Your options to having privacy in Bitcoin - and their tradeoffs

[xett036]

Due to recent events with mixer being confiscated by authorities, or mixer doing an exit scam, or with a seemingly legitimate pro-privacy company going in the opposite direction, I think a clarification of where we are at the moment in protecting the users' privacy is necessary.

There are three ways to secure privacy of your bitcoins, each of which comes with its own advantages and disadvantages. Pick according to what fits you best.

It absolutely does. Any sane user of a privacy service does not want the fee they pay being handed to blockchain analysis to spy on their inputs and potentially censor those inputs based on their findings. This is antithetical to the entire concept of privacy.

Hi, I just post this thread 'Can Submarine Swaps in Lightning Wallet increase Bitcoin Privacy?'

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5464525.0

What do you think, could this be the 4th option to improve Bitcoin anonymity ?

[virasog]

Great thread @BlackHatCoiner! ....

I just want to know if you see the anonymous (decentralized) casinos as another method to secure your financial privacy? There are still some casinos out there that supports pseudo anonymity, but I will not push large amounts of coins through them.

People can still "mix" their coins through these casinos, until they start asking for KYC verification. Just make sure these casinos are not scams and that you can actually withdraw from them. (They start with no KYC requirements, but eventually bend the knee to law enforcement)  

I would not recommend this method at all because this is the most risky. Although some casinos may let you deposit and withdraw without KYC but they will never let you withdraw unless or until you wager the whole balance. So now you have to first gamble the money, and you can lose everything in the process.

If you want to do this centralized way, better use the non kyc exchanges to send the bitcoin and withdraw in chucks in different btc addresses. Although a less effective method as compared to the methods listed in OP but still at least does not have a risk of losing money like in a casino.

[Solosanz]

I would not recommend this method at all because this is the most risky. Although some casinos may let you deposit and withdraw without KYC but they will never let you withdraw unless or until you wager the whole balance. So now you have to first gamble the money, and you can lose everything in the process.

If you want to do this centralized way, better use the non kyc exchanges to send the bitcoin and withdraw in chucks in different btc addresses. Although a less effective method as compared to the methods listed in OP but still at least does not have a risk of losing money like in a casino.

When we're talk about privacy matter, we must avoid centralization as much as possible. What's the point of using a centralized site when you're having an option to choose the other way?

Not sure what's site you refer about centralized no KYC exchange, but my thought is Binance when they were still allow maximum of 2 BTC withdraw without KYC. Remember Binance has a KYC mandatory rule and able to freeze your coins.

Either centralized casino or centralized exchange, both of them are bad choice for privacy.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Hi, I just post this thread 'Can Submarine Swaps in Lightning Wallet increase Bitcoin Privacy?'

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5464525.0

I did post a reply in your thread. I wouldn't recommend doing that, but it can be helpful with toxic change. For instance, when you want to mix 10.4 mBTC, you can mix the 10 mBTC, and exchange the 0.4 mBTC for 0.4 LN-mBTC via submarine swap.

If you want to do this centralized way, better use the non kyc exchanges to send the bitcoin and withdraw in chucks in different btc addresses.

Or just use a centralized mixer, as it'll do it more effectively and cheaply.

What's the point of using a centralized site when you're having an option to choose the other way?

Effectiveness and cost. It appears to be the case frequently, that a centralized mixer can charge absolutely zero, and be even more effective than coinjoins, as your inputs will hold no blockchain connection with the outputs.

Forget to mention it's not really applicable to Wasabi wallet (and any wallet which use BIP 157) where the wallet can obtain relevant transaction from full node without full node knowing which transaction is needed by the wallet.

Correct. Wasabi uses block filtering, so there is no privacy invaded as in regular light clients. I've edited my post.

[franky1]

shhhhh dont tell this to the idiots of the doomad clan..(blackhatcoiner, oeleo and other cult followers)

but just like other idiots who  promote buying blockreward sats(so called rare) for foolish things like BRC tokens.. here is an idea..
make a deal with mining pool that you will create a TX to spend dirty coin to a address where the receiving address is 0sat but the fee is 100% and only broadcast to the mining pool. thus destroying the UTXO of dirty coin completely and having no output to continue any taint..
the pool then after adding it to blockchain (thus claiming the utxo as fee) will then (using a separate reward from an earlier block) pay out an agreed amount to an address you want. thus you appear as just a legit miner receiving share of reward
thus destroying all taint of dirty coin at same time

buying reward sats is not deemed mixing and instead can be seen as just buying rare sats

i tried to give many hints over months about ways around the concern of mixer legitimacy and how to get around it.. but it seems a certain clan group couldnt put 1 and 1 together to get 2

yep bitcoin has had the ability to destroy UTXO and generate fresh coin with zero taint since day one... use it

[BlackHatCoiner]

make a deal with mining pool that you will create a TX to spend dirty coin to a address where the receiving address is 0sat but the fee is 100% and only broadcast to the mining pool.

That implies you're buying the term "tainted coins". This thread has nothing to do with this. Wanting privacy doesn't mean wanting to pass the made-up "legitimate coin test" from chain analysis companies.

And also, tainted coins are completely subjectively interpreted. A "tainted coin" can be a block reward, because the miner used "tainted coins" to earn the transaction fees. "Tainted coins" are only destroyed if you don't buy them as concept.

[DooMAD]

but just like other idiots who  promote buying blockreward sats(so called rare) for foolish things like BRC tokens.. here is an idea..
make a deal with mining pool that you will create a TX to spend dirty coin to a address where the receiving address is 0sat but the fee is 100% and only broadcast to the mining pool. thus destroying the UTXO of dirty coin completely and having no output to continue any taint..
the pool then after adding it to blockchain (thus claiming the utxo as fee) will then (using a separate reward from an earlier block) pay out an agreed amount to an address you want. thus you appear as just a legit miner receiving share of reward
thus destroying all taint of dirty coin at same time

Sounds like rank hypocrisy coming from the same user who said this:

breaking the tracking/accounting of bitcoin breaks bitcoins utility as money/currency/asset. just for the selfish whims of shady people that are too lazy to think about how they personally should hide their activities and instead want other services/projects to do the hiding for their lazy asses

Also, if when making this deal with the mining pool, there was any sort of remuneration for them, you would also have to repeat your previous arguments about them having to register as money transmitters:

regulators are already creating crypto laws where anyone facilitating the funds transfer of other people for a payment/commission is to be deemed as a money transmitter/money service business.

Or do these arguments only apply when the topic is about LN?  I forget how these subjective rules of yours apply sometimes.  There doesn't seem to be much consistency to it.  Just feels like layers upon layers of hypocrisy.

[dzungmobile]

BlackHatCoiner.

You made a typo in your topic. Samourai wallet, not Samurai wallet.

You add an url link to a website of Samourai wallet but if any reader does not click on the link but typing it manually on a browser, it will lead to another website which can be a phishing site.