Bitcoin Mixing: economic analysis and design guidelines
bitcointalk.org
Bitcoin Mixing: economic analysis and design guidelines
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: Bitcoin Mixing: economic analysis and design guidelines
#2> This means any anonymity service requires a large population of participating users, ideally with different adversaries, so that one can’t simply assume all coins passing out of the mixing service are “tainted”
This is why something like DarkWallet [1] is so important. We need a wallet that automatically and trustlessly mixes your coins in the background (via CoinJoin [2]), when you're not using them.
The wallet needs a very user friendly UI and solid integration to reach a wide and disparate audience. With mass adoption of wallets like these, it will add anonymity for everyone. With very little work on the users end.
Re: Bitcoin Mixing: economic analysis and design guidelines
#3Can anyone explain on a conceptual level how mixing can possibly work? I'm not thinking about implementation details, but more like boot prints in the snow. You can stamp a big mess in the snow, but no matter how much you stamp about, there is still one set of your tracks entering and one set leaving. When all the transactions are clear to see in the blockchain, all the boot prints are right there.
Re: Bitcoin Mixing: economic analysis and design guidelines
#4I don't understand the practical need for Bitcoin mixers vs. simply mixing via existing exchanges. If Bitcoin goes into an exchange and Litecoin leaves a week later, nothing in either the Bitcoin or Litecoin blockchain would link the transactions together, especially if the funds are chopped up and sent to multiple wallets so the totals are never comparable. If the worry is that the exchange itself might be subpoenaed, one can just hop through many exchanges in many different countries. It's only necessary that one exchange be opaque for the mix to be secure.
Re: Bitcoin Mixing: economic analysis and design guidelines
#5I don't understand the practical need for Bitcoin mixers vs. simply mixing via existing exchanges. If Bitcoin goes into an exchange and Litecoin leaves a week later, nothing in either the Bitcoin or Litecoin blockchain would link the transactions together, especially if the funds are chopped up and sent to multiple wallets so the totals are never comparable. If the worry is that the exchange itself might be subpoenae…
If you're moving a unique sum of money, then it's not too hard to see X BTC in, Y LTC out, L YTC in X BTC out.
Additionally, you must trust the exchanges. Leaving your coins in a 3rd party for a week means at any point during that weak, a hack or other problem might mean you lose all your money. Needing to fully trust a third party is a failure.
On top of that, as you note, you'd need to use multiple exchanges, with significant time delays. This is not user-friendly, and will lead to people making mistakes. Not to mention, it's hard to verify if a given exchange is really operating under certain law, and not compromised. I'd be surprised if various LEAs haven't or aren't considering opening exchanges pretending to be safe havens.
Re: Bitcoin Mixing: economic analysis and design guidelines
#6Can anyone explain on a conceptual level how mixing can possibly work? I'm not thinking about implementation details, but more like boot prints in the snow. You can stamp a big mess in the snow, but no matter how much you stamp about, there is still one set of your tracks entering and one set leaving. When all the transactions are clear to see in the blockchain, all the boot prints are right there.
Nope, there are N entering and N identical leaving (in this case) so there's no way to know which outgoing transaction belongs to which person.
Re: Bitcoin Mixing: economic analysis and design guidelines
#7Can anyone explain on a conceptual level how mixing can possibly work? I'm not thinking about implementation details, but more like boot prints in the snow. You can stamp a big mess in the snow, but no matter how much you stamp about, there is still one set of your tracks entering and one set leaving. When all the transactions are clear to see in the blockchain, all the boot prints are right there.
Imagine a bunch of people traveling in different directions in the snow. Rather than going directly towards their intended destination, everybody goes first to one particular spot, where there is one pair of boot imprints.
You walk toward the bootprint, step into it, step out of it, and then continue on your merry way.
When lots of people do the same, you see a bunch of tracks going into one bootprint, and a bunch of tracks going out. But because everybody was careful to place their feet into the one bootprint indentation, the person following your tracks won't know which of the many forward paths you took after you stepped out.
Re: Bitcoin Mixing: economic analysis and design guidelines
#8I don't understand the practical need for Bitcoin mixers vs. simply mixing via existing exchanges. If Bitcoin goes into an exchange and Litecoin leaves a week later, nothing in either the Bitcoin or Litecoin blockchain would link the transactions together, especially if the funds are chopped up and sent to multiple wallets so the totals are never comparable. If the worry is that the exchange itself might be subpoenae…
If you're moving a unique sum of money, then it's not too hard to see X BTC in, Y LTC out, L YTC in X BTC out. Additionally, you must trust the exchanges. Leaving your coins in a 3rd party for a week means at any point during that weak, a hack or other problem might mean you lose all your money. Needing to fully trust a third party is a failure. On top of that, as you note, you'd need to use multiple exchanges, with…
"If you're moving a unique sum of money, then it's not too hard to see X BTC in, Y LTC out, L YTC in X BTC out."
Really? If I were to deposit BTC into BTC-e, send you the blockchain.info link for the deposit, and then in the next hour withdraw it to 5 separate wallets in any of the half-dozen altcoins they trade, how would you identify even one of those altcoin transactions as mine?
Re: Bitcoin Mixing: economic analysis and design guidelines
#9Can anyone explain on a conceptual level how mixing can possibly work? I'm not thinking about implementation details, but more like boot prints in the snow. You can stamp a big mess in the snow, but no matter how much you stamp about, there is still one set of your tracks entering and one set leaving. When all the transactions are clear to see in the blockchain, all the boot prints are right there.
Imagine a bunch of people traveling in different directions in the snow. Rather than going directly towards their intended destination, everybody goes first to one particular spot, where there is one pair of boot imprints. You walk toward the bootprint, step into it, step out of it, and then continue on your merry way. When lots of people do the same, you see a bunch of tracks going into one bootprint, and a bunch of…
But what about the part where every boot has a distinct print? Or is that where the metaphor breaks down.
Re: Bitcoin Mixing: economic analysis and design guidelines
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine a bunch of people traveling in different directions in the snow. Rather than going directly towards their intended destination, everybody goes first to one particular spot, where there is one pair of boot imprints. You walk toward the bootprint, step into it, step out of it, and then continue on your merry way. When lots of people do the same, you see a bunch of tracks going into one bootprint, and a bunch of…
But what about the part where every boot has a distinct print? Or is that where the metaphor breaks down.
Everyone's wearing identical boots.