Live data from Hacker News

68% of total Ethereum transaction value controlled by one system

blog.cyber.fund

61–70 of 85 posts

Re: 68% of total Ethereum transaction value controlled by one system

#61
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes but that act of mixing your coin with others effectively gives you back mostly other people's coins .... what's their value if not today's value?

If I go get change for $10,000 in $100 bills and ask for all $1's do I realize 10,000 dollars in capital gains because those are "other people's dollars"

but they're dollar bills, the currency we pay taxes in, they're always worth $10k no matter what happens to their actual intrinsic value ... a better example is:

I buy 10oz of gold for $1000 (this was a while ago), this week I exchange my gold for a different 10oz of gold (less a small commission to the exchange) currently worth $10,000 - is that a taxable transaction? I suspect yes

Re: 68% of total Ethereum transaction value controlled by one system

#63
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not laundering, it's spoofing by some of the earliest Ethereum holders who are trading with themselves on the exchanges to create the appearance of volume and liquidity to drive up the value of their coins.

Genuine (but possibly stupid) question: How do I tell the difference between that and the 'exchange temp accounts' theory promulgated upthread?

[deleted]

Re: 68% of total Ethereum transaction value controlled by one system

#64
post #51
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, I appreciate the response, I'm glad that upon doing your own investigation you found that my wording was reasonable. As far as legality goes, it's difficulty to say. I think that a project like this is likely paying lawyers good money to make sure they stay 'in the green', but lawyers can only do so much to protect you when you do the things that they're doing. We all know that projects like Paragon and many ot…

The only thing you might be guilty of is minimizing it. I figured if I was doubtful, other people might be doubtful. Rather than have you be dismissed, it seemed to me that confirming your post was the prudent thing to do. I was pretty shocked. That's fodder for a whole HN link and thread. I really figured you were blowing it out of proportion. Nope... Hell, the list of complaints goes on and on. I'm reminded of when…

A bit interesting, just posted after you made this comment was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15335146.

So maybe companies like Paragon will get in trouble with the SEC for their dealings, even if they do not sell 'securities'.

Re: 68% of total Ethereum transaction value controlled by one system

#65
post #38
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should add that Monero doesn't use mixing in the same sense. The ring size works so that you cannot see which of the different choices is the correct output until spent. This is different from having the participants swap coins as you do when mixing. The ring size isn't directly comparable to the number of mixing participants or mixing rounds as the former isn't susceptible to blockchain analysis. You can only make…

Sending coins to yourself, aka churning, might not work so well after all, according to the latest MRL report. They say: " We at the Lab previously thought that one possible solution to knacc's described attack would be churning, where one sends funds to oneself multiple times before using at a merchant. Unfortunately, this leads to chains of self-referential transactions, which leave an undesirable and identifiable…

I'm really interested in Monero but I lack a comprehensive understanding of the underlying technology. Is there a good resource (apart from the Monero community itself) that explains Ring signatures and similar technologies, including their limitations?

From your answer, you sound very knowledgable in this area - could you advise some good resources to learn more?

Re: 68% of total Ethereum transaction value controlled by one system

#66
This whole analysis is very confusing.

The first analysis about temporary addresses makes sense. Addresses used only for one hour. But what bearing does "transaction value" has? The real metric of a mixer controlling a currency would have been number of transactions. Mixing is about spreading the transactions far and wide and across many addresses to make it difficult to trace. When you look at the graph below, the mixer accounts for barely 11% of the transaction volume.

If I go further and read about the core and shell, the analysis falls apart even more.

The idea proposed is that the shell accounts are the ones responsible for generating output and inputs to external accounts like the exchanges and also talk to core which consists of 90% temporary accounts. Fair enough.

"In the end, it turned out that the total amount transferred into and out of the core is 4 times higher than the total that entered and left the shell and the core taken together." How is this even possible?

If assume flow of 1 ETH ignoring fees. Poloneix -> Shell -> core -> Shell -> Kraken

From the statement "total that entered and left the shell and the core taken together" = 1 ETH into shell + 1 ETH into core + 1 ETH out of core + 1 ETH out of shell = 4ETH

Total for core is 2 ETH - 1 in and 1 out. If shell is there to interact with the core, how is core doing 4 times the amount. Unless of course the confusion is dividing the total in and out of 4 by actual transaction of 1 ETH.

All exchanges need to segregate customer amounts to ensure everything works smoothly. Let's assume I have 1 ETH, then sent it to Kraken. No trades done and simply withdrew the ETH. Here's what will happen:

Me -> Kraken Temp account + network fees (mostly pool accounts ~ 0.0002) -> Me + Kraken account for withdrawal fee ie 0.005 + network fees (again pool)

In which case, two scenarios can occur:

a. Kraken temp account is tagged - So my account and pool accounts can be considered to be the shell. The in and out total for me is 1.9946 worth of ETH (1 ETH out + 0.9946 ETH in after Kraken and network fees). On the block fees side, in and out of the shell is 0.0004 ETH. Total is 1.995 in and out of the shell. While Kraken is doing 0.005 ETH.

b. The worse case scenario - Kraken temp account is unmarked. In this case the temp account becomes the shell while my personal account and pool becomes the so called core. Now this happens: Core transaction volume - 1.995 ETH Shell or Kraken temp account - 0.9998 In (after fees) + 0.9946 out (after Kraken and network fees) = 1.9944 ETH Kraken - 0.005 ETH

Actual volume is 1 ETH but counting the transaction volume blows this thing up.

Re: 68% of total Ethereum transaction value controlled by one system

#67
post #50
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At first, I thought you might be hyperbolic or had fallen for some sort of propaganda (for lack of a better term). I don't know much about ICOs and I know/knew less about Paragon. I figured I'd check and just let you be, figuring I'd not get involved. So, I went to Google and entered, "Paragon ICO complaints Reddit." In two minutes, probably less, I'd confirmed that they were as bad as you claim. I spent about a half…

Haha, I appreciate the response, I'm glad that upon doing your own investigation you found that my wording was reasonable. As far as legality goes, it's difficulty to say. I think that a project like this is likely paying lawyers good money to make sure they stay 'in the green', but lawyers can only do so much to protect you when you do the things that they're doing. We all know that projects like Paragon and many ot…

> As far as legality goes, it's difficulty to say.

Didn't the SEC publish a report declaring their stance as ICOs = securities? Doesn't seem that difficult to go from there.

Re: 68% of total Ethereum transaction value controlled by one system

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If wallets A and B send 1ETH each to Z, and then Z sends 1ETH to X and 1ETH to Y, you already can't tell whose money is where.

Wouldn't an interested party just assume A and B are both guilty and given the current taste for asset forfeiture laws, require proof of the origination of the funds? At one point does it not become possible to "capture" people this way? 10k wallets? 100k? I may be too simple to understand the math here, but in the end you've got people with guns to deal with.

You can assume all you want, but then you can end up with thousands of tainted addresses that participated in tumbling. Good luck proving anything with that to the jury.

Re: 68% of total Ethereum transaction value controlled by one system

#69
post #58
post #15

Aren't these the temporary deposit addresses that exchanges give out? You deposit and then they sweep the balance to their hot/cold wallets as necessary? Also the ReplaySafeSplit and related contracts were due to the ETH/ETC split, you had to move your coins to be safe. I see no evidence of a "mixer" being the cause.

Such a waste of tx! Ethereum should allow sending directly to 0xAddr#input where input could be kind of tag that is used to identify you.

The address is used to identify you.

Deposit addresses aren't shared across accounts. The re-shuffling of the coins is for the exchanges security and accounting

Re: 68% of total Ethereum transaction value controlled by one system

#70

Is the story that 68% of the traffic is naked laundering or that 68% of the traffic is people buying into ICO that are not already enfranchised in ethereum?

It's not laundering, it's spoofing by some of the earliest Ethereum holders who are trading with themselves on the exchanges to create the appearance of volume and liquidity to drive up the value of their coins.

Please provide some evidence for this potentially libellous claim. I suggest you should check the other comments first.
Post reply on HN