If you are looking for a legit person I know someone its not a joke no you can't reach them on telegram but if you want give you a num to text if they answer then they might be able help
I don't know what you are trying to do here, but op does not have to contact you or any other person to mix their coins or to achieve privacy, there are enough recommended privacy solutions to use. Please newbies do not contact this member. 
Topic: Bitcoin mixing (Read 586 times)
If you are looking for a legit person I know someone its not a joke no you can't reach them on telegram but if you want give you a num to text if they answer then they might be able help
I don't blacklist any UTXOs from my coordinator.
B-b-but, why on Earth would you allow SBF to coinjoin his coins. Weren't you of the opinion that he shouldn't be allowed to do anything? 
How can SBF coinjoin if he's chained to a boulder?
You have that backwards, every time you use Wasabi, you make blockchain analysis weaker because they are no longer able to track coinjoined funds for their clients.
This is probably why zkSNACKs funds their operations and entitles them to disapprove any UTXO they choose. Because they are pity of them going out of business so abruptly! 
I don't blacklist any UTXOs from my coordinator.
B-b-but, why on Earth would you allow SBF to coinjoin his coins. Weren't you of the opinion that he shouldn't be allowed to do anything? Whether a mixer is a "fake mixer", a "shady mixer" or a "reputable mixer" doesn't change the fact they custody your funds and data. Even if you use an onion link, the mixer still collects your transaction history
I agree that you can't prove they collect history, and it is a better practice to move onto decentralized alternatives. But claiming they do collect data without evidence holds the same water as claiming that every VPN provider is a honeypot and provides no privacy. Who is saying that a mixer can not be a fake mixer or a shady mixer? I did not see where I mentioned that. All I said was that a reputable mixing service should be used and that if you want to use the mixing service, that it is good to go for the .onion link which is more privacy that using the clearnet link.
Whether a mixer is a "fake mixer", a "shady mixer" or a "reputable mixer" doesn't change the fact they custody your funds and data. Even if you use an onion link, the mixer still collects your transaction history:
I'm going to stand by what I said: it was a bad practice from the side of ChipMixer, but it's not a flaw in the concept of centralized mixers, in itself.
If a service does everything correctly (including deleting private keys and any backups of them after handing them to the user), something like what happened to CM could simply not happen.
If a service does everything correctly (including deleting private keys and any backups of them after handing them to the user), something like what happened to CM could simply not happen.
It IS a flaw in the concept of centralized mixers: If you are okay with sacrificing ownership to custodians, why wouldn't you recommend a custodian that can't track their users, like ecash mints or a federated chain with CT enabled? Why wouldn't you consider it a flaw that "mixer sites" gain complete access to your financial history despite fully anonymous custodians existing?
@n0nce, I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why this isn't an obvious flaw. Here's an educational piece explaining how Chaumian eCash works: https://lconf.gandlaf.com/#/3
"Mixing sites" are scams because you trust third parties with your data and with your coins
Stop spreading false information. Mixers are not scam. He can use a reputable mixer. It will have onion link and he should use Tor to access the onion link. I will not say that you do not know what you are saying because you know about this very well, so I will say you should stop lying.I would recommend a mixer that is open source and reputable. If you can not check how the mixer is working you can definitely get scammed even if the mixing service is reputable. There are also a lot of "reputable" exchanges that suddenly closed and scammed a lot of people. So better to do some research and mix only small amounts from time to time.
To say that mixing services can not be shady is kind of shady in it self.
I would recommend a mixer that is open source and reputable. If you can not check how the mixer is working you can definitely get scammed even if the mixing service is reputable.
How can you verify the source code that is running on someone else's computer?
"Mixing sites" are scams because you trust third parties with your data and with your coins
Stop spreading false information. Mixers are not scam. He can use a reputable mixer. It will have onion link and he should use Tor to access the onion link. I will not say that you do not know what you are saying because you know about this very well, so I will say you should stop lying.I would recommend a mixer that is open source and reputable. If you can not check how the mixer is working you can definitely get scammed even if the mixing service is reputable. There are also a lot of "reputable" exchanges that suddenly closed and scammed a lot of people. So better to do some research and mix only small amounts from time to time.
To say that mixing services can not be shady is kind of shady in it self.
Wasabi specifically states that blacklisted UTXOs will not be allowed in the CoinJoin service. A topic of much contention here.
That's not a restriction on the Wasabi software, that's a ToS for a specific service. I don't blacklist any UTXOs from my coordinator.
This works as long as the users do not send those funds to questionable services where they can be traced again.
It's a cycle, not a decreasing line graph.
It's a cycle, not a decreasing line graph.
It doesn't matter where you send a coinjoined output, the recipient can't determine which coinjoin inputs were used to create it.
How is this making BA weaker when the blacklisting which you source from 3rd parties keeps the UTXO set constant through exclusion?
I don't know what you mean by "keeps the UTXO set constant through exclusion".
Wasabi specifically states that blacklisted UTXOs will not be allowed in the CoinJoin service. A topic of much contention here.
A coinjoin makes blockchain analysis weaker because multiple users spend their funds in the same transaction, hiding which portion of the funds belong to each specific user.
This works as long as the users do not send those funds to questionable services where they can be traced again.
It's a cycle, not a decreasing line graph.
How is this making BA weaker when the blacklisting which you source from 3rd parties keeps the UTXO set constant through exclusion?
I don't know what you mean by "keeps the UTXO set constant through exclusion". A coinjoin makes blockchain analysis weaker because multiple users spend their funds in the same transaction, hiding which portion of the funds belong to each specific user.
It depends on who is targeting you and how important you are to them, and given that chain analysis companies mostly rely on guesswork, you may be linked to the wrong "person" just because you were in the same round.
Chain analysis is probably the worst thing that happened to BTC since its inception, I'd steer clear from any wallet/service that sells itself as a privacy tool but yet directly funds chain analysis companies, a great example of such a service would be Wasabi, every time you use Wasabi you make a blockchain analysis company stronger and richer.
Chain analysis is probably the worst thing that happened to BTC since its inception, I'd steer clear from any wallet/service that sells itself as a privacy tool but yet directly funds chain analysis companies, a great example of such a service would be Wasabi, every time you use Wasabi you make a blockchain analysis company stronger and richer.
You have that backwards, every time you use Wasabi, you make blockchain analysis weaker because they are no longer able to track coinjoined funds for their clients.
How is this making BA weaker when the blacklisting which you source from 3rd parties keeps the UTXO set constant through exclusion?
It depends on who is targeting you and how important you are to them, and given that chain analysis companies mostly rely on guesswork, you may be linked to the wrong "person" just because you were in the same round.
Chain analysis is probably the worst thing that happened to BTC since its inception, I'd steer clear from any wallet/service that sells itself as a privacy tool but yet directly funds chain analysis companies, a great example of such a service would be Wasabi, every time you use Wasabi you make a blockchain analysis company stronger and richer.
Chain analysis is probably the worst thing that happened to BTC since its inception, I'd steer clear from any wallet/service that sells itself as a privacy tool but yet directly funds chain analysis companies, a great example of such a service would be Wasabi, every time you use Wasabi you make a blockchain analysis company stronger and richer.
You have that backwards, every time you use Wasabi, you make blockchain analysis weaker because they are no longer able to track coinjoined funds for their clients.
Are CoinJoin transaction truly private? What about the blockchain analysis projects that are around?
It depends on who is targeting you and how important you are to them, and given that chain analysis companies mostly rely on guesswork, you may be linked to the wrong "person" just because you were in the same round.
Chain analysis is probably the worst thing that happened to BTC since its inception, I'd steer clear from any wallet/service that sells itself as a privacy tool but yet directly funds chain analysis companies, a great example of such a service would be Wasabi, every time you use Wasabi you make a blockchain analysis company stronger and richer.
Are CoinJoin transaction truly private?
The coinjoins implemented by the 3 wallets I listed are truly private, the only exception is if one participant in a coinjoin has more liquidity than everyone else.
What about the blockchain analysis projects that are around?
A blockchain analyst could try to spy on coinjoins using a Sybil attack, but attempting this attack requires a lot of liquidity and fees.
Does this feature make Bitcoin private, or "mostly private"?
It depends on the coinjoin protocol and the wallet implementation, I explain the differences in detail here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/can-coinjoin-transactions-be-traced-busting-bitcoin-privacy-myths-5482818
Coinjoins are non custodial group transactions, you can gain complete privacy on your coins with BTCPay Server's coinjoin plugin, Trezor Suite's coinjoin account, or Wasabi Wallet (for desktop).
Are CoinJoin transaction truly private? What about the blockchain analysis projects that are around? Does this feature make Bitcoin private, or "mostly private"?
Although some mixers may turn out to be scam, it is false to say mixers are scam because they centralized.
If you go down this road, github, Amazon, Google, Apple, Visa, Binance, Coinbase, are all scams because they are centralized.
Centralized services have flaws, but this is how the world works. There are many centralized services in the world which are legit and useful.
If you go down this road, github, Amazon, Google, Apple, Visa, Binance, Coinbase, are all scams because they are centralized.
Centralized services have flaws, but this is how the world works. There are many centralized services in the world which are legit and useful.
It's a scam because the flaw that leaks your data to the centralized service is avoidable:
I'm going to stand by what I said: it was a bad practice from the side of ChipMixer, but it's not a flaw in the concept of centralized mixers, in itself.
If a service does everything correctly (including deleting private keys and any backups of them after handing them to the user), something like what happened to CM could simply not happen.
If a service does everything correctly (including deleting private keys and any backups of them after handing them to the user), something like what happened to CM could simply not happen.
It IS a flaw in the concept of centralized mixers: If you are okay with sacrificing ownership to custodians, why wouldn't you recommend a custodian that can't track their users, like ecash mints or a federated chain with CT enabled? Why wouldn't you consider it a flaw that "mixer sites" gain complete access to your financial history despite fully anonymous custodians existing?
@n0nce, I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why this isn't an obvious flaw. Here's an educational piece explaining how Chaumian eCash works: https://lconf.gandlaf.com/#/3
"Mixing sites" are scams because you trust third parties with your data and with your coins
Stop spreading false information. Mixers are not scam. He can use a reputable mixer. It will have onion link and he should use Tor to access the onion link. I will not say that you do not know what you are saying because you know about this very well, so I will say you should stop lying.Although some mixers may turn out to be scam, it is false to say mixers are scam because they centralized.
If you go down this road, github, Amazon, Google, Apple, Visa, Binance, Coinbase, are all scams because they are centralized.
Centralized services have flaws, but this is how the world works. There are many centralized services in the world which are legit and useful.
Some mixers had legal problems in the past, but mixers are not illegal by definition.
I agree that coinjoin might be better in many situations , because less trust in involved.
Plus what is "pure AML"?
I'd guess guaranteed success to pass any AML check.
If you're trying to avoid it but want to have some privacy back, use the Lightning Network and send the Bitcoins to yourself. That would be sufficient enough for most users.
What exactly do you mean? Creating new LN channel where both address/party actually refer to same owner?
If you have something minor to hide, you could truly use Lightning by actually opening a channel yourself if you want, or use it custiodially, but the point is because each Lightning Network channel is like a line in an abacus made of unsettled transactions connected with other nodes that may or may not have other connections to other nodes, when you send a transaction from a wallet to yourself using another wallet, it is relayed through the network and you receive outputs that are not connected to your "tainted" wallet.
Plus what is "pure AML"?
I'd guess guaranteed success to pass any AML check.
If you're trying to avoid it but want to have some privacy back, use the Lightning Network and send the Bitcoins to yourself. That would be sufficient enough for most users.
What exactly do you mean? Creating new LN channel where both address/party actually refer to same owner?
Jump to: