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

[jackg]

Can confirm I see the problem on the site. It's only cosmetic though so if cm wants to fix it...

[1714680551]

1714680551

[1714680551]

1714680551

[1714680551]

1714680551

[orcun]

I don't see any reason why we should use ChipMixer or any other mixers when there is Wasabi Wallet. These mixers should die honestly. Plus, you can get a dirty UTXO from ChipMixer, the process how they refill their chips is not clear.

[malevolent]

I don't see any reason why we should use ChipMixer or any other mixers when there is Wasabi Wallet.

The smallest denomination that can be mixed via ChipMixer is 0.001 BTC, compared with (currently) >0.094 BTC via Wasabi. Both have their use cases, along with Joinmarket.

[gentlemand]

Wasabi is a fine idea in principle but refer to that binance Singapore event.

Though they obviously couldn't tell where the original coins came from they could instantly tell they had come from a wasabi mix so gave them the boot.

Mixing with a flashing sign that you've just mixed is not a useful look going forward.

[kufarrr]

Can please somebody tell me how I need to use Chipmixer to receive the highest privacy ? Thanks !

[tomahawk9]

Can please somebody tell me how I need to use Chipmixer to receive the highest privacy ? Thanks !

You can download the 'TOR browser' (a privacy-focused web browser) and use Chipmixer through this browser.

By using Chipmixer, you're already guaranteed a certain level of pivacy and anonymity (for more info, you can read the first post of this thread as well as Chipmixer faq section on their website), but using Chipmixer through the Tor network highly increases your privacy and anonymity levels thanks to Tor features.

You'll find Chipmixer's Tor link in the first page of this thread.

[figmentofmyass]

Yes, Wasabi transactions is obvious, but it's also easy to tell if you used ChipMixer, because of the common chip sizes. Correct me if I'm wrong.

the on-chain footprint of coinjoins is much more obvious. blockchain analysis heuristics based purely on common output sizes are unlikely to be very useful.

chipmixer touches on the chip size stuff in their FAQ. https://chipmixer.com/faq

Why chip values are so weird? 1.024 BTC? Why not 1 BTC?

We wanted to have a lot of chip sizes and to easily split/merge them. if you start with 1 BTC and you split it, your minimal chip is 0.015625 BTC which seems even weirder.

But 1.024 BTC is so uncommon that everyone will know I've used this mixer!

After a while it will get more common, because you won't even need to use mixer to anonymize your coins. Just split them into tokens and they look exactly like chips.

I really, really want 1 BTC chip!

You are in luck! We have introduced commonize function which will swap your weird looking 1.024 BTC chip into 1 BTC chip and weird looking 0.512 BTC into 0.5 BTC.

[orcun]

the on-chain footprint of coinjoins is much more obvious. blockchain analysis heuristics based purely on common output sizes are unlikely to be very useful.

Not only the output amount. How ChipMixer creates the chips follows certain patterns, you need to emulate the patterns too. Just splitting your coins into ChipMixer's chip sizes in your own wallet won't help against analysis like the FAQ claims. It can only fool stupid analysis tools.

There are more problems. Many users sweep different chip sizes in single TX making it even more obvious. Even if none of these worked, then chips will lead to someone's tainted coins and will raise alarms at the exchange etc.

[figmentofmyass]

the on-chain footprint of coinjoins is much more obvious. blockchain analysis heuristics based purely on common output sizes are unlikely to be very useful.

Not only the output amount. How ChipMixer creates the chips follows certain patterns, you need to emulate the patterns too. Just splitting your coins into ChipMixer's chip sizes in your own wallet won't help against analysis like the FAQ claims. It can only fool stupid analysis tools.

you said "it's also easy to tell if you used chipmixer, because of the common chip sizes" so i was speaking to that, not about trying to split coins in your own wallet. the point was that common output sizes are just that---common on the network.

There are more problems. Many users sweep different chip sizes in single TX making it even more obvious. Even if none of these worked, then chips will lead to someone's tainted coins and will raise alarms at the exchange etc.

any examples of that actually happening?

i agree that many users sacrifice privacy by sweeping outputs together, and/or immediately, after mixing. ideally they would hold onto chips until they need them (throwing off time attacks) and spend them one at a time.

[orcun]

the point was that common output sizes are just that---common on the network.

By "common chip sizes", I mean they're common to CM (ChipMixer). For Non-CM transactions, chip sizes are not common at all. That's why what they say in their FAQ won't work. CM actually realizes this in their FAQ too by saying "After a while [chip sizes] will get more common", but it's unlikely to get common because the chip sizes are not round numbers.

For non-CM transactions with CM chip sizes to become common (the scenerio in their FAQ), other services/people need to use CM-sized chips without using CM. So CM maybe assumes people themselves split coins in their own wallets to CM chip sizes (That's how I understan what they mean in FAQ)

any examples of that actually happening?

I'm not aware of CM-specific examples, but it's common for many mixers and exchanges,

BTW, I agree Wasabi creates a more obvious TX, but what I've been trying to prove is CM usage is also clear, even though less obvious at first glance. I wanted to remind users that they should treat CM coins dirty by default (like all mixers, not CM's fault)

Thanks for replying.  

[malevolent]

Wasabi is a fine idea in principle but refer to that binance Singapore event.

Though they obviously couldn't tell where the original coins came from they could instantly tell they had come from a wasabi mix so gave them the boot.

Mixing with a flashing sign that you've just mixed is not a useful look going forward.

It was the other way around, Binance temporarily blocked a withdrawal to a Wasabi wallet. That's even worse. Only after several withdrawals it became a problem.

https://twitter.com/bittlecat/status/1207621591820951552/photo/2

The only 'solution' to this problem that comes to mind is to have enough hops before mixing/coinjoining. The same applies to deposits.

[figmentofmyass]

the point was that common output sizes are just that---common on the network.

By "common chip sizes", I mean they're common to CM (ChipMixer). For Non-CM transactions, chip sizes are not common at all.

without a larger verifiable study on that matter, that's arguable.

I'm not aware of CM-specific examples, but it's common for many mixers and exchanges,

BTW, I agree Wasabi creates a more obvious TX, but what I've been trying to prove is CM usage is also clear, even though less obvious at first glance.

i am eagerly awaiting your upcoming research paper where you show how you broke chipmixer. please keep us all apprised.

I wanted to remind users that they should treat CM coins dirty by default (like all mixers, not CM's fault)

that is not a given, especially considering the low volume of bitcoin usage for illicit purposes. despite what you may think, blockchain analysis heuristics are far from foolproof, and distant degrees of taint do not break bitcoin fungibility.

[121425366@qq.com]

I will add the list of mixers in 2020 to the Chinese version, and I look forward to your comments
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5247254.0

[ShellyF]

I used chipmixer to successfully mix my coins. However, I used the same session to mix my coin in another transaction which is not showing in my chipmixer session page. I tried with a lower amount and sent 2 deposits during same session. My first deposit was recognized but the second one is disappeared not shown anywhere in the chipmixer session.


Hoping to see my disappeared coins once again. Sent email and PM. Waiting for a meaningful resolution.

[blatchcorn]

I used chipmixer to successfully mix my coins. However, I used the same session to mix my coin in another transaction which is not showing in my chipmixer session page. I tried with a lower amount and sent 2 deposits during same session. My first deposit was recognized but the second one is disappeared not shown anywhere in the chipmixer session.


Hoping to see my disappeared coins once again. Sent email and PM. Waiting for a meaningful resolution.

Can you please write what response you got from chipmixer for our further reference. It's a reputable site and I m sure there support will help you in finding your coins. Just let us know there response. Thanks.

[TryNinja]

Can you please write what response you got from chipmixer for our further reference. It's a reputable site and I m sure there support will help you in finding your coins. Just let us know there response. Thanks.

The transactions probably already got confirmed since the mempool cleaned out a bit to the 3 sat/byte range. Edit: Or that would have been the case if it wasn't for CM's fast support (OP's post bellow). Great to see that.

Last time something like this happened, ChipMixer bumped the fees of their unconfirmed transactions:

Today upon creation of chips, one transaction got delayed because mempool grew up quickly. It left our transaction with much lower fees than others and all new transactions had higher and higher fees.

We have bumped the fee for it and it is confirmed now. Please check your wallet. Private keys are already imported so Electrum should notice confirmation. If that's not a case, try to recover session using session token and reimport keys.

If you still have a problem, please contact us by email and provide deposit address and/or session token, we will help.

[ShellyF]

I used chipmixer to successfully mix my coins. However, I used the same session to mix my coin in another transaction which is not showing in my chipmixer session page. I tried with a lower amount and sent 2 deposits during same session. My first deposit was recognized but the second one is disappeared not shown anywhere in the chipmixer session.


Hoping to see my disappeared coins once again. Sent email and PM. Waiting for a meaningful resolution.

Can you please write what response you got from chipmixer for our further reference. It's a reputable site and I m sure there support will help you in finding your coins. Just let us know there response. Thanks.

I am writing this to share an update of my conversation with chipmixer. They sent me a voucher code to redeem my missing coins 7 hours ago which I successfully used to retrieve my chips on their website.

Support was very helpful to resolve my query in their first email response. Indeed, a great service in to add some more anonymity to my coins. 

[BitcoinFX]

@ChipMixer

"Re: Anonymous Bitcoins"
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5255631.msg54641364#msg54641364

Notification - Kindly fix up your Lets Encrypt SSL Certificate ... it is currently capped to a grade B ...

- https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=chipmixer.com&hideResults=on

SSL Labs Grade Change for TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 Protocols ...
- https://blog.qualys.com/ssllabs/2018/11/19/grade-change-for-tls-1-0-and-tls-1-1-protocols

Has insecure cypher suites ...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher_suite

Is therefore vulnerable to the BEAST attack ...
- https://blog.qualys.com/ssllabs/2013/09/10/is-beast-still-a-threat

Your also using an RSA 2048 bits publickey certificate despite Lets Encrypt supporting RSA 4096 bits publickey certificates, out-of-the box ...

...

How to Guide ...

See: https://ssl-config.mozilla.org/#server=nginx&version=1.14.0&config=intermediate&openssl=1.1.1d&hsts=false&ocsp=false&guideline=5.4

Example;

Code:

# generated 2020-06-18, Mozilla Guideline v5.4, nginx 1.14.0, OpenSSL 1.1.1d, intermediate configuration, no HSTS, no OCSP
# https://ssl-config.mozilla.org/#server=nginx&version=1.14.0&config=intermediate&openssl=1.1.1d&hsts=false&ocsp=false&guideline=5.4
server {
    listen 443 ssl http2;
    listen [::]:443 ssl http2;

    ssl_certificate /path/to/signed_cert_plus_intermediates;
    ssl_certificate_key /path/to/private_key;
    ssl_session_timeout 1d;
    ssl_session_cache shared:MozSSL:10m;  # about 40000 sessions
    ssl_session_tickets off;

    # curl https://ssl-config.mozilla.org/ffdhe2048.txt > /path/to/dhparam
    ssl_dhparam /path/to/dhparam;

    # intermediate configuration
    ssl_protocols TLSv1.2 TLSv1.3;
    ssl_ciphers ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305:ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305:DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
    ssl_prefer_server_ciphers off;
}

You need to update the # intermediate configuration ssl_protocols and ssl_ciphers .

Then use certbot to upgrade your certificate publickey to RSA 4096 bit

Code:

sudo certbot --nginx -d chipmixer.com --rsa-key-size 4096

Cheers!

Also review your torrc for 'compliance' here (donations welcome!) ...
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5177001.msg52455267#msg52455267

 

bump

[LeGaulois]

I tried to inform chip mixer about this stuff around a year ago or so ...


Notification - Kindly fix up your Lets Encrypt SSL Certificate ... it is currently capped to a grade B ...

- https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=chipmixer.com&hideResults=on

Sorry if I didn't get correctly but the change from SSL Lab was 6 months ago about. And you say to have informed a year ago.
Do you live in the future like Marty McFly?

The grade change was only done to motivate people to migrate to protocol TLS 1.2+. My question is how is that important if you still support TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 protocols? While the server supports TLS 1.2 as well

[BitcoinFX]

...snip...

Sorry if I didn't get correctly but the change from SSL Lab was 6 months ago about. And you say to have informed a year ago.
Do you live in the future like Marty McFly?

The grade change was only done to motivate people to migrate to protocol TLS 1.2+. My question is how is that important if you still support TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 protocols? While the server supports TLS 1.2 as well

Well it was approximately a year or so ago, perhaps it was less.  

EDIT: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5186601.msg52764188#msg52764188
So, around October 15, 2019 ...

I think the documentation is extensive enough to answer your questions, instead of myself writing a lengthy response here.

Be well!