Bitcoin privacy showerthought: most users don't have 100kUSD+ in bitcoin. Usually it's 1k-50kUSD range. More specifically, even if they do have a large stash, the part that's ever active (i.e. they spend it, move it) is in that smaller range. (source: I made it the fuck up). Assuming that is correct, why not have a wallet that actively manages your privacy like this: on a regular but somewhat randomized schedule, it performs submarine swaps moving random chunks of your money (anything from $50 to $1000) into a channel. On an equally random schedule it can move money back, in reverse, to keep your money onchain most of the time, if that's what you prefer (you can keep a on-chain off-chain split percentage as a setting perhaps). The swaps are done with third parties. What "comes out" the other side will be very difficult to link to the original onchain coins. This will cost a bit in fees but I think for a certain midrange of amounts the fees will be very tolerable (it may not be a good solution when individual chunks go down to 2 figures, not sure). Probably not worse than coinjoin fees and I think the outcome is better, or at least it could be, if the third party swappers were actively trying to create outputs without fingerprints like hash preimages (insert technical argument).

(It would be of course important that the "after" account is different from the "before" to prevent co-spending. That's one thing that too few people do it seems to me, to partition wallets into multiple accounts for different usages (well apart from privacy wallets ofc).)

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Just save in Bitcoin and spend Monero.

I like the idea of payjoin with the use of a LN hold invoice. A gets the change of B, and B gets a LN payment of B's change (equal amount).

Who's paying who in the payjoin here?

is there any tool doing this?

Hmm. I wondered if someone would bring up ecash as a possible approach. It is *interesting*, for sure, but I'm talking about larger amounts here. I feel like if we stick to small amounts, privacy problems aren't nearly so bad. And at large amounts, is ecash both practical and low enough risk?

goal is to support onchain, lightning, and ecash with tor integrated, + automatic channel creation and swaps to get in and out of mints (which are lightning only)

cc: nostr:nprofile1qqswrlemlh2wgqc4jkds3d8ueqj9a2j3gcm7r48v9tskdd6rxsd7rtcpydmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuun0w4hxgun0vd4ky6t5vdhkjmn9wfejucm0d5q3samnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwdhx7un59eek7cmfv9kqhd3tl8

You don't need trusted third parties or custodians to swap coins.

Yeah nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx don’t you know third parties are security holes???

What do you mean when you say its "important that the after account be different than before"?

You just mean don't mix clean inputs with old inputs, right?

It just want to make sure you don't mean generating completely new seed phrase?

Account is a BIP32 thing. Basically a different (2) branch(es) of the HD tree. The stated intent of accounts in BIP32 is basically isolation of the coins, addresses from ones in other accounts.

It's imo the most natural way to prevent co-spending though of course it can be done otherwise.

So basically what you're saying is don't re-use addresses, and don't use both clean and dirty addresses as inputs to the same transaction, because that links the clean coins to the other coins.

Annnnnndddd mempools never clear again.

Hi waxwing 🏴‍☠️😉🤟 nice to meet you 🤝 The idea of submarine swaps is interesting for improving privacy, especially for users with mid-range balances. Randomizing transfers between channels and on-chain is valid, but it heavily relies on the privacy and security of third parties involved. Wallet management to avoid co-spending is crucial for maintaining privacy. That said, the solution could be useful but needs to be well-automated and accessible, with attention to transaction costs, which could add up over time.