Topic: [CLS][banned mixer] Mixer Review#2| 6mBTC+50% OFF | Bonus 10mBTC & 10% OFF for ALL! (Read 3017 times)

Thanks you for the feedback, like I said I already filled out the Google form before the deadline meaning is didn't missed out the chances of receiving the code.

It does not work like that.
You can only use the 50% discount code :-)

You had deadline until 12th November. I waited more 4 days but I do not see anymore list on the spreadsheet. Which concludes me that not many have done the required task.

This campaign is officially close now.
Thank you everyone for participating on the both review campaign.
We are planning to launch the signature campaign soon.
Looking forward to work together with some of you.

Thank you [banned mixer] team.

Cheers.

Thank you Royse777 for reminder, I have just filled out the google form with my previously review link from phase 1, hope there won't be any offense for including my review link?
And again, I already had 50 percent discount code sent to me from phase 1 and if included to this 10 percent I will have about 60 percent discount code for mixing. Sorry to ask about this, is there any way this 10 percent can be converted to reward lets say like btc or usdt any amount I will so much appreciate it since I do not regularly use mixers to mix coin.
Apologies if my request gets you offset.

I guess you all are missing:
- The deadline to fill up the form.
I don't see any response yet on the spreadsheet.

Please have in mind that without filling up this form you will not receive the 10% reward.

Ref: my last post.

I'm very thankful to Royse and tumbler team for accepting me in their awesome review campaign. I have tested the tumbler mixer and posted my genuine feedback and review about it. I confirm that I have received my 50% discount code in PM. Thanks once again to Royse and tumbler team for giving me the opportunity to test one of the best mixers in Bitcoin world.

I confirm that I have received the code. Thanks!

Thank you, [banned mixer] Mixer and @Royse777 for finding me worthy of this 10% discount on your well-packaged service. I will use the mixer and give you my honest observations and recommendations. Best Wishes.

Thank You Royse777 and the Tumbler team for giving me the opportunity to test, review and finally giving me the 50% lifetime discount code.

[banned mixer] is my daily driver for mixing purposes. 

We have a situation, I almost forgot about the following term to be eligible for the 10% discount code. To make my job easier please fill up the form and submit it before 12th November. Failing to submit the form will disallow the eligibility of the 10% discount code.



The following users will receive 50% discount codes shortly via their PM
If you don't receive the code in the next few hours, then please remind me.

Cheers

Congratulations Ratimov for winining two time best reviewer in a [banned mixer] mixer review, it's not easy to make inquiring for first time and it became best among all and also make a second research about same mixer functions and also detect faults and became the best, so this is to say that you are good and before [banned mixer] itself or representative decide to award and recognise you as the best that means you add much effort to make sure you have detected the barriers and future barriers of [banned mixer] mixer so that they can easily fixed it put from the their customers, I like what [banned mixer] did for this review to hear from people experience of the website if it will be a faulty one in future or not, so that errors will be identified and fixed amicable before future generations faults, Congratulations again Ratimov

Congratulations to you Ratimov for making it the best althrough the first and second phase of the review, am sure the entire team were glad to see your fervent efforts being appreciated with such recognition, though i didn't make it to participate in the review campaign but made the list of those having a 10% discount just for applying which am also grateful for, we are all identified for a specific reason or role played and it's a privilege, we can all do more better because of the better days ahead.

Thanks to the entire [banned mixer] team and Royse, once again congratulations to the all time winner, Ratimov.

Hello everyone,

We're thrilled to announce that Ratimov has clinched the title for the best review in our recent  [banned mixer] Bitcoin Mixer Review#2 .
Kudos to Ratimov for insights that sparked some great improvements in our service!

A huge thank you to each of you who participated and shared your thoughts.
Your input is invaluable, and we're already on the job, making [banned mixer] even better.

Look out for an update later this week where we'll share a detailed roundup of the enhancements made, all inspired by your feedback.

Reward sent for group#2.
Tx: 2413c78c59c988a25001308c185131860e56ab42eee3a23413dc7ad0e00085fa

Ratimov, TryNinja I will PM your reward addresses to the management. Also, I will ask the management to announce the winner of the round#2 review campaign and they will send the reward for the winner too.

The 50% discount code for the participants will be sent via PM. 10% discount code for showing interest in this campaign will be sent via PM too. Eligibale members for 10% discount codes are below:
Thank you everyone for showing your interest in Trumber.io mixer and being a part of the campaign. Let's help the brand to become successful in the crypto space. A mixer is always needed to break the link between transactions which ensures our privacy and safety.

I will keep the thread open for Tumbler management to leave their final words.

Cheers,

All the identified issues have been fixed, and a couple of additional sentences have been added to the tasks. As always, a full report will be provided after all the revisions.




---> The traffic that clients send to our server cannot be decrypted without our private key. Mathematics...

<--- The traffic that we send to clients can only be decrypted with their "private client key". This key is stored in the client's browser environment and only for the duration of the session. Each client's browser generates a unique key pair.

Stealing client keys is only possible through a "heavy-handed injection" of malicious code during the proxying process by DDOS-Guard.

Furthermore, the attacker would need to manipulate "security headers". Our "security policy" at the header level prohibits any traffic transmission to external resources. This will also be very noticeable.

Such an attack is technically possible but theoretically implausible and highly impractical.

1. Injecting malicious code would be detectable.
2. No project would take such a reputational risk.
3. Such an attack cannot be sustained, at most, it could intercept some of the clients' public keys, which would be pointless.

The current protection is almost an ideal solution against MITM.

In addition to protecting against MITM, this technique poses significant barriers in:

- Hacker attacks
- DDoS
- Creating phishing sites
- Intercepting traffic in case of browser malware infection
- Data tampering and injections in case of browser malware infection

...

But we've also enabled a "paranoid mode"
We've created a "Bot" that periodically visits the site and checks the SHA-256 sums of the files passed by the DDOS-Guard proxy server.
In the event of data tampering, we'll quickly detect it and take action.

...

We are continuing to work on updates. In the coming days, a full report on the work done will be provided, and the winners of the second phase of testing will be announced.

[banned mixer] Mixer Review Program #2
Bitcointalk username: TryNinja

---

UX seems better compared to my first review, small things that together make the mixing experience smoother.

For my first mix, I created an order, solved the captcha (appearing more aggressively, which is good), and put my tumbler code from the last review. [Using Microsoft Edge, last version]

70.67% and delay of 8hr 15min to address A
29.33% and delay of 6hr 26min to address B

Sent:
0.0047 BTC

Service fee:
0.91% (Standard)

# Address A receiving transaction had:

1 input:
- bc1qlpktufgwtv7ayult334ewssnxmszns7yg6lkqk (0.00353598 BTC)

3 outputs:
- 1CkSahJ4b9FFbzfLCHydGo12RBn41tBWRi (0.00300858 BTC) *
- bc1qer0awjqghpzr244c4eqgzevna3f0tz8w7ydupg (0.00020992 BTC)
- bc1q8usavlu7htlfq38mp9lcntrqq8f3clth70rp89 (0.00028675 BTC)

fee:
- 18 sat/vbyte

* my receiving address

# Address B receiving transaction had:

1 input:
- bc1q06s29a4r5pc68uaw6w69utyx9xse33edu557aw (0.00147624 BTC)

3 outputs:
- 1JmfYgNK4uj3nMoegoVrB76RoW9taHxPmc (0.00124865 BTC) *
- bc1qamk6pyzda6gqt953jpa00tf5aklj2nqvepnxqr (0.00009356 BTC)
- bc1qn05uclsdpg7ee9xlpsc6zt4kjpspx8k73cz56l (0.00010701 BTC)

fee:
- 16 sat/vbyte

* my receiving address

- Looking at both txs, it seems obvious that the 1CkS... and 1Jmf... addresses are the receivers and the rest the "change". If each tx had another input to make the spendable amount greater, it could have sent my 0.003 and maybe another 0.0025 or so to another address of the same format (starting with 1...) so it hides out a bit. A third output with the same format (or even a different one) and also a greater amount makes it even greater.

- Each tx had a different fee (16 vs 18 sat/vbyte), a change (on purpose?) from the last time where both of my addresses had received coins with the same sat/vbyte fee. One tx was made at 7:20 PM and the other at 8:42 PM, so I can't say if two txs made at a closer time would use the same network fee. Anyways, if you didn't yet, make it so the recommended network fee have a randomized spread to make identifying your txs harder (i.e, a recommended fee of 14.52 ~ 17.85 sat/vbyte if the network suggests 15 sat/vbyte).
 

---

For the second mix, I used the tumbler code from my previous mix. [Using Vivaldi, last version]

100% and delay of 3hr 51min to address C

Sent:
0.0014004 BTC

Service fee:
1.81% (Premium)

# Address C receiving transaction had:

1 input:
- bc1qpkk9hmupzm38qjwsphuzekkwgstjhhp8pqkza8 (0.00242204 BTC)

3 outputs:
- 1EBP4gc9LHTPLxDmChb9YM6MBQY2d82cys (0.00117505 BTC) *
- bc1qcr069qk7sywgn33d6z2ymvkxm9v6qtt5gvg0aj (0.00058564 BTC)
- bc1qktjd9jwazszn74uh9rs40j0hks7p00arjapey9 (0.00063426 BTC)

fee:
- 16 sat/vbyte

* my receiving address

- Same 1 input, 3 outputs scenario. The change was also broken between 2 extra outputs, but my receiving address still received the greater amount (easier to detuct that it's the target address of the mix - $40 vs $20+$20).

- Fee was closer to one of the txs from the first mix (16 sat/vbyte). No fee with a broken value (i.e 16.25 sat/vbyte) yet, that could change.

- In all txs from both mixes, Blockstream's explorer says the txs saved 31% on fees by using native bech32 + no "privacy gotchas" that they cover.

- Both LoG were verified signed by the address on the website.

- Path from the sender to my receiver address seems to be:



First impressions tells me that one address controled by [banned mixer] sent a batch of coins to several addresses (all bech32), which then sent coins to two/hree other addresses, and then once again each sent to two/three addresses, and then to my address (besides the 2 changes). Which hop of two/three addresses includes a customer's receiving address just like my Address C at the end? I'm no expert to tell if that's enough to bypass the big eyes tracking the blockchain, but it's a lot better than NOT using a mixer, that's for sure.

I couldn't find a connection between my first mix and the second (i.e coins I sent to the first mix being used to pay my second mix, like what happened on the first review). That's good.

---

I saw that [banned mixer] implemented a RSA asymmetric cryptography algorithm to protect itself from MITM attacks, so I tried to bypass it. I spent the day reverse engineer the website (obfuscated) source code to "break" the encryption but I couldn't make it work. I'm sure it should be possible (after all, the client is OP), so I could try again when I have more time, but it wasn't ""as easy"" as my last attempt (where I at least found out how to generate the fud parameter ).

That also makes harder for people (like me) to snoop around and try to make requests on their own for DDoSing or hacking attempts.

Still, I'm not sure if that's enough to prevent DDoS-guard, Cloudflare, etc... from sniffing on your users. AFAIK, they could deliver a tampered front end that just sends the data (already decrypted with the user's private key) to their servers, isn't that right? Maybe I'm wrong about it since I'm no expert on asymmetric cryptography algorithms or exactly sure what they can do by being in the middle.

Screenshot of my attempt:

[banned mixer] Mixer Review Program #2
Bitcointalk username: khaled0111

---

UI/UX experience:
I've used few different mixers in the past so I've a small idea about how a mixer should look like and what to expect to see there (mixers work differently on the back-end but on the front-end, the mixing steps are almost the same). However, this is the first time I use [banned mixer]. So, the first thing I did was to open the website on different browsers (Chrome, edge, tor,,) to see if there are any glitches or anything like that but didn't notice any.

The design is simple and neat which is what you should expect from a service such as a mixer. Almost everything is there where it's supposed to be and understanding how the service works and what you are supposed to do to mix your coins is not that hard even for someone who is using the platform for the first time!

Some notes and suggestions:
- The dark mode is cool but I think it's a bit too dark! The contrast needs to be revised since some content is unreadable unless you increase the screen brightness.
- You use different colors for each new receiving address which is also good but some of those colors don't fit well with the too dark background.
- Everytime you click on a different (?) info buttons, a box pops up and overlaps the previous one and it's not obvious how to close them. This should be done automatically by clicking anywhere on the screen:

- On the "Enter your receiving address(es) form, I believe it would be better if the input field for each address was above its corresponding text label (for mobile btowsers) and to its right (for desktop browsers).

Mixing:
I made two mixing sessions. The first was with chrome browser on mobile and the second was with tor on desktop (windows).

Mix 1:
Browser: chrome
Device: mobile
Service type: basic
Amount: 0.001

I intentionally shose the receiving delay to be 0hr:0min to see if I'll receive the coins instantly as expected. The Anonymizing meter showed "weak" which makes perfect sense in this case.
Every thing went smooth. I didn't face any problem during the mixing process as everything was straight forward.
As soon as the deposit transaction got confirmed, the mixer sent the mixed coins to the receiving address I've provided earlier. The received amount was the same as what the Fee calculator showed.
The transaction fee was ~20sat/vb while mempool.space suggested ~ 16 sat/vb for fast confirmation so it was a reasonable fee rate not  overpaying.

However, the mixer used three inputs and two change addresses! I don't know if this was done in purpose as part of the mixing process or not but it will significantly increase the transaction weight.

Mix 2:
Browser: Tor
Device: desktop (win 10)
Service type: premium
Amount: 0.0011

For this session, I entered the tumbler code I got from the previous one to be sure I won't receive coins from my own address. For some reason, the website didn't recognize it as valid (the input box turned into red) but when I clicked on continue, it got accepted and I was redirected to the next page!

As for the first mixing session, this one went smooth too. I really liked how smooth it was to move the slider which is something I always struggle with on other websites.
The website loaded fastly although I used the onion link on tor!
After the mixing has ended, I received the mixed coins (exact amount) on my wallet.

Note:
- after providing the receiving address and clicking "continue", I realized I've forgotten to provide the tumbler code. I wanted to go back to the previous step but there was no way to do so. Clicking on the browser back button, takes you to the main page and you have to start the process from scratch!
It would be useful if the steps numbers on the top of the page were click able and allow you to switch between different tabs in case the user wanted to check or edit some information.


- on the receiving address field, a paste button or a qr scanner would be a nice addition.

For both sessions, I downloaded the letters of guarantee and verified their signature with no problems.
Also, I looked up the receiving transactions on a blockexplorer and went back few hops to see if there is any connection between the involved addresses but couldn't find any. So, I suppose the mixer works fine just as it's expected to be.

[b]Support:[/b]
I sent a message to customer support just to see how responsive they are. I waited few minutes without getting an answer then I realized I need to provide the letter of guarantee first! Not sure why this is required? What if someone have some questions and needs answers before he decides whether to use the service or not?

[b]Conclusion:[/b]
Overall, the the website design looks good but there is still room for improvement. The user experience was great and there isn't much to complain about. Mixing coins on [banned mixer] is straightforward and doesn't require any technical knowledge.

[banned mixer] Mixer Review Program #2
Bitcointalk username: Harkorede



This is my first review of the platform [banned mixer], If only I had joined the first review, I’m very certain I would have had much more to say about the functionalities and my personal user experience about the platform, but most of my observation have already been mentioned here and addressed as well, so my review might come somewhat short without making mention of what I’ve read and noticed from other reviews so far.

Firstly, I made use of two browsers for each of my mixings.


First mix:

Having read about the need for Javascript to be enabled on the user broswer for the site to function properly in the site’s FAQ’s page (I’ll come back to my questions on that later on), I used Tor browser + with external VPN (Private Internet Access) turned on to see if that would make my navigations on the site slower or lag a little bit, however, I had no problems whatsoever with navigating the site even though my WIFI internet speed wasn’t at its optimum as at the time of this first attempt.


Details of my first mix



Order: NFFQ****-1D****
Tumbler code: ********84256bf5034e23f*********
Receiving address: bc1q****hzahvt5j3j9lgp****gr2vmctxtea*****
Browser: TOR Browser + External VPN
Service type: Standard
Amount: 0.001 BTC

I tried to chose not the fastest result possible for my first mix, the security threshold was set at standard security, and I opted for 2 hours delay of the funds as well, while my receiving address was another address personally generated, after which I proceed to deposit on another platform for usage and there wasn’t any issue regarding where the coins from on the platform which I deposited them to.



My opinion on this is that most people don’t read this terms and conditions, I personally for a fact didn’t read the wordings on this page at all, I only checked both boxes without noticing it contains the most vital informations if not as much as my receiving bitcoin address, I would suggest that part of the underlined part of my screenshot above that contains the “Letter of Guarantee” text be highlighted distinctively, perhaps with a red text, I’m very sure that will draw a significant attention of any user, and there will almost no one just checking boxes without knowing its full implication.




This is a perfect page, and there is nothing I would rather have changed about this page, every detail is shown and specified in a very legible and user interface friendly manner, nothing can go wrong with anyone mixing on the platform, when they view this page.




I like the Order overview page too, however I think the text about when the other information deletes automatically and option to delete instantly looks a bit vague, it should be as clear, if not bolder than other text on the page, but not vague than others, if truly that’s an option you want users to consider whether or not they want to explore.

And the same thing applies to order pages where bitcoin is to be sent to the platform’s generated address, I believe those text should be highlighted boldly or in a red font which as I’ve aforementioned would be more noticable and obvious as intended.
 

Despite not maximizing all the security options for my first coin mix, everything turned out extremely perfect and there is not an iota of red flag ascertained to the received coins.






The order completion page brings me to the most important question about users privacy and anonymity, and it has to do with the tumbler code for next order which literally is means to ensure I’m not getting my coins back, if that is case, doesn’t that mean either the tx id or btc address is automatically associated with the tumbler code to ensure what coins belong to which address (user), is there any time frame for how long it can take for one to stand a chance for not being sent their own coins back without the necessity of using the tumbler code ?



—--------------------------------------------------------------


Details of my second mix





Order ID: ****J8WL-5U****
Tumbler code: *****898****6bf50658e3c63****
Receiving address 1: bc1q*****h5d9zftpc6tujpkmh*****ww28ht6p0ey36zye4uk***
Receiving address 2: 3*****9FehZ***rvhrn**ozM****
Service type: Premium
Browser: Opera (private window mode) + Opera inbuilt VPN
Amount: 0.00199104 BTC

For my second mix, I made use Opera in private window with its inbuilt VPN to test for speed and functionality as well, and I would say that I was not let down, the platform functions at optimum level of smoothness with any form of lagging whatsoever even while I had other Apps running at the same time.
However, the UX/UI (User Experience and Interface) is quite not so friendly for me compared to when I used TOR.


Reason being:

The page was unnecessarily too big for my screen, while I have my Opera set at default 100% zoom level,  while the information available on each page are very minimal that should easily contain a single page without having to scroll multiple times, without using a mouse or the laptop’s mouse pad, I’d to press the down arrow button multiple times to get to the end of each page, meanwhile the information on the footer doesn’t change but if there were significant information in some of the pages, it could easily be missed out. On the other hand, it’s easier to guess the end of the necessary relevant details and procedures to follow as they’re all within the white background image that significantly stands out from the native skyblue background at the top and bottom of each page, it’s somewhat strenuous having to scroll through each time I needed to input any details, I had to scroll back up there after again to double if the information I entered are correct, meanwhile the textbox are barely up to 4 in any page and should easily fit into a single screen-page without losing its legibility, for instance to get the image below and its entire details in a single screen-page, I had to put the zoom level at 33%, while for every other screenshot  that I didn’t do that for I’ll need 4-5 screen-pages to have this much information.


1. Order processing page screen page at 33%




2. Order processing page at default zoom level (100%)





3. Here is the total number of screens needed to view all the details of the order completion page at default 100% zoom level.







For the number 3 images: In my opinion, It’s pretty much easy for any person to never see the auto delete or delete now option, once they see that the mix is completed, the first image makes it seem like that’s all the information there is about that page.




To the mixing details; I chose payout to two different wallet addresses, but with a very short timing for the first payout and a little further for the other one, both address are my deposit address for different platforms entirely, one address is native segwit, while the other is p2sh segwit compatible (3****).

Both mixes turned out perfectly okay and there still wasn’t any problem at regarding the level of privacy about either of the transactions.




My conclusion:

1. Those are the details of both my mixing experience on the platform, the navigation was hasslefree, and the design is as sleek and smooth as anyone could ever ask of any modern platform. I have highlighted all the issues I encountered or not with each screenshot shared, the only biggest relevant one in my opinion would be making sure the display is the same across all devices or browsers especially PCs, I also tried to mix on a mobile phone an iPhone 12 pro, using safari running on iOS 17.1, and I’m of the opinion that the platform is more user friendly on safari than on a PC, because each page is very compact on safari, no wide margins whatsoever to the sides, and it’s easier to not miss out on any details on mobile compared to a PC (personal belief and opinion, which could subjective to my mobile device screensize or browser, I can’t say if that’s the case across all mobile devices).

2. On the FAQ page, there is a question “What is Tumblercode ?”


As I’ve asked earlier in the course of my post about the details that the tumbler codes carries, the highlighted part above isn’t explicit enough, it states that after each mixing the tumbler code is new, does that imply that I could get coins from my previous let’s say 5 - 10 mixes ago, and the only one excluded is the last or just concluded order,  or are previous information from one tumbler code carried over to the new code ?

[banned mixer] Mixer Review Program #2
Bitcointalk username: bitmover

I made three mixing sessions. As it is on the rules to make in different security levels, and I forgot that and made 2 on Premium, I had to make this third mixing on Standard level. This is why my review took a bit longer.

Browsers:

• Microsoft Edge Desktop
  Version 118.0.2088.76 (Official build) (64-bit)
• Firefox Beta Android
  Version 119.0b9

---

User Interface
I liked the dark mode. I always like to use it in all apps. However, the contrast is not ideal.

I checked this website, https://contrastchecker.com/ and it suggests that the contrast is not good, failing most checks. My suggestion is to make the font color clearer

Currently:
font color #60758e
background #040608

source: https://contrastchecker.com/?c=60758e&b=040608


If you use a clearer color such as #a0b2c9, all contrast tests will pass


Mixing


I made three mixing sessions. I forgot to make one standard mixing, and as it is on the rules to make in different security levels, I had to make this third mixing.

I entered a 10% discount code I received from the avatar campaign ( I saved the 50% one for later on. I will use those codes only once for privacy concerns, as Trofo mentioned). I also entered the provided code on the next one, and received the 10% discount on the second one as expected.



The third mixing had zero delay. The coins came to my wallet almost immediately (with a good fee per byte, no overpay. (median block fee rate)

Discount codes are being multiplied:
I received a promo code with 10% discount in the avatar campaign. I used it once, and then I received a new code to use in the next session.
The new received code worked with 10% discount (just tested).

However, the third code I received, for the third mixing, didn't receive any discount.

I don't know if this behavior is intended or not. Might be worth checking it out.

Interface could be improved.
I can barely see the Order ID and the Letter of guarantee download.



Suggestion: Letter of guarantee should be download automatically after 2-3 seconds of page load. Additionally, Order ID and  Letter of guarantee should have better contrast or some kind of emphasis in the text.

My second suggestion is about the minimum value. 0.001 BTC is not that low for developing countries.

Replace by Fee (RBF)

I was forced to use replace by fee. My mixing transaction went through with 3 sat/byte. However, there was a bump in fee rate when I just made my second one with 3 sat/byte again.

I made a new RBF transaction using electrum, increasing the fee rate to 20 sat/byte. The [banned mixer] system had no problems with that transaction, which made me a lot satisfied.


Conclusion


I liked the button redirecting to bitcointalk, asking people to write a review. It is a way to get in touch in case of problems. Good for community support.

The idea of using those codes connects the sessions, and that still worries me. As it is fully optional, I don't see a problem (as someone paranoid like me can just ignore it).

I took a look at all my transactions from the e mixings and I wasn't able to find any  links in those coins. all the coins I sent to them still haven't moved yet.

---

Some interesting comments I would like to address, from other reviewers:


This is an interesting observation, and a valid concern. Certainly the discount code is something that can identify your session.

I agree that the discount code is not a good practice, and if anonymity is the focus, one should really give up the discount, as there is some trust involved.
Or, one could just save the discount code to use only once.


I would say that you would be risking your own reputation as you agreed to the terms of the campaign when you joined it.

[banned mixer] Mixer Review Program #2
Bitcointalk username: joker_josue

---

#INTRO
Since this was their first time using the platform, I cannot assess what changes were made before this second phase of revisions. Therefore, I tried to focus on how the platform itself works, based on my previous experiences with other mixes. I also tried to understand how the site works and situations that can be improved for Tumbler users.

All tests carried out were carried out on a computer with original Windows 11 and with all updates, as well as the browsers used (Chrome and Edge), on a fiber internet connection with 500MBits of speed.

#WEBSITE
I found the website modern and with a lot of information about the mixing service, with clear and easy-to-understand information. We easily find information about /fee]service costs, with a button directly in the top menu, and I think this is very good.
 
There is also a very complex /faq]FAQ available that answers many questions about the platform and what to do in the most varied situations that may arise.
Suggestion: Since there is a wide variety of types of questions answered in the FAQ, I suggested the implementation of subtopics, allowing people to go more quickly to the topic they want to obtain information about. It could be divided into topics, such as: Info Tumbler (response about the website); Mixing (answer about how the mix is made); Problems (answers about problems that may occur), among others.

Another point that I found interesting was the way Tumbler provides support, giving the user the possibility of contacting the service team anonymously.

Suggestion: I noticed that whenever the support pop-up opens, the user is automatically assigned a name - which I think is a good thing. But, I got the idea that it is always the same name given "John Doe". Wouldn't it be interesting and easier for you to manage support if the automatically assigned name was different every time? Maybe this can be done and I don't know, but here's a tip.

Although the site is responsive, and has the button to start the mix in both the menu and the initial header, in smaller resolutions this button is no longer visible.

Suggestion: It could be interesting somehow, in smaller resolutions, to have a button at the top of the page. This allowed the user to not have to click on the menu button or scroll to see the mix button. This would speed up the use of the website on any device.

On the home page, in the "What is Tumbler?" allegedly there is a video, but when you click play nothing happens.
Suggestion: Is it something that is still in development? If so, it would be a good idea to give that indication or remove it from the website until it is ready. If it is a bug, you should check the situation.


#MIX 1
Date: 28/10/2023 12h30 UTC +1
Browser: Chrome - Clearnet
Security level: Standard fee 2.5%
Delay: 4h
Order: QDRD675K-2IDR0H

When starting the mix, the first thing you have to do is fill out a captcha. Although I didn't see a problem with that, I noticed that it took several seconds (enough to have noticed) for the captcha to appear and then to be validated.

Next, the settings we want to use in our mix appear - I used them as already mentioned. In the "Fee calculator" option, I detected a bug, which despite being irrelevant to the operation of the mix, can be annoying.
When you write a value that you want to use and it is not the most suitable for privacy, an alert appears - something that I really liked.

But, when you change the value, the pop-up symbol disappears, but it remains on the page, and no matter where you click or scroll, it doesn't leave the page.

Suggestion: It would be good to review this situation, because it can be annoying, as the only way I managed to remove the pop-up was to use the calculation value where the alert appears and click on the symbol again, or continue the mixing process.

The next step is a page where you have to approve the terms of service, remembering the conditions under which it is used. A very positive aspect, in my opinion.


Then we have the page with all the information about the mixing process, deposit address, time and point at which the mixing process is, the possibility of downloading the letter of guarantee, and the overview of the order which tells the value which will be received after all fees have been paid.

At the end of the process, we are given the code for future mixing so that the coins already sent are not used and we are informed of the txid of the transaction.

Blockchain Analysis: I'm not an expert in blockchain analysis, but I decided to try to understand how the mixing chain is made, by looking at the Tumbler mix transactions. I noticed that I sent the BTC to an address that had that balance and it was not sent anywhere. Well, maybe other mixing systems also work like this, I never took the time to research, I just wanted to do it in this case. For me, not being an expert, I found the method very interesting.


#MIX 2
Date: 29/10/2023 15h50 UTC +0
Browser: Edge - Clearnet
Security level: Premium fee 3.9%
Delay: 4h
Order: 54SQKKKE-FRPWDY

Overall, it seemed like the site loaded slightly faster on Edge. Even the captcha loading time, although it also took a few seconds, was slightly faster than in Chrome. On the other hand, I had the feeling that it took a little longer to go from step 3 (terms) to 4 (mix progress).

The bug, already mentioned, related to the privacy alert pop-up based on the amount to be sent, remained. Otherwise, the process proceeded normally, with behavior equivalent to mix 1.

It should also be noted that at the end of the process, in addition to what has already been mentioned, the page also presents the code to be used in the next mix, with the aim of avoiding receiving coins already sent again. As well as a button to start a new mix.

And also on this page, we are informed that the information from this mix will be automatically deleted (this information was also available in the previous test).


Blockchain Analysis: I noticed that the BTC received came from an address that had not been used for 3 days. But when I did mix 1 at the Standard level, the BTC received came from an address that hadn't been used in 4 days. As I said, I'm no expert in blockchain analysis, but I thought that the mix in Premium makes more sense, with BTC coming from an older address than in Standard. Perhaps this element is irrelevant to the mix, either way, this information is here.


#MIX 3
Date: 30/10/2023 20h40 UTC +0
Browser: Chrome - Clearnet
Security level: Basic fee 0.4%
Delay: 0h15
Order: C1ODVHYF-75QO6Z

I decided to take another type of approach, which was to directly compare Tumbler with another mix, something I had already done with other mixing services. To make this comparison, I chose to use the Yomix service. For this test, I used the minimum configurations of both services: Tumbler (Security level: Basic fee 0.4% + 0.0002 per output address); Yomix (Service Fee: 0.700% + 0.00002673 per output address). Bitcoin was sent at the same time to the address of each mixing service, in the same transaction via Electrum, in equal amounts (0.001BTC minimum acceptable for both platforms).

After sending the BTC, the Yomix service detected the sending of money more quickly, while Tumbler took a little longer. But this is probably related to the block explorer that each service uses. Both services were effective within the defined delay, as I received the mix from each service at the same time, that is, in the same block.

Blockchain Analysis: Once again, as I am not an expert, I took a quick look at the transactions of each service, I got the feeling that it is easier to understand that bitcoin comes from Yomix than from Tumbler. This is because Yomix uses P2SH addresses and Tumble uses SegWit addresses. So, as it is increasingly common to use SegWit addresses nowadays, transactions end up going unnoticed. But, that might just be my perception, and it's probably an irrelevant detail.


#FINAL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Overall, I enjoyed using the [banned mixer] mixing service. I found the site simple and easy to use, with relevant information and practical to configure, even for those not used to using this type of service. With the different levels of security proposed, they all seemed to me to be quite viable for what is intended. I got the idea that the site is slightly faster on the Edge browser than on Chrome. Although Yomix has lower rates, I think Tumbler becomes more effective in terms of mixing objectives.

Suggestions:
- In the "Fee calculator" option, in step 2, the value appears blank. I suggested that the minimum value be set by default, which can then be adjusted by the user;
- When we wait for the mixing to be done, in step 4 "In progress", there could be a sound signal each time the process moves to the next mixing phase (with the user being able to deactivate it). This allowed, if the user keeps the browser window open, to always know that a phase of the process has been passed;
- It is possible to create a mixing profile, where the user creates a certain configuration (fee, delay, addresses, etc.). In other words, the user created a txt file, following certain parameters with necessary information, which would then simply be sent to the website and the mixing process would begin. I don't remember seeing such a feature in any other mixing service, but it could be useful for those who use mixing a lot;
- The discount code and the code from previous mixes are placed in the same field, this is no longer practical if the person wants to use both. I think it could be useful to have separate fields for each type of code;
- Still related to the mixing code, from what I understand, it is only possible to use one code at a time. How does it work if the person has two codes that have not yet been used, and only wants to use them in a third mix? It could be useful to have the option to add more than one mixing code.

[banned mixer] Mixer Review Program #2
Bitcointalk username: Yatsan

---

User Interface review:

---

Upon visiting the website, it's immediately noticeable that the interface is clean and crisp. The loading time is exceptional compared to other mixers. The animations are smooth, and it’s noteworthy that they synchronize perfectly with the scroll speed without any glitches. These things are a plus for the website’s overall speed and smoothness.



I also noticed some issues. The first is with the "What is Tumbler?" video, and it’s currently not working. My suggestion would be to temporarily remove it to maintain the site’s professionalism and aesthetic appeal until the video content is ready for display.



There’s also inconsistency in the size of the social media logos presented (Bitcointalk and Twitter). Their current appearance is somewhat disorganized. My suggestion is to align those logos with the Tumblr theme first and fix the sizing before adding them to the website.



In terms of branding, the website presents itself well. However, from an artistic standpoint, it seems to lack a unique branding identity. Despite its good looks, the website appears somewhat generic when compared with other mixers that do have a strong branding identity.

In conclusion, the website does a good job in various aspects, particularly in functionality and basic design elements, but could benefit from improvements in video content display, logo uniformity, and a unique branding approach to elevate its overall charisma and user interface.

---

Mixing Review:

---

Mix: #1

Browser: Brave v1.59.124

Security Level: Premium

Service fee: 4.56%

Amount Sent: 0.0015

Time sent: 16:24

Amount/Time Should Receive:

Wallet 1: 0.00040516 should receive around 18:27 (2hrs 3mins)

Wallet 2: 0.00021214 should receive around 19:38 (3hrs 14mins)

Wallet 3: 0.0002143 should receive around 20:37 (4hrs 13mins)

Amount/Time Actually Receive:

Wallet 1: 0.00040516 received at 19:02 (2hrs 38mins)

Wallet 2: 0.00021214 received at 19:53 (3hrs 29mins)

Wallet 3: 0.0002143 received at 20:49 (4hrs 25mins)




User Experience for the First Mix: Everything proceeded as planned, and all aspects were as basic as they should be. There were no issues whatsoever, ensuring that the coins were properly mixed. Delete immediately is a huge plus for me also.

---

Mix: #2

Browser: Tor Browser

Security Level: Standard

Service fee: 2.13%

Amount Sent: 0.001621

Time sent: 00:13

Amount/Time Should Receive:

Wallet 1: 0.00138647 should receive around 07:12 (6hrs 59mins)

Amount/Time Actually Receive:

Wallet 1: 0.00138647 received at 07:18 (7hrs 5mins)




User Experience for the Second Mix: Everything is still smooth on my second mix and all goes according to plan, no red flags and the service does its thing. However, after my mixing experience, I tried my best to trace and track my sending address on-chain but had no luck connecting it.

---

Overall Evaluation and Recommendations

---

Letter of Guarantor:
I strongly recommend making this a mandatory requirement rather than an optional one. I don’t see any downside to doing this. Doing so would reduce the hassle to users who forgot to download it.

Mixing time:
All timestamps are respected, with minor adjustments made based on blockchain confirmations. This performance is very good, especially when compared to other mixers.

Mixing fee:
Expensive compared to competitors. At its current price, I will not use it, even though it’s a good mixer. There are many other mixers that provide the same level of security for half the price. My suggestion is to lower the price to make it more competitive

Discount code:
What’s stopping me from sharing the discount code here on the forum or any other social media website? If I share it and other users use it, will my address or my identity be linked to it? Does this mean you guys are storing my data? My suggestion is to simply disable the discount code altogether and lower the mixing fee entirely.

Final Thoughts:
For my overall user experience on mixing with Tumblr, it’s 5/5 no doubt with that. the platform excels with its user-friendly interface and robust functionality. However, the pricing is a deal breaker for me, for the amount that I spent on my first and second mix I would rather proceed with a competitor. I recommend reviewing and adjusting the pricing strategy to become more market-competitive. Best wishes for the continued and future success of your platform!