3 ms·

If you're doing it persistently you just end up flooding the blockchain with useless information. At least with CoinJoin you're reducing the number of payment T

by nwh 13y ago

If you're doing it persistently you just end up flooding the blockchain with useless information. At least with CoinJoin you're reducing the number of payment TXs that need to be stored and validated. The blockchain is already getting annoyingly large (20GB+ with indexes) without adding fluff like that. If you really want to hide your tracks without hiding your tracks, just use any service with a shared wallet.

oleganza 13y ago
You pay for transactions. Don't tell people what to do with their money. Most of the transactions wouldn't be mixed at all. Just using new addresses with small balances is good enough for daily purchases. Mixing is needed only in certain cases like before and after big consolidating transactions. CoinJoin is nice too, but it does not look well in the eyes of "anti-structuring" laws. Shared wallet is an FBI honeypot unless proven otherwise (which is impossible to do). The best way is to have as big pool of random nodes as possible participating in the laundering. Like with Tor: the more users join it, the safer you are from some malicious entities.
- nwh 13y ago
  A shared wallet, not the "shared wallet" service. Many services use them internally, they're in no way a trap. > CoinJoin is nice too, but it does not look well in the eyes of "anti-structuring" laws. Neither is a system that flings around your wallet contents all the time.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    Any service can share its operations with an adversary. That's a risk. If you don't understand that, then you should prefer Digicash to Bitcoin as it's more anonymous, confirms transactions instantly and does not need any stupid mining. System that flings around my wallet contents does not leave a trace of that activity on the blockchain. Meaning of every transaction is known only to transacting parties, but not to anyone else. That's the big difference from any shared wallet, where operator sees the meaning of all transactions going through it.

by nwh 13y ago

oleganza 13y ago

You pay for transactions. Don't tell people what to do with their money. Most of the transactions wouldn't be mixed at all. Just using new addresses with small balances is good enough for daily purchases. Mixing is needed only in certain cases like before and after big consolidating transactions. CoinJoin is nice too, but it does not look well in the eyes of "anti-structuring" laws. Shared wallet is an FBI honeypot unless proven otherwise (which is impossible to do). The best way is to have as big pool of random nodes as possible participating in the laundering. Like with Tor: the more users join it, the safer you are from some malicious entities.

nwh 13y ago
A shared wallet, not the "shared wallet" service. Many services use them internally, they're in no way a trap. > CoinJoin is nice too, but it does not look well in the eyes of "anti-structuring" laws. Neither is a system that flings around your wallet contents all the time.
- oleganza 13y ago
  Any service can share its operations with an adversary. That's a risk. If you don't understand that, then you should prefer Digicash to Bitcoin as it's more anonymous, confirms transactions instantly and does not need any stupid mining. System that flings around my wallet contents does not leave a trace of that activity on the blockchain. Meaning of every transaction is known only to transacting parties, but not to anyone else. That's the big difference from any shared wallet, where operator sees the meaning of all transactions going through it.