Dev can deny.
Here is point.
Mixer address XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb is used for sender.
One time.
Every input to mixer got NEW address.
Matched....
Are you serious? Where did the mixer get the coins from? who clicked the send button?
From sender, with NEW address.
Okay... but you still don't know who the original sender is, correct? Isn't that the point of anonymous transfers -- to mask the original sender's address?
Mixer identified.
Input of mixer address XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb == output from sender XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw
XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb will not be used again for any sender.
So XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw == XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb.
Compare output, count blocks, check explorer, input of XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb will be user for output for another sender.
Can find related output address.
That's what i am doing in analysis aka mapping.
I don't understand what is wrong with chaeplin's analysis here.
He proves a sender is tied to one mixer.... and then to an output.
You can change the wallet address, the anonymity has to assume the sender's wallet can be identified and addresses can be pulled from that...
You can change an address in your bitcoin wallet already and send from a new address....but that's not anonymity because, say...a search warrant was enacted against you...they can just get that info from your machine - or maybe they pull your address from a known transaction (ex. transaction with an online store that has it tied to your account with them).
So..bitcoin has that level of anonymity already.
The solution has to assume this is possible and still make the transactions anonymous regardless.
Please, can someone explain what piece I am missing?...and this isn't FUD...I'm actually asking. I must be missing something, right?