The problem with mixing coins (all of these are a form of mixing basically) is that you receive funds from random sources, so when you deposit these funds into a KYC place, or someone that you paid deposits these funds into a KYC place, then their chainalysis systems may get triggered by something you received during the funds and now you have a problem, since the person you paid to may point to you as the previous owner of these funds. So if you pay someone for a product or service that requires you doxed or you pay in person, that is a risk there. I have not found a solution for this, you have to assume some risk of this happening if you use your BTC to pay for things that require you are doxed, or pay in person for some product.

As far as campaigns, im not sure but sometimes I think they barely last a month. So you may end up with a lot of different addresses with funds.

The problem of privacy with BTC remains since if BTC was like XMR, it would be worth much less, since it's just a black box that you cannot audit. But since it's so transparent, it could lead to problems if you are receiving funds from someone non-doxed (like someone that pays you for a sig campaign, you don't know where the funds come from) or you paying someone with those funds and then triggering some problem due chainalysis systems, or trying to gain privacy by mixing the coins which is a very reasonable practice, ending up in a problem when you pay for something.

Let's say you have 1 BTC from sig campaigns, and then 1 BTC is worth a million by 2030. "Cool, let's buy a house". But then you find out these funds trigger chainalysis when you try to liquidate them for fiat. You did nothing wrong but receive some funds, but now you have a problem that you have to solve if you want to use these funds for anything relevant.

Well, as I 've told you multiple times, I realise the fear and I can comprehend it.

It's like buying a house with a bag full of cash. By the way, this was the only way to transact some decades ago. You 'd go load your luggage with cash (+ gold) and you 'd find a contract officer to complete the deal between you and the house seller. If the cash was checked and was marked for fraudulent activities, then you 'd be in some trouble trying to justify how you got it.

What's changed? The fact that now we have banks doing all the auditing between you and the seller. So, you know from the beginning that the money you have is theoretically (and practically) checked by the authorities.

But, keep in mind that the reason why I (and many others) love Bitcoin is the fact that we don't like intermediaries (a.k.a banks, authorities etc) to intervene in our transactions. On their side though, they don't like us for the exact same reason.

We pay taxes, we are worried about being lawful but when it comes to buying something with our honestly earned bitcoin, we must be afraid of them because they provoke fear. They can't control bitcoin otherwise, so they do what they know best.

But:

1. If we need a 3rd party auditing mechanism, we can use the traditional banking system.
2. You can't be certain which hands have touched the coins you have. It's really impossible. And if you knew it wouldn't be a currency.

My question is (and it's not ironic at all): how have you dealt with the issues you are refering to with the current financial system? How are you able to use big money for big things? If the answer is that you 're using banks and therefore the money you have is audited, then this is exactly what bitcoin tries to solve.

I mean, what if, after all, the points that you 've mentioned aren't really issues in general, but they are only issues if you think using the current financial system's mentality?

What if I told you that Bitcoin is the best auditing mechanism that humanity has ever invented?

Instead of using Visa and Bank of America (examples) to validate that you can buy a house, you can use some thousands of Bitcoins miners and nodes to validate that you honestly possess the amount of money you say you do.

Bitcoin is made from the people, for the people.

You make it sound like this is a common thing... At least in Western countries it is NOT.
Frankly I am unaware of any incidents of it happening in the US involving the CBP. Mainly because all secondary basic or advanced inspections are done according to strict protocols one of which is the mandatory presence of at least 1 other officer. All secondary inspections are video recorded from several angles and results logged and held for YEARS.

Stealing cash and valuables from travelers has always been more of an issue centered around the baggage handlers and even then in the US it is an exceedingly rare occurrence.

For some facts:
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/cbp-search-authority/border-search-electronic-devices
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2018-Jan/CBP-Directive-3340-049A-Border-Search-of-Electronic-Media-Compliant.pdf
Section 5 of the pdf outlines all CBP procedures.

---

Some hard stats on US CBP traveler screening from https://www.cbp.gov/travel/cbp-search-authority/border-search-electronic-devices  emphasis is mine:
Given that - I for one have zero concerns crossing US borders. Of course regarding other countries could well be a different story... It all depends on their own laws.

As a Frequent Traveller with over 8 million air-miles to my record from when I worked as an industrial laser Field Engineer for over 48 years flying all over the US and the world, at least 1/2 of the miles were from international travel. In all those years only 2x did I have to go through any sort of secondary screening in ANY country and none involved searches of my computer or phone. One country was China and the other oddly enough was Canada - both were only interested in the contents of my service tools kit and details of my work VISA.

Mod note: Consecutive posts merged

Boy oh boy. Theft is very, very common at airports, and while the CBP may be relatively straight on such issues, there are cases of theft involving their agents that people should be aware of. There are many, many stories according to a Google search I did right now of TSA agents engaged in theft. In ports, private security officers have been implicated in theft.

Is it likely that you will be a victim of theft at any particular point in time while going through an airport? No. Is it possible? YES. A basic Google search reveals CBP can search a person's phone. Again, this may not be the ordinary encounter, but it can happen. And how agents behave in different airports may depend on how they are trained or any supposed threat level perceived.

Not far from where I live, a police officer was busted for stealing cash from innocent people during traffic stops. Is this the norm? No. Does it happen? Yes.


This can be countered very easily with personal examples from myself and others, but I will refrain from revealing personal information about myself. Let's stick to facts and not anecdotal experiences. Again, your personal experience can be countered by the person responding to you.

Note: U.S. airlines lose two million pieces of luggage each year, according to NPR: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/27/1215336777/u-s-airlines-lose-2-million-suitcases-a-year-where-do-they-end-up

The EFF has pointed out that devices can be seized during interrogations at the border:

"If you are philosophically opposed to intrusive border searches, you may feel that the importance of asserting your rights may outweigh the risk of having your devices seized, being extensively questioned, missing a flight, or otherwise being detained."

https://www.eff.org/wp/digital-privacy-us-border-2017

Please understand, contrary to what has been suggested in this thread (and I do not mean to be sarcastic to the dude with anecdotal experiences of his 48 years of flying - possibly largely before 9/11), electronic devices can easily go missing from luggage and wind up on Craigslist or eBay. There are also organized criminals that steal from baggage carousels. I can think of other scenarios in today's climate of migration control that devices or other property get seized. But the theft issue alone - including by security personnel - should not be understated.

I would do it using steganography; I would employ a method to hide/encrypted data within an image, file, or audio. With so many variations and possibilities, I doubt anyone could discover them.