You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If privacy is very important to you, you might consider using a service like Shapeshift to exchange your Bitcoins for an more anonymous cryptocurrency, such as Monero, and then exchange them back to Bitcoins. However, this will cost you fees, and importantly, it requires you trust the operator of the exchange service not to steal or lose your funds.
Comments:
Shapeshift's privacy has recently been reduced (eliminated?) with KYC/AML requirements and similar services are likely to follow
Shapeshift has exchange limits far below the levels Glacier is aimed at
Also, just below that:
This guide gives additional detail about how to increase Bitcoin anonymity using Monero & Tor.
Link is dead.
With the design document clearly stating that privacy is not a primary design goal of Glacier, are both suggestions better removed? Passing on the community's trust in Glacier to a third party like Shapeshift, or what will inevitably become an out-dated bitcoinnewsmagazine.com article, may not be wise.
I suggest we mention that bitcoin>monero>bitcoin is an option for privacy without giving any more detail, and that anything as specific as the link to the bitcoinnewsmagazine.com article is removed completely.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The protocol currently states:
Comments:
Also, just below that:
Link is dead.
With the design document clearly stating that privacy is not a primary design goal of Glacier, are both suggestions better removed? Passing on the community's trust in Glacier to a third party like Shapeshift, or what will inevitably become an out-dated bitcoinnewsmagazine.com article, may not be wise.
I suggest we mention that bitcoin>monero>bitcoin is an option for privacy without giving any more detail, and that anything as specific as the link to the bitcoinnewsmagazine.com article is removed completely.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: