HD wallets = privacy?

[bitcoinrocks]

Do BIP 32 hierarchical deterministic wallets provide true privacy so that none of the transactions to or from the HD wallet can be linked together?  I'm mainly interested in preventing everyone I pay from linking me to my main BTC wallet.

[1715686181]

1715686181

[1715686181]

1715686181

[shorena]

Do BIP 32 hierarchical deterministic wallets provide true privacy so that none of the transactions to or from the HD wallet can be linked together?

No, the idea behind HD wallets is that you only have to create a single backup. The transactions are made the same with other wallets. If the wallet you are using allows you to craft them by hand you might be able to achieve this, but this has nothing to do with HD or not.

I'm mainly interested in preventing everyone I pay from linking me to my main BTC wallet.

Use a mixer.

[bitcoinrocks]

Do BIP 32 hierarchical deterministic wallets provide true privacy so that none of the transactions to or from the HD wallet can be linked together?

No, the idea behind HD wallets is that you only have to create a single backup. The transactions are made the same with other wallets. If the wallet you are using allows you to craft them by hand you might be able to achieve this, but this has nothing to do with HD or not.

Got it, I didn't understand that before.

I'm mainly interested in preventing everyone I pay from linking me to my main BTC wallet.

Use a mixer.

If a wallet uses a different address for each transaction, how can the addresses/transactions be linked to each other?

[shorena]

-snip-
If a wallet uses a different address for each transaction, how can the addresses/transactions be linked to each other?

Lets say you create a new address for every time you receive bitcoins (as you should and I hope most of us do). You receive several inputs[1] over time, e.g. like below.

0.00369522 and 0.003 on address A
0.10, 0.05 and 0.05 on address B

Now you want to spend 0.2 BTC (and add a fee). For this you will need inputs that you received via A and B. The inputs you received via B are enough for 0.2, but you still need to pay a fee, so you need another input and will also need a change address. When you create a transaction like that the addresses are considered to be related and its commonly accepted that they belong to the same person even though it is possible that several people create a single transaction. On top of that usually you cant cherry pick the inputs either the wallet will just pick them for you, AFAIK Coin Control for bitcoin core/qt is the exception to that. It lets you pick each input before you create a transaction.
You can obfuscate this by using a mixer.


tl;dr you can use different addresses to receive bitcoins, but you have a limited control over the "sending" address.


[1] A transaction is spending formerly received coins (inputs). These inputs have to be spend entirely. If your inputs are higher than your output(s) a wallet will generate a change address for you for the rest. If the inputs have been received on different addresses they appear in blockexplorers as the sending addresses even though technically addresses can not send bitcoins. Example: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/b07a2b5647621789d95ae456f3f71f7034fb820e921d9f2e4fea7a3db8b733b9
this TX spends two inputs into two outputs.

[bitcoinrocks]

My what an excellent grasp you have.   Thank you for enlightening me.

I'm trying to figure out a way to spend BTC without tying my main wallet to my transactions.  Should this do it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=955020.msg10453447#msg10453447

[shorena]

My what an excellent grasp you have.   Thank you for enlightening me.

I'm trying to figure out a way to spend BTC without tying my main wallet to my transactions.  Should this do it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=955020.msg10453447#msg10453447

Ill quote the post here, to keep it clear.

I've been thinking over how to send and receive BTC without tying my main wallet to the transactions.  Here's the best I can come up with:

- Open two Blockchain.info wallets, label one "public" and one "private".
- Always send BTC from my main wallet only to my private Blockchain wallet, never to my public Blockchain wallet or anywhere else.
- Always send BTC from my private wallet to my public wallet using Shared Coin (faster, less than total privacy) or Shared Send (slower, total privacy).
- Send BTC from my public wallet anywhere I want.  If I don't want the destination to be known then I can use Shared Coin or Shared Send, but if it doesn't matter then I can use a regular send which is fastest.
- Receive BTC to my public account and send to my main account with Shared Coin or Shared Send.

I think this prevents my main wallet from being tied to my day-to-day transactions, especially if I use Shared Send instead of Shared Coin.  Is there a better/easier way?

This should work, but I think you can skip the "private" wallet as it only acts as an intermediary between your "main" wallet and your "public" wallet. The idea behind this was probably that you have to use a bc.i account in order to use shared coin/send, but you can skip this step by using a mixing service or any other high volume wallet. E.g. a big casino/exchange could act as a mixer. The BTC you deposit is usually used for the withdrawal request from someone else and your withdrawal will come from an esentially random input from someone else as well. Another point that speaks for mixing serivce - be it an actual mixer or something that is just used as one - IMHO is that you can use different services from time to time. This will further complicate things for someone that is trying to make sense of your finances.

[GTO911]

Monero

[R2D221]

Monero

Yeah, what about it?

[bitcoinrocks]

I've been thinking over how to send and receive BTC without tying my main wallet to the transactions.  Here's the best I can come up with:

- Open two Blockchain.info wallets, label one "public" and one "private".
- Always send BTC from my main wallet only to my private Blockchain wallet, never to my public Blockchain wallet or anywhere else.
- Always send BTC from my private wallet to my public wallet using Shared Coin (faster, less than total privacy) or Shared Send (slower, total privacy).
- Send BTC from my public wallet anywhere I want.  If I don't want the destination to be known then I can use Shared Coin or Shared Send, but if it doesn't matter then I can use a regular send which is fastest.
- Receive BTC to my public account and send to my main account with Shared Coin or Shared Send.

I think this prevents my main wallet from being tied to my day-to-day transactions, especially if I use Shared Send instead of Shared Coin.  Is there a better/easier way?

This should work, but I think you can skip the "private" wallet as it only acts as an intermediary between your "main" wallet and your "public" wallet. The idea behind this was probably that you have to use a bc.i account in order to use shared coin/send, but you can skip this step by using a mixing service or any other high volume wallet. E.g. a big casino/exchange could act as a mixer. The BTC you deposit is usually used for the withdrawal request from someone else and your withdrawal will come from an esentially random input from someone else as well. Another point that speaks for mixing serivce - be it an actual mixer or something that is just used as one - IMHO is that you can use different services from time to time. This will further complicate things for someone that is trying to make sense of your finances.

So you're saying I could use a mixing service or an exchange in place of the "private" wallet?  Why would that be better?

Also Blockchain's Shared Coin uses CoinJoin which (from what I can gather) is a (nearly?) trustless method for mixing which gives it an advantage over a conventional mixing service or exchange.

[ivonna]

More privacy would probably result in using a wallet that allows for proper coin control. That is a wallet that allows you to specify which addresses that you want to use to sign a particular transaction.

You would essentially want to make sure that you receive no more then one payment into each address and when yo go to spend your coins you want to use no more then one address to send the coins from and use a newly generated address as your change address.

You will eventually end up with a lot of addresses with small inputs so you will need to figure out a way to combine inputs without sacrificing privacy. This is usually where mixers come into play

[thejaytiesto]

Do BIP 32 hierarchical deterministic wallets provide true privacy so that none of the transactions to or from the HD wallet can be linked together?

No, the idea behind HD wallets is that you only have to create a single backup. The transactions are made the same with other wallets. If the wallet you are using allows you to craft them by hand you might be able to achieve this, but this has nothing to do with HD or not.

I'm mainly interested in preventing everyone I pay from linking me to my main BTC wallet.

Use a mixer.

What if the coins you re receiving are crime coins? im paranoid about that.

[PolarPoint]

Partial privacy can be achieved by receiving funds into a new address every time. All your bitcoins are spread out across a hundred addresses and no one can monitor your total holdings. This is how Satoshi envisioned it.

[R2D221]

What if the coins you re receiving are crime coins? im paranoid about that.

There's no such thing as “crime coins”. There are crimes, and there are coins, but coins are not capable of committing crimes.

[Kazimir]

What if the coins you re receiving are crime coins? im paranoid about that.

Bitcoins, like any proper form of money, are 100% fungible.

[shorena]

-snip-
So you're saying I could use a mixing service or an exchange in place of the "private" wallet?  Why would that be better?

Its not per se better, but it is more flexible.

Also Blockchain's Shared Coin uses CoinJoin which (from what I can gather) is a (nearly?) trustless method for mixing which gives it an advantage over a conventional mixing service or exchange.

I personally dont trust blockchain.info very much, so this might very well be bias on my end.

Partial privacy can be achieved by receiving funds into a new address every time. All your bitcoins are spread out across a hundred addresses and no one can monitor your total holdings. This is how Satoshi envisioned it.

Yes, but when you want to spend them you might have to combine inputs from several addresses, which would like addresses together.

[PolarPoint]

Partial privacy can be achieved by receiving funds into a new address every time. All your bitcoins are spread out across a hundred addresses and no one can monitor your total holdings. This is how Satoshi envisioned it.

Yes, but when you want to spend them you might have to combine inputs from several addresses, which would like addresses together.

You combine just enough funds from different addresses to pay for what you need and send the change to a new address. No one can monitor your total holdings. That is what OP wants.

[R2D221]

Bitcoins, like any proper form of money, are 100% fungible.

maybe if you repeat that long enough, it will become true.

Why is this false, then?

[thelibertycap]

What if the coins you re receiving are crime coins? im paranoid about that.

Bitcoins, like any proper form of money, are 100% fungible.

LOL, nope, bitcoin is not 100% fungible. Does that mean bitcoin is not a proper form of money? Nope.
I like bitcoin's traceability as much as I like ring signature's untraceability.
Monero in your definition is proper money but I don't think it will be bigger than bitcoin. Bitcoins are just better for some things and more easily regulated, I think governments will support bitcoin because of this traceability and a perfectly readable public ledger.

[R2D221]

Please explain why Bitcoin is not fungible.

[thelibertycap]

Please explain why Bitcoin is not fungible.

Would you buy bitcoins stolen from bter or mtgox for the same price as coins on exchanges? There are sellers out there....
I believe you can get a decent discount