Topic: [WTS] Bitcoin Mixer Source Code - Start your own mixing service! 1 BTC (Read 5662 times)

Why do you keep going on that you can bring taint to 0%? That isn't true at all, at first your saying you will have a low taint, and now your saying it has a 0% of being tainted. You are going back on forth on your numbers and sayings. So clearly you know nothing about taint.

I am done with this thread, cause I have proved many times you have no bases for your mixer to be anything you had said to be true in your OP. You are just trying to rip people off good day.

And the video that linked before http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hc8qaR_Fok proves how that paper is wrong, so obviously you didn't read that paper and watch the video, like I did. The guy explains how privacy and disconnected addresses can still be linked. Which in turn disproves your statements that it lowers taint.

What gweedo is saying simply makes too much sense. Buying this would be pointless.

TS ready? See personal mail

I provide testNet transaction logs for interested buyers so they can see that everything works before they buy it.  The paper I referenced has explanations and case studies that outline various techniques that ensure high levels of anonymity.  It shows that taint, the possible connection between two addresses, can be brought down to 0% if the mixer is run properly.

Formal taint analysis doesn't use any contextual information.  It is strictly the percentage of possibility that two addresses are associated with each other.  With that, we can bring taint down to 0% in as many cases as possible with a well-managed mixer.  

Listen to his response to the question at 22:30, about having more inputs than outputs.  Withdrawal amounts from my mixer don't have to be the same as an input amount.  He argues that the mismatch of inputs to outputs becomes a subset sum problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset_sum_problem) but, first, a user could span withdrawals over a long time, and second, there would be too many outputs to calculate the sums and try to attach the sums to inputs.  There is also the fact that a deposit could be spanned over several inputs.  

Ultimately, he has a weak argument against mixers that do this correctly - for him, the argument against centralized mixers comes down to trust.  While trust is an issue in some cases, there are trustworthy entities that can set up mixers, and this is what I'm attempting to help do.

Again, there are methods to lower taint without having to calculate it since we know how taint is calculated.  The paper I mentioned in my last post (https://www.wi.uni-muenster.de/sites/default/files/public/department/itsecurity/mbc13/mbc13-moeser-paper.pdf) explains it.  

It is possible to withdraw money over time with my program as well.  Obviously, any serious buyer can request more information to see exactly how it works and look at transactions on the testNet blockchain for proof that it works.  

I've never said that this program calculates taint. There's no need for taint calculation because there is absolutely no connection between a deposit and an associated withdrawal in this system if it's managed right.  BitcoinFog uses the same technique with success - refer to this white paper that analyzes various centralized mixers - https://www.wi.uni-muenster.de/sites/default/files/public/department/itsecurity/mbc13/mbc13-moeser-paper.pdf

If I was trying to sell this to 'newbies' I wouldn't be selling it for so much.  I've researched various methods of blockchain anonymity and obfuscation and believe that this program provides as much anonymity as possible in a bitcoin mixing system.  I have testnet transactions that are available to any serious buyer, as I mention in the OP, so they can see that this program does what I say it does.

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant by 'technical' - I don't mean that their hardware is worse, but that they don't have enough technical knowledge of how bitcoin and computers work to use decentralized mixing systems.  Even the easiest software is confusing for many people, and a website-based centralized mixer where all one has to do is send their coins is a much easier and likelier solution for these non-technical users. This program also does not create tens of thousands of new addresses initially.  It is possible to scale this program as your needs scale, adding addresses as you need them.

I think you might be confused about how this program achieves both mixing and taint-reduction.  It's possible to control taint without having to calculate it - once we know that taint is the measurement of a connection between two addresses, we can make sure that the deposit and withdrawal have as little possible or no connection at all.  This is done in all cases by distancing the deposit address from the withdrawal address by sending the coins through various intermediary transactions, but also trying as often as possible to not use the deposit at all until after the associated withdrawal is made.  There are checks and balances in the code that make sure this happens whenever it can.  The only time that a deposited address is used at all for an associated withdrawal is if there aren't any other available funds available in the system - but also keep in mind that this deposit has been mixed into the system if it is used, providing anonymous coins anyways.

It's apparent that you're taking a very dogmatic stance against centralized mixers.  I think all the issues you're trying to point out isn't a problem in my program or my code, but a problem with the current ecosystem of centralized mixers.  Start a thread with your critique of centralized mixers, I'd be more than willing to participate.

I spent a few days working on my faucet, and im selling that for 0.1. You know what? Once I fully learn ror (stopped using php), ill make one and give it away for free. Just for fun

Is this Trade Fortress selling the code that he used to launder all of the Bitcoins he stole?

 

You are making large assumptions about the technical capacities of many bitcoin users - even the completely non-technical should be able to have access to anonymity.

Please note that this is only using bitcoinj to store keys and communicate with the bitcoin network.  It doesn't depend on bitcoinj's "naive" output selection algorithm, and I have made my own output selection algorithms that are able to carefully control which coins are selected for transactions. Therefore, taint can be controlled by this code.

Online stores and marketplaces have been told by their customers that they need store-run mixers, and in many cases they're essential to respect the privacy and security of customers.  But again, as I said, this is a thread for me to sell my source code to buyers who understand and can use the utility it provides, and not a thread to get into ideological arguments.  Please respect that.

I anticipated someone would bring this up.  There is a necessity for centralized mixers, standalone as well as mixers integrated into other types of services such as online stores.  Decentralized mixers don't (yet) scale up, and because a CoinJoin transaction can be as small as 3-4 inputs that doesn't provide a time-gap (time between deposit/withdrawal) or further taint-reduction without more complicated steps, an investigator can still make an educated guess to track coins going through.  My program adds more steps to automatically distance a user from his coins.  Decentralized mixers are also still difficult to use or hard to explain for the average user, as is evident in the video you linked.

This program allows for users to achieve fuller anonymity than what could be achieved using the current decentralized systems available, and it is also much easier to use.  The answer to mistrust in centralized mixers shouldn't just be decentralized mixers (although there is a place for them as well), as they can't fill every need required of them.  There need to be trustworthy, centralized mixers both for the average user as well as owners who can implement them in various ways.

I don't want this thread to become a conversation about the merits of centralized and decentralized mixers, as there is a need for both.  I am selling a centralized mixer because it fills specific needs, not all of them.

I did and it concludes my point, no one uses centralized mixers. They are worthless.

I think you should read the OP again...

He's 14, don't worry.
And why the hell would he charge only 0.1 for something that takes "days to develop"??
If people were to hire a develloper to make it for them it would easily cost as much as OP is asking... It's a reasonable price.

Feel free.  I'm providing a professionally made program for anyone who isn't able to make it themselves or wouldn't want to hire a developer to create it for them.

Really? If for some reason decide to make a mixer I would sell it for 0.1 max...

Any competent developer would charge more than this to create an equivalent and this is an easy-to-use, already available solution.

I think its overpriced. Thats over $1000. It something that a person could create in a few days...