Is there a way to attribute different receiving addresses to a single wallet?

[markcolls]

Suppose I open a wallet in electrum then create 10 addresses to receive bitcoins in. Assume that I practice coin control correctly (i.e. I do mix UTOXs that came to different addresses). Then, is there a way someone could figure out that those 10 addresses are from a single wallet or are connected in some way?

[1714659195]

1714659195

[1714659195]

1714659195

[1714659195]

1714659195

[1714659195]

1714659195

[20kevin20]

As long as you practice coin control correctly and you do not link those addresses together in any way, there is I believe only one way left through which someone could figure out the addresses are connected: the fact that Electrum communicates with other servers to figure out the balance of your addresses.

If you open up Electrum with all those 10 addresses in the same wallet and you are not running your own full node, then the Electrum software will have to ask other servers for your balance and history. The easiest fix for that is running a full node through Bitcoin Core (make sure you connect it to Tor for even more privacy) and using coin control over there instead. Light wallets may be fast, but that comes with a few privacy compromises.

[Dave1]

They might, thru: https://www.walletexplorer.com/

[Oshosondy]

It is not possible to link two addresses to a single wallet not to talk of multiple addresses, but this also depends on the owner of the addresses. There are times someone needs to make use of coinjoin or mixer in order to have privacy, but sending and receiving coins carelessly can lead to your addresses to be linked to a single wallet.

Someone needs to be careful of his utxo, scammers can make use of dust attack to link many of your addresses together. To fully have true privacy, you need to make use of mixer or coinjoin sometimes.

[20kevin20]

They might, thru: https://www.walletexplorer.com/

AFAIK, what WalletExplorer does is it links addresses that have been used together before to consolidate inputs. If you have ADDR1 and ADDR2, although you may have always used coin control correctly, if you consolidate their balances as a single transaction into ADDR3, it's likely that ADDR1 and ADDR2 is owned by the same wallet. This is the simplest blockchain analysis one can do, but considering the level of knowledge needed to avoid address links, a lot of wallets can be easily traced this way.

There are times someone needs to make use of coinjoin or mixer in order to have privacy

Neither CoinJoin or Mixers solve all the anonymity/privacy problems though. You can easily use CoinJoin or Mixers to consolidate inputs the wrong way and link 2 addresses together.

Mycelium wallet can do this thing (multiple address in one wallet) correct me if I am wrong.

This wasn't what OP was asking tho - they were asking whether these multiple addresses could be linked to the same owner..

[markcolls]

They might, thru: https://www.walletexplorer.com/

AFAIK, what WalletExplorer does is it links addresses that have been used together before to consolidate inputs. If you have ADDR1 and ADDR2, although you may have always used coin control correctly, if you consolidate their balances as a single transaction into ADDR3, it's likely that ADDR1 and ADDR2 is owned by the same wallet. This is the simplest blockchain analysis one can do, but considering the level of knowledge needed to avoid address links, a lot of wallets can be easily traced this way.

If you consolidate balances into a single transaction, then by definition, you are not practicing coin control.

[o_e_l_e_o]

there is I believe only one way left through which someone could figure out the addresses are connected: the fact that Electrum communicates with other servers to figure out the balance of your addresses.

There are a couple of others I can think of.

If you ever give out your master public key.

If you give multiple addresses to the same service while logged in under the same account (for example, an exchange to process withdrawals), then the exchange and all the third parties they share information with will know all the addresses belong to you, even if you haven't linked them from a blockchain point of view.

If you use the same unusual script on all the addresses, then that gives a pretty strong indication they all belong to the same person.

If you were to make two different transactions from two addresses a few minutes apart, and both transactions pay from the same address type, pay to the same address type, pay the same fee rate, use the same nLockTime, the same nSequence, the same version, etc. then although not definitive by any means, it might cause a focused attacker to keep an eye on those addresses.

[aesma]

Coin control and not reusing addresses is good practice in any case. If you're sending some coins to exchanges to trade or sell or whatever, there there is no need to be extra careful with these transactions, but in the meantime you can be more careful with others.

I agree with running a full node in theory, but in practice almost nobody does this. And you don't really need a full node, a pruned one is fine.

[witcher_sense]

~
If you were to make two different transactions from two addresses a few minutes apart, and both transactions pay from the same address type, pay to the same address type, pay the same fee rate, use the same nLockTime, the same nSequence, the same version, etc. then although not definitive by any means, it might cause a focused attacker to keep an eye on those addresses.

The connection between addresses may well become definite in the following case: assume you are practicing good coin control, CoinJoin, mixing, etc. You have been mixing, obfuscating your transactions for months and consequently got a group of UTXOs with high anonymity set "sitting" in your wallet. Later, you decided to move all your UTXOs into cold storage, one by one, one after another, to different addresses (coin control). If for some unfortunate reason (mempool congestion), all your UTXOs are included in the same block, you failed and revealed all your mixed UTXOs and also the fact they belonged to the same wallet. Time control is very important.

[o_e_l_e_o]

If for some unfortunate reason (mempool congestion), all your UTXOs are included in the same block, you failed and revealed all your mixed UTXOs and also the fact they belonged to the same wallet. Time control is very important.

True, but that still is not a definitive link (as even two inputs in the same transaction is not a definitive link that both addresses are controlled by the same person). A number of transactions in the same block paying the same fee and using the same properties is certainly suspicious, but I'm sure there are also plenty of examples of this kind of collision which are not related, especially if using common properties.

The only way I would say this is close to definitive is if you are using a completely unique and unusual nLockTime or nSequence.

[Tessnik]

As long as you practice coin control correctly and you do not link those addresses together in any way, there is I believe only one way left through which someone could figure out the addresses are connected: the fact that Electrum communicates with other servers to figure out the balance of your addresses.

If you open up Electrum with all those 10 addresses in the same wallet and you are not running your own full node, then the Electrum software will have to ask other servers for your balance and history. The easiest fix for that is running a full node through Bitcoin Core (make sure you connect it to Tor for even more privacy) and using coin control over there instead. Light wallets may be fast, but that comes with a few privacy compromises.

Exactly and another way I believe one can track the origin of a wallet connection is through the use of explorer I used methereuem explorer to check the balance on the wallet whether on different wallat addresses.

[Gotumoot]

Suppose I open a wallet in electrum then create 10 addresses to receive bitcoins in. Assume that I practice coin control correctly (i.e. I do mix UTOXs that came to different addresses). Then, is there a way someone could figure out that those 10 addresses are from a single wallet or are connected in some way?

Yes it could be traced I think there was a thread about it.
A massive farm account doing it creating multiple addresses to a single wallet.

[odolvlobo]

Suppose I open a wallet in electrum then create 10 addresses to receive bitcoins in. Assume that I practice coin control correctly (i.e. I do mix UTOXs that came to different addresses). Then, is there a way someone could figure out that those 10 addresses are from a single wallet or are connected in some way?

They might be able to infer that the addresses are from the same wallet by where the bitcoins come from and where they go. Otherwise, it looks like 10 different wallets.

Anyway, why go through all that trouble? Get a wallet that supports separate accounts. It is basically the same thing as what you are trying to do, but automatic.

[markcolls]

Suppose I open a wallet in electrum then create 10 addresses to receive bitcoins in. Assume that I practice coin control correctly (i.e. I do mix UTOXs that came to different addresses). Then, is there a way someone could figure out that those 10 addresses are from a single wallet or are connected in some way?

They might be able to infer that the addresses are from the same wallet by where the bitcoins come from and where they go. Otherwise, it looks like 10 different wallets.

Anyway, why go through all that trouble? Get a wallet that supports separate accounts. It is basically the same thing as what you are trying to do, but automatic.

That would be fine if I was dealing with 10 wallets. But not if I was programmatically dealing with 100,000 or 1 million addresses.