How to have reasonable privacy safely when paying?

[takuma sato]

It's not clear to me how to go about this.

Say I want to meet with someone that sells an item or service, how do I pay this person without revealing your funds?

I want to use a phone to pay, so I need to send my coins into an Android software of choice. From my research I think I could just use Electrum or mycellium. The question is, how to send the coins on Bitcoin Core into the portable software, in a way that when you pay from your phone you do not reveal your funds?

I want this thread to be specifically about privacy on your transactions. When you pay someone, they can just browse your address in an explorer and see how much that address holds, and potentially derive more addresses you own. This is insane. Imagine someone being able to do this with your bank account.

So what I would need to do is to mix the coins I want to spend, then send them into a portable Android software. This has 2 problems:

1) Even if 99% of people use mixers with good intentions to just have some reasonable privacy, you never know what was sent there. What if you pay someone after mixing these funds, this someone goes into an exchange, deposits the coins and the exchange is triggered due some flagged coins? This person will then point at you as the source of the funds and now you are in trouble. How do you avoid this? Btw this includes privacy wallets, not only mixing sites, I've seen people report about this.

2) In order to send the coins into the Android software, you have to transact from Bitcoin Core, into the mixer, then into the Android software address. This is a lot wasted in fees. There is no way to save some money in this process?

I think this makes Bitcoin so annoying to use for payments to be honest. Bitcoin is great to just buy and hold, but dealing with it to transact stuff is just so inconvenient. I would really like to know how to do this. It's just for small amounts, like 200 bucks or whatnot, I just don't want to get people in trouble from mixing funds, seeing how many false positives there are on exchanges and so on.

[1714869134]

1714869134

[Zaguru12]

If I get your question right you wish to spend from an address that you don’t want the receiver to go back and check the address on explorer to see how much you have on your wallet. I will say this is easier if you have been using different wallet to receive bitcoin in each transaction. This way you will just send out the bitcoin from one or two address and never use them again. The recipient can never have access to the other addresses belonging to that wallet except they must have been interacted in a transaction before.

So for you not to use mixers, just use different addresses for different transactions, HD wallets can derive as many addresses as you like

[ranochigo]

1) Even if 99% of people use mixers with good intentions to just have some reasonable privacy, you never know what was sent there. What if you pay someone after mixing these funds, this someone goes into an exchange, deposits the coins and the exchange is triggered due some flagged coins? This person will then point at you as the source of the funds and now you are in trouble. How do you avoid this? Btw this includes privacy wallets, not only mixing sites, I've seen people report about this.

Isn't this a non-issue? You are responsible for the transaction, and nothing further than that. Flagged coins are stupid, and I personally couldn't care less about it. The transaction would concern both parties holding up their end of the deal and nothing further, unless you are supposed to be transacting in "untainted" coins. You shouldn't be responsible for whatever happens outside of the deal, and furthermore you are not in trouble for using a mixer because you can prove that you are not involved in any illicit activities.

2) In order to send the coins into the Android software, you have to transact from Bitcoin Core, into the mixer, then into the Android software address. This is a lot wasted in fees. There is no way to save some money in this process?

Then you would have tradeoffs. If you don't want to incur additional fees, cut out that transaction to transfer to your Android wallet. In the event that your phone gets stolen or your phone gets hacked, then you would lose more than you are supposed to. Unfortunately, you can't have the cake and eat it too.

[takuma sato]

Isn't this a non-issue? You are responsible for the transaction, and nothing further than that. Flagged coins are stupid, and I personally couldn't care less about it. The transaction would concern both parties holding up their end of the deal and nothing further, unless you are supposed to be transacting in "untainted" coins. You shouldn't be responsible for whatever happens outside of the deal, and furthermore you are not in trouble for using a mixer because you can prove that you are not involved in any illicit activities.

It is an issue the moment the person sends the coins that they received from you into an exchange. When they get asked what is the source of these coins, they will just point to the previous transactions, and now you are the next target on the line for whoever is investigating that. So it doesn't matter what you don't care about, and yes, we are innocent until proven guilty, but why would you want to expose yourself to that risk?. You should just make sure that any coins you send are not tainted while maintaining your privacy. The question is, how to even go about that.

[ranochigo]

It is an issue the moment the person sends the coins that they received from you into an exchange. When they get asked what is the source of these coins, they will just point to the previous transactions, and now you are the next target on the line for whoever is investigating that. So it doesn't matter what you don't care about, and yes, we are innocent until proven guilty, but why would you want to expose yourself to that risk?. You should just make sure that any coins you send are not tainted while maintaining your privacy. The question is, how to even go about that.

Then you should always be wary of what you are doing; exchanges are not the only ones being compliant with Federal laws (if it is even illegal to use a mixer  ). I would think that asking for the origins of your Bitcoins would be rather tedious and makes things difficult for both parties.

Realistically, no one actually cares about that. At any point of time, your coins are probably tainted in some form or another, with or without your knowledge. The whole issue with mixers being an issue is blown out of proportion, and frankly, it is the easiest way to maintain your privacy. Unless there is a feasible alternative of breaking the link without having to mix your coins in some form or another, that is probably your only option.

Let's face it, you won't get investigated by law enforcement for having tainted coins, or having used a mixer. If you want to be overcautious, then transfer the mixed coins around a few addresses and you can just tell them you got it from a face to face transaction with no receipts.

The method for plausible deniability has also been mentioned; use a HD wallet. You can only deduce that the addresses are somewhat linked, but with no concrete proof. If that floats your boat, then it would be another method.

[apogio]

It is an issue the moment the person sends the coins that they received from you into an exchange. When they get asked what is the source of these coins, they will just point to the previous transactions, and now you are the next target on the line for whoever is investigating that. So it doesn't matter what you don't care about, and yes, we are innocent until proven guilty, but why would you want to expose yourself to that risk?. You should just make sure that any coins you send are not tainted while maintaining your privacy. The question is, how to even go about that.

This is a never ending cycle and you shouldn't really care. Do you own coins from illegal activities? The answer is, you don't know, perhaps... So since you are not sure, is there really a reason to pay all these fees to "clean" the coins? I hate the term "clean" and "dirty" coins, I just use it to be more easily understood.

Now, to your initial question:

What you can do is:
1. generate a hot wallet on Android (for example BlueWallet, Electrum or any wallet of your liking). You will use this wallet for payments.
2. generate a hot wallet on Sparrow. This will be your mixing wallet, where you will send funds to be mixed. You will need to create the Whirlpool accounts. You can now implement coinjoins from the Deposit account of this wallet. The outputs will go to the Postmix account. Then you can move them -doing proper coin control without mixing the outputs together- from this account, straight into your step (1) wallet (aka the payments wallet).

Second thoughts:
1. High fees, for no reason, in my opinion.
2. Extra hassle for proper coin control. Other wise the coins will be linked together and it will prove common ownership.
3. More wallets = more backups = extra hassle to find secure backup locations.

[LoyceV]

When you pay someone, they can just browse your address in an explorer and see how much that address holds, and potentially derive more addresses you own.

The address you're paying from, shouldn't hold a lot of funds. For the rest of your addresses, all they can do is guess.

I think this makes Bitcoin so annoying to use for payments to be honest.

You're advertising a "private Bitcoin wallet" in your signature, but your posts make it sounds like you have no idea what that means.

[Findingnemo]

It is an issue the moment the person sends the coins that they received from you into an exchange. When they get asked what is the source of these coins, they will just point to the previous transactions, and now you are the next target on the line for whoever is investigating that. So it doesn't matter what you don't care about, and yes, we are innocent until proven guilty, but why would you want to expose yourself to that risk?. You should just make sure that any coins you send are not tainted while maintaining your privacy. The question is, how to even go about that.

You just have to point the next on the line if you don't have anything to hide, but trying to hide for such reasons can raise suspicions. Exchanges don't really track smaller transactions but if they have been asked to provide the data then they will do it so, and if you want to avoid all these then you have to buy Bitcoin from exchanges then move to wallet and spend there from it and never receive bitcoins from anyone because it may have be tainted at somewhere since its origin but you care so much about that.
Privacy is actually different from the context of this thread, privacy is when you don't want to reveal how much money you have in your wallet.

[alastantiger]

If I get your question right you wish to spend from an address that you don’t want the receiver to go back and check the address on explorer to see how much you have on your wallet. I will say this is easier if you have been using different wallet to receive bitcoin in each transaction. This way you will just send out the bitcoin from one or two address and never use them again. The recipient can never have access to the other addresses belonging to that wallet except they must have been interacted in a transaction before.

I think that this is the best answer that addresses the question. And I agree with you. Avoid reusing addresses. Have a separate wallet for carrying out daily or emergency transactions and the amount there should be very minimal. That is one way to keep your privacy.

Another way is to use non-kyc exchanges and conjoins. It helps with privacy too.

Lastly, If they are not all satisfactory, you may start a pet project of that aims to develop the privacy needs that you seek. I am pretty sure you will get enough support from the our community.

[khaled0111]

A curious person can link your addresses together and be 100% sure they all belong to the same wallet only if they have been used in the same transaction as inputs.
To avoid this, you need to use the coin control feature to spend only from the addresses or inputs you don't mind if they get linked to each other.
Also, avoid address reuse. Use a different address for each transaction you receive.

[DannyHamilton]

It's not clear to me how to go about this.

Use a new address for EVERY payment of Bitcoins that you receive.

Say I want to meet with someone that sells an item or service, how do I pay this person without revealing your funds?

Use coin control. Spend an output that is very close in value to what you are sending.

I want to use a phone to pay, so I need to send my coins into an Android software of choice. From my research I think I could just use Electrum or mycellium.

Either is fine.  For small amounts that will only be in the wallet for a short period of time, and which wouldn't be hugely upsetting to lose, you might even find an account with a custodial service could be convenient.

The question is, how to send the coins on Bitcoin Core into the portable software, in a way that when you pay from your phone you do not reveal your funds?

I want this thread to be specifically about privacy on your transactions. When you pay someone, they can just browse your address in an explorer and see how much that address holds, and potentially derive more addresses you own. This is insane. Imagine someone being able to do this with your bank account.

Use coin control. Spend only the outputs that are very close in value to what you are intending to spend in the very near future.

So what I would need to do is to mix the coins I want to spend,

Why?

1) Even if 99% of people use mixers with good intentions to just have some reasonable privacy, you never know what was sent there.

And when you spend your local currency, you never know where that has been before you received it either.

How do you avoid this? Btw this includes privacy wallets, not only mixing sites,

If you don't want to use a mixer, don't use a mixer.  If you want to use a mixer and believe that Bitcoin is fungible, use a mixer. If someone comes asking about the "source" of the bitcoins, tell them you used a mixer. If use of a mixer is illegal in your jurisdiction, you need to decide how you feel about non-compliance with that law.

2) In order to send the coins into the Android software, you have to transact from Bitcoin Core,

If that's where you store your bitcoins, then yes.

into the mixer,

Only if you want to.

then into the Android software address. This is a lot wasted in fees.

It's only "wasted" if you have an alternative that is acceptable to you.  Otherwise the fees aren't wasted, they are spent to accomplish your stated goal.

There is no way to save some money in this process?

There are several ways. Each with their own benefits and issues.

For example you could:

• Bring a portable computer with you that has Bitcoin Core installed on it, and avoid using Android wallet entirely
• Receive a few smaller payments directly to your Android wallet occasionally, and use those for "everyday" spending, while receiving entirely separate payments to your cold storage that you never access.
• Top off your Android wallet whenever fees are very low, so that you aren't "wasting" as much
• Have trusted friend or family member at home that can send the Bitcoins from your computer when you call them and ask them to, so you don't need to use Android

I think this makes Bitcoin so annoying to use for payments to be honest.

Coin control can be a bit of a hassle. I don't really mind it, but if you do then consider just keeping a small amount of spending money on Android all the time.

Bitcoin is great to just buy and hold, but dealing with it to transact stuff is just so inconvenient.

In my jurisdiction, I find that the biggest inconvenience is the need to keep track of every satoshi acquired and spent so I can report every single transaction when calculating my capital gains for my taxes every year.

I would really like to know how to do this.

I've already given a few suggestions. You seem like an intelligent person. I bet you can come up with a few more.

It's just for small amounts, like 200 bucks or whatnot, I just don't want to get people in trouble from mixing funds

Whether that would result in any "trouble" depends on the jurisdiction you are both in.  If it's likely to be a problem, don't use a mixer.

seeing how many false positives there are on exchanges and so on.

Exactly.  FALSE positives.  Meaning, it doesn't really matter if you use a mixer or not. If an exchange wants to cause their customer "trouble", they're going to do it regardless.

[BlackHatCoiner]

What if you pay someone after mixing these funds, this someone goes into an exchange, deposits the coins and the exchange is triggered due some flagged coins? This person will then point at you as the source of the funds and now you are in trouble. How do you avoid this?

You warn him that if he deposits your bitcoin in a centralized exchange, he might have his coins censored. I personally haven't experienced a situation where the merchant asked me for the source, or "pointed me" as the source, even though almost all of my bitcoin were mixed. When the merchant uses Coinbase or BitPay, I simply refuse to pay him on-chain.

2) In order to send the coins into the Android software, you have to transact from Bitcoin Core, into the mixer, then into the Android software address. This is a lot wasted in fees. There is no way to save some money in this process?

You could swap BTC for XMR, and then back to BTC in separate addresses. Perhaps that's less expensive.

[Cricktor]

Particularly for smaller payment amounts, is paying via Lightning an option for OP? It always boils down if the receiver of the coins does accept Lightning payments. In my perception and usage so far Lightning also offers some reasonable amount of privacy as the flow of coins can be obfuscated quite easily. Another bonus are rather cheap transaction fees compared to on-chain.

I point to the lightning option as most other on-chain options have been already mentioned in this thread. And for mobile use there are some good options. Personally I have good experiences with Wallet of Satoshi and Phoenix wallets. I don't mind that Wallet of Satoshi is custodial because I usually only use it for rather small and temporary amounts and payments.

[takuma sato]

Use a new address for EVERY payment of Bitcoins that you receive.

I see a lot of people mentioning this here, but this is not always possible. The most obvious reason, anyone participating in a signature campaign is receiving repeated payments on the same address for the duration of the campaign. If you now use these funds to pay someone, this person could not only see the max amount of coins you have there currently or the maximum accounts you held there, but they could just google the address and find out your profile and ultimately source of funds.

Use coin control. Spend an output that is very close in value to what you are sending.

Yeah what I meant is, due price fluctuations and tx fees, some amount may be left there. Let's say you have 200 bucks left spend on your Android, and you want to buy something that costs 200, you basically have to add in an extra 100 because the price may dump by the time you arrive to the meeting to exchange the item or service for your BTC, plus fees. You always have to add this extra margin. If you have 200 and the price goes up a bit, and you have like 220, so you pay 200 + fee, perhaps there's like 10 bucks left or so, so you left 10 here and there, end up with a decent amount in different addresses, which if you wanted to consolidate into a single one, would mean that you compromise your privacy since you send a joined transaction with all of these.

Either is fine.  For small amounts that will only be in the wallet for a short period of time, and which wouldn't be hugely upsetting to lose, you might even find an account with a custodial service could be convenient.

What do you mean? You mean a wallet blockchain.info or whatever? I would prefer to avoid these.

Why?

What do you mean? for privacy, so when you pay someone they cannot look up your history.

And when you spend your local currency, you never know where that has been before you received it either.

You mean cash? cash doesn't have an online permanent public blockchain to check a track record of transactions. If you mean bank transfers, well same thing, there's no public records. And Bitcoin and crypto in general has just this bad stigma about it that regular transactions do not.

If you don't want to use a mixer, don't use a mixer.  If you want to use a mixer and believe that Bitcoin is fungible, use a mixer. If someone comes asking about the "source" of the bitcoins, tell them you used a mixer. If use of a mixer is illegal in your jurisdiction, you need to decide how you feel about non-compliance with that law.

I want to have a reasonable privacy, and when it comes to authorities, you just want to avoid raising any flags because they hate crypto by default.

In my jurisdiction, I find that the biggest inconvenience is the need to keep track of every satoshi acquired and spent so I can report every single transaction when calculating my capital gains for my taxes every year.

Yeah this is insane. They just do this to frustrate people even at the thought of using it for payments.

Exactly.  FALSE positives.  Meaning, it doesn't really matter if you use a mixer or not. If an exchange wants to cause their customer "trouble", they're going to do it regardless.

Like I said, you want to avoid false positives. You don't want to deposit coins that raise chainalysis flags when depositing into an exchange and go through some audit of all of your related coins. I mean why would anyone want that? This is why im saying, mixing the coins, or receiving coins from an stranger and putting them into a centralized exchange where you are doxed is a mistake, same goes for paying someone with coins you just mixed that knows who you are, that then puts these coins into an exchange. An extra intermediate step here is required.

[apogio]

I see a lot of people mentioning this here, but this is not always possible. The most obvious reason, anyone participating in a signature campaign is receiving repeated payments on the same address for the duration of the campaign. If you now use these funds to pay someone, this person could not only see the max amount of coins you have there currently or the maximum accounts you held there, but they could just google the address and find out your profile and ultimately source of funds.

Receiving funds in the same address from a signature campaign is the most common option. However, even in the scenario that you mention, if you (as an entity) are well hidden behind the "takuma sato" persona, how will the person that you pay know who you are in real life? And, at the same time, why should they care?

Anyway, your point is important, so I get it. One user here (paid2 - I mention the name since he discussed it openly in another thread) does something clever, which is a good option to consider. I saw that BlackHatCoiner mentioned it above too. You can use a non-kyc exchange, like the one in my signature and exchange all the funds from your address into XMR. Then you can use the same exchange or any other that you want to exchange from XMR back to BTC (obviously using another BTC address). Don't forget to use Tor for this. You will make it impossible for the payee to imply that "takuma sato received X payments from a signature campaign and then used these funds to pay me".

Particularly for smaller payment amounts, is paying via Lightning an option for OP? It always boils down if the receiver of the coins does accept Lightning payments. In my perception and usage so far Lightning also offers some reasonable amount of privacy as the flow of coins can be obfuscated quite easily. Another bonus are rather cheap transaction fees compared to on-chain.

I point to the lightning option as most other on-chain options have been already mentioned in this thread. And for mobile use there are some good options. Personally I have good experiences with Wallet of Satoshi and Phoenix wallets. I don't mind that Wallet of Satoshi is custodial because I usually only use it for rather small and temporary amounts and payments.

Lightning is always an option but it looks like OP didn't mention it as an option. Perhaps the merchant only accepts on-chain.

However, in a completely symmetrical way to the one I mentioned above, OP could do some LN swaps instead of Monero swaps. It works exactly the same way. You get rid of the funds you own and then receive some other funds to send to the merchant.

[LoyceV]

Use coin control. Spend an output that is very close in value to what you are sending.

Yeah what I meant is, due price fluctuations and tx fees, some amount may be left there. Let's say you have 200 bucks left spend on your Android, and you want to buy something that costs 200, you basically have to add in an extra 100 because the price may dump by the time you arrive to the meeting to exchange the item or service for your BTC, plus fees. You always have to add this extra margin.

Now you're taking it into an extreme case. What are the odds you have the exact amount you need to pay in your mobile wallet? And what are the odds of Bitcoin dropping 33% during the time it takes you to make the trade?
I'd worry much more about showing my actual face than exposing one of my UTXOs to a seller.

If you have 200 and the price goes up a bit, and you have like 220, so you pay 200 + fee, perhaps there's like 10 bucks left or so, so you left 10 here and there, end up with a decent amount in different addresses, which if you wanted to consolidate into a single one, would mean that you compromise your privacy since you send a joined transaction with all of these.

You can send small change to an instant exchanger, or use it to top-up a hosting or VPN account. Or just keep it long enough for it's value to skyrocket.

I want to have a reasonable privacy, and when it comes to authorities, you just want to avoid raising any flags because they hate crypto by default.

Here, they don't hate crypto. As long as you pay your taxes, you're good.

In my jurisdiction, I find that the biggest inconvenience is the need to keep track of every satoshi acquired and spent so I can report every single transaction when calculating my capital gains for my taxes every year.

I don't have to do that. All I do, is pay 2.1744% tax (per year) on all Bitcoin I own. You have no idea how lucky you are, I'd gladly exchange for a capital gains tax with additional paperwork.

[apogio]

I don't have to do that. All I do, is pay 2.1744% tax (per year) on all Bitcoin I own. You have no idea how lucky you are, I'd gladly exchange for a capital gains tax with additional paperwork.

The worst thing about Bitcoin that can happen with authorities, is not having a clear - transparent system to know what happens with your holdings. For instance, if you own X amount of satoshis and the capital gains you have is an amount of Y euros, you don't know what happens with the taxes. Must you pay taxes on the X satoshis that you own? And if so, how much? Or must you pay taxes on the capital gains? And if so, again, how much? This is a pain in the ... especially if the authorities suddenly decide in the future to apply taxes and they catch you unprepared. They will treat you like a criminal for not paying taxes in the past, even though legislation doesn't currently exist.

[DannyHamilton]

I see a lot of people mentioning this here, but this is not always possible.

Of course it is.

The most obvious reason, anyone participating in a signature campaign is receiving repeated payments on the same address for the duration of the campaign.

Then don't participate in signature campaigns. You say you want privacy, then why do you agree to engage in transactions with individuals and organizations that refuse to allow you the privacy you desire?

If you now use these funds to pay someone, this person could not only see the max amount of coins you have there currently or the maximum accounts you held there, but they could just google the address and find out your profile and ultimately source of funds.

Sounds like just one more reason (of many) that participation in signature campaigns is an absolutely horrible idea.

Either is fine.  For small amounts that will only be in the wallet for a short period of time, and which wouldn't be hugely upsetting to lose, you might even find an account with a custodial service could be convenient.

What do you mean? You mean a wallet blockchain.info or whatever? I would prefer to avoid these.

blockchain.info, BlueWallet, it doesn't really matter just pick one.  If you want to avoid them, that's fine. But the more restrictions you place on yourself, the more restrictions you place on yourself.

I say, "I want to go to New York, and there's no way to get there"
Someone says, "Take a train."
I say, "I don't like trains."
Someone else says, "Book a flight."
I say, "Flight's are too expensive"
Someone else says, "Drive a car."
I say, "Driving is too dangerous, many people die in car accidents every day."
Someone else says, "Walk."
I say, "It will take too long, see what I mean, it's just impossible for anybody to ever go to New York!"

Why?

What do you mean? for privacy, so when you pay someone they cannot look up your history.

I already explained that you can get some privacy without using mixers.

And when you spend your local currency, you never know where that has been before you received it either.

You mean cash? cash doesn't have an online permanent public blockchain to check a track record of transactions. If you mean bank transfers, well same thing, there's no public records.

My statement was in reference to your concern about "tainted" money.  If you are concerned about "tainted" money, why do you care if the records are public? Tainted is tainted, and most of the cash that you use has been tainted in some way before it got to you.

And Bitcoin and crypto in general has just this bad stigma about it that regular transactions do not.

Among those that use crypto, there is no stigma.  Among those that do not use. crypto, there is nothing you can do to change their bias, and it doesn't matter anyhow since you aren't going to be paying them with crypto.

If you don't want to use a mixer, don't use a mixer.  If you want to use a mixer and believe that Bitcoin is fungible, use a mixer. If someone comes asking about the "source" of the bitcoins, tell them you used a mixer. If use of a mixer is illegal in your jurisdiction, you need to decide how you feel about non-compliance with that law.

I want to have a reasonable privacy, and when it comes to authorities, you just want to avoid raising any flags because they hate crypto by default.

As you've just pointed out, it's too late. The simple fact that you've "used crypto" is going to "raise flags". If that frightened, and you want to "avoid raising flags", don't use crypto. (And work to raise awareness in your community so that the authorities won't hate it by default anymore.)

In my jurisdiction, I find that the biggest inconvenience is the need to keep track of every satoshi acquired and spent so I can report every single transaction when calculating my capital gains for my taxes every year.

Yeah this is insane. They just do this to frustrate people even at the thought of using it for payments.

Correct.

Exactly.  FALSE positives.  Meaning, it doesn't really matter if you use a mixer or not. If an exchange wants to cause their customer "trouble", they're going to do it regardless.

Like I said, you want to avoid false positives. You don't want to deposit coins that raise chainalysis flags when depositing into an exchange and go through some audit of all of your related coins. I mean why would anyone want that? This is why im saying, mixing the coins, or receiving coins from an stranger and putting them into a centralized exchange where you are doxed is a mistake, same goes for paying someone with coins you just mixed that knows who you are, that then puts these coins into an exchange. An extra intermediate step here is required.

Don't send your crypto to exchanges.  If others choose to do so, that's their problem.

[takuma sato]

Receiving funds in the same address from a signature campaign is the most common option. However, even in the scenario that you mention, if you (as an entity) are well hidden behind the "takuma sato" persona, how will the person that you pay know who you are in real life? And, at the same time, why should they care?

Anyway, your point is important, so I get it. One user here (paid2 - I mention the name since he discussed it openly in another thread) does something clever, which is a good option to consider. I saw that BlackHatCoiner mentioned it above too. You can use a non-kyc exchange, like the one in my signature and exchange all the funds from your address into XMR. Then you can use the same exchange or any other that you want to exchange from XMR back to BTC (obviously using another BTC address). Don't forget to use Tor for this. You will make it impossible for the payee to imply that "takuma sato received X payments from a signature campaign and then used these funds to pay me".

Well just for reasonable privacy reasons. Suppose you pay someone with your signature earnings, you want to buy something from craiglist that is sold in exchange of btc, or pay for some service or something, and they google your address out of curiosity, now they find your apogio profile, and look up your political opinions, how knowledgeable you are on BTC, for how long you been involved and so follows. You get profiled. Anyone reasonable would not want that, so im just looking for ways to avoid this, without ending up in more trouble, like mixing the coins that end up tainted, paying with them and then being a target for that when the person that receives the coins says, "this dude I meet sent me these coins, go ask him". Chances are low but possible.

Your XMR may be interested to look at but man XMR is crashing so hard you may want to do that quickly. What I would like to know is a way to test your utxo before you send it into a KYC exchange, to know if they are tainted or not. Since we have no way to know where the coins that you recieve are comming from, it would be useful to run the utxo through some sort of database, like similar to haveibeenpwned website but for addresses, and this way one would make deposits and transactions with a better peace of mind.

[LoyceV]

What I would like to know is a way to test your utxo before you send it into a KYC exchange, to know if they are tainted or not.

You should read [Blacklist] of unreliable, 'taint proclaiming' Bitcoin services / exchanges. "Taint" is a business model of chain analysis companies selling the notion of taint based on arbitrary conditions that can change at any moment. It's an attack on Bitcoin's fungibility and should be avoided. What happened to your money before you legally earned it is not your fault.

To quote myself on the subject:

I've seen several posts lately from people willing to treat Bitcoin as non-fungible because they believe some coins are "tainted".
I'd say this is a severe threat to Bitcoin, and I wouldn't be surprised if governments use this because they can't stop Bitcoin in any other way. If people believe Bitcoin is "tainted", they won't accept it anymore. "We" should really inform people not to fall for this.
Nobody would reject a dollar bill because it has previously been used in a crime, despite the fact that 85 to 90% contains traces of cocaine. Claiming Bitcoin isn't fungible is just plain stupid.

This site explains very well what it's all about:

Coin validation proposed to offer as a service to trace coins and try to give you a rating about how the history of the coin from your point of view and to offer that as a service to businesses. I think this could be quite dangerous because it goes back to that 17th century court case where now you could receive a coin that is perfectly valid at the time that you receive it, but a few weeks later a crime is uncovered and now your coin is tainted. So if this coin validation service is advicing many of the merchants where you would want to spend your coin at, it's tainted and now the merchant would refuse to accept your coin. That's a strange experience for you; you're holding a coin that you might have to sell at a discount to get rid of it. The aggregate effect of this might create a run on the bitcoin price. So it reopens this long-set legal principle that currency or currency units are all equal.

I can't stress enough how important this is!

[apogio]

What I would like to know is a way to test your utxo before you send it into a KYC exchange, to know if they are tainted or not. Since we have no way to know where the coins that you recieve are comming from, it would be useful to run the utxo through some sort of database, like similar to haveibeenpwned website but for addresses, and this way one would make deposits and transactions with a better peace of mind.

This is exactly what blockchain analysis companies do. I am strongly against them! Essentially what you want to do is to make sure that a UTXO pass certain rules. Thus, what you want to do is to mess with Bitcoin's fungibility, making it look like some coins are good and some coins are bad.

Let me draw a picture for you. Let's say that instead of you, bitcoin nodes decide to do coin analysis.
Imagine a node, that runs blockchain analysis and validates only the transactions that pass certain rules. This would be a disaster for Bitcoin. All our efforts, all our hopes would be gone!
By the way, Bitcoin Knots is hard form of Bitcoin Core. They do exactly that! The node allows only for specific input size, making it impossible for them to validate transactions from Whirlpool coinjoins. Do you think this is correct?

Do you know that KYC exchanges are allowed to run blockchain analysis software to allow incoming funds only from coins that haven't been mixed or coinjoined? Do you think this is correct? Imagine receiving a UTXO, making coinjoins with it, to make it impossible to tell which input matches which output, and then sending it to a KYC exchange to cash out. Then, the exchange will simply run its software and they will say "thanks for gifting us the bitcoin, good luck in your life".

Do you also know that "The zkSNACKs coordinator will start refusing certain UTXOs from registering to coinjoins." ? This is a tweet that was made by wasabi devs. Just saying... I didn't invent this tweet, I didn't imagine it... They said that they can "potentially" refuse your coins from being coinjoined. Do you think this is correct?

I am in favor of coinjoins. I am in favor of doing whatever you like with your coins. Don't fall into the trap of "tainted" bitcoin. If you want the piece of mind, just do some coinjoins and you will be fine.

Don't use KYC exchanges anyway because they know who you are! So they know who "takuma sato" is in real life.

Use bitcoin as a tool. That's what it's meant to be.

Decide wisely who the "enemy" is. If you are worried that you own coins from illegal activities, let me tell you that anyone potentially owns this kind of coins, even if we use coinjoins. The only way to tell if the coins you own derive from illicit activities is to run blockchain analysis.

But please, make sure to remember that KYC exchanges are a disaster. Blockchain analysis is a disaster. Use reputable open source software instead and maintain your privacy. Let's say that in order for you to be private, you need to find a way to make "takuma sato" a persona that receives coins from a campaign, but then this persona sends the coins somewhere and nobody knows where.

Cypherpunks say (I think it was https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=976210 who said it):
- "If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."
- "No! Because I do nothing wrong, I have nothing to show."

[BlackHatCoiner]

Do you also know that "The zkSNACKs coordinator will start refusing certain UTXOs from registering to coinjoins." ? This is a tweet that was made by wasabi devs. Just saying... I didn't invent this tweet, I didn't imagine it... They said that they can "potentially" refuse your coins from being coinjoined. Do you think this is correct?

In addition to that, which one could reasonably assume they had had pressure from their government, they are very pro-taint in general. In this post, you can discover brilliant findings from the Max Hillebrand's podcast (a Wasabi dev), in which it is demonstrated that not only don't zkSNACKs treat each coin equally, but they're thinking of introducing the option for each client to approve and disapprove with whom they will do coinjoin.

Another good finding in the next post, in which Max admits blockchain analysis produces false positives and could treat an innocent individual as criminal, but they nonetheless fund it, and are quite happy with criminals being blacklisted as well. If you search on Kruw's posts in this board, you can find quite a lot of assertions of him being satisfied with tainted coin owners being deprived the right for privacy.

But, no. "Privacy for everyone in the digital age", above all!  

If you are worried that you own coins from illegal activities, let me tell you that anyone potentially owns this kind of coins, even if we use coinjoins.

That sums it up perfectly. Taint is simply inaccurate, because, to begin with, you can't tell with certainty whether a bitcoin changes hands.

[dkbit98]

Say I want to meet with someone that sells an item or service, how do I pay this person without revealing your funds?

You will have to reveal some your funds when paying with bitcoin, at least partially.
With right address management and with help of coinjoin, mixing and joinmarket you will significantly reduce the risk of someone knowing everything about your coins and transaction history.
Another solution is to use Lightning Network and second layer solutions like Liquid Network with L-BTC that has confidential transactions, and I think this is perfect for spending account.

2) In order to send the coins into the Android software, you have to transact from Bitcoin Core, into the mixer, then into the Android software address. This is a lot wasted in fees. There is no way to save some money in this process?

You can do the same thing I wrote above, use Lightning and/or Liquid Network and you will save on fees and time.

[takuma sato]

What I would like to know is a way to test your utxo before you send it into a KYC exchange, to know if they are tainted or not.

You should read [Blacklist] of unreliable, 'taint proclaiming' Bitcoin services / exchanges. "Taint" is a business model of chain analysis companies selling the notion of taint based on arbitrary conditions that can change at any moment. It's an attack on Bitcoin's fungibility and should be avoided. What happened to your money before you legally earned it is not your fault.

To quote myself on the subject:

I've seen several posts lately from people willing to treat Bitcoin as non-fungible because they believe some coins are "tainted".
I'd say this is a severe threat to Bitcoin, and I wouldn't be surprised if governments use this because they can't stop Bitcoin in any other way. If people believe Bitcoin is "tainted", they won't accept it anymore. "We" should really inform people not to fall for this.
Nobody would reject a dollar bill because it has previously been used in a crime, despite the fact that 85 to 90% contains traces of cocaine. Claiming Bitcoin isn't fungible is just plain stupid.

This site explains very well what it's all about:

Coin validation proposed to offer as a service to trace coins and try to give you a rating about how the history of the coin from your point of view and to offer that as a service to businesses. I think this could be quite dangerous because it goes back to that 17th century court case where now you could receive a coin that is perfectly valid at the time that you receive it, but a few weeks later a crime is uncovered and now your coin is tainted. So if this coin validation service is advicing many of the merchants where you would want to spend your coin at, it's tainted and now the merchant would refuse to accept your coin. That's a strange experience for you; you're holding a coin that you might have to sell at a discount to get rid of it. The aggregate effect of this might create a run on the bitcoin price. So it reopens this long-set legal principle that currency or currency units are all equal.

I can't stress enough how important this is!

Don't all mayor exchanges have Chainalysis or similar flagging software/service active? And if not, then it's just a matter of time they all do, probably legislation will force them to have them in place to stay in business. So all the liquidity will be sitting on these exchanges. You also have no control over where the person you send the coins to will be depositing them. Like I said, if someone pays you in BTC that is on some of these lists, and you pay to someone, then this someone puts it on Coinbase (most likely, most mainstream exchange) to sell, and this person gets asked where this money came from, this person will point to you. So yes, this is a huge problem when it comes to fungibility. A dollar bill is just a dollar bill. You are most likely just going to be spending it in a shop, not putting it into an ATM. Yes, you may be holding counterfeit, or fake dollar bills, but there is no permanent ledger, the cashier probably will just take the bill. People don't often spend BTC because it goes up in value, they will sell it for a profit in an exchange most likely in the future. It doesn't matter what is and isn't stupid, if someone makes a law around this and you end up in trouble it wouldn't matter, the consequences are real. So yes we should be pushing for this not to happen, but this is different than pretending to not care and just go around sending coins to exchanges without taking the necessary steps to not trigger these systems.

[LoyceV]

Don't all mayor exchanges have Chainalysis or similar flagging software/service active? And if not, then it's just a matter of time they all do, probably legislation will force them to have them in place to stay in business.

It's really up to their customers. As long as they keep using them and accept a "magical" unexplained thing called "taint", then indeed they all get away with it.

BTC that is on some of these lists

I have one of those lists! It's this one! And that shows the problem: anyone can make up anything about any UTXO.

[apogio]

I have one of those lists! It's this one! And that shows the problem: anyone can make up anything about any UTXO.

Oh my god, this explains my following point perfectly! But I will post it anyway, because I have written it already.

Like I said, if someone pays you in BTC that is on some of these lists, and you pay to someone, then this someone puts it on Coinbase (most likely, most mainstream exchange) to sell, and this person gets asked where this money came from, this person will point to you. So yes, this is a huge problem when it comes to fungibility.

No, this isn't a huge problem. Let me ask the obvious question. You say "this person will point to you". Who is this "you"? How will they know it's you?

Let me draw the picture again:

1. takuma sato gets paid 1 BTC.
2. takuma sato sends this 1 BTC to me (apogio).
3. apogio goes to a KYC exchange and deposit this 1 BTC (don't ask why, I just make it more difficult to prove that the scenario is invalid).
4. the KYC asks apogio (the real person behind the persona apogio), where did they get it?
5. apogio says: "I received it from someone with this address bc1q....".
6. then, the authorities (the most strict ones that you can imagine) search on google the address.
7. they (somehow) find that it is linked to a persona called "takuma sato".
8. they search in the forum for other posts and they make sure that "takuma sato" owns this address.
9. then?

Trust me, I am the one who will have a problem. I will be the one to answer the questions for having this Bitcoin. I will face the consequences for deciding to use a KYC exchange. That's all.

Notice, that in this scenario, I didn't add any protection measures from your side, just to make it more clear.

If between steps (1) and (2), takuma sato decided to do some coinjoins, or to just simply add one more address in the route, by sending to address B and then to apogio, then the authorities would have to search who this address B belongs to, before going back to "takuma sato's" address.

[takuma sato]

I have one of those lists! It's this one! And that shows the problem: anyone can make up anything about any UTXO.

Oh my god, this explains my following point perfectly! But I will post it anyway, because I have written it already.

Like I said, if someone pays you in BTC that is on some of these lists, and you pay to someone, then this someone puts it on Coinbase (most likely, most mainstream exchange) to sell, and this person gets asked where this money came from, this person will point to you. So yes, this is a huge problem when it comes to fungibility.

No, this isn't a huge problem. Let me ask the obvious question. You say "this person will point to you". Who is this "you"? How will they know it's you?

Let me draw the picture again:

1. takuma sato gets paid 1 BTC.
2. takuma sato sends this 1 BTC to me (apogio).
3. apogio goes to a KYC exchange and deposit this 1 BTC (don't ask why, I just make it more difficult to prove that the scenario is invalid).
4. the KYC asks apogio (the real person behind the persona apogio), where did they get it?
5. apogio says: "I received it from someone with this address bc1q....".
6. then, the authorities (the most strict ones that you can imagine) search on google the address.
7. they (somehow) find that it is linked to a persona called "takuma sato".
8. they search in the forum for other posts and they make sure that "takuma sato" owns this address.
9. then?

Trust me, I am the one who will have a problem. I will be the one to answer the questions for having this Bitcoin. I will face the consequences for deciding to use a KYC exchange. That's all.

Notice, that in this scenario, I didn't add any protection measures from your side, just to make it more clear.

If between steps (1) and (2), takuma sato decided to do some coinjoins, or to just simply add one more address in the route, by sending to address B and then to apogio, then the authorities would have to search who this address B belongs to, before going back to "takuma sato's" address.

It depends, if they are tainted linked to millions of dollars from selling drugs they may bother. You never know who sent you the coins. The problem is evident. They would try to contact theymos I guess, then check logs and so on. But im talking about buying in real life. You buy something in real life, and they will know who you are, even if you don't exchange personal details, you showed your face, there's cameras everywhere nowadays etc. If you don't see a problem of using BTC to pay someone and end up in some sort of investigation about drugs or whatever then I don't know what to tell you. BTC problem when interacting with KYC interfaces is obvious, wether you do it directly or you send the coins to someone and then they do it later on. And if you want to buy anything relevant (real state, diversify in assets etc) you are going to need to go through KYC). And if you want to buy in shops, pay for services etc, you carry yourself a person physically, when you pay you are there paying. This leaks information, and you don't know if your BTC are tainted or not. I don't see how this isn't a problem. It is basically a lottery everytime you deposit or pay someone with BTC where you hope your coins are not tainted. Chances are very low yes, but it's still there.

Don't all mayor exchanges have Chainalysis or similar flagging software/service active? And if not, then it's just a matter of time they all do, probably legislation will force them to have them in place to stay in business.

It's really up to their customers. As long as they keep using them and accept a "magical" unexplained thing called "taint", then indeed they all get away with it.

BTC that is on some of these lists

I have one of those lists! It's this one! And that shows the problem: anyone can make up anything about any UTXO.

If authorities know or suspect an address was used to buy drugs, pay a hitman or something, and these coins end up in your hands and you deposit them or pay to someone IRL with them, which then goes into a KYC exchange, then you are now linked to this problem when you don't even know it. If they can reach you they will come asking. I am personally not looking forward to that. It is not magical if it has real consequences.

[apogio]

It depends, if they are tainted linked to millions of dollars from selling drugs they may bother. You never know who sent you the coins. The problem is evident. They would try to contact theymos I guess, then check logs and so on. But im talking about buying in real life. You buy something in real life, and they will know who you are, even if you don't exchange personal details, you showed your face, there's cameras everywhere nowadays etc. If you don't see a problem of using BTC to pay someone and end up in some sort of investigation about drugs or whatever then I don't know what to tell you.

If you pay face to face, what is the difference between choosing Monero, Bitcoin or FIAT? Cameras will still get a picture of you. The vendor will also know your face.
If you pay online, you must use a shipping address. This detail will be the same, no matter if you use Monero, Bitcoin or FIAT.

It is basically a lottery everytime you deposit or pay someone with BTC where you hope your coins are not tainted. Chances are very low yes, but it's still there.

How is this different from what I said above? I will quote myself again:

If you are worried that you own coins from illegal activities, let me tell you that anyone potentially owns this kind of coins, even if we use coinjoins.

If you don't see a problem of using BTC to pay someone and end up in some sort of investigation about drugs or whatever then I don't know what to tell you.

I never said that it is not a problem. All I said is that I find it pointless to try to avoid it. If someone gives you $100 in dollar bills and you try to deposit at a bank, then if the serial number of the bills is flagged by the authorities, you will have the exact same issue. I am just saying this because it looks like everyone who uses the "tainted" coins arguments seem to forget it.

Anyway, it is obvious that we have very different opinions and that you follow the "tainted" coins approach / idea. I don't think we will ever agree, so, I think our arguments have been said and anyone can make their own opinion reading them.

[LoyceV]

If authorities know or suspect an address was used to buy drugs, pay a hitman or something, and these coins end up in your hands and you deposit them or pay to someone IRL with them, which then goes into a KYC exchange, then you are now linked to this problem when you don't even know it. If they can reach you they will come asking. I am personally not looking forward to that. It is not magical if it has real consequences.

Do you check the serial numbers of your bank notes for known crimes in the past before accepting them? I've said it before and I'll say it again: attacking Bitcoin's fungibility is the only way to attack Bitcoin. They can't shut it down, they can't stop it, they can't ban it, but they can make people believe they shouldn't accept it because certain coins might be bad!

If someone gives you $100 in dollar bills and you try to deposit at a bank, then if the serial number of the bills is flagged by the authorities, you will have the exact same issue. I am just saying this because it looks like everyone who uses the "tainted" coins arguments seem to forget it.

If this happens to banknotes, it's not to blame you, it's meant to catch a bad guy. There's a famous case in the Netherlands, where a murderer was caught when he started spending banknotes of the ransom he received, of which the numbers had been recorded. Karma eventually caught up with the murderer, when he was ran over by an excavator.
Catching murderers is a good thing! But with banknotes, it doesn't make people afraid to accept them, just like people shouldn't have to fear that certain Bitcoins are "different" than others.

[BlackHatCoiner]

BTC problem when interacting with KYC interfaces is obvious, wether you do it directly or you send the coins to someone and then they do it later on.

I believe there's a misunderstanding between Know Your Customer and "taint". Just because a company knows their customers, it doesn't mean they can trace their customers.

To put it this way: we all proceed to KYC when we make a bank account, or when we register to third parties like Paypal and Revolut. This has long been accepted as a necessary procedure to prevent money laundering. While in such institutions it is trivial to trace where the money goes, since they know all transactions and all transactions are made by identified individuals, that does not apply in the blockchain. When the bitcoin goes out of the KYC exchange, and several peer-to-peer transactions mediate, then nobody apart from the most recent owner can provably identify themselves. Exchanges deeming my coins as "tainted" holds as much water as my bank blaming me for deposing "tainted" banknotes.

That being said, I'm not sure what happens in a hypothetical scenario where you're accused of receiving bitcoin from drug lords. Does anyone know if there's a group of lawyers which have provided some insights regarding this matter, in the Bitcoin community?

[takuma sato]

If you pay face to face, what is the difference between choosing Monero, Bitcoin or FIAT? Cameras will still get a picture of you. The vendor will also know your face.
If you pay online, you must use a shipping address. This detail will be the same, no matter if you use Monero, Bitcoin or FIAT.

About using coinjoins etc being the same, if you use a coinjoin or something like that, you are hiding your amount held on an address from the payer, that is good, you increased privacy on your funds. You can also hide potential addresses linked to the one you are paying with. This is normal and anyone would want this when paying. Now if you deposit this into an exacty, it is true that who knows if they will or not trigger some chainalysis thing. So yeah, not much one can do that I can think of.

The difference frin fuat is the blockchain, it is permanent, public, and tied to that particular payment in that moment. Not so with fiat or Monero, even tho I would never use Monero, which has an even worse status than BTC, which leads to the next reply.

Do you check the serial numbers of your bank notes for known crimes in the past before accepting them? I've said it before and I'll say it again: attacking Bitcoin's fungibility is the only way to attack Bitcoin. They can't shut it down, they can't stop it, they can't ban it, but they can make people believe they shouldn't accept it because certain coins might be bad!

No, I don't check serial numbers. The difference here is, the systems at play with crypto are not the same as you giving some cash to a cashier or whatever. There is not some realtime global database on every payment. Also, cash in general, is used by regular people, grandmas etc. It doesn't have a bad rep (increasingly lately.. but in general, it is seen as normal). If you are a "Bitcoin person" you are standing out from the rest already. And governments hate crypto by default, banks do so too. This is why they block transactions all the time, even with KYC exchanges. So it's not the same thing at all. They will find any excuse to extract as much money as possible from you and scare you from using it. I am not looking forward to be used as an example of that. And as far as Monero, we can see what happened. It was kicked from most exchanges, you cannot cash out Monero to buy anything of relevance.

[LoyceV]

That being said, I'm not sure what happens in a hypothetical scenario where you're accused of receiving bitcoin from drug lords. Does anyone know if there's a group of lawyers which have provided some insights regarding this matter, in the Bitcoin community?

I've seen many real life examples with banks: they just block the account. Here (in the Netherlands), coffee shops are allowed to sell marijuana. Government "tolerates" it, although technically it's still illegal. But they let it be. So the coffee shops buy marijuana from illegal producers. It's a typical Dutch thing: a half-arse solution that doesn't do justice to either side of the equation. The end result is that banks see legal companies that do business with criminals, so banks just stay away from them. Prostitution is legal in the Netherlands, but again banks reject them as customers. The small number of customers is simply not worth the hassle and risk to them.
With Bitcoin, I think it's a different story now. There are far more Bitcoin users than coffee shops and prostitutes, so rejecting them all would be a serious cost to the bank.
I don't know how a crypto exchange would handle this. I've seen reports of funds being frozen, but it's never clear if that's a legit case and what happens. My guess is they'll just report it to authorities so they're compliant.
Back to banks: In the Netherlands, almost 2 million "unusual transactions" per year get reported to government. The money laundering fines lead to a huge increase of reports. I think banks now report just about anything, so at least they did their part.

Also, cash in general, is used by regular people, grandmas etc. It doesn't have a bad rep (increasingly lately.. but in general, it is seen as normal).

That's an interesting way of putting it. Cash is used by more criminals than anything else. The only reason it's seen as "normal", is because government approves of it. And they approve because they can control (and print) it.
I would argue fiat cash is a terrible system, and the more you understand how it really works, the worse it gets.
One of the main reasons I like Bitcoin is because fiat is so terrible, and continuously loses value. But ending the enternal inflation isn't in the interest of the ones in power. That may change if Bitcoin ever becomes big enough. I imagine a future in which fiat money has to compete against a currency that doesn't have inflation, so they can no longer print unlimited amounts.

[ranochigo]

No, I don't check serial numbers. The difference here is, the systems at play with crypto are not the same as you giving some cash to a cashier or whatever. There is not some realtime global database on every payment. Also, cash in general, is used by regular people, grandmas etc. It doesn't have a bad rep (increasingly lately.. but in general, it is seen as normal). If you are a "Bitcoin person" you are standing out from the rest already. And governments hate crypto by default, banks do so too. This is why they block transactions all the time, even with KYC exchanges. So it's not the same thing at all. They will find any excuse to extract as much money as possible from you and scare you from using it. I am not looking forward to be used as an example of that. And as far as Monero, we can see what happened. It was kicked from most exchanges, you cannot cash out Monero to buy anything of relevance.

Genuine question: then why would Bitcoin be in the discussion at all? If you are so worried, then using traditional fiat and ditching Bitcoin would be the way to go.

If your government is not fond of their citizens using Bitcoin, then they would find and make up reasons to find fault with you. Even if there is zero taint, I'm sure there is a good reason why you should get investigated. If you are afraid that there is a possibility that this would happen to you, stick to fiat. Else, if you are aware of your rights and understand how the law operates, I don't see how this would be an issue at all.

Otherwise, if you are afraid that exchanges would find fault with you, or whoever you're transacting with, then you should stick to fiat and PayPal. Zero taint doesn't exist, unless you are willing to pay a premium in exchange for freshly minted coins. You would probably have to declare your income source as well, I don't think it is worth the hassle and the paranoia for you.

[LoyceV]

Zero taint doesn't exist, unless you are willing to pay a premium in exchange for freshly minted coins.

You mean coins freshly minted by those evil miners who destroy the climate and emit more CO2 than my country? See what I did there? There's always another reason if a government wants to call something "bad".

[NotATether]

It's not clear to me how to go about this.

Use a new address for EVERY payment of Bitcoins that you receive.

Say I want to meet with someone that sells an item or service, how do I pay this person without revealing your funds?

Use coin control. Spend an output that is very close in value to what you are sending.

These are good, but they are not enough to ensure total privacy.

Ideally, you would want to send the transaction in a payjoin, which (and I'm sure you already know this) is just two transactions smashed together.

So there's going to be two inputs, and then there will also be I up to 4 inputs if the amount is not exact, otherwise as low as two outputs.

A payjoin is not easy to coordinate manually so this will most likely be orchestrated by the platform that you are trading on such as Bisq.

[takuma sato]

It's not clear to me how to go about this.

Use a new address for EVERY payment of Bitcoins that you receive.

Say I want to meet with someone that sells an item or service, how do I pay this person without revealing your funds?

Use coin control. Spend an output that is very close in value to what you are sending.

These are good, but they are not enough to ensure total privacy.

Ideally, you would want to send the transaction in a payjoin, which (and I'm sure you already know this) is just two transactions smashed together.

So there's going to be two inputs, and then there will also be I up to 4 inputs if the amount is not exact, otherwise as low as two outputs.

A payjoin is not easy to coordinate manually so this will most likely be orchestrated by the platform that you are trading on such as Bisq.

There will always be problems when dealing with fiat interfaces. I think the best possible thing to do would be to move to a jurisdiction that does not treat Bitcoin users as criminals by default. Unfortunately it is what it is. Which would be such jurisdiction? Im not sure, beside maybe Salvador, which im not into.
At the end of the day, what will bring the most privacy is an incentive for users to never leave the Bitcoin circuit. I think once governments ban cash, people will have an incentive to stay in Bitcoin and make payments, assuming LN manages to deliver an user friendly solution, and assuming there's enough privacy there to do so.

You will still require jurisdictions that are friendly to you to convert Bitcoin into any relevant tangible goods such as real state or diversifying in funds or stocks tho.

[ranochigo]

These are good, but they are not enough to ensure total privacy.

Ideally, you would want to send the transaction in a payjoin, which (and I'm sure you already know this) is just two transactions smashed together.

So there's going to be two inputs, and then there will also be I up to 4 inputs if the amount is not exact, otherwise as low as two outputs.

A payjoin is not easy to coordinate manually so this will most likely be orchestrated by the platform that you are trading on such as Bisq.

Which would involve what OP is afraid of; taint. I see this as a problem where can never be solved nor can it satisfy all of the requirements that people want. Compromises have to be made in one way or another, though I would argue that fungibility should be a given and that taint is a non-issue eitherways.