Quote from: ETFbitcoin on Today at 12:00:46 PM

due to instability on bigger chip i'd rather read table for short summary.

I can do that:
Table loading...

(sorry, I used Dutch date format)

I also made a 30 days running average, that should smoothen out the graphs:
Image loading...

(again: Dutch date format)

Quote from: ETFbitcoin on Today at 12:00:46 PM

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 11:07:42 AM

Full data
As far as I know there are no false positives or negatives in my data.

Now i wonder if there's rare occurrence someone accidentally mimic chip behavior. For example, user use one-time address practice and withdraw exactly 0.001BTC * 2^N

I'm pretty sure that's what happened thousands of times, before ChipMixer even existed. But what I meant with "no false positives" is that I hope I didn't miss anything according to my own definition of a chip.

Quote from: PawGo on Today at 12:31:58 PM

Do not you think the amount 0.001 or 0.002 could be so popular that connecting it with chipmixer transfer is a bit risky? Or course we may say it is a candidate because that amount was used, but I think we may have many many uncorrelated transactions.

What do you mean by "risky"? I didn't mean to claim how many of those addresses are related to ChipMixer, but that's the beauty of chips: anyone can create them.

Quote

How about source addresses, any duplicates?

I didn't check source addresses, but I've seen many chips get funded at once in one transaction.