Topic: [ANN] ChipMixer.com - Bitcoin mixer / Bitcoin tumbler - mixing reinvented - page 19. (Read 92517 times)

I've done a very quick search and found tails os might be compatible with trezor. If so, and the electrum is what's compatible, could you just use a strong passphrase+tor to get a high level of privacy (the passphrase for trezor extends the nmemonic).

This is assuming you're going to have and use different wallets. Trezor suite also has tor built in but you could still be vulnerable that way if it's on your main os and not a live instance.

For the level of technical expertise that I have I fancy this solution. I wonder, if someone has a hardware wallet - such as a Trezor - would he/she still be able to send the coins to his/her hardware wallet in a mostly private way? (Assuming that whoever is using the Trezor is connected to his own full node[1])

---

[1]https://blog.trezor.io/connecting-your-wallet-to-a-full-node-edf56693b545

You can do that, but you'll have a few downsides.
(1) Exchange rates; may lose some amount of BTC due to exchange rate fluctuations.
(2) Not trustless (unless the exchange uses atomic swaps); a submarine swap is trustless.
(3) On-chain links may be possible; LN is off-chain and you most likely receive the full balance through multiple different channels, making it much harder to track by amounts. There is no public blockchain to audit and onion routing of the actual payment makes it hard to track channel state updates, even if you control a ton of nodes.

@ll
thnx for ur input and suggestions




Yep, this is what i mean make mutliple swaps to obfuscate the change vs. send to lightning.

sorry it was not really well described.

ps: i found this article really informative : https://en.bitcoin.it/Privacy
best regards

I always assumed there are many times more Electrum users than Bitcoin Core users, but I have no hard data on this. It's my gut feeling considering the easy of use compared to first downloading 450 GB.

I never tried, so I don't know.

But an even smaller percentage, I presume, does like the comfort of the Electrum client, and runs a Bitcoin Core node, but not an Electrum server. Electrum is such a lightweight software, and includes features such as mnemonics that makes backing up easy and safe. Bitcoin Core doesn't have seed phrase option for example. Besides, what's so difficult with running a server on top of your node?

That's a good habit for chips, if you don't run your own Electrum server.

I assume only a small percentage does that. Example: me. I've never setup my own Electrum server. If I have to download the full blockchain anyway, it's much easier to run Bitcoin Core instead. I'm not using the default Descriptor wallet though, because it makes importing private keys much more complicated.

"My" easy solution for privacy: Electrum on Tails OS, with as few addresses in the wallet as possible.

Gotcha; I did assume that whoever cares about improving their privacy sets up a personal Electrum server as one of the first steps..

I'm still not sure what you mean. Can you make up an example?

This is the scenario in which the Electrum server you're using knows those addresses all belong to the same wallet. That may or may not be a problem.

His suggestion is that you take the change UTXO and send it (in full - not to create even more change) to your own Lightning channel using a submarine swap provider such as https://boltz.exchange/.

Correct; you either send a UTXO to the destination in full, or you generate change. No way around that. Therefore, you either overpay (there are ways to only overpay slightly and still be private [1]) or generate change and need to decide what to do with it.

[1] One way to accomplish that is to be very diligent with coin control and have a wallet just filled with ChipMixer chips. Of different sizes. When paying for something, you combine those to just about cover the requested amount. For example: You have 3x 0.001BTC, 2x 0.002BTC. When you buy something for 0.0029, you take one of each and pay 0.003BTC.

Like Loyce, I don't understand what this means. Do you want to 'obfuscate change' by exchanging it for Monero and exchanging it back, instead of mixing it or sending to a Lightning channel? What is a 'multi exchange'?

@NotATether:


So u mean like send the certain change funds with coin control to an established LN over swapping for example with integrated swapping in electrum.

@LoyceV:

I mean to create multi exchanges with an none KYC services like swapping to obfuscate the change funds.

Avoid change is only possible with donation or an exact payment where in and out txes are equal or

best regards

I've used FixedFloat for this, but only for small amounts. For privacy, using different exchangers is even better. BestChange has many options (but again: be careful who to trust).

As far as I know, frozen inputs (or addresses) on Electrum are still communicated with the Electrum server when your wallet is running. Now that I think about it: the same happens to all addresses within Electrum's gap limit: both unused and used addresses are checked with Electrum's server.

I'm not sure what you mean.

In general: there are many ways to compromise your privacy, and many ways to avoid it. It really depends on your needs, and how much privacy you're looking for.

Fixedfloat seems to be good for swapping between coins, including Lightning Network.

Privacytools.io lists a bunch of private crypto exchanges and instant swappers that you can also try out, and some of here also support LN.

I would put the change by itself in its own LN channel and then you can use it for such things as micropayments. Do not mix your change with your other UTXOs.

Which instant exchanger is reliable for this ? could u suggest one ?

what is the difference to cut it out the change from electrum with freezing  or additional steps to avoid change balance  like exchanging into lighting or Monero from an anonymity standpoint.

is always safer to exchange bitcoin into another crypto for avoiding changing. ?

best regards



 

Not really, but you asked for this:
For anonymity, it's great to have an old vouchers at your disposal. He's a real life example:

It depends: if you're not careful, "change" always has the risk of linking it to some of your other addresses later on. But small change also leeds to extra transaction fees, and if fees go up, it might not be worth sending at that point.
I prefer to get rid of change, one way is using an instant exchanger (on Tor, of course) to convert it to Bitcoin Lightning Network, or Monero, or plan your payments such that you can pay for multiple services at once.

I don't think that helps: multiple change addresses can hide which address is your destination address, but it gives more and smaller inputs and thus higher transaction fees later on.

@LoyceV

First of all

Real good explainations.
Brings me further in my understanding for mixing.  


Its a real long intervall not really neccessary or ?

 

Is this only possible to spend the entire funds from the wallet, or are there any other duck-tape fix-all for this except the option "do not mix" in scenario 2 .

Should i use "Use multiple change Addresses" option in electrum  if i use scenario 2. ? 


This was one of my main questions cause i wasnt sure if its a difference if u sweep from chp directly or later in electrum.


I think for my intentions electrum is more than enough


best regards

I'll make up an example for all 3 scenarios, and I'll rewrite your questions a bit.

Let's say I deposited 0.02347273 BTC to ChipMixer on January 1, 2021. I got a 0.023 BTC voucher. Yesterday, I deposited 0.00482361 BTC to ChipMixer and added my voucher. I withdrew a 0.008 BTC chip, and got a voucher (0.019 BTC) for the rest.
Today, I start up Tails OS (which connects through Tor), import the 0.008 BTC chip into Electrum, and spend the coins. I make sure to spend the full amount, without creating a change address.

I shortened the question a bit: there's no need to import private keys if you're sweeping them.
Tomorrow, I'm going to use my voucher on ChipMixer, and withdraw a 0.002 BTC and 0.004 BTC chip. I take a voucher (0.013 BTC) for the rest.
I import both private keys in my normal Electrum installation (which I already have on my PC). I click Wallet > Private Keys > Sweep, and enter both private keys. After the transaction fee, I receive 0.00599617 BTC on the next unused Bitcoin address in my Electrum wallet. I use the Coins tab, select this input, right-click my mouse and click Spend. I spend 0.00456817 BTC and receive 0.00142685 BTC on a change address. I go to the Addresses tab, and Label the address: "CHANGE from CHIP, do not mix". Then, to avoid sending it accidentally, I click right-mouse and select Freeze.
This is slightly less anonymous than #1, but still pretty good, as it won't link any of my Bitcoin addresses on-chain. But the Electrum server I'm connecting to knows all the addresses in my wallet. If it keeps logs, my anonymity could be compromised.

This is basically the scenario (#2) above. The level of anonymity will largely depend on the wallet you use: if you use an Android wallet from your home IP address, it's likely someone can link your addresses together. If you use a web wallet for all your Bitcoin transactions, it's even worse.

I think #1 is the most anonymous method if you're limited to Electrum. You could probably do a bit better if you use your own Bitcoin Core wallet on Tor, but that is more work.

One sweeps your coins directly to an address, one gives you a code/list of private keys in a specific format you can import into electrum and another gives you a code you can import into any wallet your like or just copy them down somewhere encrypted iirc.

Sweeping funds into electrum may denonymise you if you don't have tor enabled and the server collects logs. You risk linking your withdrawn funds to that electrum session too so parts 1 and 3 might be safer anonymity wise as you can sweep funds to multiple wallets and connect to different nodes.

All three can suffer privacy risks if you do them too quickly though too. Sweeping funds from chipmixer directly to electrum can mean your mixing is more likely to be traced. Waiting a random number of days (1-7) or adding additional steps can be ways to bypass this though if there's a particular worry - it'd already take a lot of effort to match your inputs to your outputs though if you withdraw immediately but depends on how much you deposit (the larger the deposit the easier it may be to be traced).

@LoyceV
Hello

Yes u right i mean Chipmixer and of course Import not Export. My fault.


The Answer is a little bit to common for me, especially for the difference ( if there is one ) between 2-3.
For my understanding 1 is almost clear  , u have to trust CHP and ure off the blockchain until ure spent the coins.
but may im wrong so Correct me if its the case  

But on 2-3 im not really sure if there is a difference.

And futhermore i think if ure get off the blockchain over chipmixer and coming back over an sweeping transaction u have still the anomymity gap between these ones or so i think its still a good anonymity level.

May an easy example will help to explain this further and to figure out if my assumptions are wrong or not.
  

best regards



 

Questions to clarify before answering:
1. Does "CHP" stand for a ChipMixer chip? Do you mean Import instead of Export?
2. I'm confused: you get the private key from chipmixer, you don't export it from Electrum.

Generic answer:
When sweeping a private key, it gets added to your wallet. If you already had coins in that wallet, they may get linked together when you make a payment and don't use Coin Control. The same can happen to your change later on. The Electrum server may also be able to link several of your addresses together.