no

Please consider clarifying what do you mean by changing identity for the business.

Full-Chain Membership Proofs (FCMP), as a concept, is a replacement for rings within the Monero protocol. … This means every input goes from an immediate anonymity set of 16 to 100,000,000.

https://ccs.getmonero.org/proposals/fcmp++-development.html shows “Completed 0 of 7 milestones” at my end.

Quoting from https://docs.featherwallet.org/guides/nodes

However, a malicious remote node can:

• execute an attack that may reveal the true input of a transaction. This attack does not reveal how much is spent or to whom. This attack has a low chance of succeeding and Feather will warn you if it detects this attack.
• make your outgoing transactions stick out by manipulating the transaction fee that you pay.
• associate your outgoing transactions with your IP address (but only if all traffic is routed through clearnet, see Tor support for more information. By default, transactions are broadcast over Tor.)

If you have an insight/feedback on this, please comment.

Ok, so spending received XMR within 15 blocks (block time seems to be 2 minutes, so half a hour) is too early and spending every 6 months incoming payments in one single tx to my secondary wallet i suppose is too long time… hmm, that is all quite complicated, I can’t asses/compare these times (30 minutes vs 1 month vs 6 months) significance of the impact on anonymity. But thank you.

I will need to consolidate/sweep hundreds of transactions maybe once per year and pay it to someone in one big transaction. This big transaction is mandatory, i can not pay them in small amounts. The plan on how to proceed is already mentioned below when you search for “C)” on this page. Please if it is wrong or if you have an improvement idea (anonymity-wise), comment on that below. Thank you

Thx, I have found that the small to medium Lemmy instances are NOT aware about the post, yet most of big instances are. So it fits what has been said: “New posts and comments should always propagate if at least one user is subscribed to the community.” - big instances and old instances has higher likelyhood of someone being subscibed to it prior to me posting the post, so the instance could download that post. Related topic: What are the conditions for the Lemmy post to be distributed to other Lemmy instances?

what you meant.

You have not meantioned what you have not understood, so i can tell that my question was if i should be withdrawing my receiving Monero wallet often or if is ok to withdraw it rarely. (when it comes to privacy/anonymity, which way is better, how much better or even if you want to tell why)

I can not find it so I assume it has been introduced in newer version than the one I am using.

https://lemmy.ml sidebar shows “4.49K Communities; 129K Posts; 557K Comments” Maybe only admin can discover accurate number of indexed pages by adding their site into a Google/Bing webmaster tools and verifying the site ownership.

I think that when I am having link like https://lemmings.world/post/10530999 or knowing a title of the post, i can not discover in which community it has been posted… When I check same number of post on different instance: https://lemmy.ml/post/10530999 it does NOT work. Yet the search works: https://lemmy.ml/search?q=10530999 is there no other/easier way than opening one big instance after another (for example from the list https://lemmyverse.net/?order=posts&open=true ) and use search like that?

What are the steps to discover it knowing ONLY lets say “lemmings.world/post/10530999” and nothing else. If that is not possible, then knowing title “Dead Lemmy instance, how/where to find backup of the post that was on the offline instance?” and mentioned URL, while not knowing parent community name or the instance from which the post originated.

Not local data, question is meant from a regular visitor point of view (not necessarily an instance admin).

OF opinion: good not to be adicted to it or to anything actually.

The more outputs you have/use, to more traceable you get

Thanks for your input. ChatGPT says “using more outputs in your transactions can potentially lead to unintentional traceability if those outputs are later used in a larger transaction. This is why it is important to carefully plan and manage how you use outputs in your transactions to maximize privacy.” So it confirms what you have said.

So I guess that I should avoid manually adding multiple outputs in aim to decrease chance of a tracking, I am saying that since i am usually getting small transactions and spending in big ones (which would “consolidate” small outputs and more less invalidate my anonymization effort). So I guess i will do just churning with single output to my secondary wallet and in case i want to “join” funds from “home” and “work” accounts, I can do:

C)

3rd party -> work -> work2nd

KYC’ed 3rd party -> home -> home2nd -> home3rd -> work2nd

and then spend big transaction from work2nd (or maybe i can skip the step “home3rd -> work2nd” and source the big transaction from various accounts, yet someone claimed last year “It seems that at the present moment, neither the Monero GUI/RPC/CLI wallets implement the ability to transfer from multiple addresses.” and I can confirm I am unable to find it in Monero GUI [btw. it is very slow to sync (even tens of minutes if not ran for 2 weeks+), i am NOT running node and i am using Tor proxy inside it]. Feedback to what I have written is much appreciated.

don’t use a churn output with an unchurned output

You mean that the churning by sending from my wallet to this same wallet(i can also say account or sub account of the wallet) (sending to self) just part of its ballance, will result in churned and non churned outputs in that wallet and these will be joined together if i later (after a week) send a big transaction (or wallet sweep) causing my previous churning be pointless? Maybe in this case is better for simplicity to always churn (part or full balance - i do not know if there is any benefit in sending in parts or in full) to second account within my wallet (instead of sending to self/same address) to prevent this. And i will be sending XMR to a third parties only from that secondary account?

Maybe ask them to establish private (end to end encrypted - E2EE) communication channel by using PGP or ask them to use the service like proton.me which has E2EE mail. If they know some answer to your question, you can send them link to an password protected paste at https://bin.disroot.org

Thanks, I see that the cross-posting works like this: “In order to cross post, I need to first create the post in one community, then after I create the post, I can click the two nested squares icon under the title of the post (with the pop-up text “cross post”) that shows up on mouse-over.” https://lemmy.world/post/354611

I assume that you mean to receive XMR on own wallet 1, wait for example one week, send to own wallet 2, wait a few days and then spend it (for example in an e-shop)?

According to @jet@hackertalks.com jet@hackertalks.com suggestions, i assume that to improve this, i can split the first transaction between my wallets into two payments (hours or a day delay between each) and each sent to different wallet of mine, then making sure i do not send these two outputs later into same wallet of mine, which would compromise my anonymization attempt? Is this split into 2 payments doubling the difficulty to trace the payment?

The method described in this whole post of mine can be considered very unlikely to be traced by any government in the next decade? Thank you

Thanks, I would like to be able to understand how big improvement would be to send the same or similar amount to secondary wallet of mine when comparing to direct sending mentioned by you. I think that i want above average protection, but i am unable to estimate impact (on TX traceability) of 1,2 more transactions of similar amount between my wallets and i am not enough technical to read and understand tens of technical pages of the Monero whitepaper.