Quote from: _act_ on Today at 04:50:31 PM

Who is saying that a mixer can not be a fake mixer or a shady mixer? I did not see where I mentioned that. All I said was that a reputable mixing service should be used and that if you want to use the mixing service, that it is good to go for the .onion link which is more privacy that using the clearnet link.

Whether a mixer is a "fake mixer", a "shady mixer" or a "reputable mixer" doesn't change the fact they custody your funds and data. Even if you use an onion link, the mixer still collects your transaction history:

Quote from: Kruw on February 11, 2024, 12:42:06 PM

Quote from: Kruw on January 28, 2024, 10:39:16 PM

Quote from: n0nce on January 28, 2024, 10:35:41 PM

I'm going to stand by what I said: it was a bad practice from the side of ChipMixer, but it's not a flaw in the concept of centralized mixers, in itself.

If a service does everything correctly (including deleting private keys and any backups of them after handing them to the user), something like what happened to CM could simply not happen.

It IS a flaw in the concept of centralized mixers: If you are okay with sacrificing ownership to custodians, why wouldn't you recommend a custodian that can't track their users, like ecash mints or a federated chain with CT enabled? Why wouldn't you consider it a flaw that "mixer sites" gain complete access to your financial history despite fully anonymous custodians existing?

@n0nce, I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why this isn't an obvious flaw. Here's an educational piece explaining how Chaumian eCash works: https://lconf.gandlaf.com/#/3