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 554 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?
OP, did you see what you did? You made everyone fight over the same debate again. This topic will be another five page drama of people fighting over "who's right". Haha. 
Plus what is "pure AML"? AML stands for Anti-Money-Laudering. 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.
Plus what is "pure AML"? AML stands for Anti-Money-Laudering. 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.
Just a reminder guys, linking to mixers are forbidden on this forum, since the 1st January 2024.
Actually I'm personally very happy with this decision. It is good for the future of Bitcoin.
Just a reminder guys, linking to mixers are forbidden on this forum, since the 1st January 2024.
You can speak about mixers in general, but you cannot provide links to them.
I do not want anyone getting into trouble.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-list-of-official-bitcointalkorg-rules-guidelines-faq-703657 rule 34
You can speak about mixers in general, but you cannot provide links to them.
I do not want anyone getting into trouble.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-list-of-official-bitcointalkorg-rules-guidelines-faq-703657 rule 34
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
How can I mix Bitcoins with minimal fees? So that the output is pure AML. Is it possible to split the transaction into many small ones?
Assuming you found some technology that uses a large-enough UTXO set, which is essential for anonymity, it's most likely going to split the mix into cycles. Where in each cycle there are a few transactions that go through a bunch of addresses. So in between each cycle, you can change the amount to a smaller value.
Very basic example:
Code:
A - B - C - D - E - F
A transactions:
1 2 6
7
3 8
9
4 (decoy)
B transactions:
6 10 16
17
11 18 (decoy)
19
7 (decoy)
8 12 20
21
13 (decoy)
9 14 22 <-- your first amount is here
23
15 24 (decoy)
25
C/D/E transactions are similar to B except you can dynamically change the target amount in each step.
The decoy transactions go to other services, but not to destinations.
Each number is a transaction output, and it is assumed that when using this to make new transactions that additional, fresh inputs are also included in each tx that go to other places - utilizing CoinJoin.
F would be a finalizer where there is one more cluster of transactions before it finally hits your destination address. Which of the service is using bc1q addresses should also be a bc1q address, same applies for 1 3 and bc1p addresses.
In each transaction it can pay the lowest most reasonable fee to minimize cost offsets to the buyer, however this causes the mix to take a couple of hours at minimum.
Ideally we would make mixing as efficient as a hash function, where outputs are computationally impossible to trace.
How can I mix Bitcoins with minimal fees? So that the output is pure AML.
I don't see correlation between minimal fees and pure AML (as in "clean" coin). You might find mixer which claim you receive "claim" coin, but it can't be verified especially because each service may have different way to determine whether certain coin is "clean" or not.
Is it possible to split the transaction into many small ones?
It's possible by creating multiple mixing request, but that means you pay more for TX fee and fee imposed by mixing service.
How can I mix Bitcoins with minimal fees? So that the output is pure AML. Is it possible to split the transaction into many small ones?
There is no way to generate a transaction that will result in 100% positive AML record because blockchain analysis companies have bad algorithm and they have false positives very frequently.No one can't really guarantee you 100% positive AML, here are the things that you can do.
1. You can use mixers but as said, you have to trust them that they keep no-log policy and delete all of your data when you mix coins.
2. You can use coinjoin but do your research first. One member above me recommends you Wasabi but do your research at first. You have to do your research on every mixer and coinjoin wallet when you want to improve your privacy because some mixers don't delete their data, some coinjoin service providers partner with blockchain analysis companies and so on. Do your research and analyze what is okay and what is not okay for you.
3. Exchange BTC to monero and back then via decentralized exchanges. In this case you have to keep in mind many things, like, timing, amount of coins to make tracing very difficult and so on.
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?
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'm not lying, here's proof:
Destroying the session deletes chip private key.
Really fucking bad practice of ChipMixer to keep private keys, not gonna lie.
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.
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'm not lying, here's proof:
Destroying the session deletes chip private key.
Even my chips which I had in chipmixer service for which they claimed to "delete private" keys after 7 days or whatever, were seized/transfered. and these transactions took place good 3 months ago.
It seems that you are right, whoever had vouchers or chips was left without them. I checked some old wallets older than 1 year that only contained chips from CM, and they were all emptied. Yes, it's a bit stupid that I didn't spend them, but honestly I forgot about a few $ in those old wallets. It's really strange that it wasn't all deleted, but now we at least know where even 7GB of data came from.It was still there today morning and even when the news broke here;
I really can't believe this is an exit scam. The service seemed legitimate.
I'm really pissed off, and not because I lost money; fortunately, I had grasped that "don't leave coins to third parties" cliché. I'm so pissed off because I've been advertising and recommending this shit for months, in such a way that I'm practically part of this scam. And it's just feels awful.
It makes you question the integrity of the service you're currently carrying in your signature.
I'm really pissed off, and not because I lost money; fortunately, I had grasped that "don't leave coins to third parties" cliché. I'm so pissed off because I've been advertising and recommending this shit for months, in such a way that I'm practically part of this scam. And it's just feels awful.
It makes you question the integrity of the service you're currently carrying in your signature.
To all criminal users of former mixer Sinbad.io,
This is a collective warning issued by the Dutch Investigation Service for Financial and Tax Crime (FIOD) and the Dutch Public Prosecution Office.
Our investigation has uncovered illicit activities on this mixer platform and the logs obtained have compromised the anonymity of numerous users.
We urge all criminal users and admins of mixers to cease all unlawful actions immediately. Persistent engagement will lead to severe legal consequences. We are resolute in pursuing and prosecuting all involved in criminal activities.
Your anonymity is no longer assured. Law enforcement actions are imminent.
With Vigilance,
Dutch Investigation Service for Financial and Tax Crime (FIOD) and the Dutch Public Prosecution Office
This is a collective warning issued by the Dutch Investigation Service for Financial and Tax Crime (FIOD) and the Dutch Public Prosecution Office.
Our investigation has uncovered illicit activities on this mixer platform and the logs obtained have compromised the anonymity of numerous users.
We urge all criminal users and admins of mixers to cease all unlawful actions immediately. Persistent engagement will lead to severe legal consequences. We are resolute in pursuing and prosecuting all involved in criminal activities.
Your anonymity is no longer assured. Law enforcement actions are imminent.
With Vigilance,
Dutch Investigation Service for Financial and Tax Crime (FIOD) and the Dutch Public Prosecution Office
"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. How can I mix Bitcoins with minimal fees? So that the output is pure AML. Is it possible to split the transaction into many small ones?
"Mixing sites" are scams because you trust third parties with your data and with your coins, so what you want to do is use coinjoin to protect your privacy. 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).
Here's what a coinjoin transaction looks like: https://mempool.space/tx/d465033214fd2309dcce5a90c45fcaa788aa4394ee36debe07aad8d8a37907d2
Fees are very low, only 0.3% + mining fees. Any input in your wallet under 0.01 BTC is not charged the 0.3% fee.
Check the fee here: 2023 List Bitcoin Mixers Bitcoin Tumblers Websites
You can also convert bitcoin to monero and convert it back to bitcoin. You can use https://bisq.network/ or https://exch.cx/ for the conversion. If you want to use https://exch.cx/, use Tor browser for it.
You can also convert bitcoin to monero and convert it back to bitcoin. You can use https://bisq.network/ or https://exch.cx/ for the conversion. If you want to use https://exch.cx/, use Tor browser for it.
How can I mix Bitcoins with minimal fees? So that the output is pure AML. Is it possible to split the transaction into many small ones?
Jump to: