<p>Let's assume you're the outside observer. You see 1 BTC go from <code>aaa</code> to <code>bbb</code>, then from <code>bbb</code> to <code>ccc</code>, then from <code>ccc</code> to <code>ddd</code>, and them from <code>ddd</code> to <code>zzz</code> (<code>zzz</code> being associated with service Z). Can you see how easy it is to figure out that addresses <code>aaa</code>, <code>bbb</code>, <code>ccc</code>, and <code>ddd</code> belong to the same person?</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/oiKij.png" alt=""></p>

<p>It doesn't even get much better if you split the money to different addresses and then reunite it. How often do you think some money flow like
<img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ZygQH.png" alt="">
happens without <code>aaa</code> and <code>ddd</code> belonging to the same person?</p>

<p>That's why people use so-called <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mixing_service" rel="nofollow noreferrer">mixing services</a>. A mixing service collects money from several people, as well as addresses to pay the money out to.</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/1iG3L.png" alt=""></p>

<p>As an outside observer, even if you know who the respective owners of addresses <code>111</code>, <code>aaa</code>, <code>ααα</code>, and <code>字字字</code> are, you cannot determine who paid money to <code>zzz</code>, whereas in the first 2 examples, it's pretty obvious what probably happened.</p>

<p>This, of course, is simplified. Similar to how a criminals hiding the origin of their fiat money wouldn't move it to a single bank account in a different country and then back to where they live, mixing services don't give the users their money back after a single iteration. Instead, the money is mixed several times. A graphic showing many iterations and funds of many people, however, wouldn't get the point across very well.</p>

<p>This doesn't help, of course, if an outside observer can match which addresses belong to whom based on how much money went from <code>aaa</code> through the mixer to <code>ΨΨΨ</code>. To prevent such a mapping, the mixer may send money of equal amounts to many addresses. Of course it's a bad idea to reunite the funds afterwards because this makes the owner trackable by amount again.</p>

<p>Note that using a mixing service might be illegal under money laundering laws where you live, especially if it's done with a large amount of money.</p>

<p>Furthermore, a mixing service may just be a scam and the owner will run off with the money given to them.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-20T11:33:18.417Z
one notice to your graphic: wouldn't a mixer also use various (onetime) addresses (instead of one like suggested in the graphic)?
DJCrashdummy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-20T13:42:15.857Z
@DJCrashdummy This wasn't intended to be implied but I can see how one would take this from it and will clarify it.
UTF-8
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-19T14:34:22.457Z
2016-12-13T01:36:56.983Z
2016-12-13T01:36:56.983Z
UTF-8
<p>I want to buy service Z.</p>

<p>I have 2 addresses in my bitcoin wallet: aaa and bbb.</p>

<p>I buy 1 bitcoin from coinbase and tell coinbase to send them to aaa.</p>

<p>Now I send them from aaa to bbb. No one else knows that bbb is also in my wallet.</p>

<p>I buy service Z by sending my bitcoin from bbb to Zwallet.</p>

<p>I'm safe. Yes? Safe ish? Not safe at all? Dead already?</p>

<p>I couldn't find this question asked in such stupid terms. I'm an idiot and need simple questions and answers.</p>

<p>Thanks for your understanding.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-18T21:08:28.853Z
Nobody knows... but they can certainly suspect, and it would be obvious to them that you might try this.  So to some extent it depends on your requirements: is it necessary that nobody even *suspect* that you sent funds to Z, or just necessary that nobody can *prove* it?
Nate Eldredge
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-19T07:58:26.400Z
Is there a way of preventing people from even suspecting? Am I right in thinking that coin tumblers just do the same thing, but a bit more?
tobuslieven
<wallet><address><privacy><buy-bitcoins>
Can I send bitcoin to other address in my wallet to provide anonymity?
tobuslieven
# Can I send bitcoin to other address in my wallet to provide anonymity?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-09-18)

I want to buy service Z.

I have 2 addresses in my bitcoin wallet: aaa and bbb.

I buy 1 bitcoin from coinbase and tell coinbase to send them to aaa.

Now I send them from aaa to bbb. No one else knows that bbb is also in my wallet.

I buy service Z by sending my bitcoin from bbb to Zwallet.

I'm safe. Yes? Safe ish? Not safe at all? Dead already?

I couldn't find this question asked in such stupid terms. I'm an idiot and need simple questions and answers.

Thanks for your understanding.

**Tags:** wallet, address, privacy, buy-bitcoins

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Nobody knows... but they can certainly suspect, and it would be obvious to them that you might try this.  So to some extent it depends on your requirements: is it necessary that nobody even *suspect* that you sent funds to Z, or just necessary that nobody can *prove* it?  
> **username_0**: Is there a way of preventing people from even suspecting? Am I right in thinking that coin tumblers just do the same thing, but a bit more?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-09-19. Score: 10 | Accepted answer

Let's assume you're the outside observer. You see 1 BTC go from `aaa` to `bbb`, then from `bbb` to `ccc`, then from `ccc` to `ddd`, and them from `ddd` to `zzz` (`zzz` being associated with service Z). Can you see how easy it is to figure out that addresses `aaa`, `bbb`, `ccc`, and `ddd` belong to the same person?

![](https://i.sstatic.net/oiKij.png)

It doesn't even get much better if you split the money to different addresses and then reunite it. How often do you think some money flow like
![](https://i.sstatic.net/ZygQH.png)
happens without `aaa` and `ddd` belonging to the same person?

That's why people use so-called [mixing services](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mixing_service). A mixing service collects money from several people, as well as addresses to pay the money out to.

![](https://i.sstatic.net/1iG3L.png)

As an outside observer, even if you know who the respective owners of addresses `111`, `aaa`, `ααα`, and `字字字` are, you cannot determine who paid money to `zzz`, whereas in the first 2 examples, it's pretty obvious what probably happened.

This, of course, is simplified. Similar to how a criminals hiding the origin of their fiat money wouldn't move it to a single bank account in a different country and then back to where they live, mixing services don't give the users their money back after a single iteration. Instead, the money is mixed several times. A graphic showing many iterations and funds of many people, however, wouldn't get the point across very well.

This doesn't help, of course, if an outside observer can match which addresses belong to whom based on how much money went from `aaa` through the mixer to `ΨΨΨ`. To prevent such a mapping, the mixer may send money of equal amounts to many addresses. Of course it's a bad idea to reunite the funds afterwards because this makes the owner trackable by amount again.

Note that using a mixing service might be illegal under money laundering laws where you live, especially if it's done with a large amount of money.

Furthermore, a mixing service may just be a scam and the owner will run off with the money given to them.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: one notice to your graphic: wouldn't a mixer also use various (onetime) addresses (instead of one like suggested in the graphic)?  
> **username_2**: @username_3 This wasn't intended to be implied but I can see how one would take this from it and will clarify it.  

---

