Different wallets for each buying origin?

[billllib]

Separating your kyc and no-kyc coins in different wallets is basic knowledge. Understood.

But:
Do you also separate the "where you bought"? One wallet for each exchange/platform/vendor/seller?

I mean, do you have a separate wallet for each Hodlhodl, Bisq, Robosats, etc. at no-kyc?
And then at kyc: do you have a separate one for Relai, one for Kraken and so on?

In order not to mix the coins?

[1715067280]

1715067280

[Charles-Tim]

For KYC exchanges, no need of differentiating the coins unless you have a purpose for doing so. You may separate it from coins you received from centralized no KYC exchanges but be expecting KYC at anytime.

Also have a separate wallet for coins you received from people that send you coins through decentralized exchanges. But making sure you enable Tor or using the one with in-built Tor.

[mocacinno]

I use labels and coin controll... Just create a new address each time you want to receive, and make sure you tag the address beforehand. When spending, use coin controll and only pick labels that go together. This way, i only need one wallet (eventough i do have to pay attention when spending). In the past, i did have a seperate wallet for inputs that went trough a mixer or a coinjoin session, but i've given up on this idear and just went with proper labeling.

[BenCodie]

Generally good (actually with point 1, great) practice:
- Run your own Bitcoin node on another (privacy-focused) server configured with Tor, which you can then connect with other non-custodial clients like Electrum.
- Avoid centralized services where possible and if you do use them, be mindful that your identity may be exposed to other inputs (if this is a concern)
- Use a new address for each transaction to avoid unnecessarily relinquishing your privacy.

A new address for each transaction should be enough if you use your own node and follow these practices, among other privacy practices outside of blockchain privacy. However, you can take it a step further and make new wallets for different purposes if you find it easier to manage this way. Whether it will increase your privacy or not is arguable if you are already taking the steps to following good/great practice.

If you can't follow step 1, I would say that new wallets may potentially have a privacy benefit. I'm not too sure a it would have quite a few variables that are again, outside of just blockchain privacy...though it would serve well for the purpose you stated (ensuring the inputs are kept separate by using different wallets for kyc/no-kyc).

[LTU_btc]

Agree with post above that there is not much need to have separate wallet for each KYC exchange that you use. Though, it may helpful for account purposes and tracking of your coins, rather than mixing everything in one place.
Having separate wallet for non KYC exchanges isn't bad idea, but I think it's not must have thing for everyone. Personally, I have my BTC in several different wallets, but KYC/non-KYC isn't one of reasons why I do.

[The Cryptovator]

If you care about your privacy, then it's better to use separate addresses for KYCed funds and non-KYCed funds. So both funds won't mix with each other. If it is mixed, then it is easy to detect where all the funds are coming from or who owns them. If you are using multiple KYC exchanges,  you can use an address because it doesn't make any difference. I would advise you to always protect your privacy and don't mix KYC and non-KYC funds if possible.

[bayu7adi]

It depends on each person's goals, because I'm sure everyone has different privacy preferences. So if someone needs even more extreme privacy, they can apply this method. There is no harm in using this method either.

However, if someone already uses a few wallets and chooses to live leanly, using even one wallet does not indicate anything dangerous.

Actually I have a lot of wallets, but I don't classify them based on transactions related to exchange KYC. At least until now I haven't done anything like that.

[BABY SHOES]

I know it's too complicated to have a separate wallet on the other hand you want to maintain privacy because when coins from KYC exchanges will be identified that the coin is from the exchange but to buy on non-kyc then that I know is not detected.

I use one wallet and not separate, when buying from an exchange then use a new wallet it is also simpler in your privacy, but you may have different thoughts but in my own assumption this will be complicated.

Determine their comfort where to keep their coins whether separate or in one wallet.

[Kruw]

Separating your kyc and no-kyc coins in different wallets is basic knowledge. Understood.

But:
Do you also separate the "where you bought"? One wallet for each exchange/platform/vendor/seller?

I mean, do you have a separate wallet for each Hodlhodl, Bisq, Robosats, etc. at no-kyc?
And then at kyc: do you have a separate one for Relai, one for Kraken and so on?

In order not to mix the coins?

Your KYC transactions and non-KYC transactions can all be done within the same wallet if you use coinjoins to keep them from ever being linked with each other.  BTCPay Server's coinjoin plugin, Trezor's coinjoin account, and Wasabi Wallet are all able to turn your funds completely anonymous.

[Julien_Olynpic]

In essence, this is another form of diversification. Yes, different Bitcoin wallets from different sources are a good idea. However, this is only worth doing if you have a fairly large amount of Bitcoin. If the amount of Bitcoin you have does not exceed your weekly income, then it is probably not worth bothering with a large number of wallets. It's just extra work. If the amount is at least equal to or greater than monthly income, and even more so equal to or greater than 1 year’s income, then of course it makes sense to have many wallets. For exchanges with CUS, it is enough to have one wallet, for all others you can have at least 10 or 20. This way you reduce your chances of loss or compromise.

[retreat]

-snip-

I use one wallet and not separate, when buying from an exchange then use a new wallet it is also simpler in your privacy, but you may have different thoughts but in my own assumption this will be complicated.

You don't need to separate your wallet between exchange with KYC or not because it's quite complicated and you need to tag the wallet and back up more private keys. Unless you have a purpose for differentiating them, for example wanting to differentiate transactions or increase your privacy, then it is a good idea to differentiate your wallets. But if you are a normal user and don't have a problem with KYC, then there's no need to do this, because it will only bother you.

[tranthidung]

Do you also separate the "where you bought"? One wallet for each exchange/platform/vendor/seller?

I mean, do you have a separate wallet for each Hodlhodl, Bisq, Robosats, etc. at no-kyc?
And then at kyc: do you have a separate one for Relai, one for Kraken and so on?

In order not to mix the coins?

You must use Coin control feature to spend specific UTXOs but the best option is use different wallets for different purposes. Because it is not harmful to do this but it's useful. You don't have to spend any more things to create new wallets to use so if this simple and free practice can help to more easily control your coins from different sources like different exchanges (KYC, no KYC, mixers, salary from different jobs), you should do this.

With Bitcoin, you only need to have bitcoin in your wallet for transaction fee. It's different than tokens because you have tokens in a wallet but will need native currency of that blockchain pay transaction fee, like ERC20 token will need ETH to pay transaction fee and if you have many wallets, you will need to have ETH in those wallets for transaction fee.

[siedemtrzy]

I'm buying BTC from, different sources, non-KYC exchanges, but I keep it all in one address in OWNR wallet.

[EarnOnVictor]

Honestly, this separation and privacy of a thing baffle me how people overdoing and specifying it, I don't really care about that. It might be the most appropriate means to hide from the radar of those who could be tracing or investigating you. Regardless, if the money is not ill-gotten, I care less. How much do I even have that I will be living in fear? The world is not a war, let me own my Bitcoin in peace. All I care about is to store my long-term holding coin in the self-custody wallet, and also make sure that it is not just 1 or 2 wallets, but at least 3 as the case may be.

However, the KYC-related coins are treated the same way because they are the same. Unless you use P2P to change it in a decentralised exchange or use the service of m!xers, they still pose the same threat you are running from.

[Nrcewker]

I think those are doing bring transactions. For them managing is really hard or keep tracking the details of each coins is very difficult. Hence they can really try this method of holding the coins at different places. But if you are the laziest one, then it’s really difficult to maintain all these wallets. If you ask me then I always refrain from maintaining multiple wallets. If you are not doing any illegal activities with the coin, then it’s alright to use one address for many transactions.

[Apocollapse]

Yeah I did that, I only use small amount of money in centralized exchanges, I just want to show if I own Bitcoin. In case someone or government want to trace if I own Bitcoin or not, they know if I'm just a small holder.

I feel like it's more dangerous when you're stay as private as possible, when you ever made mistakes using a centralized exchange.

I use labels and coin controll... Just create a new address each time you want to receive, and make sure you tag the address beforehand. When spending, use coin controll and only pick labels that go together.

Base on my understanding, isn't someone able to know your total holdings when they check one of your address using walletexplorer.com?

[mocacinno]

--snip--
Base on my understanding, isn't someone able to know your total holdings when they check one of your address using walletexplorer.com?

no.
Walletexplorer will only know which addresses belong to the same wallet if you create a transaction and use several inputs funding different addresses.
If you have 10 addresses that were funded in the past but they were freshly generated and no unspent outputs funding those addresses were ever spent, let's call them 'address_1'...'address_10', walletexplorer will not know they belong to the same wallet.

But, if you ever create a transaction and use unspent_output_1 funding address_1 AND unspent_output_2 funding address_2, those explorers will know address_1 and address_2 belong to the same wallet. They'll have no idear address_3...address_10 also belong to this wallet.
Things do get a bit more complicated if you look at change addresses, those have to be labelled to... Otherwise you'll spend change from a transaction with inputs to a different address, and they'll know those addresses belong together to.

Walletexplorer also searches publicly available owner info, that's how they know wallets from big exchanges

Case in point: this is an address of mine that's publicly known: bc1q50udcgfdyqanp56m9dkcqkxy5fayjc74vw9px7
Walletexplorer was able to deduct this wallet contains at least 5 addresses: https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/60911730d7ab735d/addresses
In reality, this is a wallet i've been using since 2019, currently i'm at address 125, and change address 72. So my wallet contains 197 addresses that were, at least at one point in time, funded. Walletexplorer has been able to group those addresses together whenever i created transactions using inputs funding more than one address. So they created groups of ~1-~5  addresses, whilst having no clue my wallet actually derived ~200 addresses (so far)

[tabas]

With this, whichever is making you feel safe and comfortable of keeping your privacy then you must follow that. Just as mentioned, what I typically do is I just use new addresses whether I label them or not with my transfers. With KYC exchanges, you have no option with them as any address you use for sending and receiving there, they already have it on your history and record so it makes no sense if you do DCA or buy there and you transfer it to a new address. What matters if your goal to hold every Bitcoin you buy for the long term then the storage is the important thing there and it should be from a hardware wallet as always suggested by the majority.

[gunhell16]

For now, temporarily, since I don't have a hardware wallet yet, I'm sticking with the Metamask wallet, and the other one is Dex, although my holdings aren't that big. But most of my holdings are also in dex and no KYC.

But of course, I'm also thinking of putting it first in a place where the style is like Electrum, Klever Apps wallet, or Trust wallet. But this month I will make it a priority to buy a hardware wallet so that I won't have to worry about anything. You know, with Cex and Dex, it can close at any moment.

[Kruw]

Honestly, this separation and privacy of a thing baffle me how people overdoing and specifying it, I don't really care about that. It might be the most appropriate means to hide from the radar of those who could be tracing or investigating you. Regardless, if the money is not ill-gotten, I care less. How much do I even have that I will be living in fear? The world is not a war, let me own my Bitcoin in peace. All I care about is to store my long-term holding coin in the self-custody wallet, and also make sure that it is not just 1 or 2 wallets, but at least 3 as the case may be.

The world is at war, there's an entity called "The Government" that does not want you to own your money in peace.  If they find out you have money, they will force you to give it to them using violence.