Public Blockchain Analysis Sites (to check transaction history)

[Kryptowerk]

Bitcoin is fungible. Like cash, whatever it was used for before you owned it doesn't matter.

The idea of "taint" goes against everything Bitcoin stands for. It's something we need to fight for Bitcoins existence.

Ideally it would be fungible.
Right now some governments are trying their hardest to not have it that way. And are partly succeeding.

If your comment is meant in the way, that blockchain-analytics tools should not be shared, because it goes against the intention of Bitcoin, I have to disagree.
Why? Because any powerful instituation is already capable enough to do these analysis and has all the necessary tools at their disposal. Which means open tools that have similar capabilites will only empower "the people" - they can check any possible leaks / security concerns of their own transactions and take measurements accordingly.

I know you have strong opinions on the topic, but just claiming Bitcoin is fungible when it is clearly not (right now) is imho dangerous. It may lead to Bitcoin-users mistakenly assuming anonymity when it is not necessarily there.

[BlackHatCoiner]

* I wouldn't  call it "spying", "spying" sounds more like with bad intentions, while the buyer can be 100% friendly, without any sinister intent.

The intentions really don't matter. If you don't treat bitcoin as fungible currency that it is, you're doing equal harm, regardless of intentions.

Why? Because any powerful instituation is already capable enough to do these analysis and has all the necessary tools at their disposal.

Treating every mixed coin as "tainted" merely based on the certainty that some of them might have originated from illegal activities does not qualify as a reasonably established practice. It's simply put, insane. You wouldn't treat a $10 bill as tainted if there was 50% chance it was used illegally. Every dollar bill is potentially used illegally, just as every mixed bitcoin.

You could argue that it's subjective, but some of their history in the blockchain are based on facts.

But, more than that are claimed to be "tainted". Every single coin which passes a mixer or is coinjoined is deemed as tainted, because a fraction of the input is involved in illegal activity. You can't seriously argue that mixed coins being reasonably called tainted is based on facts, because it is half insane and half guesswork.

[LoyceV]

I know you have strong opinions on the topic, but just claiming Bitcoin is fungible when it is clearly not (right now) is imho dangerous. It may lead to Bitcoin-users mistakenly assuming anonymity when it is not necessarily there.

"Taint" is like a religion: it only exists if people believe it exists. If you can't accept cash money without doing a background check, money loses it's value. The same will happen to Bitcoin, and that is the real danger.

Right now some governments are trying their hardest to not have it that way. And are partly succeeding.

Governments can't stop Bitcoin, but they can make people believe they shouldn't trust Bitcoin. That's the real danger, and that's what I indeed have a strong opinion against.

It's worse with the companies promoting the idea of taint: they made a business model out of telling people some Bitcoins are worth less than others. They're not sharing their list, just like governments don't just publish a list of "tainted" Bitcoins. And any Bitcoin you own already can be labeled at "tainted" later on by random people for arbitrary reasons. The whole concept shouldn't exist.

[o_e_l_e_o]

You could argue that it's subjective, but some of their history in the blockchain are based on facts.

It is absolutely subjective, as I've talked about before:

I did a small experiment some time ago regarding blockchain analysis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395035.msg59905002#msg59905002

One particular piece of blockchain analysis software put a significant amount of coins in the wallet of various centralized exchanges in one of the categories of scams, hacks, or blacklists. Obviously the blockchain analysis software being used by these exchanges did not classify these coins in this manner, otherwise they wouldn't have accepted those coins. The fact that two different pieces of software can come to completely different conclusions about the exact same coins should be more than enough to tell you that blockchain analysis is made up trash.

One of the core principles of any piece of science is that its results are repeatable and independently verifiable. If I come up with a process to say, isolate gold from an alloy, then I publish my methods and other people perform the same steps, end up with the same results, and verify my process works. If I come up with a process to say some coins are tainted, and other people do the same thing and end up with completely different results, then my process is bullshit.

Even Chainalysis themselves admit that there is absolutely zero scientific evidence underpinning any of their blockchain analysis bullshit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5464886.msg62875591#msg62875591

If a Satoshi actually went through an address that's verified active in the Dark Markets, then those UTXOs are "tainted".

The satoshi is just a satoshi. It is not anything else. If some centralized entity decides that they don't want to accept that satoshi, fine. Their loss. It makes absolutely zero different to me owning that satoshi or spending that satoshi with entities which are not anti-bitcoin.

Right now some governments are trying their hardest to not have it that way. And are partly succeeding.

They are partly succeeding only because they are convincing people like 1miau's friend that taint isn't made up bullshit and that he needs to spy on any coins he's buying.

Every single coin which passes a mixer or is coinjoined is deemed as tainted, because a fraction of the input is involved in illegal activity. You can't seriously argue that mixed coins being reasonably called tainted is based on facts, because it is half insane and half guesswork.

Worse than that. Coins from hacks and scams have 100% passed through the hot wallets of Binance, Coinbase, and every other major exchange in existence. By the exact same logic that say mixed coins are tainted, then any and all coins withdrawn from a centralized exchange are also tainted. In fact, pretty much every bitcoin in active circulation is tainted. And as my little experiment above shows, coins from one centralized exchange may not necessarily be accepted by another centralized exchange.

The more we accept this bullshit and modify our behavior to comply with it, the more strength we give it and the more we weaken bitcoin as a currency and as a concept.

[1miau]

Well, we don't know if it's a scammer / Darknet dealer / criminal or even a hacker himself who's going to sell it instead of an innocent person.

That's kind of my point. Looking at the history of the coins being sold doesn't tell you anything about the person selling them.

Yes, we don't know but to have another "part of the puzzle" can help us to find it out. Because when meeting a stranger, every point is important to evaluate. And if he's selling Bitcoin outright from a hack or stolen BTC, we can conclude for sure that the seller is not innocent.
We have had such a story just recently on our local board, where someone's wallet was hacked. And unfortunately, P2P is well suited for hackers to get rid of their stolen or hacked BTC.

Because he's owner of the coins.

Do you know the history of every satoshi you own? I very much doubt anyone knows this.

Of course I don't know but I'm sure no one of my coins is from an outright hack.

It shouldn't be any issue because if purchased, the buyer could "spy"* as well, because he'll get to know the address anyways.

Yes, but that's different. If someone is trading with me, then of course they will see the address I sent coins from (although those coins will be either mixed or coinjoined, so they will learn nothing anyway). But someone who I might not be trading with asking me to reveal to them my address(es) so they can perform some kind of rudimentary blockchain analysis on them and then maybe not trade with me at all? I've just lost some privacy for absolutely no benefit to me.

But it's beneficial for the buyer. If he's feeling safer to get more trust, this could be helpful for the face-to-face meeting.

So I would pass and find a different buyer.

Of course, everyone can decide if / under which conditions to sell or not.

* I wouldn't  call it "spying", "spying" sounds more like with bad intentions, while the buyer can be 100% friendly, without any sinister intent.

But that's exactly what it is. He wants to spy on the coins he is going to receive to see if they are "good enough" for him.

But he doesn't want to "spy", he just want to find out if his trading partner is trying to sell him hacked our stolen coins or not.

If you are that worried about the history of coins you buy P2P, then just mix or coinjoin everything you receive. Simple.

But that's also some effort and requires a fee.
However, I believe P2P is still a very important market but due to the crime, I can well understand the buyer's concern.

* I wouldn't  call it "spying", "spying" sounds more like with bad intentions, while the buyer can be 100% friendly, without any sinister intent.

The intentions really don't matter. If you don't treat bitcoin as fungible currency that it is, you're doing equal harm, regardless of intentions.

Sorry, but that take is straight out bullshit.

Of course, intention does matter. If a legitimate buyer wants to purchase Bitcoin legitimately, what he'll receive anyways, of course he is entitled to request this sort of information.
And of course, a potential seller could deny him such sort of information. But maybe why he could deny it? Maybe he's a hacker and a criminal who's trying to get rid of stolen and hacked coins? In our local board, someone got hacked recently (yes, it's his fault) but of course, it's legitimate that buyers don't want to get dumped with such stolen or hacked coins. Blockchain is public and that's simply how Bitcoin works.

Blaming me, that I would "do harm" just by using the Blockchain, how it is designed, is not doing any harm to anyone.  


But thanks for the input everyone, the topic wasn't intended to lead to a discussion of "best face to face P2P practices 101".  
I just wanted to see if there are similar sites like oxt.me.  

[BlackHatCoiner]

Of course I don't know but I'm sure no one of my coins is from an outright hack.

If you don't know your coins' history, you don't know that either.

Of course, intention does matter.

In my opinion, it doesn't. I don't care if your friend has ethical concerns with the coins they receive, or if they want to sabotage Bitcoin. The result is the same. In either case, they treat the currency as non-fungible, which ultimately does the same harm.

If a legitimate buyer wants to purchase Bitcoin legitimately, what he'll receive anyways, of course he is entitled to request this sort of information.

Lol. Since when do we request this sort of information? It's the first time I've ever heard this as a need. Not caring about the history of my coins has worked fine so far.

Maybe he's a hacker and a criminal who's trying to get rid of stolen and hacked coins?

I must have received plenty of bitcoin which were involved in some illegal activity. I share no concern, just as I share none with the cash I spend everyday. The public availability and interconnectedness of transactions does not imply that I am correlated with the financial history of my coins.

[apogio]

Of course, intention does matter. If a legitimate buyer wants to purchase Bitcoin legitimately, what he'll receive anyways, of course he is entitled to request this sort of information.

When you go to the groceries and pay with cash and get the change, do you ask the seller where they got the change from?

When you buy jewelery, do you also care about the origins of what you buy, or only about the materials that are used and the jewel itself? I guess the latter. In bitcoin, the "material" is protected by bitcoin itself, assuming there are enough confirmations in the network. So, why bother about the former?

If I get any amount of Bitcoin, I just do some coinjoins and then, everything works perfectly!

[1miau]

Of course I don't know but I'm sure no one of my coins is from an outright hack.

If you don't know your coins' history, you don't know that either.

But I know where it's from and I can rule it out by doing so.
Of course, criminals abusing any services is a different issue.
Criminals should be well aware that Bitcoin is public and not suited for their BS.

Of course, intention does matter.

In my opinion, it doesn't. I don't care if your friend has ethical concerns with the coins they receive, or if they want to sabotage Bitcoin. The result is the same. In either case, they treat the currency as non-fungible, which ultimately does the same harm.

Well, that's a great example, sabotaging Bitcoin would be a very illegimate purpose. At least I wouldn't be the one supporting it. And I believe, it should be up to the individual to make such a decision.
And, important point:
This famous fungibility only means: coins can be sent by ourselves, it's a technical thing.
It doesn't mean that everyone is forced to accept them and not allowed to do research.

If a legitimate buyer wants to purchase Bitcoin legitimately, what he'll receive anyways, of course he is entitled to request this sort of information.

Lol. Since when do we request this sort of information? It's the first time I've ever heard this as a need. Not caring about the history of my coins has worked fine so far.

Maybe it's a bit different because I believe it's a very legitimate concern for a face to face trade. There, 2 people meet anonymously in public, they don't know each other. It's sometimes very shady business.
It really depends on each case and should be rated case to case. 

Of course, intention does matter. If a legitimate buyer wants to purchase Bitcoin legitimately, what he'll receive anyways, of course he is entitled to request this sort of information.

When you go to the groceries and pay with cash and get the change, do you ask the seller where they got the change from?

No, I don't ask because (most) supermarkets are pretty legitimate. And most money is scanned regularly to avoid fake cash.
This cash and Bitcoin comparison doesn't make any sense because cash can't be linked but Bitcoin transaction can because it is digital and public. Bitcoin is a public ledger.
This is a fundamental difference.

When you buy jewelery, do you also care about the origins of what you buy, or only about the materials that are used and the jewel itself?

I guess the latter. In bitcoin, the "material" is protected by bitcoin itself, assuming there are enough confirmations in the network. So, why bother about the former?

Because Blockchain is public. Cash / jewellery etc is not. And I like it how it is.
If someone doesn't like that fact, that the Bitcoin Blockchain is public, they can use Monero...


However, many thanks for your input @everyone even after this post went off-topic. Initially I just wanted to collect sites like oxt.me because we have so many Blockexplorers.
My intention was not to dive into pro / con arguments, or best practices for face to face P2P / purchases.
I'll lock this topic, many thanks for the input everyone. 
Have a nice day.