Where did you get the figure of 2 for the anonymity set of Monero (that has other privacy features that you forgot to mention)? Maybe you are oversimplifying a complex problem.

[–] CashDragon@realbitcoin.cash 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I did not present a figure of 2 specifically. The point is Monero is more vulnerable than previously believed but still this is likely irrelevant to casual users as no one will put so much effort into mass tracing anyway. Given this logic, for the vast majority of users Bitcoin Cash with CashFusion is private enough IMO.

Using standard statistical methods, that ring size of 16 shrinks to an average of 4.2, slashing Monero’s privacy by about 75% compared to what was previously assumed.

https://news.bitcoinprotocol.org/monero-privacy-faces-new-threat-with-map-decoder-attack-heres-what-you-need-to-know/

[–] azalty@jlai.lu 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The website's article completely bases itself on https://duke.hush.is/memos/6/

Both are spreading FUD about churning. The 2 wallets method is also churning, but "easy" version because you're separating the results. The end result is still dangerous: you could spend 2 of your "Outgoing" coins in the same transaction, which is really easy to identify, provided both coins are from the same source.

I'd argue the stastical risk of establishing a trace thanks to a serie of churns is extremely unlikely. Nobody will churn 6+ times anyways, and the advantages of churning far outweighs the ones of not churning.

Sadly, they also don't state anything about how that "MAP Decoder Attack" works. After searching, it's pretty interesting, and we come onto the pretty well known issue that decoy distribution isn't perfect.

FCMP will fix this. In the meantime, please churn for any sensitive transaction. Either method (2 wallets or classic churning) works and the effects are always good, even if other mistakes are made (except if sweeping all).

I have to say I haven't really checked much of Rucknium's work, but it's pretty damn precise. Guy knows what he's talking about. Our next big threat will be malicious remote nodes, like he said!