If the mixer get's hacker or releases users data you will no longer be safe of course.
Sure not every mixer follows what the article in question stated. Nevertheless you have to be careless of what you are dealing with specially since it's your money involved.
If they are no longer safe, pherhaps in a term of how many addresses are there and how much hackers technology has evolved to get their hands onto your Bitcoins.
Topic: Article claims bitcoin mixers are no longer safe (Read 319 times)
1. The mixer will still help people to be hiding, and it still safe to use any mixer service available, but it depends on them about how they can be the good mixer which always protects their transaction.
If they are very good to handle every problem from many things, then the mixer will work without any problem.
2. Using 2 mixers will help to make one person anonymous, and it is hard to know from where the transaction goes.
3. The mixers will take their part to still hiding their customer identity so it will make the mixer can get a good reputation among the crypto user.
If they are very good to handle every problem from many things, then the mixer will work without any problem.
2. Using 2 mixers will help to make one person anonymous, and it is hard to know from where the transaction goes.
3. The mixers will take their part to still hiding their customer identity so it will make the mixer can get a good reputation among the crypto user.
If it's true then users must start looking for mixers with a good reputation and better services.
As for me, it has something to do with users who want to keep their transactions anonymous specifically those huge traders. Chipmixer is still the best choice if you want assurance.
As for me, it has something to do with users who want to keep their transactions anonymous specifically those huge traders. Chipmixer is still the best choice if you want assurance.
Well, it makes sense anyways.
Anyone with enough data could actually deanonymise the mixing. Bitcoin Blockchain is transparent enough to make this possible.
However there are some projects currently under development to improve anonymity on Bitcoin .
I guess they aren't out yet because developers try to avoid centralization and breaking of other blockchain ideals.
Anyone with enough data could actually deanonymise the mixing. Bitcoin Blockchain is transparent enough to make this possible.
However there are some projects currently under development to improve anonymity on Bitcoin .
I guess they aren't out yet because developers try to avoid centralization and breaking of other blockchain ideals.
I think it's not an easy question. Perhaps there are indeed some bad mixers that don't hide the wallet addresses well enough. After all, the article doesn't mention mixers like Chipmixer and Bitblender. I think that mixers are quite safe, especially if you also make sure you that your wallet address is not linked to your personal data.
The article writes that one should not trust mixers, argumenting it by the statement of the authorities. But how do you know if the authorities actually got the info the way they say they did? Maybe they don't want to reveal their source or method. And sometimes people just make stupid mistakes. For instance, Roth Ulbricht was caught not because of a fancy tracing methods, but because he was doing stuff in a public library and used his Gmail email with name and surname when first mentioning the Silk Road outside the DarkNet, if I am not mistaken.
So I think it's more about not making dumb mistakes or trusting people than worrying about legit technologies that help to hide identity.
The article writes that one should not trust mixers, argumenting it by the statement of the authorities. But how do you know if the authorities actually got the info the way they say they did? Maybe they don't want to reveal their source or method. And sometimes people just make stupid mistakes. For instance, Roth Ulbricht was caught not because of a fancy tracing methods, but because he was doing stuff in a public library and used his Gmail email with name and surname when first mentioning the Silk Road outside the DarkNet, if I am not mistaken.
So I think it's more about not making dumb mistakes or trusting people than worrying about legit technologies that help to hide identity.
Some mixers use different methods and it's something well know that some mixers are not so efficient. The article understood it that's why it used to target the "centralized mixers". There are still mixers doing a good job but yes you can also use 2 mixers if you want to be safer.
Also, if any of you remember this topic https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/breaking-mixing-services-5117328.
I remembered the topic and this what I think the forum should believe in but I hate the fact that some mixing company name were mentioned are listed without further proof. However, there are some certain step a users of mixer need to follow or error ones must avoid and if such step are not followed mixers companies are not to be blame. Also, if any of you remember this topic https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/breaking-mixing-services-5117328.
Meanwhile, I believe every mixing company that supported TOR are ok to stay anonymous.
It's been known for some time that bitcoins can be tracked even with the use of mixers. Perhaps the mixers add some complication for investigators, but they exhibit detectable patterns. I'd assume all bitcoin transactions are potentially trackable.
I disagree with what you said and statement made in the article about mixing company because the article seems to be use to target some mixing company just like how the 51% attack was used by competitor to devalue a coin. Although, we have some mixer who are actually not safe but I believe in the testimony made by a certain service users not those seen in article for some writers are giving out false information all in the act of adding more money to their wallet..Dont trust everything you see in an article.
Some mixers use different methods and it's something well know that some mixers are not so efficient. The article understood it that's why it used to target the "centralized mixers". There are still mixers doing a good job but yes you can also use 2 mixers if you want to be safer.
Also, if any of you remember this topic https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/breaking-mixing-services-5117328.
Also, if any of you remember this topic https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/breaking-mixing-services-5117328.
It's been known for some time that bitcoins can be tracked even with the use of mixers. Perhaps the mixers add some complication for investigators, but they exhibit detectable patterns. I'd assume all bitcoin transactions are potentially trackable.
I do not agree if all bitcoin transactions are tracked, because bitcoin was created with decentralized technology with the aim that people can transact freely without legal restrictions.
Maybe you mean tracking aims to overcome scammers that keep on increasing, but on the other hand functional bitcoin is lost.
Yes, some of the smaller mixer services might have exploits in their code, but most people are not using these services. The majority are going with the Mixers with a good track history for being secure, like ChipMixer.com. 
Yeah, first they did some analysis on a few mixers, not including Chipmixer and the other problem is that Chipmixer is not using the traditional way the others do. Your coins are already funded in chips well before you decide to send coins to the mixer, so tracking those might work but all they will see is that you have sent some coins, and following them will never get back to you.
I believe that bitcoin mixers are kinda like VPN service providers.They advertise their service as safe and anonymous,while the truth is that this is complete BS.Virtual private networks can track and store all your info and when CIA knocks on their door,they will be obligated to give them all that info.
The CIA will never come knowing at your door, they are not interested in this kind of things unless there is an external threat to the US security, the FBI will most likely be the one knocking (if you're in the us)
People who are very concerned with "anonymity" and "financial privacy" use more than one method to "hide" their true identity. If this was true, then you would have seen loads of arrests and announcements of criminals that used Bitcoin for criminal actions in the past.
Yes, some of the smaller mixer services might have exploits in their code, but most people are not using these services. The majority are going with the Mixers with a good track history for being secure, like ChipMixer.com.
Op seems to have failed to mention this point. I observed that most of the mixers that he mentioned are ones that I have never heard of before. I have personally used Chipmixer myself and could observe how it would be difficult to track my TXs. Yes, some of the smaller mixer services might have exploits in their code, but most people are not using these services. The majority are going with the Mixers with a good track history for being secure, like ChipMixer.com.
People who are very concerned with "anonymity" and "financial privacy" use more than one method to "hide" their true identity. If this was true, then you would have seen loads of arrests and announcements of criminals that used Bitcoin for criminal actions in the past.
Yes, some of the smaller mixer services might have exploits in their code, but most people are not using these services. The majority are going with the Mixers with a good track history for being secure, like ChipMixer.com.
Yes, some of the smaller mixer services might have exploits in their code, but most people are not using these services. The majority are going with the Mixers with a good track history for being secure, like ChipMixer.com.
Categorically, there shouldn't be any sort of panic from community members who know the integrity of the Mixer they used, as many of these Mixers are fooled mixers pretending that they are in full control through deceit. There are other mixers which has been tested and trusted, that might be a good use when it come to security.
I believe that bitcoin mixers are kinda like VPN service providers.They advertise their service as safe and anonymous,while the truth is that this is complete BS.Virtual private networks can track and store all your info and when CIA knocks on their door,they will be obligated to give them all that info.
Perhaps the same thing will happen with bitcoin mixers.
Perhaps the same thing will happen with bitcoin mixers.
I don't have that huge amount of bitcoin and there's no need for me to use bitcoin mixer. However, I do understand that some users use this kind of services for their own security, especially if you are holding a huge chunk of crypto in your wallet. There are a lot of bitcoin mixer that is offering their services and as others are developing tools to decrypt addresses which is mixed, I am sure people find new approach to blend/mix bitcoin addressess.
Bitcoin mixers, especially the obscure and unknown ones are sure to fall under the 'unsafe' category. As for the criteria of 'safety' being used in the article, it only mentioned a handful and not really all, and I know for a fact that Chipmixer uses a different approach in mixing apart from the methods of those included on the list.
Aren't most mixing srrvices centrally operated anyway?
It understandable to be skeptical about centrally operated tumblers, and AFAIK most of them (the tumblers) are centralized. Thus the anonimity rely on how they function. Here to see some research/discussion about this matter: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/breaking-mixing-services-5117328
Aren't most mixing srrvices centrally operated anyway?
I disagree that mixers aren't safe anymore because the article only mentioned some mixers. I haven't used any of those mixers but I think it's possible to create a different mixer an example I could give is ChipMixer.
Imo it depends on the mixers, if the two mixers you're using are similar to those above then it won't complicate things that much for them
Quote from: https://news.bitcoin.com/dont-trust-bitcoin-mixers-and-other-opsec-lessons-from-the-darknet/
Centrally operated BTC mixers of the sort referenced here include Mixertumbler, Bestmixer.io, Blender.io, Bitcoinfog, and Gramshelix.
Imo it depends on the mixers, if the two mixers you're using are similar to those above then it won't complicate things that much for them
I am not a big fan of Bitcoin mixers since I am very transparent with all of my Bitcoin transactions plus am not ashamed to say that I am not holding a big hoard of the cryptocurrency anyway. I know however some of my friends who are into mixers and so far I have no heard any complaints coming from them. Now, the question of safety is very valid because in the first place people are paying for these mixers and if they are not anymore providing what they are offering then they should initiate changes on their services in other words introduce the necessary changes. I am sure that these mixers are also watching the market closely and the technology they are using so maybe some statements or clarifications coming from these mixers can balance everything.
So the article only mentions some of the mixers as an example, not to be taken literally.
It understandable to be skeptical about centrally operated tumblers, and AFAIK most of them (the tumblers) are centralized. Thus the anonimity rely on how they function. Here to see some research/discussion about this matter: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/breaking-mixing-services-5117328
Quote
Centrally operated BTC mixers of the sort referenced here include Mixertumbler, Bestmixer.io, Blender.io, Bitcoinfog, and Gramshelix. There is no means of knowing which mixer the authorities succeeded in deanonymizing
Source: https://news.bitcoin.com/dont-trust-bitcoin-mixers-and-other-opsec-lessons-from-the-darknet/It understandable to be skeptical about centrally operated tumblers, and AFAIK most of them (the tumblers) are centralized. Thus the anonimity rely on how they function. Here to see some research/discussion about this matter: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/breaking-mixing-services-5117328
"no longer" is the part that i have problem with. not much has changed in blockchain analysis techniques, there are just more companies doing it and getting paid to. there has been some improvements in their ways but also there has been improvements in the techniques that mixers use.
as for some of the mixers mentioned in the article, there has always been all kinds of mixing services, some shady and unknown, some with bigger history and more trusted. but in the end you never have any way of knowing for sure what they really do and what kind of records they hold. using 2 or more of them doesn't solve much in my opinion either because bitcoin is not anonymous, if you want full anonymity then use an anon coin or ultimately switch to cash!!!
as for some of the mixers mentioned in the article, there has always been all kinds of mixing services, some shady and unknown, some with bigger history and more trusted. but in the end you never have any way of knowing for sure what they really do and what kind of records they hold. using 2 or more of them doesn't solve much in my opinion either because bitcoin is not anonymous, if you want full anonymity then use an anon coin or ultimately switch to cash!!!
I disagree that mixers aren't safe anymore because the article only mentioned some mixers. I haven't used any of those mixers but I think it's possible to create a different mixer an example I could give is ChipMixer.
Imo it depends on the mixers, if the two mixers you're using are similar to those above then it won't complicate things that much for them
Quote from: https://news.bitcoin.com/dont-trust-bitcoin-mixers-and-other-opsec-lessons-from-the-darknet/
Centrally operated BTC mixers of the sort referenced here include Mixertumbler, Bestmixer.io, Blender.io, Bitcoinfog, and Gramshelix.
Imo it depends on the mixers, if the two mixers you're using are similar to those above then it won't complicate things that much for them
Jump to: