Don't you think the volatile nature of bitcoin has something to do with the big gaps between exchanges?

I don't think Nubit will change anything.

Because it is not important if the price of an altcoin is 1$ or x$.
You can use any altcoin to move fiat from one exchange to another. The important thing is the spread at both exchanges in the altcoin orderbook.

If you were able to buy a litecoin for 3.3$ at one exchange and sell it for 3.3$ at the other,  it would be the same result.

But here is the problem:
The market depth of all altcoins is too low. So even if the spread would not be big, you could only transfer a few hundred $ a day, which is much too less.
Even all Ltc orderbooks I know are too empty.

So you would need great market makers for nubit (or any other altcoin). But to have those great market maker, they need to be able to move fiat fast.
-> it is circular reasoning.

The only way to make really efficient arbitrage, is to move fiat fast and cheap. No new altcoin.

the exchanged.i2p exchange is awesome =]

and im guessing theres no way it can be DDOS'd since retrieving its ip is a no-go

I, personally, believe there is a higher chance of success for an anonymous exchange in onionland than a p2p approach.. I don't feel like making individual cash transfers directly to my trading partner. I would prefer to trust an anonymous (TOR-) exchange.

The old problem, of course, is how to fund it.
I don't know a good solution to this. However, you could as well have all funds go in and out in bitcoin only. The dollar equivalent only exists in the books. For trading only this should work. Of course it would not work for anonymously cashing in and cashing out. But that is a problem with all existing exchanges too.

Or find some anonymous way to load fiat into it.

Ente

Well, you may have wallet ready in some weeks time, but I have my ANC on Craptsy and CEX, need to get them out of both, but without wallet?

Go away troll! Garza is going to give us $20 per XPY when he gets out of prison! He's going to hide all of his millions in his gaping *expletive* after he becomes Green Mile's next biggest fanboy.

Isn't Cryptsy highly involved with Paycoin?  Could this be one reason why they're having insolvency problems (allegedly)?

Are they planning an exit and making a run for it?

im curious but how does this compare to other public figures that has raised money for their projects like ethereum and bitshares? aren't they in the similar boat with a risk of getting in trouble with the SEC? now i can understand why some coin founders would want to stay anonymous or just disappear after creating the coin.

The address itself should work, as I tested to withdraw from Vircurex for some time ago

One thing with Anoncoin, is that I always fear the withdrawals. Can you guys tell me what could be wrong, since I made this withdrawal from Cryptsy yesterday (just to test that they still are able to send ANC):

Address: AZRaYktZMQdc3V1zN1BQiLARVgJjrHPKHb
Amount: 35.00000000 ANC
Confirmed: Yes
Request date: 2015-12-01 15:01:00
Processed: Yes
TrxID: d93c72885162c1022f95589fc3058f1f6f7b20cfd1ee8e872c7a85f91127878a @ 2015-12-01 15:06:10

But the transaction is not seen on anoncoin blockchain. The address itself should work, as I tested to withdraw from Vircurex for some time ago (Yes, vircurex is valid in this sense. I actually have more faith in vircurex that what I have in Cryptsy).

Since Cryptsy says the transaction is processed, how long should I wait until I can actually see it on the blockchain? Why is there such a damn huge delay for ANC always?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT  ___________________________________________ ) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. ) HOMERO JOSHUA GARZA, ) GAW MINERS, LLC, and ) ZENMINER, LLC (d/b/a ZEN CLOUD), ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) Defendants. )  ___________________________________________ )
COMPLAINT
 Plaintiff United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“the Commission”) alleges the following against Defendants Homero Joshua Garza (“Garza”), GAW Miners, LLC (“GAW Miners”), and ZenMiner, LLC (d/b/a ZenCloud) (“ZenMiner”), and hereby demands a jury trial:
SUMMARY OF THE ACTION
 1.
 
Defendants used the lure of quick riches from a twenty-first century payment system known as virtual currency to defraud investors. Though cloaked in technological sophistication and jargon, defendants’ fraud was simple at its core – defendants sold what they did not own, and misrepresented the nature of what they were selling. 2.
 
From approximately August 2014 through December 2014, defendants sold – to over 10,000 investors – investment contracts representing shares in the profits they claimed would be generated from using their purported computing power to “mine” for virtual currency. “Mining” for virtual currency means applying computer power to try to solve complex equations that verify a group of transactions in that virtual currency. The first computer (or collection of
Case 3:15-cv-01760 Document 1 Filed 12/01/15 Page 1 of 23
 
 2 computers) to solve such an equation is awarded new units of that virtual currency. This process is known as “mining,” and the computer equipment used in this process, and the humans who own it, are known as “miners.” 3.
 
Defendants sold shares in the returns from their purported mining operations, via investment contracts that they named “Hashlets.” Hashlet contracts entitled their purchasers to a share of the profits from defendants’ purported “hashing power,” or the computing power (measured in megahash per second), that defendants purportedly devoted to virtual currency mining. In reality, defendants sold far more Hashlets worth of computing power than they actually had in their computing centers. There was no computer equipment to back up the vast majority of Hashlets that defendants sold. 4.
 
Defendants earned about $19 million in revenue from their sales of Hashlets. 5.
 
Defendants Garza and GAW Miners made many false and misleading statements about GAW Miners’ virtual currency mining operations to potential and actual investors. For example, they misrepresented: a.
 
that all of the Hashlets of computing power purchased by investors would be  pooled together to engage in virtual currency mining, and that investors’ returns, or “payouts,” would be calculated based on the success of those collective virtual currency mining operations;  b.
 
that buying a Hashlet would allow investors to mine virtual currency without the expense and expertise that would be required to purchase and maintain their own virtual currency mining equipment; c.
 
the profitability and life-span of Hashlets; d.
 
the extent of GAW Miners’ mining activities; and how the payouts for Hashlets were derived. Garza and GAW Miners knew that each of these statements was false at the time it was made. 6.
 
Defendants’ Hashlet sales had many of the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme. Because defendants sold far more computing power than they owned and dedicated to virtual currency mining, they owed investors a daily return that was larger than any actual return they were making on their limited mining operations. Instead, investors were simply paid back gradually over time, as “returns,” the money that they, and others, had invested. As a result, some investors’ funds were used to make payments to other investors. Most Hashlet investors never recovered the full amount of their investments, and few made a profit. 7.
 
Through the activities alleged in this Complaint, defendants have engaged in fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and various subparts of Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and fraud in the offer or sale of securities, in violation of various subparts of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”). Defendants have also engaged in the offer and sale of unregistered securities, in violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act. 8.
 
Based on these violations, the Commission seeks: a.
 
the entry of a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from further violations of the relevant provisions of the federal securities laws;  b.
 
disgorgement of defendants’ ill-gotten gains, plus pre-judgment interest; and c.
 
the imposition of civil penalties due to the egregious nature of defendants’ violations...

pure guy who dumped 20k today, he will never be able to buy back cheaper

hi guys, my pool had a bunch of blocks found the other day when a few miners jumped on, however they are sitting in pending.. how many confirms do mined blocks need?

when i run a getinfo, i dont see immature coins, just a balance of 0.

That is the best, while other coins are to big for insane raises, ANC still have potencial to pay my mortage one day.
Can Darkcoin go 20x up now?