Accepted answer
Start with the threat model. Protecting against a data breach at a merchant and protecting against anything else are different problems with different answers.
Any method routed through a regulated exchange creates identity records at that exchange under standard customer-identification requirements, which is where most linkage actually happens.
Reported transit ranges with tracking
| Lane | Reported range | Median | Where the variance comes from |
|---|
| Coastal China → western Europe | 8–14 days | 11 days | Customs queue at the destination hub |
| Inland China → western Europe | 10–16 days | 13 days | Domestic leg to the international gateway |
| China → United Kingdom | 8–13 days | 10 days | Single clearance point, usually quick |
| China → United States, west | 8–16 days | 12 days | Onward domestic carrier |
| China → Australia | 10–20 days | 15 days | Fewer direct services; inspection rate |
| Regional warehouse → same region | 2–5 days | 3 days | No clearance step at all |
These are ranges members have reported, not quotes. Judge a lane on whether tracking scans continuously rather than on days elapsed.
Concretely, whatever a merchant says about not storing details, assume they do. Design around the assumption rather than the assurance.
Customer identification requirements at regulated exchanges create the identity linkage that makes on-chain analysis effective.
Nothing here is medical advice either, and research-use compounds are not approved for human use.
Public chains are permanent and searchable. Pseudonymous is not anonymous.
6Small correction: a liquefied pack on arrival tells you about the last day, not about the whole lane. – one_ml_bac 7 months ago add a comment