[ANN] ChipMixer.com - Bitcoin mixer / Bitcoin tumbler - mixing reinvented - page 126.

ChipMixer

sr. member

Activity: 456

Merit: 956

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1935098

Quote from: vtrx on August 18, 2017, 10:11:24 PM

Quote from: vtrx on August 18, 2017, 05:38:24 PM

Could you possibly make a button (and function) to destroy the session earlier? If I managed to complete mixing within 4 hours, I would prefer to click such a button to destry the session immediately. Please advise.

I didn't notice at once, but this button already exists in Step #4. And you can destroy the session immediately, going to a new step should prevent "deleting the session as a mistake"

Mixing with ChipMixer is done in four steps. Step 4 - destroying the session - is made after all steps were completed.

Quote from: TryNinja on August 18, 2017, 07:36:05 PM

IMO this could lead to users to deleting their session as a mistake and losing their coins forever.

I don't mind keeping my session alive for 48 hours after withdrawing my private keys. What are the cons in your opinion?

48h session time is there to handle support requests. If you have mixed and withdrawn chips without any problem, you should always destroy the session for your private keys safety. If you don't use Tor Browser then revisiting ChipMixer website will restore the session and private keys still will be visible. If you have sent your session token using forum PM, it can be used to restore your session and access your private keys. If ChipMixer gets hacked, your private keys may be endangered.

All three cases are void when you destroy your session. Please do not make us store your private keys longer than it is necessary.

vtrx

newbie

Activity: 107

Merit: 0

Quote from: TryNinja on August 18, 2017, 07:36:05 PM

Quote from: vtrx on August 18, 2017, 05:38:24 PM

Quote from: ChipMixer on May 26, 2017, 05:01:37 PM

we wait 48h for your input transaction and we can wait more on request

Could you possibly make a button (and function) to destroy the session earlier? If I managed to complete mixing within 4 hours, I would prefer to click such a button to destry the session immediately. Please advise.

IMO this could lead to users to deleting their session as a mistake and losing their coins forever.

I don't mind keeping my session alive for 48 hours after withdrawing my private keys. What are the cons in your opinion?

I didn't notice at once, but this button already exists in Step #4. And you can destroy the session immediately, going to a new step should prevent "deleting the session as a mistake"

TryNinja

legendary

Activity: 2758

Merit: 6830

Quote from: vtrx on August 18, 2017, 05:38:24 PM

Quote from: ChipMixer on May 26, 2017, 05:01:37 PM

we wait 48h for your input transaction and we can wait more on request

Could you possibly make a button (and function) to destroy the session earlier? If I managed to complete mixing within 4 hours, I would prefer to click such a button to destry the session immediately. Please advise.

IMO this could lead to users to deleting their session as a mistake and losing their coins forever.

I don't mind keeping my session alive for 48 hours after withdrawing my private keys. What are the cons in your opinion?

vtrx

newbie

Activity: 107

Merit: 0

Quote from: ChipMixer on May 26, 2017, 05:01:37 PM

we wait 48h for your input transaction and we can wait more on request

Could you possibly make a button (and function) to destroy the session earlier? If I managed to complete mixing within 4 hours, I would prefer to click such a button to destry the session immediately. Please advise.

btcton

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1007

Quote from: mk4 on August 17, 2017, 10:09:20 PM

Quote from: Yuuto on August 11, 2017, 10:31:20 PM

Quote from: mk4 on August 11, 2017, 10:05:29 PM

Personally, I think implementing a similar system for the old BitMixer is a good idea. Some people simply wan't their cryptocurrencies to be untraceable via block explorers, and nothing else beyond that. Though I agree with you that it can cause confusion, especially to the newer or older cryptocurrency crowd.

This ofcourse can be implemented successfully though. Maybe add a small comparison section between ChipMixer and ChipMixerLite on the home page of chipmixer.com? Or maybe just add a slider on the top-right hand corner of the Step 1 deposit page, like YouTube's autoplay slider. Probably left for ChipMixer and right for ChipMixerLite?

Your idea is very creative, and could be looked into further. But i probably lean towards not having any sort of chipmixerlite at all. Just beacuse bitmixer has shut down doesn't mean that all of a sudden a copy of chipmixer except with the old bitmixer business model.

If donations are not enough then maybe a small fee should be imposed. Obviously i think that chipmixer team doesn't want to do this as donations make it so much better for the customers, they can choose to do whatever they want.

The issue of people not used to using private keys can be solved by having a more user friendly UI for sending direct(aka sweeping) the private key. And i would have thought that the current interface was already user friendly enough...

Thanks. I'm broke between Chipmixer having the lite version and not having it. Based on all the comments here in this thread, yea might be better to not have it. But we should take into consideration the previous users of bitmixer, as they might still prefer the bitmixer system, and most of them probably doesn't even know this thread discussion exists. I think we need to hear their side too. Maybe OP should start an open poll?

I still fail to see any problems that my post does not solve.

Quote from: btcton on August 15, 2017, 01:26:32 AM

Quote from: HeRetiK on August 14, 2017, 11:36:15 AM

Quote from: ChipMixer on August 11, 2017, 09:08:44 AM

After bitmixer closure volume went up and donations went up but support requests went up (customers were used to simpler mixing process) and donation percentage went down (customers were used to automatic fee deduction).

We are thinking about adding ChipMixerLite version that would work exactly like old BitMixer - you send output addresses, receive signed contract, send coins and wait a few hours to get them. The good part would be simplicity. The bad part would be split of mixers volume and less privacy. What do you think about it?

Keep in mind that splitting ChipMixer up into regular ChipMixer and ChipMixerLite may actually be even more confusing to new users. I personally would probably just keep an eye on the amount of support requests and see if they actually stay at increased levels. Maybe people just need to get used to ChipMixer and after a while will find it not harder to use than the old BitMixer.

It can just be rebranded as something else if it is deemed confusing. ChipMixer could gain access to a much broader market if they decided to add support for simpler mixing transactions in which the customer does not have to know anything about private keys to be able to mix their coins. I do think the process of the regular ChipMixer could be confusing to those not familiar with crypto services and could scare them away from the site. Just separating them would do the trick here. You can just say that the lite service is backed by ChipMixer to try and preserve the trust factor.

By separating them and branding them differently, they can be understood to function completely different. After all, a lite version of ChipMixer isn't really a *chip* mixer, but just a regular mixer, so even the name could be misleading. All problems are solved if the names differ and just saying the lite one is backed by ChipMixer.

mk4

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 3873

Paldo.io 🤖

Quote from: Yuuto on August 11, 2017, 10:31:20 PM

Quote from: mk4 on August 11, 2017, 10:05:29 PM

Personally, I think implementing a similar system for the old BitMixer is a good idea. Some people simply wan't their cryptocurrencies to be untraceable via block explorers, and nothing else beyond that. Though I agree with you that it can cause confusion, especially to the newer or older cryptocurrency crowd.

This ofcourse can be implemented successfully though. Maybe add a small comparison section between ChipMixer and ChipMixerLite on the home page of chipmixer.com? Or maybe just add a slider on the top-right hand corner of the Step 1 deposit page, like YouTube's autoplay slider. Probably left for ChipMixer and right for ChipMixerLite?

Your idea is very creative, and could be looked into further. But i probably lean towards not having any sort of chipmixerlite at all. Just beacuse bitmixer has shut down doesn't mean that all of a sudden a copy of chipmixer except with the old bitmixer business model.

If donations are not enough then maybe a small fee should be imposed. Obviously i think that chipmixer team doesn't want to do this as donations make it so much better for the customers, they can choose to do whatever they want.

The issue of people not used to using private keys can be solved by having a more user friendly UI for sending direct(aka sweeping) the private key. And i would have thought that the current interface was already user friendly enough...

Thanks. I'm broke between Chipmixer having the lite version and not having it. Based on all the comments here in this thread, yea might be better to not have it. But we should take into consideration the previous users of bitmixer, as they might still prefer the bitmixer system, and most of them probably doesn't even know this thread discussion exists. I think we need to hear their side too. Maybe OP should start an open poll?

ocimjr

member

Activity: 95

Merit: 10

I really do think that after you guys added the provably fair mechanism for betting, as well as being able to commonize, merge split chips etc. and having a completely new designed site you guys are definitely in the top 3 choices for bitcoin mixers around at the moment.

However as someone above me mentioned, i don't think that the youtube video works yet? It's just an image i think, if you click on it nothing ahppens.

On reddit there are a lot of criticism, i don't think it's fair. First of all, chipmixer does not know who uses their provably fair betting service as a way to timelock coins to basically bypass future restrictions(potentially), therefore even if they wanted to extort someone they don't know who to target. Secondly, chipmixer has spent already at least 5-10 btc on advertising and is probably going to spend a lot more in the future, and i don't even think that people are going to send more than 1 btc into their multisig address. I really do think that chipmixer is trying to offer a genuine service to the benefit of the community here.

HCP

legendary

Activity: 2086

Merit: 4361

It will need to be downloaded, as Thomas rejected their pull request to have it added to the Electrum codebase (citing possible legal issues): https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/pull/2506

The hook for the code was merged tho: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/pull/2505 ... So it should be possible to download the plugin separately from here (https://github.com/chipmixer/electrum/tree/plugin/plugins/chipmixer) and put it in the Electrum plugin directory...

OmegaStarScream

staff

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6152

Who tried the ChipMixer plugin for Electrum? Is it any good and what are the differences or it's simply the same as the site just built-in inside the wallet? I checked my plugins list though and I can't seem to find anything there to enable it unless It must be downloadable and imported or something.

buwaytress

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 3684

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: ChipMixer on August 11, 2017, 09:08:44 AM

After bitmixer closure volume went up and donations went up but support requests went up (customers were used to simpler mixing process) and donation percentage went down (customers were used to automatic fee deduction).

We are thinking about adding ChipMixerLite version that would work exactly like old BitMixer - you send output addresses, receive signed contract, send coins and wait a few hours to get them. The good part would be simplicity. The bad part would be split of mixers volume and less privacy. What do you think about it?

You probably should wait, collect data on customer habits for a while longer to see if the pattern change was temporary or if it is indeed shifting. Personally, I feel that this slight difference with ChipMixer is unique and identified only with the service - maintaining it keeps the message, useful if you're interested in reenforcing your brand. Don't worry. People will get used to it eventually and if they're concerned about mixing in the first place, they will want to insist on using the more private option.

btcton

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1007

Quote from: HeRetiK on August 14, 2017, 11:36:15 AM

Quote from: ChipMixer on August 11, 2017, 09:08:44 AM

After bitmixer closure volume went up and donations went up but support requests went up (customers were used to simpler mixing process) and donation percentage went down (customers were used to automatic fee deduction).

We are thinking about adding ChipMixerLite version that would work exactly like old BitMixer - you send output addresses, receive signed contract, send coins and wait a few hours to get them. The good part would be simplicity. The bad part would be split of mixers volume and less privacy. What do you think about it?

Keep in mind that splitting ChipMixer up into regular ChipMixer and ChipMixerLite may actually be even more confusing to new users. I personally would probably just keep an eye on the amount of support requests and see if they actually stay at increased levels. Maybe people just need to get used to ChipMixer and after a while will find it not harder to use than the old BitMixer.

It can just be rebranded as something else if it is deemed confusing. ChipMixer could gain access to a much broader market if they decided to add support for simpler mixing transactions in which the customer does not have to know anything about private keys to be able to mix their coins. I do think the process of the regular ChipMixer could be confusing to those not familiar with crypto services and could scare them away from the site. Just separating them would do the trick here. You can just say that the lite service is backed by ChipMixer to try and preserve the trust factor.

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 3122

Merit: 2178

Playgram - The Telegram Casino

Quote from: ChipMixer on August 11, 2017, 09:08:44 AM

After bitmixer closure volume went up and donations went up but support requests went up (customers were used to simpler mixing process) and donation percentage went down (customers were used to automatic fee deduction).

We are thinking about adding ChipMixerLite version that would work exactly like old BitMixer - you send output addresses, receive signed contract, send coins and wait a few hours to get them. The good part would be simplicity. The bad part would be split of mixers volume and less privacy. What do you think about it?

Keep in mind that splitting ChipMixer up into regular ChipMixer and ChipMixerLite may actually be even more confusing to new users. I personally would probably just keep an eye on the amount of support requests and see if they actually stay at increased levels. Maybe people just need to get used to ChipMixer and after a while will find it not harder to use than the old BitMixer.

Rahar02

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 523

Quote from: ChipMixer on August 11, 2017, 09:08:44 AM

Quote from: amacar2 on August 09, 2017, 10:57:56 AM

Might be shift in customer from bitmixer to chipmixer have increased the amount of donation they are getting from few big users.

After bitmixer closure volume went up and donations went up but support requests went up (customers were used to simpler mixing process) and donation percentage went down (customers were used to automatic fee deduction).

We are thinking about adding ChipMixerLite version that would work exactly like old BitMixer - you send output addresses, receive signed contract, send coins and wait a few hours to get them. The good part would be simplicity. The bad part would be split of mixers volume and less privacy. What do you think about it?

Personally, I prefer to use current Chipmixer and will only use it instead of lite version.
- better mixer than old bitmixer
- more anonymity
- more features of donations and 'bet'.
But, if you think that lite version will be enough for layman, and many people will use it, consider the advantages and disadvantages of lite version, than it's fine.

mihail88

newbie

Activity: 1

Merit: 0

please, check your email
i have a problem with your mixer Sad

Iranus

hero member

Activity: 1792

Merit: 534

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: ChipMixer on August 11, 2017, 09:08:44 AM

We are thinking about adding ChipMixerLite version that would work exactly like old BitMixer - you send output addresses, receive signed contract, send coins and wait a few hours to get them. The good part would be simplicity. The bad part would be split of mixers volume and less privacy. What do you think about it?

You'd have to clarify exactly what the risks involved are before the user decides to use it. The problem that you have to get past is that if the user sees an inconvenient version and a convenient version, why wouldn't they choose the convenient one? It's just like Purse.io's slider of discount. As you go for higher discounts it becomes more likely that the goods were bought from stolen credit cards, but the lay man doesn't think about this and just slides it as far as possible.

One incentive that you could have for them to use the main version is a static fee on "Chipmixer Lite" similar to Bitmixer. Then they'd want to use the main version unless they couldn't handle using Electrum wallets at the time or they only needed the simpler privacy features of the Lite version instead of protection against governments and other powerful forces.

The only problem with that incentive is that it could mean that when using the main version, they might want to pay a lower donation than the fee for Chipmixer Lite. The large users that understand your service properly might not have this problem, but smaller users could.

In any case you would have to be very careful about how you handle the coins for this service.

HCP

legendary

Activity: 2086

Merit: 4361

Personally, I wouldn't use the "chipmixerLite"... but I'm just one guy. I like the current system, and "instant" withdrawl. With the traditional system, you then need to implement a system to ensure users don't get back their old coins. I don't think it is quite as simple as "receive coins/send coins". Plus if you want to obfuscate your payments you need to randomise fees and delays etc...

sana54210

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 1128

Quote from: warningsigns on August 11, 2017, 05:52:02 PM

I enjoy using your mixer. Hopefully in the future you will introduce more innovative ways of mixing coins such as an app. A nice app for iOS and android users should be an ambitious project but look at it this way.. there are no mixer apps. They are all web based. Would be nice to understand why.

Do we really need to mix up our coins on the go ? I do not think so. If you value your anonymity then you must take your time for mixing up your coins. I believe this must be the prime reason why mixing services are not focusing on mobile apps. Compared to browser based encryption, mobile apps are too weaker and vulnerable to hacking attempts.

Having multiple choices are always good, but not with the case of a services which is usually dealing with thousands to millions worth of bitcoins for the reason of ensuring anonymity.

audaciousbeing

hero member

Activity: 1330

Merit: 569

Quote from: magneto on August 11, 2017, 08:42:48 PM

Quote from: ChipMixer on August 11, 2017, 09:08:44 AM

Quote from: amacar2 on August 09, 2017, 10:57:56 AM

Might be shift in customer from bitmixer to chipmixer have increased the amount of donation they are getting from few big users.

After bitmixer closure volume went up and donations went up but support requests went up (customers were used to simpler mixing process) and donation percentage went down (customers were used to automatic fee deduction).

We are thinking about adding ChipMixerLite version that would work exactly like old BitMixer - you send output addresses, receive signed contract, send coins and wait a few hours to get them. The good part would be simplicity. The bad part would be split of mixers volume and less privacy. What do you think about it?

Honestly i don't think it's a good idea.

Chipmixer is a brand by itself and is the first to use private keys directly as a mixing tool to achieve 100% anonymity. Having a chipmixerlite will only confuse users, and probably create a split between the pathways to take which is not good.

I would consider adding a minimum fee instead of donation because as you said a lot of people from Bitmixer are used to having a mandatory fee charged alongside with their mixing process. After all you do need to pay for the transaction fees when you transfer funds into individual chips, pay for server, support, and advertising costs.

My contribution to the matter at hand is that in as much as its very important that one needs to look at what's going on in the market to better place himself well, there is also a distinct feature one needs to have which differentiate one product from the other. Even before bitmier shut down, this service has been competing favourably and if a clone of bitmixer is done people will then not see chipmixer again but a bitmixer in another form. So, I suggest like everyone else, a further improvement on the model to take care of the customers complain, and also if donation is not running the services then a form of reduced fees to new customers if there is a way to implement that while the old customers still enjoys their option of donations.

Yuuto

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 501

Quote from: mk4 on August 11, 2017, 10:05:29 PM

Personally, I think implementing a similar system for the old BitMixer is a good idea. Some people simply wan't their cryptocurrencies to be untraceable via block explorers, and nothing else beyond that. Though I agree with you that it can cause confusion, especially to the newer or older cryptocurrency crowd.

This ofcourse can be implemented successfully though. Maybe add a small comparison section between ChipMixer and ChipMixerLite on the home page of chipmixer.com? Or maybe just add a slider on the top-right hand corner of the Step 1 deposit page, like YouTube's autoplay slider. Probably left for ChipMixer and right for ChipMixerLite?

Your idea is very creative, and could be looked into further. But i probably lean towards not having any sort of chipmixerlite at all. Just beacuse bitmixer has shut down doesn't mean that all of a sudden a copy of chipmixer except with the old bitmixer business model.

If donations are not enough then maybe a small fee should be imposed. Obviously i think that chipmixer team doesn't want to do this as donations make it so much better for the customers, they can choose to do whatever they want.

The issue of people not used to using private keys can be solved by having a more user friendly UI for sending direct(aka sweeping) the private key. And i would have thought that the current interface was already user friendly enough...

mk4

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 3873

Paldo.io 🤖

Quote from: magneto on August 11, 2017, 08:42:48 PM

Quote from: ChipMixer on August 11, 2017, 09:08:44 AM

Quote from: amacar2 on August 09, 2017, 10:57:56 AM

Might be shift in customer from bitmixer to chipmixer have increased the amount of donation they are getting from few big users.

After bitmixer closure volume went up and donations went up but support requests went up (customers were used to simpler mixing process) and donation percentage went down (customers were used to automatic fee deduction).

We are thinking about adding ChipMixerLite version that would work exactly like old BitMixer - you send output addresses, receive signed contract, send coins and wait a few hours to get them. The good part would be simplicity. The bad part would be split of mixers volume and less privacy. What do you think about it?

Honestly i don't think it's a good idea.

Chipmixer is a brand by itself and is the first to use private keys directly as a mixing tool to achieve 100% anonymity. Having a chipmixerlite will only confuse users, and probably create a split between the pathways to take which is not good.

I would consider adding a minimum fee instead of donation because as you said a lot of people from Bitmixer are used to having a mandatory fee charged alongside with their mixing process. After all you do need to pay for the transaction fees when you transfer funds into individual chips, pay for server, support, and advertising costs.

Personally, I think implementing a similar system for the old BitMixer is a good idea. Some people simply wan't their cryptocurrencies to be untraceable via block explorers, and nothing else beyond that. Though I agree with you that it can cause confusion, especially to the newer or older cryptocurrency crowd.

This ofcourse can be implemented successfully though. Maybe add a small comparison section between ChipMixer and ChipMixerLite on the home page of chipmixer.com? Or maybe just add a slider on the top-right hand corner of the Step 1 deposit page, like YouTube's autoplay slider. Probably left for ChipMixer and right for ChipMixerLite?

Topic: [ANN] ChipMixer.com - Bitcoin mixer / Bitcoin tumbler - mixing reinvented - page 126. (Read 92822 times)