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

[skyreny]

I used to have a good risk score when using this mixer, but now it is 100%, and marked ChipMixer.


https://i.ibb.co/XXJ1hch/Ashampoo-Snap-21-2023-1h10m1s.png

[1713572331]

1713572331

[DireWolfM14]

I used to have a good risk score when using the exchanger, but now it is 100%, and marked ChipMixer.

https://i.ibb.co/XXJ1hch/Ashampoo-Snap-21-2023-1h10m1s.png

Looks like it's time to switch to a different exchange, or use P2P exchanges instead.  Exchanges that contract with chain analysis companies are not looking out for your best interest, and behave as though they hate bitcoin's fungibility.

Just out of curiosity, which exchange are you using?

[skyreny]

[/quote]

Looks like it's time to switch to a different exchange, or use P2P exchanges instead.  Exchanges that contract with chain analysis companies are not looking out for your best interest, and behave as though they hate bitcoin's fungibility.

Just out of curiosity, which exchange are you using?
[/quote]


you won't believe it, I used ChipMixer)

[DireWolfM14]

you won't believe it, I used ChipMixer)

You're right, I don't believe it because chipmixer is not an exchange.  Let me rephrase my question; where did you get that screenshot?

[n0nce]

you won't believe it, I used ChipMixer)

You're right, I don't believe it because chipmixer is not an exchange.  Let me rephrase my question; where did you get that screenshot?

Might be a block explorer? They sometimes have basic 'blockchain analysis' built-in that shows who is the owner of some address and similar. Since it talks about risk, it does seem like some sort of site where the user deposited money. Could be an exchange, could just as well be a poker or gambling site.

@skyreny, please have a look at: Bisq

[jackg]

Don't want to be advertising poor services but doing a test with a few of those seems to suggest your "risk" halves per hop you make out of chipmixer, what a tremendous subscription for an exchange to buy (my point isn't their system is inherently stupid, it's that ANY system trying to exclusively block mixers is - they'll never be able to find perfect).

[DireWolfM14]

you won't believe it, I used ChipMixer)

You're right, I don't believe it because chipmixer is not an exchange.  Let me rephrase my question; where did you get that screenshot?

Might be a block explorer? They sometimes have basic 'blockchain analysis' built-in that shows who is the owner of some address and similar. Since it talks about risk, it does seem like some sort of site where the user deposited money. Could be an exchange, could just as well be a poker or gambling site.

@skyreny, please have a look at: Bisq

It looks like an exchange or some sort of custodial wallet, the word "deposit" in the image is a dead giveaway:

Don't want to be advertising poor services but doing a test with a few of those seems to suggest your "risk" halves per hop you make out of chipmixer, what a tremendous subscription for an exchange to buy (my point isn't their system is inherently stupid, it's that ANY system trying to exclusively block mixers is - they'll never be able to find perfect).

Lol, now that's funny.  It seems like all these presumably smart people who run exchanges and services with custodial wallets would see the folly in wasting their hard earned money on the "Chain Analysis" scam.  It is just that; a scam.

[LoyceV]

I used to have a good risk score when using this mixer, but now it is 100%, and marked ChipMixer.

That means nothing. It has always been obvious to find which transactions (likely) came out of ChipMixer. Adding an arbitrary "risk" score is just a way to make you believe your Bitcoins are somehow worth less than someone else's Bitcoins.
The solution is easy: don't use any service that claims some Bitcoins are "tainted".  Money is fungible, treating Bitcoin as if it's not is an attack on the very existence of Bitcoin.

[NotATether]

The solution is easy: don't use any service that claims some Bitcoins are "tainted".  Money is fungible, treating Bitcoin as if it's not is an attack on the very existence of Bitcoin.

Unfortunately this advice will also fall into the abyss in time just like everything else we tell people about taint.

Even in relation to withdrawing money from exchanges, people really only started to listen after FTX went down, and I know that because news articles started popping up with titles such as "Bitcoin maximalists organizing bank runs on exchanges", and presumably such titles are read by thousands of people. It probably made a few dents in the population using exchanges as a wallet, but that's about it.

Taint is different thing to fight in that most people aren't even talking about it, which means they have no way to know that it's a problem.

[DireWolfM14]

Even in relation to withdrawing money from exchanges, people really only started to listen after FTX went down,

It goes in cycles.  People payed attention after the Bitconnect fiasco, and then again after many got Goxxed.  Now we have FTX to remind people to remain diligent.  

and I know that because news articles started popping up with titles such as "Bitcoin maximalists organizing bank runs on exchanges", and presumably such titles are read by thousands of people. It probably made a few dents in the population using exchanges as a wallet, but that's about it.

I have a much more cynical outlook on headlines like that.  The media is nothing but another corporate entity looking for ways to part people from their money.  They will always side with other corporate pirates, in this case to paint "bitcoin maximalists" as the bad guys.  Couple that with the impeccable timing of claims that a "bitcoin developer" (Luke Dashjr,) got hacked and then blamed self-custody as the root cause for his loss.  Very few in the media understand, let alone care about bitcoin and it's ability to keep our wealth secure.  That's the last thing they want, anyway.

Taint is different thing to fight in that most people aren't even talking about it, which means they have no way to know that it's a problem.

Taint is just the next battle for the minds of bitcoiners.  It'll take some time and lots of information to get people to see how preposterous it is to paint some bitcoin as tainted.  As jackg pointed out, 4 transaction fees is all it takes to take your "100% risky" bitcoin down to only 6% risky.  So, for less than $0.25 our tainted bitcoin is clean again?  It just goes to show that Chain Analysis is a scam, profiteering on people's fear, which they continue to propegate with the help of the media.

[dkbit98]

I used to have a good risk score when using this mixer, but now it is 100%, and marked ChipMixer.

Can you tell us what is that service or website you used to check your ''risk score''?
We had one scammer who was actually selling service like this, and I can't believe people would pay for crap like this.
My suggestion is to use that Bitcoin directly when you purchase something, or exchange it for fiat using p2p trading , just don't send it to centralized exchanges, and you won't have any problem.

Might be a block explorer? They sometimes have basic 'blockchain analysis' built-in that shows who is the owner of some address and similar. Since it talks about risk, it does seem like some sort of site where the user deposited money. Could be an exchange, could just as well be a poker or gambling site.

I don't think any blockchain explorer should do stuff like this, if they do than they are probably collecting all IP address and other things from your browser.

[n0nce]

Even in relation to withdrawing money from exchanges, people really only started to listen after FTX went down.

They 'started to listen' so many times now; for over a decade so far, people trust centralized exchanges, they go bust, we hope people learned their lesson and a few years later they fall for the exact same thing again. Not sure if it's the same people or new ones, though. Someone should conduct a study on that..

I don't think any blockchain explorer should do stuff like this, if they do than they are probably collecting all IP address and other things from your browser.

Sure, they may collect that data themselves, but I believe it is more likely that they buy it. Anyhow, I'd generally recommend to host your own block explorers.

[Sarah Azhari]

I just curious about split which is still confusing until today. Is it random or exact?.

For example, when I mix 0.02, I will get 0.02.
when I mix 0.04 I will get 0.04,
but why when I send 0.03, I will get 0.01 and 0.02?

so if it is exact, can you answer (? below) what number I will get without split to 2 or 3?

0.01 = 0.01
0.02 = 0.02
0.03 = 0.01 + 0.02
0.04 = 0.04
0.05 = ?
0.06 = ?
0.07 = ?
0.08 = ?
0.09 = ?

[LoyceV]

I just curious about split which is still confusing until today. Is it random or exact?

It's exact. Chip sizes are powers of 2, starting from 1 mBTC (0.001 BTC).

For example, when I mix 0.02, I will get 0.02.

No, you'll get 0.016 + 0.004.

when I mix 0.04 I will get 0.04

No, you'll get 0.032 + 0.008.

but why when I send 0.03, I will get 0.01 and 0.02?

No, you'll get 0.016 + 0.008 + 0.004 + 0.002.

so if it is exact, can you answer (? below) what number I will get without split to 2 or 3?

0.01 = 0.01

0.01 = 0.008 + 0.002.

0.04 = 0.04

0.04 = 0.032 + 0.008.

0.05 = ?

0.05 = 0.032 + 0.016 + 0.002.

0.06 = ?
0.07 = ?
0.08 = ?
0.09 = ?

I'll leave the rest of your list to the reader

Note that these are just the initial chips you receive after depositing. You can also:

Split in half
Takes one chip, give two smaller chips

Merge two
Takes two chips, gives one bigger chip

[BlackHatCoiner]

I used to have a good risk score when using this mixer, but now it is 100%, and marked ChipMixer

Don't let strangers approve your coins. Your coins are as good as any.

Taint is just the next battle for the minds of bitcoiners.

I don't give taint a lot of years. Advocates of this whole taint business take advantage of the need for KYC-ed centralized exchanges, which lessens as time goes by. Also, take into account that the greater the privacy over all, the less this taint can do. Improving the layers' privacy (which is an ongoing goal) eliminates taint.

It just goes to show that Chain Analysis is a scam, profiteering on people's fear, which they continue to propegate with the help of the media.

Any service that treats a currency as non-fungible without justification is a scam.

[n0nce]

For example, when I mix 0.02, I will get 0.02.

No, you'll get 0.016 + 0.004.

If I had to guess, Sarah forgot a zero. At least, that way the question would make a bit more sense.
In that case:

0.001 = 0.001
0.002 = 0.002
0.003 = 0.002 + 0.001
0.004 = 0.004
0.005 = 0.004 + 0.001
0.006 = 0.004 + 0.002
0.007 = 0.004 + 0.002 + 0.001
0.008 = 0.008
0.009 = 0.008 + 0.001


As Loyce said, you can e.g. choose to split a 0.004BTC chip from a 0.007BTC deposit to be able to withdraw three 0.002 chips and a single 0.001 chip, for instance. Or you could keep a 0.001BTC voucher and use it in the future, if you only need 0.002BTC outputs (just as an example).

[Sarah Azhari]

For example, when I mix 0.02, I will get 0.02.

No, you'll get 0.016 + 0.004.

If I had to guess, Sarah forgot a zero. At least, that way the question would make a bit more sense.
In that case:

0.001 = 0.001
0.002 = 0.002
0.003 = 0.002 + 0.001
0.004 = 0.004
0.005 = 0.004 + 0.001
0.006 = 0.004 + 0.002
0.007 = 0.004 + 0.002 + 0.001
0.008 = 0.008
0.009 = 0.008 + 0.001


As Loyce said, you can e.g. choose to split a 0.004BTC chip from a 0.007BTC deposit to be able to withdraw three 0.002 chips and a single 0.001 chip, for instance. Or you could keep a 0.001BTC voucher and use it in the future, if you only need 0.002BTC outputs (just as an example).

your guess is corrected. (maybe you know our salary is not much than 2 zero behind)

, because I ever tried 0.002 and received 0.002, and 0.004 received the same as I sent.

but with this exact number, most likely people know that we use chipmixer, right? (especially when using low (under 10 sat) fee.

[n0nce]

because I ever tried 0.002 and received 0.002, and 0.004 received the same as I sent.

Yes, because those are (by chance) exact powers of two, so they exist as ChipMixer chips.

but with this exact number, most likely people know that we use chipmixer, right? (especially when using low (under 10 sat) fee.

It would make it easier to correlate, yes. It is still quite hard, considering the chips you get are older than your payment. You could improve privacy by e.g. splitting a 0.004 chip into two 0.002 chips and either withdrawing them both or even leaving one on the platform, keeping as voucher and redeeming it later.
Of course, avoid immediately spending the chips - especially not together, because combining inputs is trivial to track.

[LoyceV]

• Usage: Using ChipMixer before sending bitcoin to someone or using a local/p2p exchange or to trade bitcoin for fiat
• Considerations/Questions: Will the other person withdraw with a centralized exchange? Do they need to follow privacy practices (what if they are an average user)? Is using chipmixer opening them up to risk or is it something that should be kept in mind before sending people bitcoin from ChipMixer?

Bitcoin is fungible. If someone uses a third party that treats Bitcoin any other way, that's on them. They shouldn't do that.

• Usage: After receiving bitcoin from someone or using a local/p2p exchange to purchase bitcoin
• Considerations/Questions: Will sending bitcoins to ChipMixer open up the sender to any risk?

Why would there be any risk to the sender? They have nothing to do with whatever you do with your Bitcoins.

• Usage: Using ChipMixer before using a centralized exchange to sell bitcoin
• Considerations/Questions: Is there potential for the exchange to question the source of funds? Is using ChipMixer explainable? Is "I used it for my privacy" enough for a centralized exchange to let you through? Or does using ChipMixer pose a risk to your coins?

You're asking this at the wrong place. Any third party can make up any kind of BS. ChipMixer has some nice examples on the website:

Basic theory of Bitcoin mixing, part 1
What information is already public?

If you own or use some Bitcoin then at least one transaction has been confirmed on blockchain. There is no need to worry - that is how Bitcoin works.

Lets assume you have received 10 mBTC from your friend Bob. You gave them your public address and they have sent you. You can find this transaction with your wallet or blockchain explorer to see the details.

Transaction notes your address received 10 mBTC from different address. You know its Bobs but it is probably not public. If you are curious (and you are if you are reading this) then you can check how much Bob has. Balance of public addresses is public after all.

If you check transaction outputs - your 10 mBTC is one of them - you will find that Bob also sent somebody 20 mBTC. You were discussing it at work with Bob and Alice. It is possible it is Alices public address and Bob likes her more than you.

Furious you go for coffee. Barista shows you printed QR code. You mindlessly pay 0.1 mBTC with your mobile wallet. Your blockchain privacy has been lowered. How?

Baristas deposit address is printed which means it has been used by every bitcoin-using customer. Everyone around seen you pay with Bitcoin to public address and they can check your transaction to know your public address and how much Bitcoin you have. Bob is not there but he also knows where and when you have been drinking. Your coffee-induced habit has been recorded on blockchain forever.

You go out to your favorite vegan store. You try to pay when owner checks something on their computer and visibly reddens. They start shouting about unfair practices and slavery of coffee plantations. You are banned and cannot come back. What happened?

Baristas public address is well known. Vegan store owner may check if somebody transacts with them. When you paid for coffee - they did not know. But your vegan transaction is linked to previous transaction making it impossible to hide. If you could mix your Bitcoins you would have avoided that.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. It doesn't matter to you what someone else can see on the blockchain, what matters to you is making sure your own privacy doesn't get compromised.

[n0nce]

I've read through many pages and I came up with a question that myself and others might find useful...What are the appropriate uses of ChipMixer to increase your privacy without increasing risk to yourself and others by using the service? I've listed some common bitcoin transactions that can occur before or after using ChipMixer. What does the community think of when it is appropriate to use ChipMixer? What is the best way to reduce risk while taking all parties on the other end of the chain, who may not be focusing on decentralization and privacy? Does the team have official responses to these questions?

I mostly agree with LoyceV, but in my own words (since you are asking for 'community opinions'):

• Usage: Using ChipMixer before sending bitcoin to someone or using a local/p2p exchange or to trade bitcoin for fiat
• Considerations/Questions: Will the other person withdraw with a centralized exchange? Do they need to follow privacy practices (what if they are an average user)? Is using chipmixer opening them up to risk or is it something that should be kept in mind before sending people bitcoin from ChipMixer?
• Opinion: I believe that this scenario poses the most risk to the potential receiver, and that there is not much personal risk (if any).

Firstly, it's not for you to worry about what someone is going to do with the Bitcoin you send them. Fact of the matter is that Bitcoin are Bitcoin and whether they come from ChipMixer or not, they have the same value.
Now, yes, there are some services which discriminate between UTXOs based on (actually pretty bad) metrics. Neither do we think such services are good, nor do we recommend using them and finally, if whoever you sent BTC to, decides to use one such service and their coins get confiscated, it's their own responsibility.
I personally try to stay away from such services, because this practice makes them highly untrustworthy.

• Usage: After receiving bitcoin from someone or using a local/p2p exchange to purchase bitcoin
• Considerations/Questions: Will sending bitcoins to ChipMixer open up the sender to any risk?
• Opinion: I believe that this scenario involves the least personal risk and risk to the original sender.

Neither scenario 1 or 2 put anyone 'at risk', except if the receiver decides to engage in business with untrustworthy businesses that give themselves the right to confiscate UTXOs. Anyone using such services shall do so at their own risk. Nobody is to blame but them and the service provider.

• Usage: Using ChipMixer before using a centralized exchange to sell bitcoin
• Considerations/Questions: Is there potential for the exchange to question the source of funds? Is using ChipMixer explainable? Is "I used it for my privacy" enough for a centralized exchange to let you through? Or does using ChipMixer pose a risk to your coins?
• Opinion: I believe that this is a gray area. It is correct that using ChipMixer is fine for privacy, a centralized exchange may not see it the same way.

• Usage: Using ChipMixer after using a centralized exchange to purchase bitcoin
• Considerations/Questions: Is there a benefit to trading your coins from a centralized exchange for coins that may have come from malicious sources? Might using coins linked with your identity/centralized exchange open you up to risks depending on how the next person from ChipMixer uses your inputs?
• Opinion: I believe that this scenario is what poses the most danger to users who might think they are becoming more private, except instead they might be opening themselves up to more risk.

You are always 'at risk' of confiscation when using centralized exchanges. What if your money went through ChipMixer before you got it? What if it was a few 'hops' ago? What if it was withdrawn from a casino before you got it? Just. Avoid. Centralized. Exchanges.
It is impossible, irrational and pointless to demand from people to differentiate between UTXOs against some moral codex and only deposit certain coins, while denying or devaluing other coins.