Using "send everything" compromises your privacy?

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: Alpha Marine on December 21, 2023, 03:44:37 AM

I transferred all my Bitcoin in a particular wallet to another wallet and I noticed my privacy score was 60%. I decided to see why it was that low. Blockchair gave the above guidelines

Blockchair's privacy score is BS. I've seen weekly transactions with the same addresses get a 95% score.

That being said: use Coin Control to pick your inputs. Use labels to organize your inputs. Make it a habit to manually select which input to use. If you're okay linking them all together, you can use "send all". With current transaction fees, that may be a bad idea anyway.

Learn Bitcoin

hero member

Activity: 462

Merit: 767

Instant cryptocurrency exchange with own reserves!

Quote from: Saint-loup on December 23, 2023, 05:58:14 PM

That's why SPV wallet are not perfect for privacy and it's better to use wallets with one personal full node or wallets implementing privacy features like Wasabi wallet.

To be honest, I never cared too much about my privacy. Or better to say that I was unaware of better options. The more time I spend online (Especially on this forum), I see topics and learn without noticing that I have learned something. Anyway, you were talking about the Wassabi wallet. I have heard about it but I never tried it personally. I already have an Electrum wallet which I consider one of the best wallets I have used so far. But I am open to learning more about Wassabi. Does it have coin control features like RBF and CPFP? Does it provide multiple addresses to receive Bitcoin? The last question is what is the official website of Wassabi wallet?

Saint-loup

legendary

Activity: 2604

Merit: 2353

Quote from: Learn Bitcoin on December 22, 2023, 09:42:08 PM

Not only trust wallet, but most of the wallets I have used do not provide multiple addresses to receive Bitcoin except for Electrum. I moved to Electrum permanently since I understand the coin control feature and the usage of multiple addresses. I have used Trust Wallet, Atomic, and Unstoppable Wallet too. None of them provide multiple addresses. Even if they do, I am unaware of it.

Unfortunately like any lightweight SPV wallet, Electrum needs to rely on servers in order to get transaction history and balance of wallets since it needs to access blockchain datas for that. The server will then be able to guess adresses belonging to one single wallet despite the use of Bloom filters and it will even be aware of its IP address if the user doesn't use a proxy or Tor. That's why SPV wallets are not perfect for privacy and it's better to use wallets with one personal full node or wallets implementing privacy features like Wasabi wallet.

Learn Bitcoin

hero member

Activity: 462

Merit: 767

Instant cryptocurrency exchange with own reserves!

Quote from: hosseinimr93 on December 22, 2023, 03:53:58 AM

Yes.
Assume that someone wants to send you bitcoin and you give him your bitcoin address. Now, that person can check all your previous transactions and know how much bitcoin you own.

I got you. But not many people care about it. They don't think about it when they send a Bitcoin address to a service like a casino, mixers, or other platforms. But, they should be careful if they give it to a human being who has the possibility to check. Services like casinos and mixers are unlikely to check your wallet address. They do not have time for it. Right?

Quote from: hosseinimr93 on December 22, 2023, 03:53:58 AM

That's one of the reasons why people shouldn't use trustwallet.

Not only trust wallet, but most of the wallets I have used do not provide multiple addresses to receive Bitcoin except for Electrum. I moved to Electrum permanently since I understand the coin control feature and the usage of multiple addresses. I have used Trust Wallet, Atomic, and Unstoppable Wallet too. None of them provide multiple addresses. Even if they do, I am unaware of it.

hosseinimr93

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 5213

Quote from: Learn Bitcoin on December 22, 2023, 12:35:02 AM

I am curious how I hurt my privacy. Someone can identify by the transaction that I am the one who received the money from a casino, I am the same person who received the money from a mixer, and I am the same person who got some loan from a lender. Are you talking about similar privacy hurt?

Yes.
Assume that someone wants to send you bitcoin and you give him your bitcoin address. Now, that person can check all your previous transactions and know how much bitcoin you own.

Quote from: Learn Bitcoin on December 22, 2023, 12:35:02 AM

But, If someone does not want to hide that they gambled, they took a loan, and all of them are public already, using the same wallet to receive the funds won't hurt his privacy further. Isn't it?

We are talking about privacy here.
If you don't care about your privacy, you can reuse the same address.

Quote from: Learn Bitcoin on December 22, 2023, 12:35:02 AM

I guess Bitcoin users who have been using trust wallets or other wallets that do not provide multiple addresses to receive Bitcoin were hurting their privacy from the beginning.

That's one of the reasons why people shouldn't use trustwallet.

Learn Bitcoin

hero member

Activity: 462

Merit: 767

Instant cryptocurrency exchange with own reserves!

Quote from: hosseinimr93 on December 21, 2023, 07:12:21 AM

If you used the same address for receiving fund from different people, you have already hurt your privacy and you won't hurt your privacy more with spending all your balance in a single transaction.

I am curious how I hurt my privacy. Someone can identify by the transaction that I am the one who received the money from a casino, I am the same person who received the money from a mixer, and I am the same person who got some loan from a lender. Are you talking about similar privacy hurt? I understand that this is bad for privacy for those who want to hide that they have used a mixer, gambled on a casino, or taken a loan.

But, If someone does not want to hide that they gambled, they took a loan, and all of them are public already, using the same wallet to receive the funds won't hurt his privacy further. Isn't it? I guess Bitcoin users who have been using trust wallets or other wallets that do not provide multiple addresses to receive Bitcoin were hurting their privacy from the beginning.

Gladitorcomeback

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 619

Quote from: Alpha Marine on December 21, 2023, 03:44:37 AM

I transferred all my Bitcoin in a particular wallet to another wallet and I noticed my privacy score was 60%. I decided to see why it was that low. Blockchair gave the above guidelines but I'm more focused on the last point. The reason was that I used the "send everything" option. Blockchair said, "It greatly compromises your privacy". I decided to do further research to understand why this was so.

The platform/site where you check privacy score are usually checking how anonymous your transaction is and hence you send all btc to one wallet, that's mean that your wallet directly linked to only one wallet which is easy to investigate. If you send partial amount than there is possibility that you send remaining amount to other wallet which further linked to orher wallets give you more privacy

BTW as far as you have a btc that comes from fair source than no need to be worry about privacy score. I am saying this according to my country condition and maybe your country condition change from here.

Quote from: Alpha Marine on December 21, 2023, 03:44:37 AM

Also, it's inadvisable in case of a mistake. If you mistakingly send Bitcoin to the wrong address holding if you use the "send everything" option you could lose everything in that address.

Yes this is valid points, honestly I lost 2-3 times because I didn't care about it much. I think sending small transaction for checking purpose before sending all will solve this problem.

hatshepsut93

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 2162

If you withdrew coins 5 times to 5 different addresses from a centralized exchange, they already know that those addresses belong to you, and if you consolidate the funds to a new address only to send them back to that exchange eventually, then it didn't really matter.

In general linking your transactions is bad, but try to think about your addresses and where the coins come from - would it be okay if other people whom you plan to deal with knew about those transactions or not?

Also, consolidating is a great way to save on fees. If you are dealing with small amount, it's better to prioritize fees of privacy.

coupable

hero member

Activity: 2338

Merit: 757

Top-tier crypto casino and sportsbook

Quote from: PrivacyG on December 21, 2023, 06:03:41 AM

Yes you will get more Bitcoin in the end but at the expense of all five Addresses linking together. This breaks Privacy. They may be able to be linked anyway depending on how you spent and used Addresses before. But by Spending Everything you are making it easy work for Blockchain Analysis and any body who wants to inspect your Transactions.

This detailed explanation shows how this feature can actually invade privacy. Now what is supposed to be done if the owner of the addresses wants to send the full amounts from the first three addresses (0.75BTC)? The logical answer is to check if there is dust on some old addresses before sending, which may not be possible, especially on some wallets such as Electrum with the phone version, which does not show small dust in the address display interface. Or he can specify the amount he wants to send by number and not use the feature "Spending Everything" But this will make the matter more complicated, since it will take a longer time to verify, which is not always possible.

Faisal2202

hero member

Activity: 1428

Merit: 513

Payment Gateway Allows Recurring Payments

Quote from: Alpha Marine on December 21, 2023, 03:44:37 AM

I don't know who this can be useful to but I just decided to share just in case, and I'll also want to know if there are other security or privacy risks in transferring everything out of an address at once.

You have shared a good piece of information basically I never gave any importance to the matter of privacy but this difference of blockchair giving full information about the BTC amount rather than giving the round-off information. I did not know about it. Well, I don't think it matter a lot for me because if it did then I would already have knew this. hehe. And talking about privacy, I don't care about the funds, I only send what I needed to send, and the problem with sending funds from one point to another is, transaction fee.

Because most of my funds are in BTC and I don't usually move them from here to there. But I do agree on the fact that, if you want to remain safe and anoynmoous it is better to not to send all the money in one go but in batches but it might cost you more, the best option for this might be Mixers (but on your own). And anyone can see how much funds and investment you have in BTC or any other funds, but to know that we need your wallet so we could use it to search on explorer.

Husires

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1288

The degree of privacy that platforms give you may not be accurate, and privacy is more about behavior and ongoing knowledge than advice that you follow, because any mistake could mean losing your privacy.
Only use block explorers via Tor.
Instead of using central mixers, you can try Whirlpool.
Run a full node or join a private server, or use Tor.
Always use coincontrol feature.
Be careful of dust transactions

hosseinimr93

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 5213

Quote from: Learn Bitcoin on December 21, 2023, 07:04:25 AM

Let's say I was using trust wallet to receive my payments and I used send everything. It does not really break privacy. Or do you see anything wrong here too?

If you used the same address for receiving fund from different people, you have already hurt your privacy and you won't hurt your privacy more with spending all your balance in a single transaction.
Charles-Tim was talking about the case one has received multiple transactions at different addresses.

Learn Bitcoin

hero member

Activity: 462

Merit: 767

Instant cryptocurrency exchange with own reserves!

Quote from: Charles-Tim on December 21, 2023, 04:31:50 AM

Assuming you received 5 BTC in 5 addresses. If you send all, all the addresses are connected together which anyone can see on blockchain explorer.

But that does not always happen in every case. Right? Most of the BitcoinTalk users use one address to receive their signature payments. Now, if they use another address to receive money that came from a casino or a mixer, in this case, sending everything will link all his addresses. But, when someone uses the same address for every purpose, it does not violate privacy.

Moreover, some wallets do not give you multiple addresses to receive Bitcoin. I have used Atomic and Trust Wallet. I don't remember If they had multiple address options. Let's say I was using a trust wallet to receive my payments, and I used to send everything. It does not break privacy. Or do you see anything wrong here, too?

Quote from: hosseinimr93 on December 21, 2023, 06:47:04 AM

Blockchair.com is suggesting not to send everything to a single address, so that your transaction has a change . In this way, no one can know which receiving address belongs to the recipient and which one belongs to the sender.

In most cases, Blockchair itself marks an address as a change address, and most of the time, it's correct. But they are talking about privacy. Cheesy

hosseinimr93

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 5213

As already mentioned above by others, with spending the whole balance, you link your coins together and may harm your privacy.
But that's not what blockchair.com is warning about in the link shared by OP.

The transaction OP is talking about includes only 1 input and it didn't link any coins together.
Blockchair.com is suggesting not to send everything to a single address, so that your transaction has a change . In this way, no one can know which receiving address belongs to the recipient and which one belongs to the sender.

It may worth mentioning that with sending round amounts, any one can still understand which address belongs to the recipient and which one belongs to sender.

PrivacyG

legendary

Activity: 882

Merit: 1873

Crypto Swap Exchange

If you have three Addresses containing 0.25 Bitcoin each and you spend it all, this is how the Transaction will look on the Block Explorer

Spending Address 1 (0.25)
Spending Address 2 (0.25) > Receiving Addresses (0.75 total minus Fees)
Spending Address 3 (0.25)

Now things can get worse. If you have some dust in your Wallet from long ago then spending every thing will include dust and will link old Addresses to your latest ones. It can probably be done anyway unless you had EXTREME care not to. But it would look like this,

Spending Address 1 (0.25)
Spending Address 2 (0.25)
Spending Address 3 (0.25) > Receiving Addresses (0.75006467 total minus Fees)
Old Spending Address 1 (2138 Sats)
Old Spending Address 2 (4329 Sats)

Yes you will get more Bitcoin in the end but at the expense of all five Addresses linking together. This breaks Privacy. They may be able to be linked anyway depending on how you spent and used Addresses before. But by Spending Everything you are making it easy work for Blockchain Analysis and any body who wants to inspect your Transactions.

BenCodie

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1048

The "send everything" option reduces your privacy if the inputs used to send everything were not previously linked together. If there is only one input, or two inputs that were linked together recently, it may not make too much difference. For more than one input, coin control (as other users have mentioned) can be used to increase privacy.

Round numbers vs. non-rounded numbers needs to be elaborated on a little further for others. I can't articulate this part well, however it is worth elaborating. I believe that coin control/joining inputs is more important than this, however there is not much stopping one from ensuring both.

SquirrelJulietGarden

hero member

Activity: 1442

Merit: 775

Because if you send all bitcoin you have in one address to another new address, it is a signal that you are sending to yourself.

If you send your bitcoin to another person, it mostly will have a left over and you will receive it in a same address or a change address, depends on your wallet configuration.

Using change address is recommended too.

Coin analogy
What is the "Change" address on bitcoin wallet ? read to know !

Zaguru12

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 952

Quote from: Alpha Marine on December 21, 2023, 03:44:37 AM

I couldn't find anything convincing but I found out that using the "send everything" option or "max" in some cases, reveals your entire Bitcoin holdings and it's true. But I still don't know how others will know that's your entire Bitcoin holding without the private key.

No they can’t easily know of it except if the addresses on that entire wallet is somehow linked together during consolidation then it can be dictated, but still without that key it will not be noticeable.

Quote from: Alpha Marine on December 21, 2023, 03:44:37 AM

I'll also want to know if there are other security or privacy risks in transferring everything out of an address at once.

The lose of privacy is the main risk most especially if you have coins from a centralized platform also on that wallet, the wallet can be linked to that user. Another big danger is the recent address poisoning that is done by hackers sending dust amounts to you, if you mistakenly send all without freezing those dusts then the hacker who sent it might easily gets what he wants.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: Alpha Marine on December 21, 2023, 03:44:37 AM

I couldn't find anything convincing but I found out that using the "send everything" option or "max" in some cases, reveals your entire Bitcoin holdings and it's true. But I still don't know how others will know that's your entire Bitcoin holding without the private key.

That explanation isn't detailed enough. If your Bitcoin comes from multiple sources or have different usage, "send everything" means everyone (primarily the source of your Bitcoin) know those Bitcoin belong to same person or group. Splitting into multiple transaction where each transaction comes from same source or usage would preserve your privacy better. Although with current mempool condition, you'll spend a fortune doing that.

Charles-Tim

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 4795

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Assuming you received 5 BTC in 5 addresses. If you send all, all the addresses are connected together which anyone can see on blockchain explorer.

Sometimes, if you want to consolidate, you may decide to send all at ones into a single address, but you should know that all your coins are linked as you send out of your wallet. If you consolidate and you use Tor, your anonymity is still there because as the coins are linked together, it can not still be linked to your real identity.

But you should know how to use coin control so that your UTXOs or addresses are not linked together in your outgoing transactions.

How to spend specific UTXOs in Electrum

Alpha Marine

sr. member

Activity: 756

Merit: 356

I don't know if this has been discussed before here, I checked and I couldn't find it so I'm going to share.

Quote

Blockchair
Don't send round numbers
Don't send round amounts. Instead of sending 0.1 BTC, send 0.10125

Use Bitcoin Mixers
Mixers add an additional layer of privacy to a transaction to avoid exposing user identities.

Avoid reusing wallets
Don't send your Bitcoin change to the same address you use for sending bitcoins.

Avoid including many of your addresses in one transaction
Any time you can, try not to send BTC from your various Bitcoin addresses.

Avoid using "send everything" option
If you are withdrawing funds from an exchange, it is okay.
If you're moving funds to another wallet, do not transfer the whole amount to another address. It greatly compromises your privacy.

I transferred all my Bitcoin in a particular wallet to another wallet and I noticed my privacy score was 60%. I decided to see why it was that low. Blockchair gave the above guidelines but I'm more focused on the last point. The reason was that I used the "send everything" option. Blockchair said, "It greatly compromises your privacy". I decided to do further research to understand why this was so.

I couldn't find anything convincing but I found out that using the "send everything" option or "max" in some cases, reveals your entire Bitcoin holdings and it's true. But I still don't know how others will know that's your entire Bitcoin holding without the private key.

Also, it's inadvisable in case of a mistake. If you mistakingly send Bitcoin to the wrong address holding if you use the "send everything" option you could lose everything in that address.

I don't know who this can be useful to but I just decided to share just in case, and I'll also want to know if there are other security or privacy risks in transferring everything out of an address at once.

Topic: Using "send everything" compromises your privacy? (Read 326 times)