3 ms·
There is also an inherent risk in trusting that the tumbler operator is not willing to cooperate with (or happens to be operated by) western governments. It doe
by vectorpush 11y ago
There is also an inherent risk in trusting that the tumbler operator is not willing to cooperate with (or happens to be operated by) western governments. It doesn't seem like a reliably sustainable strategy, especially for any substantial amount of funds.
- mrchicity 11y agoEven if they don't control it, wouldn't a heavy user be able to build a probabilistic model of where the coins went? If you are 99% of the volume on a tumbler, you know with near certainty that your adversary's coins are being swapped with your own. Paying tumbler fees or even making massive amounts of small-loss bets on a gambling site is well within the resources of a state actor. Bitcoin is small. Eventually real money has to be taken in or out of the system, which gives them a smaller set of individuals to target for investigation.
- mirimir 11y agoRight, so you mix multiple times. You use unlinkable wallets. Electrum and Multibit wallets in Whonix VMs work well. And you successively use different mixing services, so deanonymization would require collusion. Doing three successive mixes is prudent.