The not so good: you sent out the coins to [redacted] number of addresses but they were all the exact same amount.
That's
how CoinJoin works (or is supposed to work in theory, as they probably are just creating multiple outputs to themselves and not taking multiple inputs from different customers). Don't use a CoinJoin mixer and then complain it does CoinJoin
While you merited my
russian post (i don't know for sure do you read it or not) it would be not good to not answer you here.
As i said in my russian post, i don't agree neither with you or DaveF (i agree in some points, but in most - not) and let me tell you here why. This post will not be translation of the russian one, and in fact it will be different from.
About DaveF's message:
1. And this is how CoinJoin works. In fact6 they
must be the same amounts. Otherwise it will be more easy to analyze it. Let me show to you:
We have johhny with 1 btc from shitty Yobit signature, Dave with 3 btc from Sudoku wallet bounty and DarkStar with 5 btc that in fact it's not his own but badget for signature company
Input 1: johhny's 1 btc --> Output 1: 1 btc
Input 2: Dave's 2 btc --> Output 2: 2 btc
input 3: DarkStar's 5 btc --> Output 3: 2 btc
Output 4: 2 btc
Output 5: 1 btc
As you can see, we can't know for sure which outputs are owned by me for example. It can be or first output or the last. The same with you, even better, you have probability of 30 % to get caught. You can one output from second to fourth. It's obvious that the worst is with DarkStar. He owned at least 2 outputs with 2 btc and one with 1 btc.
But sorry, i forgot to tell why do we need all of this 'rituals'. It's easy: you will never now who in fact owns that outputs. If first output will be spent to fund ISIS or new Yobit signature, it could me or me or DarkStar (ha ha). That is simple idea
But you can see that such system have one strong cons:
analisys through balancesWe are know for sure that johhny have 1 btc in input, so he will have for sure 1 btc in output. The same with Dave's btc and DarkStar's. It makes all much simple. Bad for us
So in that case, we have
PayJoin. It will be look like that:
Input 1: johhny's 1 btc --> Output 1: 2 btc
Input 2: Dave's 2 btc --> Output 2: 2 btc
input 3: DarkStar's 5 btc --> Output 3: 4 btc
Guys from ChainAnalysis will be like
Now they can't use balances to analyze something, because outputs doesn't match to inputs! You will never know who is owning 4 btc and where is johhny's 1 btc ! How it happend? Maybe offchain deal, or i sold something to DarkStar through bitcointalk PM, or he sold something to you. Or everything in one time!
So sweet
So DarkStar's statement about different inputs it's true in meaning of fact, but it's not true in meaning of whole idea:
CoinJoin it's like a larva of Monero's rings signatures. You're not sure who is spent this specific output, so you need to catch and deanonymize all addresses/people who participated in CoinJoin.
But
CoinJoin, as a technology have one big cons. Not even a cons by itself, but CoinJoin is very sensitive to number of users. Not only the numbers of users that coinjoin, but also to their percentage from a whole number of users. If everyone will coinjoin, then DarkStar and guys from Chipmixer will be left without job, because bitcoin will be anonymous without them. If CoinJoin will be used by 3.5 anonym, than it is bad for those anonymous
