Accepting Bitcoin donation anonymously

[darkv0rt3x]

Like, can one keep the anonymity using a 3rd party wallet that can handle the amounts in all addresses and create transactions for my needs and still keep the anonymity?

Can't you do the same with a non-custodial wallet that supports coin selection? (Such as Electrum)

So, my dilema here is if I want to keep anonymity, I have to use a new address for every amount received/sent but to do this I need to trust a 3rd party app or code or service (in case of web sites).

There's no need to trust a third party app. You only need an HD wallet that derives new addresses each time it's queried.


Your text is a little bit confusing. In case I haven't understood it correctly, could you elaborate?

Yeah, I think I got a bit confused myself while I was typing the question!
If I understood, the OP is asking about the receivers of the donations, opposing to what I understood in the first place, from the thread title.
My question, without introducing any of my thoughts to keep it simple, is how receiving for instance, 10 different donations in 10 different addresses, keeps you in anonymity or how it protects your privacy... If I totally agree with the answer, then great, I got it, if not, I'll keep asking further questions until I get it.

[o_e_l_e_o]

In the example you gave, both UTXOs have the same output script:

Code:

OP_DUP
OP_HASH160
OP_PUSHBYTES_20 9c986d774606de094dd48e69ecdf1af34bbb84c0
OP_EQUALVERIFY
OP_CHECKSIG 

However, the OP_CHECKSIG is what makes the difference.

I wouldn't say it is OP_CHECKSIG which makes them different. The OP_CHECKSIG opcode is identical in every signature it appears in - simply an 0xac byte. What is different is the actual signatures themselves. Your client should obviously be using a different R value for each input, and since you are signing different messages you will always have a different S value. Even if you reused the R value (which would put all the coins on that address at risk of theft!), you will still have different S values and therefore require a separate signature for each input.

[n0nce]

In the example you gave, both UTXOs have the same output script:

Code:

OP_DUP
OP_HASH160
OP_PUSHBYTES_20 9c986d774606de094dd48e69ecdf1af34bbb84c0
OP_EQUALVERIFY
OP_CHECKSIG 

However, the OP_CHECKSIG is what makes the difference.

I wouldn't say it is OP_CHECKSIG which makes them different.

What I meant was simply that the public key hash and its verification using OP_EQUALVERIFY will be the same, however the signature verification using OP_CHECKSIG differs.