Bitcoin mixing

[mikeywith]

Are CoinJoin transaction truly private? What about the blockchain analysis projects that are around?

It depends on who is targeting you and how important you are to them, and given that chain analysis companies mostly rely on guesswork, you may be linked to the wrong "person" just because you were in the same round.

Chain analysis is probably the worst thing that happened to BTC since its inception, I'd steer clear from any wallet/service that sells itself as a privacy tool but yet directly funds chain analysis companies, a great example of such a service would be Wasabi, every time you use Wasabi you make a blockchain analysis company stronger and richer.

[1714946634]

1714946634

[1714946634]

1714946634

[1714946634]

1714946634

[1714946634]

1714946634

[1714946634]

1714946634

[Kruw]

It depends on who is targeting you and how important you are to them, and given that chain analysis companies mostly rely on guesswork, you may be linked to the wrong "person" just because you were in the same round.

Chain analysis is probably the worst thing that happened to BTC since its inception, I'd steer clear from any wallet/service that sells itself as a privacy tool but yet directly funds chain analysis companies, a great example of such a service would be Wasabi, every time you use Wasabi you make a blockchain analysis company stronger and richer.

You have that backwards, every time you use Wasabi, you make blockchain analysis weaker because they are no longer able to track coinjoined funds for their clients.

[NotATether]

It depends on who is targeting you and how important you are to them, and given that chain analysis companies mostly rely on guesswork, you may be linked to the wrong "person" just because you were in the same round.

Chain analysis is probably the worst thing that happened to BTC since its inception, I'd steer clear from any wallet/service that sells itself as a privacy tool but yet directly funds chain analysis companies, a great example of such a service would be Wasabi, every time you use Wasabi you make a blockchain analysis company stronger and richer.

You have that backwards, every time you use Wasabi, you make blockchain analysis weaker because they are no longer able to track coinjoined funds for their clients.

How is this making BA weaker when the blacklisting which you source from 3rd parties keeps the UTXO set constant through exclusion?

[Kruw]

How is this making BA weaker when the blacklisting which you source from 3rd parties keeps the UTXO set constant through exclusion?

I don't know what you mean by "keeps the UTXO set constant through exclusion". A coinjoin makes blockchain analysis weaker because multiple users spend their funds in the same transaction, hiding which portion of the funds belong to each specific user.

[NotATether]

How is this making BA weaker when the blacklisting which you source from 3rd parties keeps the UTXO set constant through exclusion?

I don't know what you mean by "keeps the UTXO set constant through exclusion".

Wasabi specifically states that blacklisted UTXOs will not be allowed in the CoinJoin service. A topic of much contention here.

A coinjoin makes blockchain analysis weaker because multiple users spend their funds in the same transaction, hiding which portion of the funds belong to each specific user.

This works as long as the users do not send those funds to questionable services where they can be traced again.

It's a cycle, not a decreasing line graph.

[Kruw]

Wasabi specifically states that blacklisted UTXOs will not be allowed in the CoinJoin service. A topic of much contention here.

That's not a restriction on the Wasabi software, that's a ToS for a specific service.  I don't blacklist any UTXOs from my coordinator.

This works as long as the users do not send those funds to questionable services where they can be traced again.

It's a cycle, not a decreasing line graph.

It doesn't matter where you send a coinjoined output, the recipient can't determine which coinjoin inputs were used to create it.

[hZti]

"Mixing sites" are scams because you trust third parties with your data and with your coins

Stop spreading false information. Mixers are not scam. He can use a reputable mixer. It will have onion link and he should use Tor to access the onion link. I will not say that you do not know what you are saying because you know about this very well, so I will say you should stop lying.

I would recommend a mixer that is open source and reputable. If you can not check how the mixer is working you can definitely get scammed even if the mixing service is reputable. There are also a lot of "reputable" exchanges that suddenly closed and scammed a lot of people. So better to do some research and mix only small amounts from time to time.
To say that mixing services can not be shady is kind of shady in it self.

[Kruw]

I would recommend a mixer that is open source and reputable. If you can not check how the mixer is working you can definitely get scammed even if the mixing service is reputable.

How can you verify the source code that is running on someone else's computer?

[_act_]

"Mixing sites" are scams because you trust third parties with your data and with your coins

Stop spreading false information. Mixers are not scam. He can use a reputable mixer. It will have onion link and he should use Tor to access the onion link. I will not say that you do not know what you are saying because you know about this very well, so I will say you should stop lying.

I would recommend a mixer that is open source and reputable. If you can not check how the mixer is working you can definitely get scammed even if the mixing service is reputable. There are also a lot of "reputable" exchanges that suddenly closed and scammed a lot of people. So better to do some research and mix only small amounts from time to time.
To say that mixing services can not be shady is kind of shady in it self.

Who is saying that a mixer can not be a fake mixer or a shady mixer? I did not see where I mentioned that. All I said was that a reputable mixing service should be used and that if you want to use the mixing service, that it is good to go for the .onion link which is more privacy that using the clearnet link.

[Kruw]

Who is saying that a mixer can not be a fake mixer or a shady mixer? I did not see where I mentioned that. All I said was that a reputable mixing service should be used and that if you want to use the mixing service, that it is good to go for the .onion link which is more privacy that using the clearnet link.

Whether a mixer is a "fake mixer", a "shady mixer" or a "reputable mixer" doesn't change the fact they custody your funds and data. Even if you use an onion link, the mixer still collects your transaction history:

I'm going to stand by what I said: it was a bad practice from the side of ChipMixer, but it's not a flaw in the concept of centralized mixers, in itself.

If a service does everything correctly (including deleting private keys and any backups of them after handing them to the user), something like what happened to CM could simply not happen.

It IS a flaw in the concept of centralized mixers: If you are okay with sacrificing ownership to custodians, why wouldn't you recommend a custodian that can't track their users, like ecash mints or a federated chain with CT enabled?  Why wouldn't you consider it a flaw that "mixer sites" gain complete access to your financial history despite fully anonymous custodians existing?

@n0nce, I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why this isn't an obvious flaw. Here's an educational piece explaining how Chaumian eCash works: https://lconf.gandlaf.com/#/3

[BlackHatCoiner]

You have that backwards, every time you use Wasabi, you make blockchain analysis weaker because they are no longer able to track coinjoined funds for their clients.

This is probably why zkSNACKs funds their operations and entitles them to disapprove any UTXO they choose. Because they are pity of them going out of business so abruptly!  

I don't blacklist any UTXOs from my coordinator.

B-b-but, why on Earth would you allow SBF to coinjoin his coins. Weren't you of the opinion that he shouldn't be allowed to do anything?

Whether a mixer is a "fake mixer", a "shady mixer" or a "reputable mixer" doesn't change the fact they custody your funds and data. Even if you use an onion link, the mixer still collects your transaction history

I agree that you can't prove they collect history, and it is a better practice to move onto decentralized alternatives. But claiming they do collect data without evidence holds the same water as claiming that every VPN provider is a honeypot and provides no privacy.

[Kruw]

I don't blacklist any UTXOs from my coordinator.

B-b-but, why on Earth would you allow SBF to coinjoin his coins. Weren't you of the opinion that he shouldn't be allowed to do anything?

How can SBF coinjoin if he's chained to a boulder?