avoids using bitcoins related to the addresses encoded into the code that is given to you after your initial mixing transaction. ChipMixer could technically do this, but there is really no reason to since everything is divided into chips anyway. Unless your outputs are exactly the chip amounts, it is impossible for this to happen at all.

[BitHodler]

Could be, but I very much doubt that. If you state that you delete all information regarding mixing transactions, then even these codes won't have any purpose to begin with.

It means that they actually do save whatever form of data that's connected to mixing transactions, or as I said before, this is a completely non existent feature Bitmixer offers.

But then again, it's something that at this point can't affect people anymore due to Bitmixer's shut down. ChipMixer offers a far better level of privacy with their pre generated gees.

I however would like to see more variety in chip values and a larger chip reserve.

[ChipMixer]

I however would like to see more variety in chip values and a larger chip reserve.

What chip sizes are missing? Creating more chip sizes lowers chip reserve - chips are premade so creating one 8BTC chip replaces two 4BTC chips.

[BitHodler]

I however would like to see more variety in chip values and a larger chip reserve.

What chip sizes are missing? Creating more chip sizes lowers chip reserve - chips are premade so creating one 8BTC chip replaces two 4BTC chips.

Not exactly creating more chips, which indeed would lower the overal chip reserve, but more random chip values would be appreciated.

Currently chips have always the same value (eg. 0.032, 0.064, 0.128) where a variation would be appreciated, and at the same time would make it far more difficult to spot since the chip values are too common now.

That's why I prefer chip values that could basically be anything (eg. 0.029, 0.054, 0.132, 0.017, 0.087). Everything that's uncommon in number makes possible transaction to person linking more difficult.

I however don't know how viable this is from your side.

[btcton]

I however would like to see more variety in chip values and a larger chip reserve.

What chip sizes are missing? Creating more chip sizes lowers chip reserve - chips are premade so creating one 8BTC chip replaces two 4BTC chips.

Not exactly creating more chips, which indeed would lower the overal chip reserve, but more random chip values would be appreciated.

Currently chips have always the same value (eg. 0.032, 0.064, 0.128) where a variation would be appreciated, and at the same time would make it far more difficult to spot since the chip values are too common now.

That's why I prefer chip values that could basically be anything (eg. 0.029, 0.054, 0.132, 0.017, 0.087). Everything that's uncommon in number makes possible transaction to person linking more difficult.

I however don't know how viable this is from your side.

The problem with this approach would be that because they are not powers of 2, it is not guaranteed for smaller chips to be factors of bigger chips, which would mean that some total chip amounts would be unattainable. Take, for example, someone who mixed 0.013 BTC. With the current system, they would be given a 0.008 chip, a 0.004 chip, and a 0.001 chip. With random, non-power-of-2 chips, however, there is no guarantee that 0.013 BTC would be obtainable if there are no chips that sum up to that unless they were created on mix demand, which would make the transaction less private as the chips would be created at the same time. Sure, there exist vouchers, but why complicate a system that already works just fine?