[privacy] How many Bitcoin chips are out there?

DaveF

legendary

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6320

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: LoyceV on December 16, 2022, 05:26:12 AM

Quote from: DaveF on December 12, 2022, 10:29:55 AM

Debugging software can be fun. :-)
And the things that take hours / days to run before giving an error are even more fun :-)
Or not.....

I tried again:
Image loading...

This is the total of all address types. See tmp.loyce.club/chips for the raw data.
People love round numbers Cheesy

Yes we do vaguely remember something from when I was back in school about humans being hard wired to deal with it better.

Makes you wonder how many of these .1 .25 ans other round numbers really are collectables. I know I mentioned that I have made a bunch over the years if I did it then I'm sure 100s of other people did too.

Along with all the other cold storage type things that have come out over the years.

-Dave

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: DaveF on December 12, 2022, 10:29:55 AM

Debugging software can be fun. :-)
And the things that take hours / days to run before giving an error are even more fun :-)
Or not.....

I tried again:
Image loading...

This is the total of all address types. See tmp.loyce.club/chips for the raw data.
People love round numbers Cheesy

ChipMixer

sr. member

Activity: 456

Merit: 956

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1935098

Quote from: DaveF on December 12, 2022, 10:29:55 AM

Yes, but just pointing out that at least with things like BTC / crypto in general .01 or .0025 or anything like that just seems to be a bit more what people are expecting then 0.128

When ChipMixer was created 1 mBTC was 1 Pound. You want to mix 60 Pounds - you deposit 60 mBTC. Your largest chip is 32 mBTC. How much is it worth? 32 Pounds.
Can you deposit .0025? How much mBTC is that? 2.5 mBTC? Then you cannot because 0.5 mBTC will be donated.

There are chips called "common chips" sized 250 mBTC, 500 mBTC, 1000 mBTC (1 BTC). You can "commonize" 256 mBTC into 250 mBTC while donating 6 mBTC.

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: hZti on December 12, 2022, 03:11:40 PM

I have many addresses with the amounts that you state above and none of them is supposed to be a chip.

That's the beauty of it: anyone can make chips. You can't even know if they came from ChipMixer or not.

hZti

hero member

Activity: 1022

Merit: 642

Magic

Quote from: LoyceV on August 23, 2022, 06:07:42 AM

[
I took Blockchair's Bitcoin data, and used the following assumptions:

Any address with a deposit of 0.001, 0.002, 0.004, 0.008, 0.016, 0.032, 0.064, 0.128, 0.256, 0.512, 1.024, 2.048, 4.092 or 8.196 BTC can be a chip.

Sorry maybe I miss something here, but I have many addresses with the amounts that you state above and none of them is supposed to be a chip. They can be change addresses or addresses that were used for one specific transaction. I get the data that you show, but as far as I understand the criteria on how a "chip" is recognized is a bit imprecise.[/list]

DaveF

legendary

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6320

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: LoyceV on December 12, 2022, 09:55:16 AM

Quote from: DaveF on December 09, 2022, 10:21:26 AM

I understand the 1 2 3 8 16 32 64 numbering.

But it makes you wonder why CM did it. I am sure there are other BTC0.128 chips out there, but I would imaging that there are several orders of magnitude more addresses with BTC0.1

Just for anonymity using more common amounts would be logical. With that in mind @LoyceV how difficult would it be to see how many BTC0.1 BTC0.2 BTC0.5 BTC1.0 and BTC2.0 addresses that meet the criteria.
i.e. I don't care about an address with BTC1 if it got 4 deposits go get there, so the same as how CM would have done it vs their amounts.

I could probably download your data and have one of the programmers I deal with whip something up, but if you have something close to it already it might not be worth it to have them do it.

Well, that's disappointing: I don't know what happened, but my output data isn't exactly the same as I got last time. I replaced some of the values (0.128 turned into 0.1, etc.), so I can't compare all data now. I was hoping to reproduce the same results, but also don't want to dive in deeper so I can't tell what went wrong. The numbers I checked were about 40% higher.
That being said, it's very clear there are much more "chips" with round numbers. I'll run the data again with a more complete data set, but it's going to take a while again.

Debugging software can be fun. :-)
And the things that take hours / days to run before giving an error are even more fun :-)
Or not.....

Quote from: ChipMixer on December 11, 2022, 06:39:45 PM

1 BTC chip = 20 shilling chips
1 shilling chip = 12 pence chips
1 pence chip = 2 halfpennies chips = 4 farthings chips
may use half and third and quaret farthings if BTC price go up

Yes, but just pointing out that at least with things like BTC / crypto in general .01 or .0025 or anything like that just seems to be a bit more what people are expecting then 0.128
Not saying one is better then the other, just at least in my view it is what people are expecting.

-Dave

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: DaveF on December 09, 2022, 10:21:26 AM

I understand the 1 2 3 8 16 32 64 numbering.

But it makes you wonder why CM did it. I am sure there are other BTC0.128 chips out there, but I would imaging that there are several orders of magnitude more addresses with BTC0.1

Just for anonymity using more common amounts would be logical. With that in mind @LoyceV how difficult would it be to see how many BTC0.1 BTC0.2 BTC0.5 BTC1.0 and BTC2.0 addresses that meet the criteria.
i.e. I don't care about an address with BTC1 if it got 4 deposits go get there, so the same as how CM would have done it vs their amounts.

I could probably download your data and have one of the programmers I deal with whip something up, but if you have something close to it already it might not be worth it to have them do it.

Well, that's disappointing: I don't know what happened, but my output data isn't exactly the same as I got last time. I replaced some of the values (0.128 turned into 0.1, etc.), so I can't compare all data now. I was hoping to reproduce the same results, but also don't want to dive in deeper so I can't tell what went wrong. The numbers I checked were about 40% higher.
That being said, it's very clear there are much more "chips" with round numbers. I'll run the data again with a more complete data set, but it's going to take a while again.

ChipMixer

sr. member

Activity: 456

Merit: 956

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1935098

Quote from: casinotester0001 on December 11, 2022, 07:47:01 AM

Maybe easier for humans who use money because of similar values?)

Are you sure?

Quote

£1 = 20 shillings (20s).
1 shilling = 12 pence (12d).
1 penny = 2 halfpennies and (earlier) 4 farthings (half farthing, a third of a farthing, and quarter farthing coins

1 BTC chip = 20 shilling chips
1 shilling chip = 12 pence chips
1 pence chip = 2 halfpennies chips = 4 farthings chips
may use half and third and quaret farthings if BTC price go up

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18711

Quote from: DaveF on December 11, 2022, 10:51:00 AM

So although not as obvious a the 30 groups that CM makes there are probably (waiting on loyces program to finish running) a lot more of those then .128 which was why I bought up the point of probably orders of magnitude more.

I'm certain you will be right, and there will be many more 0.1 BTC outputs than there will be 0.128 BTC outputs. That doesn't change my point, though. It's not just the individual transaction which creates 30x 0.1/0.128 BTC outputs, but rather you can follow the change output forward or backward and see transaction after transaction after transaction creating 30 outputs of various values. Although a 0.1 BTC output may look less obvious on first glance, to anyone who looks back even a single transaction it will still be immediately obvious it is coming from ChipMixer (and of course it is the people who look back at the history of a coin who are the very people you are protecting against by mixing).

Quote from: casinotester0001 on December 11, 2022, 12:51:26 PM

It would be easier to calculate, at least for me

I don't think it makes much difference. You can still withdraw 0.010 BTC with a 0.008 and a 0.002 chip, if you want. I like the powers of 2. Tongue

casinotester0001

member

Activity: 196

Merit: 67

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on December 11, 2022, 08:33:36 AM

It is completely unique and trivial to identify. This would not change if the chip sizes were 0.001/0.002/0.005/0.010/etc. instead of 0.001/0.002/0.004/0.008/etc.

I meant the value, not the privacy/mixing ability. It would be easier to calculate, at least for me

DaveF

legendary

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6320

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on December 11, 2022, 08:33:36 AM

It kind of misses the point though.

It is trivial to identify an output as coming from ChipMixer. Take a look at this address: https://mempool.space/address/bc1qu225m44ere7sy89x5z0qhrhp7ma0yttrpwnyuh. Now, you can follow the coins on that address through dozens of transactions. Each transaction creates 30 outputs of the same chip size, and one change output. This chain of transactions creates hundreds of outputs for ChipMixer chips in total. There is no other service out there which does anything like this. It is completely unique and trivial to identify. This would not change if the chip sizes were 0.001/0.002/0.005/0.010/etc. instead of 0.001/0.002/0.004/0.008/etc.

The whole point of ChipMixer is to break the link between coins you deposit and coins you withdraw. It is not to hide the fact that you have used a mixer, and indeed, often the exact opposite. Being able to show quite clearly that all my inputs came from a mixer means I can prove that any claims you make about my coins being "tainted" or any other such nonsense are provably false. This same logic applies to coinjoins.

Yes and no. I have made many transactions that create a lot of .001 (filling collectables) and back in the day when BTC was a lot less I made a lot of BTC1.x into a bunch of BTC0.1 coins. So although not as obvious a the 30 groups that CM makes there are probably (waiting on loyces program to finish running) a lot more of those then .128 which was why I bought up the point of probably orders of magnitude more.

More a thought experiment then anything else, but still going to interesting to see what the results are.

-Dave

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18711

It kind of misses the point though.

It is trivial to identify an output as coming from ChipMixer. Take a look at this address: https://mempool.space/address/bc1qu225m44ere7sy89x5z0qhrhp7ma0yttrpwnyuh. Now, you can follow the coins on that address through dozens of transactions. Each transaction creates 30 outputs of the same chip size, and one change output. This chain of transactions creates hundreds of outputs for ChipMixer chips in total. There is no other service out there which does anything like this. It is completely unique and trivial to identify. This would not change if the chip sizes were 0.001/0.002/0.005/0.010/etc. instead of 0.001/0.002/0.004/0.008/etc.

The whole point of ChipMixer is to break the link between coins you deposit and coins you withdraw. It is not to hide the fact that you have used a mixer, and indeed, often the exact opposite. Being able to show quite clearly that all my inputs came from a mixer means I can prove that any claims you make about my coins being "tainted" or any other such nonsense are provably false. This same logic applies to coinjoins.

casinotester0001

member

Activity: 196

Merit: 67

Quote from: LoyceV on December 11, 2022, 05:43:41 AM

#

Quote from: ChipMixer on May 27, 2017, 12:20:41 AM

Quote from: pizamoi on May 27, 2017, 12:09:28 AM

instead of doubling the chip value each time you could use denominations like 0.01, 0.02, 0.05.

Could you extend your idea? How would it work with split/merge/bet function?

Would work too. (Maybe easier for humans who use money because of similar values?)

existing chips:
0.001, 0.002, 0.005, 0.010, 0.020, 0.050, 0.100, 0.200, 0.500, 1.000, 2.000, 5.000

value -> split into
0.001 -> 0.001
0.002 -> 0.002
0.003 -> 0.002 + 0.001
0.004 -> 0.002 + 0.002
0.005 -> 0.002 + 0.002 + 0.001
0.006 -> 0.005 + 0.001
0.007 -> 0.005 + 0.002
0.008 -> 0.005 + 0.002 + 0.001
0.009 -> 0.005 + 0.002 + 0.002
0.010 -> 0.005 + 0.005
0.011 -> 0.005 + 0.005 + 0.001
0.012 -> 0.005 + 0.005 + 0.002
0.013 -> 0.005 + 0.005 + 0.002 + 0.001
0.014 -> 0.005 + 0.005 + 0.002 + 0.002
0.015 -> 0.005 + 0.005 + 0.005
0.016 -> 0.005 + 0.005 + 0.005 + 0.001
...
0.980 -> 0.500 + 0.200 + 0.200 + 0.050 + 0.020 + 0.010
...
0.990 -> 0.500 + 0.200 + 0.200 + 0.050 + 0.020 + 0.020
...
1.000 -> 1.000
1.001 -> 1.000 + 0.001
...

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: RocketSingh on December 10, 2022, 01:59:23 PM

Care to explain the advantage of using BTC0.128 over BTC0.1 to split and merge?

You've answered your own question: 0.001 is more convenient than 0.00078125. And it's much easier to do the calculation in your head (most computer users should know powers of 2 up to quite a high number by heart anyway).

If you'd start at 0.1 and go the other direction, you end up with "weird" amounts again: 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1.6, 3.2 and 6.4. I'm much more used to 8.192 (from computer memory) than 6.4.

>> this goes off-topic for this topic <<

Still crunching numbers, I forgot how slow this is.

RocketSingh

legendary

Activity: 1662

Merit: 1050

Quote from: LoyceV on December 09, 2022, 10:33:02 AM

Quote from: DaveF on December 09, 2022, 10:21:26 AM

But it makes you wonder why CM did it.

To and

Care to explain the advantage of using BTC0.128 over BTC0.1 to split and merge?

0.128/2 => 0.064/2 => 0.032/2 => 0.016/2 => 0.008/2 => 0.004/2 => 0.002/2 => 0.001

0.1/2 => 0.05/2 => 0.025/2 => 0.0125/2 => 0.00625/2 => 0.003125 => 0.0015625/2 => 0.00078125

Both works. No?

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Update: no results yet. I'm not sure why, but something ran out of memory. I'm trying again

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: DaveF on December 09, 2022, 10:21:26 AM

But it makes you wonder why CM did it.

To and

Quote

I am sure there are other BTC0.128 chips out there, but I would imaging that there are several orders of magnitude more addresses with BTC0.1

Maybe. By being big enough, CM created a market for 0.128 chips that wasn't there before.

Quote

Just for anonymity using more common amounts would be logical. With that in mind @LoyceV how difficult would it be to see how many BTC0.1 BTC0.2 BTC0.5 BTC1.0 and BTC2.0 addresses that meet the criteria.

I've added it to the script, and restarted. If it doesn't fail (I didn't do any thorough checking), I should have results by tomorrow.

DaveF

legendary

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6320

Crypto Swap Exchange

I understand the 1 2 3 8 16 32 64 numbering.

But it makes you wonder why CM did it. I am sure there are other BTC0.128 chips out there, but I would imaging that there are several orders of magnitude more addresses with BTC0.1

Just for anonymity using more common amounts would be logical. With that in mind @LoyceV how difficult would it be to see how many BTC0.1 BTC0.2 BTC0.5 BTC1.0 and BTC2.0 addresses that meet the criteria.
i.e. I don't care about an address with BTC1 if it got 4 deposits go get there, so the same as how CM would have done it vs their amounts.

I could probably download your data and have one of the programmers I deal with whip something up, but if you have something close to it already it might not be worth it to have them do it.

Thanks,
Dave

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: 100bitcoin on December 09, 2022, 08:46:23 AM

Did you create a tool to find this with different variations?

More or less

Quote

For example, I would like to know, how many chips with 1 BTC value are out there.

Do you want only current data, or also historic data?

Quote

Can something like the following URL be formulated for this calculation?

Nope, I don't do PHP. I could run the script again with for 1000 mBTC though (but it's quite slow, it has to decompress all data). I've started it, if it doesn't fail I'll post the results tomorrow.

100bitcoin

sr. member

Activity: 860

Merit: 423

Quote from: LoyceV on August 23, 2022, 06:07:42 AM

I took Blockchair's Bitcoin data, and used the following assumptions:

Any address with a deposit of 0.001, 0.002, 0.004, 0.008, 0.016, 0.032, 0.064, 0.128, 0.256, 0.512, 1.024, 2.048, 4.092 or 8.196 BTC can be a chip.
Any address that received more than one deposit is not a chip.
Any address that sent more than one transaction is not a chip.
Chips are counted if they're still funded at the end of a day.
Chips are not counted from the day they're emptied.

Did you create a tool to find this with different variations? For example, I would like to know, how many chips with 1 BTC value are out there. Can something like the following URL be formulated for this calculation?

https://loyce.club/chipnumber.php?chipsize=1

Topic: [privacy] How many Bitcoin chips are out there? (Read 611 times)