3 ms·
This is incorrect. If you have $1000 in bitcoin and send it to a tumbler in say 5 transactions of $200 each, and you specify that each of those transactions sho
by celticninja 11y ago
This is incorrect. If you have $1000 in bitcoin and send it to a tumbler in say 5 transactions of $200 each, and you specify that each of those transactions should send the output as 2 different transactions of $100 each, to different addresses, then there is no way to defintively link those addresses back up (unless the person sends all those coins back to the same address and even then it would take a lot of work to match them up again).
I think you think that someone sends $1000 btc to a new addres, then $500 btc to address 1, $500 to address 2, does this a few times and then sends all the coins to address 56, which then holds $1000. This would be possible to trace but would be time consuming to do.
The method I mention above would safely unlink any coins in the final addresses from the $1000 you started with.
- alasano 11y agoBitcoin itself is a chore to anonymize properly AND to feel 100% safe after doing it. I know some people like Monero (crypto note ring signature based, not Satoshi base) but as far as using bitcoin base code, Dash (formerly darkcoin) has the best coin join like solution. It's a decentralized, passive (done before any real transaction), denominated mixing with up to 16 rounds. Obtaining less than a 1% chance of unmasking a SINGLE transaction in their model would cost millions of $. I don't bitcoin is going anywhere but the flexibility some of these altcoins have is amazing for development. Dash (digital+cash) btw, wants to fix every problem with bitcoin. They have anonimity, incentivized full nodes which share the block reward, instant transactions (5 of 6 confirmations within a few seconds) and more recently a model to fund development of the currency directly on the blockchain. Developers propose projects which are voted on and the blockchain itself sets aside the budget.