No, UTXO consolidation is absolutely the worst thing you can do on-chain for privacy as it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that all UTXOs are owned by the same entity, and all future moves will be easily linked back to the source of all of those UTXOs.
Avoid it if at all possible, and if you do need to consolidate or decide to do it anyways, please please please mix funds via Whirlpool/Samourai Wallet/Sparrow Wallet afterwards so at least you re-gain forward privacy.
Mixing via Samourai Wallet has not been blacklisted/flagged by CEXs so far, and no signs of that changing.
Edit: Lots of excellent info here: https://bitcoiner.guide/privacy/
it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that all UTXOs are owned by the same entity
First of all, is this true? Isn't that obvious anyway cryptographically?
Second, is that relevant? Due to Kerkhoffs principle is should only depend on the key anyways and not on how the technology is used. Achieving privacy is a matter of 2nd layer.
That's the same as achieving encryption on https instead on tcp/ip. How tcp/ip is used shouldn't matter anyway and if it does that means that there is a major design flaw.
reply
  1. It's not obvious unless you've reused addresses that they're owned by the same entity (barring other slipups), but once you combine them you make the only possibility that they're owned by the same entity.
  2. Idk what Kerkhoffs principle is but privacy on the base-layer works like this, 2nd layer etc. doesn't factor in to UTXO consolidation. Not sure what that has to do with the current convo.
reply
Seth's right.
There's good record on CoinJoin flagging here: too https://6102bitcoin.com/coinjoin-flagging/
reply
More here as well, but notice the almost complete dearth of Samourai instances of flagging because it actually works:
reply
Since CoinJoin is overt on chain, I wonder if the certain services are more or less represented because of KYC-free culture, or just based on their volumes, or something else