Topic: BTC: cutting the trace (Read 339 times)

So I guess the non-reputable trader has to begin first the trade, face-to-face, and then the maker can settle it once he reaches home?

It wasn't bisq, they had just discussed it online, and said to meet to exchange.

And having a good reputation as a P2P trader allows you to bring in more customers, be trusted with larger trades and more volume, and have rates which are more in your favor.

Why was the bitcoin not in escrow?

Building a reputation is a must for the merchant, because that's what usually draws the customer.

There's been a case in my local board wherein the OP got ripped off that way. The taker just took the cash and left.

People buy goods and services face to face billions of times a day around the world, and the vast majority of transactions proceed without issue.

Maybe you are right. It doesn't exist in the sense that 1 BTC is 1 BTC, all the BTC has the same look but it's a true fact that someone may get in trouble if they use input that they received from a stolen fund from a hacker. They are not the hacker, they haven't stolen but they have exchanged something with him and received that input. Won't it get them some hassle?

That currently works only because Bitcoin is not widely accepted by merchants, so regulators simply couldn't enforce stupid regulations on everyone.

The only remaining possibility then would be to meet each other live in person with Cash Fiat and Crypto.

Precisely. Just use bitcoin peer to peer without going through a centralized third party

You can absolutely avoid them totally. I've been buying/selling/trading/using/saving/spending bitcoin for years. I'd wager I'm in the top 1% of bitcoin users in terms of actually using bitcoin as a currency, almost daily. Every single one of my coins has been mixed, coinjoined, or otherwise obfuscated. I have literally never once had a problem with someone refusing one of my coins or demanding KYC or any other such nonsense, precisely because I refuse to do business with anyone who attacks and undermines bitcoin's very existence by treating it as non-fungible.

They are not the hacker, they haven't stolen but they have exchanged something with him and received that input. Won't it get them some hassle?

Well, the problem is with centralized services only.

Please stop promoting the idea that taint exists. I consider making people believe it exists an attack on Bitcoin, and it may very well be the only way for governments to stop Bitcoin from succeeding. Don't fall for it.

I sure don't like this, but closing my eyes won't change the fact that people can run into problems if someone catches them with coins coming from some hacks and exploits.

You can absolutely avoid them totally. I've been buying/selling/trading/using/saving/spending bitcoin for years. I'd wager I'm in the top 1% of bitcoin users in terms of actually using bitcoin as a currency, almost daily. Every single one of my coins has been mixed, coinjoined, or otherwise obfuscated. I have literally never once had a problem with someone refusing one of my coins or demanding KYC or any other such nonsense, precisely because I refuse to do business with anyone who attacks and undermines bitcoin's very existence by treating it as non-fungible.

Try telling that to all the people who are using shitcoins like ethereum, that now have 52% of all blocks being OFAC compliance, it's growing all the time according to mevwatch.info, and now it has built in censorship for transactions!

I sure don't like this, but closing my eyes won't change the fact that people can run into problems if someone catches them with coins coming from some hacks and exploits.

One solution is to stop using centralized exchanges and services, that will reduce potential problems, but you can't avoid them totally.

Here's an analogy:

I am a merchant. You want to buy some things from me. You try to pay with cash. I say "I cannot see the full history of this cash, so I refuse your money". So instead, you tap your debit card. I say "I cannot accept this money without knowing the full history of it". I demand access to your bank account so I can see where all your money comes from. You leave and come back with your bank statements, but I don't like what I see, so I refuse payment. You then try to pay with PayPal. I demand access to your PayPal account so I can see where all your money comes from. You unlock your PayPal account on your phone and hand it over for me to look at. This PayPal money looks OK to me, so I accept it. You then leave the shop and start telling all your friends "Make sure when you shop there you have all your bank statements with you so the merchant can look at them, and make sure none of your money comes from anywhere except your employer, since they can't trace those funds." Your friends all look at you like you are crazy, and then simply choose to shop with the merchant next door who doesn't do any of this nonsense.

Whenever this situation comes up, with the discussion of centralized exchanges and privacy, it always seems that the default position is "Sacrifice all your privacy and let people spy on you so that you can use a centralized exchange". In any other financial situation that would be seen as utterly crazy, as I've just shown above, but for some reason with bitcoin people just accept this nonsense? The problem here is not mixers, or coinjoins, or Monero, or any other privacy technique - the problem here is centralized exchanges. If you don't want a centralized exchange to seize your coins, then don't use a centralized exchange. There are plenty of decentralized exchanges to choose from.

The logical position when faced with entities which are stealing coins is not "I should bend over backwards and sacrifice everything to hopefully mean they don't steal my coins!", but rather to simply not use the entity which is stealing coins.

Welcome to the crypto main stream narrative, I hope you like it

I sure don't like this, but closing my eyes won't change the fact that people can run into problems if someone catches them with coins coming from some hacks and exploits.

One solution is to stop using centralized exchanges and services, that will reduce potential problems, but you can't avoid them totally.

Please stop promoting the idea that taint exists. I consider making people believe it exists an attack on Bitcoin, and it may very well be the only way for governments to stop Bitcoin from succeeding. Don't fall for it.

Given, there was no data collecting at the time I made the switch from BTC into ETH and back, then the only possibility to reconstruct the trace between the two blockchains would be ...
-the point of time and
-the amount of the coin (together with the coin market price)?

Right?

So if someone knows, that a particular BTC address is mine, and then I make some transfers to another BTC address of mine and only then make the switch to ETH, this person does not know, until which BTC address the BTC's are still under mine possession.

First, using mixer has a chance of getting dirty bitcoin in return regardless of mixer is legal or illegal in a place. You don't know the origin of the bitcoin. I can't remember any mixing site which ensure giving clean bitcoin, newly mined bitcoin. Of course, there's a chance. However, people using mixer mostly use to cut the trace.

Second, you said BTC do not have to depend on altcoin. There's no need if you don't want to cut the trace but if you want, you may get interested to what OP said. Converting them to XMR as said above, and then once again converting them to BTC. That's what theymos suggested too besides using a mixer, for a decent mixing.

First, using mixer has a chance of getting dirty bitcoin in return regardless of mixer is legal or illegal in a place.

You don't know the origin of the bitcoin.

I can't remember any mixing site which ensure giving clean bitcoin, newly mined bitcoin.

There are multiple types of services:
~
Second - newly minted coins. You deposit some funds and you receive "clean, newly minted coins fresh from miners genesis block". Good part is newly minted coins out of coinbase (not this one) should have no history and should be accepted by anyone accepting Bitcoins. Bad part is that none of services that advertises by that does that.

Bitcoin do not have to depend on any other coin before you can have privacy while using it, you will need to use a mixer sometimes to maximize privacy.

According to Chainanalysis:

So if someone knows, that a particular BTC address is mine, and then I make some transfers to another BTC address of mine and only then make the switch to ETH, this person does not know, until which BTC address the BTC's are still under mine possession. So he also not knows, from which address the owner has changed. But this would be the point, where I would have switched my BTC into ETH and this person would have to search a suitable corresponding transaction on the ETH blockchain.

Or do I miss anything?

There are people that use Bitcoin mixer to cover the origin of there Bitcoins with a veil.

I will never make this, because this would make my BTC suspect. And there is a risk to make my BTC's dirty.

But here is my technical question:
When we change our BTC into another crypto and after change them back into BTC, I guess in this case it would no more be possible to trace back the origin of the  origin BTC.
Am I right? Or do I miss anything?

If I am right: Why do people use BTC mixer? Isn't changing BTC into another crypto and change them back, not the much better solution to cut off the trace?

No, not at all. Given that both Bitcoin's and Ethereum's blockchains are completely public, anyone can look back at any point in the future and try to link your transactions together.

They can look for an ETH transaction of an identical value to the BTC transaction you made occurring around about the same time, and then be able to make a reasonable guess as to which ETH are now in your possession.