Wasabi Wallet - Total Privacy For Bitcoin

[alani123]

Sadly I don't think we've reached a point in BTC mixing tech where it can be so immutable and decentralised that whoever runs it doesn't matter.

Samurai Devs were arrested we see how that project is going.
Wasabi mixing Dev was halted, now only one party is involved.

With the recent DeFi hack some people where cheering when an entire chain, Arbitrum, took a centralised decision and unilaterally seized millions in ETH.

We're at a point where precedent is created.
If the seizure is demanded from those running coordinators it's likely going to be the go to route for the future. Either assist in the search, shut down or face liability.

The conclusion is we need better tech.

[Wind_FURY]

Sadly I don't think we've reached a point in BTC mixing tech where it can be so immutable and decentralised that whoever runs it doesn't matter.

Samurai Devs were arrested we see how that project is going.
Wasabi mixing Dev was halted, now only one party is involved.

With the recent DeFi hack some people where cheering when an entire chain, Arbitrum, took a centralised decision and unilaterally seized millions in ETH.

We're at a point where precedent is created.
If the seizure is demanded from those running coordinators it's likely going to be the go to route for the future. Either assist in the search, shut down or face liability.

The conclusion is we need better tech.

That's TRUE. But how do the developers actually improve the technology if they don't try things and if they're not going to get implicated. It's the best path to build anything of value for the community.

Plus for "better tech", what's your opinion about Monero?

[Kruw]

Try testing the BIP157 PR! This uses Bitcoin's P2P network to obtain BIP158's block filters instead of downloading them from a central server (or your own node).

[NotATether]

Sadly I don't think we've reached a point in BTC mixing tech where it can be so immutable and decentralised that whoever runs it doesn't matter.

I'm going to ignore everyone cheering about seized coins, as it's all fun and celebrations to them until their own funds are frozen.


Anyways, mixers have basically stayed largely the same ever since someone had the brilliant idea to combine CoinJoin with exchange-withdrawn coins.

It's decent, but not the best option for privacy anymore (Monero is much better, but that does not mean you can no longer use Bitcoin).

[JollyGood]

My suggestion is simply to randomly schedule when each non-private input gets coinjoined, so that there is no timing correlation between many non-private inputs. Being able to see they coinjoin at around the same time is very telling.

Without doubt, being able to see coinjoin taking place at the same time could raise questions therefore it becomes an important issue to discuss where privacy could be affected. If it is something that was not already brought to the attention of the team, maybe they will consider adding a function (as your suggested) in a future release.

Higher anonymity score target = more remixing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmwmo86MgvQ

You are correct however the question was to understand how that higher anonymity score would impact the scenario that BlackHatCoiner stated.

[PrivacyG]

You are correct however the question was to understand how that higher anonymity score would impact the scenario that BlackHatCoiner stated.

Unless I am missing something, it is not.  The main point is probably that even if the inputs are initially correlated, they will end up impossible to correlate again.

The idea proposed by BlackHatCoiner is great.  I heavily support it.  I thought about inputs possibly being time correlated before only about once, but I did not feed the idea too much as I typically make sure not to put so many inputs at once that it becomes obvious they are related.  It is very difficult to not time correlate things when using the Internet but the more difficult it becomes and particularly when random scheduling is enabled by default, the better for everyone.

[JollyGood]

If I understand correctly, what is being stated is that regardless of the higher anonymity score the fact that a non-private coinjoin is taking place with a time correlation could be detrimental to privacy. If there is a pattern then it might be considered linked or related. In that scenario, the time correlation completely negates the higher anonymity.

In that case, if a scheduled coinjoin for non-private inputs is the solution, it should be considered for implementation for a future release.

Unless I am missing something, it is not.  The main point is probably that even if the inputs are initially correlated, they will end up impossible to correlate again.

The idea proposed by BlackHatCoiner is great.  I heavily support it.  I thought about inputs possibly being time correlated before only about once, but I did not feed the idea too much as I typically make sure not to put so many inputs at once that it becomes obvious they are related.  It is very difficult to not time correlate things when using the Internet but the more difficult it becomes and particularly when random scheduling is enabled by default, the better for everyone.

[PrivacyG]

If I understand correctly, what is being stated is that regardless of the higher anonymity score the fact that a non-private coinjoin is taking place with a time correlation could be detrimental to privacy. If there is a pattern then it might be considered linked or related. In that scenario, the time correlation completely negates the higher anonymity.

In that case, if a scheduled coinjoin for non-private inputs is the solution, it should be considered for implementation for a future release.

You are probably right, I thought this was about inputs that did not go through any Coin Join round at all.

Anyway.  A schedule would help a lot in both cases.