[This memo](https://duke.hush.is/memos/6/) was posted here 👇🏻 and it caught my eye.
https://stacker.news/items/904285/r/expatriotic
Tl;dr is use two monero wallets. One for incoming txs and one for outgoing.
Discussion
I'm pretty sure the author is mistaken. Separate wallets help with other attacks (i.e. Janus), so you might still want to do this anyway, but I don't think it's relevant for this attack.
There is no difference seen on-chain from you sending your entire balance to a 2nd wallet VS sending your entire balance to the same wallet.
You would still have the same number of inputs/outputs and you would generate a completely new stealth address in either case.
Unless I missed something, and if so lmk, but I can't see any difference.
I know they warn about churning, but I'm not suggesting to continuously do this, just as a thing you do once in awhile, or as often as you would do if you followed their advice with a 2nd wallet.
I mitigate a lot of this by:
1. being boring
2. NEVER buying or selling KYCed bitcoin or monero
Buying/selling no-KYC is probably the biggest mitigation for sure
i think you're right.
i suspect he's being so insistent about two separate wallets just because it's easier organizationally. its hard to keep track of which outputs youve already churned.
Ive been doing it this way for quite some time.
additional note
depending on theeat model you also may want to know *which outputs are being combined, ie use coin control and sweep to the new address .
and upon reflection
when churning, does it even matter if you send to the same subaddress multiple times?
a new stealth address is generated anyway right?
The way I understand it the same stealth address is never seen more than once as an output on the entire blockchain (36^64 unique combinations)
It doesn't matter if you send to the same subaddress multiple times you will always get a completely new never-before-seen stealth address on-chain.
right 👍