5 ms·

Wouldn't using multiple mixers increase the risk? You only need to be traced once.

shajznnckfke 6y ago
I would not split your transaction between mixers, but instead mix your entire amount through one, then mix all of the outputs through others. Use multiple mixers in series, not in parallel. Compromising one mixer there would associate the inputs and outputs of that step but wouldn’t associate your initial input with your final output. You’d also want to conceal your ip at every step so you don’t get compromised that way either.
- walrus01 6y ago
  Would there not be a huge danger that a mixer operator, if they received $4m+ of BTC in one big transfer, could simply shut down immediately and pull what's known as an 'exit scam'? They would be in possession of the BTC and could themselves then launder it through other mixers. Perhaps they might do this if the saw keeping the entire 4m as much more lucrative than many years of taking the percentage skimmed off the top from a number of smaller transactions, and just going into "retirement".
  - shajznnckfke 6y ago
    You’d only want to use a mixer where your transaction represents a small fraction of the total volume (otherwise it doesn’t provide much anonymity). An exit scam isn’t so appealing in that case. If a mixer charges a 1% fee, with an average delay of 1 hour, the ongoing fee earns more than a one-time exit scam of all transactions in flight after just four or five days. It takes time to establish a reputable mixer and scale up, so your wouldn’t ruin it just to get under a week of profit early. Maybe they’d choose to do the exit scam if a really anomalous huge sum showed up, which is so large they can’t mix it effectively anyway. I don’t know if $4M is a lot by those standards.
    - walrus01 6y ago
      Maybe I'm woefully out of touch on the scale of the BTC flowing through mixers on a daily and weekly basis, but if they can earn more than 4M USD in a year by just skimming off the 1%, that's a lot of BTC moving...
      - bananaface 6y ago
        In that case, you split your initial sum and run through multiple sequential series in parallel. You produce more crackable sequences, but you still need to crack an entire sequence to trace the owner.

I would not split your transaction between mixers, but instead mix your entire amount through one, then mix all of the outputs through others. Use multiple mixers in series, not in parallel. Compromising one mixer there would associate the inputs and outputs of that step but wouldn’t associate your initial input with your final output. You’d also want to conceal your ip at every step so you don’t get compromised that way either.

walrus01 6y ago
Would there not be a huge danger that a mixer operator, if they received $4m+ of BTC in one big transfer, could simply shut down immediately and pull what's known as an 'exit scam'? They would be in possession of the BTC and could themselves then launder it through other mixers. Perhaps they might do this if the saw keeping the entire 4m as much more lucrative than many years of taking the percentage skimmed off the top from a number of smaller transactions, and just going into "retirement".
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  You’d only want to use a mixer where your transaction represents a small fraction of the total volume (otherwise it doesn’t provide much anonymity). An exit scam isn’t so appealing in that case. If a mixer charges a 1% fee, with an average delay of 1 hour, the ongoing fee earns more than a one-time exit scam of all transactions in flight after just four or five days. It takes time to establish a reputable mixer and scale up, so your wouldn’t ruin it just to get under a week of profit early. Maybe they’d choose to do the exit scam if a really anomalous huge sum showed up, which is so large they can’t mix it effectively anyway. I don’t know if $4M is a lot by those standards.
  - walrus01 6y ago
    Maybe I'm woefully out of touch on the scale of the BTC flowing through mixers on a daily and weekly basis, but if they can earn more than 4M USD in a year by just skimming off the 1%, that's a lot of BTC moving...
    - bananaface 6y ago
      In that case, you split your initial sum and run through multiple sequential series in parallel. You produce more crackable sequences, but you still need to crack an entire sequence to trace the owner.