Mixer restrictions

[LoyceV]

I don't have the impression that anything significant has changed since DT regained the presidency

I nominate this post for the worst use ever of "DT" in Meta

[TryNinja]

I might be spreading missinformation here, but don't you have a public list of potential addresses when looking at a coinjoin transaction?

Let's assume you have a perfect mixer. By "perfect" I mean that the list of potential outputs is the entire UTXO set; a blockchain observer cannot derive a subset of these outputs as "more likely to be owned by you". By that metric, a perfect mixer gives you a better "anonymity set" than a coinjoin.

But, how relevant is it in reality? If your bitcoin was mixed in a coinjoin enough times to be indistinguishable from the bitcoin of a thousand other participants, how much more privacy would be left to gain? That was my question. Yes, a perfect mixer would give you a better theoretical "anonymity set", but practically speaking, can you trace either solution? A chain analysis firm would have to break the connection of all the other hundreds of coinjoin participants to de-anonymize you, and consider they're relying on mere guesswork in the first place.

And I just presumed the existence of a "perfect" mixer. Consider that the anonymity set is significantly lower for a variety of reasons, and that you also have to trust the mixer's intentions and to not mess things up by some mistake.

Do people always coinjoin with thousands of other participants, and do they always repeat that with many hops? I guess the answer is always: it depends.

Does it mean that all the mixers that is coming to promote their brands on bitcointalk is not licensed? Or Government wants to use the illegalities operations of mixer to attack bitcointalk forum.

I don't believe there's a single mixer who's even got the license to mix coins.

They would need to do request for full KYC, ask for proof of funds, ask where you're sending the coins to, and more. So... just no.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Do people always coinjoin with thousands of other participants, and do they always repeat that with many hops? I guess the answer is always: it depends.

Depends on your OPSEC and how paranoid you are. What I know is that even one round of a coinjoin like this one is enough to break the link between the non-private inputs and the outputs. The combinations are near infinite, and the "potential address list" goes on and on as long as participants of this round continue remixing their coins in next rounds, even if you join no extra one. The more rounds you join, the more you increase the anonymity set up to any limit, which is configurable from the client. And this is all without trusting a single entity with the custody of your coins.

Edit: Just for the record, there's a whole bunch of definitions for "anonymity set" on the Internet. Wasabi does NOT mean the set of distinct users (which is impossible to accurately measure in an pseudonymous environment like a public ledger), but does a good job to make a conservative estimation: https://docs.wasabiwallet.io/FAQ/FAQ-UseWasabi.html#what-is-the-anonymity-set.

[Zoomic]

At a time, I started asking myself some questions about this mixer issues.
1. Did any government even prohibit mixers?
2. Or they simply want mixers to work in their terms (kyc and submitting users data)?

If you're not a licensed "money transmitting service", you're considered illegal in most countries. That reads as "yes, they prohibit mixing" to me. If you, as a bitcoin user, need to sacrifice your entire opsec, just to have your coins mixed, then it pretty much defeats the purpose, and makes it clear that bitcoin privacy without the state's permission to surveil you is prohibited.

Now I see, it's more of a battle against privacy but the Government will not come bold to say it. This will like to force me to believe that even if the mixers are not rendering their services to criminals (I mean mixers are only used by genuine people), government will also still try to bring it down. I'm I correct on this?
The government should be aware of everything and if possible control them all. This is becoming clear to me, as Bob will say "Nobody can kill Raggae". We shall all sing that nobody can kill privacy.

I don't have the impression that anything significant has changed since DT regained the presidency

I nominate this post for the worst use ever of "DT" in Meta

Trump is a DT member with red tag. He hasn't changed anything since he returned to DT1.

[dkbit98]

I am ok with newly updated rules, but it won't be so easy to identify if specific member has been paid by some mixer to write positive things about them.

This should be the case anyway, but now, a suspicious mind would say that all of the mixer websites have been acquired by governments and companies controlled by national authorities.

You mean the same way they are freely acquiring oil tankers?
They could do that with all websites, including forums, and other services and products connected with bitcoin.

Meanwhile a well done mixer just takes coins from a whole different galaxy that has no potential connection with my coins besides the timeframe?

I wouldn't say they are coming from a ddifferent galaxy, most far they can get is some bitcoin miner or pool.
But keep in mind that history of someone using a mixer website could be stored on some server, we already had things like that happening in past.

[Forsyth Jones]

Depends on your OPSEC and how paranoid you are. What I know is that even one round of a coinjoin like this one is enough to break the link between the non-private inputs and the outputs. The combinations are near infinite, and the "potential address list" goes on and on as long as participants of this round continue remixing their coins in next rounds, even if you join no extra one. The more rounds you join, the more you increase the anonymity set up to any limit, which is configurable from the client. And this is all without trusting a single entity with the custody of your coins.

Edit: Just for the record, there's a whole bunch of definitions for "anonymity set" on the Internet. Wasabi does NOT mean the set of distinct users (which is impossible to accurately measure in an pseudonymous environment like a public ledger), but does a good job to make a conservative estimation: https://docs.wasabiwallet.io/FAQ/FAQ-UseWasabi.html#what-is-the-anonymity-set.

I've participated in a few coinjoin rounds on Wasabi, and I noticed that the coordinator uses P2TR destination addresses by default for all users who participated in that round. In other words, before entering a coinjoin round, the funds are in my bech32 addresses, after a few coinjoin rounds, they are destined for PT2R. I found this a bit problematic, as anyone could associate a TX with multiple P2TR outputs to a coinjoin transaction.

At that time, I didn't use AML checkers, but I didn't have any problems depositing them into a CEX.

However, what are the chances that KYC-requiring services, such as CEX and others, will associate this pattern with coinjoin?

The advantage of coinjoin is that you have greater security that the funds will return to your wallet, whereas with a mixer, you get greater privacy but it depends on the mixer's trustworthiness. When you choose one of these, you give up the advantages that the alternative might offer. So there is no 100% perfect solution, but we have alternatives for anyone to use whatever they think is best.

[lontivero]

However, what are the chances that KYC-requiring services, such as CEX and others, will associate this pattern with coinjoin?

Everybody can see you have participated in a coinjoin regardless of whether you use Taproot or Segwit outputs, in fact I am 100% sure I can train my dog to recognize coinjoins with high level of accuracy so, "what are the chances that KYC-requiring services, such as CEX and others, will associate this pattern with coinjoin?" Answer: 100%, they already know it because it is obvious.

[bitmover]

However, what are the chances that KYC-requiring services, such as CEX and others, will associate this pattern with coinjoin?

Everybody can see you have participated in a coinjoin regardless of whether you use Taproot or Segwit outputs, in fact I am 100% sure I can train my dog to recognize coinjoins with high level of accuracy so, "what are the chances that KYC-requiring services, such as CEX and others, will associate this pattern with coinjoin?" Answer: 100%, they already know it because it is obvious.

I agree, it is obvious that you have used coinjoin or mixer or any other anonymization method.

But  the link will be broken between your new coins and the old one. You will have privacy. This is what those services offer.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I found this a bit problematic, as anyone could associate a TX with multiple P2TR outputs to a coinjoin transaction.

The taproot outputs are probably the last indication that the transaction is a coinjoin, let alone a WabiSabi coinjoin. In case you were wondering why it sends to P2TR sometimes, it's due to a Trezor issue, IIRC. Now it's fixed by giving 50% chance of funding a P2TR output, in each coinjoin.

The advantage of coinjoin is that you have greater security that the funds will return to your wallet, whereas with a mixer, you get greater privacy but it depends on the mixer's trustworthiness.

It depends on the mixer's trustworthiness and the mixer's competence. Many mixers have just let their operation run under some DigitalOcean virtual private server, which is too easy to confiscate and surveil.

[Pmalek]

I am ok with newly updated rules, but it won't be so easy to identify if specific member has been paid by some mixer to write positive things about them.

If a specific user does it often and begins doing it all of a sudden, it could be a sign that someone is paying them for that promotion. What I mean with "all of a sudden" is that there was no previous history of them discussing that particular mixer, but then it's mentioned 20 times in the last month. If they keep recommending the same mixing service over and over again, that could also be suspicious. And obviously, if it's a brand-new account that keeps on inserting the brand's name all over the forum and where it doesn't belong.

[TryNinja]

I am ok with newly updated rules, but it won't be so easy to identify if specific member has been paid by some mixer to write positive things about them.

At the end of the day it probably doesn't matter. User A asks a "normal" question, User B replies... I can't see the USA government closing Bitcointalk because of this.

While I also doubt they would do that because of signature campaigns, you can at least argue that there is still a non zero chance.

[Forsyth Jones]

I am ok with newly updated rules, but it won't be so easy to identify if specific member has been paid by some mixer to write positive things about them.

At the end of the day it probably doesn't matter. User A asks a "normal" question, User B replies... I can't see the USA government closing Bitcointalk because of this.

While I also doubt they would do that because of signature campaigns, you can at least argue that there is still a non zero chance.

Yes, that's a good point. I think that in the end, there should be a vote to see what members think of the current rules regarding mixer bans and if it's possible to consider a slightly more flexible approach. I think a poll every 5 months is good, however, this isn't a democracy, the final decision rests with the forum administrator, and it's up to us to respect the established rules.

I think a more flexible approach with a limited number of ANNs or sig campaigns allowed could be a good start, but I don't think that will happen anytime soon and perhaps the rules won't be relaxed any further than now.

The good part is that self-custody-based privacy services (wasabi, coinjoin, etc.) can still operate freely on this forum.

For this to change, the persecution and prejudice (especially from the authorities) against privacy services must decrease, and this requires a cultural shift that could take decades (or perhaps never happen, or even get worse).

[joker_josue]

Yes, that's a good point. I think that in the end, there should be a vote to see what members think of the current rules regarding mixer bans and if it's possible to consider a slightly more flexible approach. I think a poll every 5 months is good, however, this isn't a democracy, the final decision rests with the forum administrator, and it's up to us to respect the established rules.

It's not a question of whether it's a democracy or not.
The point is that if there are problems with the authorities, it's the administration that has to deal with them, not the other forum members. In case of problems, your life simply continues as if nothing happened. But not with the administration; you'll have to deal with them.

[JollyGood]

Adding to your post, I think the role the media and negative publicity can play (as far as loss of confidence is concerned) should not underestimated or minimised. For example, if there are endless weeks of publicity surrounding how good or bad mixing can be, it will affect public opinion. A few bad actors in the grand scheme of things should not be the barometer for authorities to make and take various steps. It is a growing industry therefore many countries are embracing crypto but their desire to control it holding it back from further potential.

If a mixer website conducts as exit-scam, that should not dissuade privacy seekers from using coinjoin tools as an alternative. It will result in a loss of confidence but that could be countered as there are options.

In short, the entire Bitcoin privacy industry depends on trust, and a few stakeholders playing according to game theory and "winning as much as possible" (i.e. scamming) will disrupt the entire model and lead to a loss of confidence in anonymity services.

[dkbit98]

The advantage of coinjoin is that you have greater security that the funds will return to your wallet, whereas with a mixer, you get greater privacy but it depends on the mixer's trustworthiness. When you choose one of these, you give up the advantages that the alternative might offer. So there is no 100% perfect solution, but we have alternatives for anyone to use whatever they think is best.

Right, but don't forget about Joinmarket, that is the safest and fully decentralized option that is not getting enough attention from bitcoiners.
There is no coordinators and no censorship restrictions like we can see with some Coinjoin wallets.

At the end of the day it probably doesn't matter. User A asks a "normal" question, User B replies... I can't see the USA government closing Bitcointalk because of this.

I agree with you, but I was talking about users getting banned by moderators because of this

[Forsyth Jones]

It's not a question of whether it's a democracy or not.
The point is that if there are problems with the authorities, it's the administration that has to deal with them, not the other forum members. In case of problems, your life simply continues as if nothing happened. But not with the administration; you'll have to deal with them.

Yes, that's what I meant, as theymos is the adm of this forum, regardless of what the users want, his word is the final decision, in case of legal problems, he can answer for it, and the other users will depend on each case.

Right, but don't forget about Joinmarket, that is the safest and fully decentralized option that is not getting enough attention from bitcoiners.
-

I've heard about Joinmarket, but I haven't tried it yet. Thanks for the tip.