Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 37 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

Detectable Bitcoin privacy protocols are used in less than 1 percent of transactions and declined after regulatory events.

2026-07-02 10:46 UTC pith:52RIDJVJ

load-bearing objection The paper counts low Bitcoin privacy-protocol adoption via heuristics but leaves filter accuracy unvalidated, so the <1% and post-regulation decline claims rest on shaky ground. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.00772 v1 pith:52RIDJVJ submitted 2026-07-01 cs.CR

No Country for Old Privacy: The Evolving Challenges of Anonymity in Bitcoin

Ben Hawkins , Joshua Levett , Siamak F. Shahandashti This is my paper
classification cs.CR
keywords BitcoinprivacyanonymityCoinJoinCoinSwapCoinShuffleStealth Addressesadoption measurement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper conducts a longitudinal study tracking the use of CoinJoin, CoinSwap, CoinShuffle, and Stealth Addresses on the Bitcoin blockchain. It applies refined heuristic filters to count millions of such transactions and measures their share of total network activity. Adoption stays below 1 percent throughout the period examined, with a clear drop following regulatory milestones. CoinShuffle activity tracks the lifespan of one specific wallet, while Stealth Addresses show no sign of settling on a single format. The findings indicate that users seeking privacy have largely moved to methods that leave fewer visible traces on the public ledger.

Core claim

By implementing and refining a suite of heuristic filters, the study identifies over 5.94 million CoinJoin and 23.3 million CoinSwap transactions, with CoinShuffle usage closely aligned to the Wasabi wallet period. These detectable second-generation anonymisation protocols constitute less than 1 percent of network transactions, exhibit a sharp decline in detectable usage following key regulatory events, and show no evidence of standardised Stealth Address adoption, indicating a failure to converge on a common privacy standard and suggesting migration of privacy-seeking users to less transparent and less detectable methods.

What carries the argument

A suite of refined heuristic filters that detect CoinJoin, CoinSwap, CoinShuffle, and Stealth Address transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Load-bearing premise

The implemented heuristic filters correctly identify the privacy-protocol transactions with low error rates and without substantial false positives.

What would settle it

An independent re-analysis of the same blockchain data that reports substantially higher counts of these transaction types or sustained usage levels after the regulatory events.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • These protocols make up less than 1 percent of all Bitcoin transactions.
  • Detectable usage drops sharply after key regulatory events.
  • CoinShuffle activity matches the operational window of the Wasabi wallet.
  • No common standard for Stealth Addresses has emerged.
  • Privacy-seeking activity has shifted toward less visible methods.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Regulatory pressure appears to reduce the visibility of privacy tools rather than eliminate privacy-seeking behavior.
  • On-chain measurements may systematically undercount total privacy activity once users adopt harder-to-detect techniques.
  • Future privacy designs may need to avoid creating recognizable on-chain patterns to remain effective.
  • Repeated longitudinal scans of the same blockchain could reveal whether the decline stabilizes or reverses with new tools.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents a longitudinal measurement study of detectable second-generation Bitcoin privacy protocols (CoinJoin, CoinSwap, CoinShuffle, Stealth Addresses). Using a suite of heuristic filters, it identifies 5.94 million CoinJoin and 23.3 million CoinSwap transactions, reports adoption below 1% of network volume, documents a post-regulatory decline in detectable usage, notes CoinShuffle alignment with Wasabi, and finds no evidence of standardized Stealth Address deployment, suggesting migration to less visible methods.

Significance. If the heuristic identifications prove reliable, the work supplies a rare quantitative baseline on the on-chain visibility and regulatory responsiveness of privacy tools, documenting consistently low adoption and the absence of convergence on Stealth Address standards. Such empirical trends would be useful for both policy analysis and future privacy research.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Methods] Abstract and methods section: The headline counts (5.94M CoinJoin, 23.3M CoinSwap) and the <1% adoption statistic are generated exclusively by the heuristic filters, yet the manuscript supplies no precision/recall figures, no ground-truth test set drawn from known Wasabi/JoinMarket outputs, and no false-positive analysis on ordinary non-privacy traffic. Standard equal-output patterns can overlap with non-CoinJoin transactions, so any non-negligible error rate directly scales the reported volumes and the central low-adoption claim.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim of a 'sharp decline in detectable usage following key regulatory events' requires precise timing alignment between the heuristic detections and the regulatory dates; without reported validation of the filters or sensitivity checks on timing windows, the causal attribution remains unsupported.
minor comments (1)
  1. The manuscript should include a dedicated limitations subsection that explicitly discusses the known failure modes of the heuristics and any manual spot-checks performed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our longitudinal measurement of detectable Bitcoin privacy protocols. We address the two major comments below and will revise the manuscript to improve methodological transparency and the presentation of temporal trends.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Methods] Abstract and methods section: The headline counts (5.94M CoinJoin, 23.3M CoinSwap) and the <1% adoption statistic are generated exclusively by the heuristic filters, yet the manuscript supplies no precision/recall figures, no ground-truth test set drawn from known Wasabi/JoinMarket outputs, and no false-positive analysis on ordinary non-privacy traffic. Standard equal-output patterns can overlap with non-CoinJoin transactions, so any non-negligible error rate directly scales the reported volumes and the central low-adoption claim.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript lacks explicit precision/recall figures and a reported false-positive analysis. Ground-truth labeled datasets from privacy tools are not publicly available, which limits direct validation. The heuristics follow patterns documented in prior work on CoinJoin and CoinSwap. In revision we will add a dedicated Limitations subsection that (a) discusses overlap risks with non-privacy equal-output transactions, (b) reports the outcome of applying the filters to a control sample of ordinary traffic, and (c) qualifies the adoption-rate claims accordingly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim of a 'sharp decline in detectable usage following key regulatory events' requires precise timing alignment between the heuristic detections and the regulatory dates; without reported validation of the filters or sensitivity checks on timing windows, the causal attribution remains unsupported.

    Authors: The decline is visible in the time-series of detected transactions. To make the alignment explicit we will (i) list the exact regulatory announcement dates in the revised abstract and results, (ii) add annotations on the relevant figures, and (iii) include a sensitivity analysis that varies the observation windows around those dates. These additions will be placed in the Methods and Results sections. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical measurement study with no derivation chain or self-referential steps

full rationale

This paper is a longitudinal empirical study that applies a suite of heuristic filters to Bitcoin blockchain transaction data to count and trend CoinJoin, CoinSwap, CoinShuffle, and Stealth Address usage. The central claims (transaction counts, <1% adoption, post-regulatory decline) are direct outputs of those filters applied to the ledger; there are no equations, fitted parameters, predictions, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems that reduce to inputs by construction. No self-citations are load-bearing for any result, and the study contains no mathematical derivation chain to inspect for circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the heuristics themselves are the unstated modeling choice.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5687 in / 1119 out tokens · 49176 ms · 2026-07-02T10:46:22.459912+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a longitudinal measurement study on the adoption of detectable, second-generation anonymisation protocols in the Bitcoin network, including CoinJoin, CoinSwap, CoinShuffle and Stealth Addresses. By implementing and refining a suite of heuristic filters, we identify over 5.94 million CoinJoin and 23.3 million CoinSwap transactions. Besides, the use of CoinShuffle was unexpectedly found to be closely aligned with the Wasabi wallet operation period. Our analysis reveals consistently low adoption rates, with these protocols constituting less than 1% of network transactions, and a sharp decline in detectable usage following key regulatory events. Furthermore, we find no evidence of standardised Stealth Address adoption, indicating a failure to converge on a common privacy standard. This study provides a comprehensive picture of a niche ecosystem whose on-chain visibility has been largely suppressed, strongly suggesting the migration of privacy-seeking users to less transparent and less detectable methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00772 by Ben Hawkins, Joshua Levett, Siamak F. Shahandashti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: A CoinShuffle protocol, where Alice has addresses A, A ′ , Bob B, B ′ , and Charlie C, C ′ (adapted from [30]); Right: Fair Exchange transactions (adapted from [1]). announcing the protocol, each participant generates a fresh ephemeral key pair, and broadcasts their public keys. After agreeing on a participant order, each par￾ticipant i receives i − 1 ciphertexts containing layered encryptions of pre… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: BTC Transactions per Block over 1,008 block Periods privacy-enhancing solutions tend to see greater interest. Additionally, regulatory scrutiny, such as FBI warnings (Event G) against unregistered crypto services, typically pushes users to adopt more robust privacy tools due to increasing con￾cerns over data privacy and transaction tracing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Normalised CoinJoin Transactions per Block 5.1 CoinJoin The heuristic analysis identified a total of 5,948,184 CoinJoin transactions across the full study period. As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normalised CoinSwap Transactions per Block same number of individuals were using both protocols, we would expect far more CoinSwap transactions, than CoinJoin transactions. Accounting for CoinJoin’s ∼50 participants per transaction [25](vs. 2 for CoinSwap), its 6 million transactions become 300 million participant-uses, while CoinSwap’s 23 million becomes 46 million. CoinJoin therefore serves ∼6.5× more us… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalised CoinShuffle Transactions per Block because Wasabi’s coordinator-based implementation, while distinct from a pure peer-to-peer design, generates transactions with an on-chain structure function￾ally identical to that of CoinShuffle. Although CoinShuffle was proposed in 2014, the first discernible activity only emerged around block 600k (late 2019), coinciding precisely with Wasabi’s rise as the f… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Normalised Stealth Address Transactions per Block produced by Heuristic 2 activity indicates that these detections likely represent anomalous events, e.g., the short-term testing of a protocol or, more likely, non-stealth data embedding, rather than evidence of stealth address usage. The second, broad heuristic produced many detections ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Moving Average of Normalised Transactions per Block for All Protocols 5.5 Protocol Competition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: FC’12

    Barber, S., Boyen, X., Shi, E., Uzun, E.: Bitter to better – how to make Bitcoin a better currency. In: FC’12. LNCS, vol. 7397, pp. 399–414. Springer (2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    transaction fee chart (2025),https://bitinfochart s.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html

    BitInfoCharts: Bitcoin avg. transaction fee chart (2025),https://bitinfochart s.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Bitstamp: Terra network collapse (2024), available online frombitstamp.net

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    ChainalysisTeam:Bitcoin’sTaprootupgrade:Everythingyouneedtoknow(2021), https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/bitcoin-taproot-upgrade

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Chainalysis Team: What you need to know about the Bitcoin halving (2024),ht tps://www.chainalysis.com/blog/bitcoin-halving-2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Corrigan-Gibbs, H., Ford, B.: Dissent: accountable anonymous group messaging. In: CCS. pp. 340–350. ACM (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Egger, M.: Rusty-blockparser,https://crates.io/crates/rusty-blockparser

    work page

  8. [8]

    In: UIC/ATC/ScalCom/CBDCom/IoP/SmartWorld

    Harrigan, M., Fretter, C.: The unreasonable effectiveness of address clustering. In: UIC/ATC/ScalCom/CBDCom/IoP/SmartWorld. pp. 368–373. IEEE (2016)

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    Bitcoin News (2023), available online frombitcoin.com

    Helms, K.: Blackrock files for bitcoin trust — analyst calls it a ‘real deal’ spot bitcoin ETF filing. Bitcoin News (2023), available online frombitcoin.com

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Internet Crime Complaint Center: Alert on cryptocurrency money services busi- nesses (2024),https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2024/PSA240425

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    In: USENIX Security Symposium

    Kappos, G., Yousaf, H., Maller, M., Meiklejohn, S.: An empirical analysis of ano- nymity in Zcash. In: USENIX Security Symposium. pp. 463–477. USENIX (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    In: Financial Cryptography

    Kappos, G., Yousaf, H., Piotrowska, A.M., Kanjalkar, S., Delgado-Segura, S., Miller, A., Meiklejohn, S.: An empirical analysis of privacy in the Lightning Net- work. In: Financial Cryptography. LNCS, vol. 12674, pp. 167–186. Springer (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Lombrozo, E., Lau, J., Wuille, P.: BIP 141: Segregated witness (consensus layer) (2015),https://bips.dev/141

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    Bitcoin Forum (2013), https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0

    Maxwell, G.: Coinjoin: Bitcoin privacy for the real world. Bitcoin Forum (2013), https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    Bitcoin Fo- rum (2013),https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=321228 No Country for Old Privacy 17

    Maxwell, G.: CoinSwap: Transaction graph disjoint trustless trading. Bitcoin Fo- rum (2013),https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=321228 No Country for Old Privacy 17

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    In: Internet Measurement Conference

    Meiklejohn, S., Pomarole, M., Jordan, G., Levchenko, K., McCoy, D., Voelker, G.M., Savage, S.: A fistful of Bitcoins: Characterizing payments among men with no names. In: Internet Measurement Conference. pp. 127–140. ACM (2013)

    work page 2013

  17. [17]

    In: FC’15 Workshops

    Möser, M., Böhme, R.: Trends, tips, tolls: A longitudinal study of bitcoin transac- tion fees. In: FC’15 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 8976, pp. 19–33. Springer (2015)

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    In: EuroS&P Workshops

    Möser, M., Böhme, R.: Anonymous alone? measuring Bitcoin’s second-generation anonymization techniques. In: EuroS&P Workshops. pp. 32–41. IEEE (2017)

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    Möser, M., Böhme, R.: The price of anonymity: empirical evidence from a market for Bitcoin anonymization. J. Cybersecur.3(2), 127–135 (2017)

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    In: eCrime

    Möser, M., Böhme, R., Breuker, D.: An inquiry into money laundering tools in the Bitcoin ecosystem. In: eCrime. pp. 1–14. IEEE (2013)

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    Bitcoin Magazine,https://bitcoi nmagazine.com/guides/bitcoin-price-history

    Mulcahy, C.: Bitcoin price history: 2009–2025. Bitcoin Magazine,https://bitcoi nmagazine.com/guides/bitcoin-price-history

    work page 2009

  22. [22]

    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2008),www.bitcoi n.org/en/bitcoin-paper

    work page 2008

  23. [23]

    IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, Pa- per 2015/1098 (2015),https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1098

    Noether, S.: Ring confidential transactions. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, Pa- per 2015/1098 (2015),https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1098

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    In: Financial Cryp- tography, LNCS 12674

    Pakki, J., Shoshitaishvili, Y., Wang, R., Bao, T., Doupé, A.: Everything you ever wanted to know about Bitcoin mixers (but were afraid to ask). In: Financial Cryp- tography, LNCS 12674. pp. 117–146. Springer (2021)

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    GitHub (2020),https://github.com/PulpCattel/Wasabi_Observatory

    PulpCattel: Wasabi observatory: A list of statistics of the wasabi wallet. GitHub (2020),https://github.com/PulpCattel/Wasabi_Observatory

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    Ranvier, J.: BIP 47: Reusable payment codes for hierarchical deterministic wallets (2015),https://bips.dev/47

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    In: So- cialCom/PASSAT

    Reid, F., Harrigan, M.: An analysis of anonymity in the Bitcoin system. In: So- cialCom/PASSAT. pp. 1318–1326. IEEE ComSoc (2011)

    work page 2011

  28. [28]

    In: Financial Cryptography

    Ron, D., Shamir, A.: Quantitative analysis of the full Bitcoin transaction graph. In: Financial Cryptography. LNCS, vol. 7859, pp. 6–24. Springer (2013)

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    In: FC’17 Workshops, LNCS 10323

    Ruffing, T., Moreno-Sanchez, P.: ValueShuffle: Mixing confidential transactions for comprehensive transaction privacy in Bitcoin. In: FC’17 Workshops, LNCS 10323. pp. 133–154. Springer (2017)

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    In: ESORICS

    Ruffing,T.,Moreno-Sanchez,P.,Kate,A.:CoinShuffle:Practicaldecentralizedcoin mixing for Bitcoin. In: ESORICS. LNCS, vol. 8713, pp. 345–364. Springer (2014)

    work page 2014

  31. [31]

    IACR ePrint 2016/824 (2016),https://ia.cr/2016/824

    Ruffing, T., Moreno-Sanchez, P., Kate, A.: P2P mixing and unlinkable bitcoin transactions. IACR ePrint 2016/824 (2016),https://ia.cr/2016/824

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    Whitepaper (2013),https://web.getmon ero.org/resources/research-lab/pubs/cryptonote-whitepaper.pdf

    van Saberhagen, N.: Cryptonote v 2.0. Whitepaper (2013),https://web.getmon ero.org/resources/research-lab/pubs/cryptonote-whitepaper.pdf

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    IET Blockchain3(3), 136–148 (2023)

    Shojaeinasab, A., Motamed, A.P., Bahrak, B.: Mixing detection on Bitcoin trans- actions using statistical patterns. IET Blockchain3(3), 136–148 (2023)

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Stütz, R., Stockinger, J., Moreno-Sanchez, P., Haslhofer, B., Maffei, M.: Adoption and actual privacy of decentralized CoinJoin implementations in Bitcoin. In: AFT. pp. 254–267. ACM (2022)

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    UkuriaOC, Checkmate, Glassnode: Ordinal theory and the rise of bitcoin inscrip- tions (2023), available online fromglassnode.com

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Wu, L., Hu, Y., Zhou, Y., Wang, H., Luo, X., Wang, Z., Zhang, F., Ren, K.: Towards understanding and demystifying Bitcoin mixing services. In: WWW. pp. 33–44. ACM/IW3C2 (2021)

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    In: USENIX Security Symposium

    Yousaf, H., Kappos, G., Meiklejohn, S.: Tracing transactions across cryptocurrency ledgers. In: USENIX Security Symposium. pp. 837–850. USENIX (2019)

    work page 2019