Yellen and Musk taking a shit on bitcoin together, right around options expiry I had no idea who Yellen is. Turns out it's an old woman who used to work for the Fed and is now the United States Secretary of the Treasury. I know one thing: if a granny at the Department of the Treasury worries about Bitcoin, that's not because she's so concerned with small guys losing their savings. They fear for their own interests. Bitcoin doesn't care. But the fact that the Department of the Treasury cares is very, very bullish. |
|
|
|
I think you got us wrong, what we mean to say is the coins are fresh , not mixed with the old crypto as done by other mixers. So you're saying what you say isn't what you mean to say? Other mixers takes the coin and coinjoin them to make it harder to trace, but not impossible to trace with time. That's not what mixers do, it's what Wasabi Wallet does. On other hand, we issue new fresh set of coins and this coins came from the rewards for mining as we purchase this coins. Stop lying. the coins are however mixed within the fresh coin ecosystem without mixing them with the old coin sent to the system. Lol, that's the basics of any mixer. Except for mixers shouldn't lie. This makes us safer than other mixers as there is no trail between sent coins with the received coins. You're not safe, and I don't trust you.
Warning:
This is my last post in this topic. I've seen many reasons not to trust this user and website. I'll stop posting here so I can stop bumping this topic. It should disappear from the first page of Service Announcements. |
|
|
|
The "Army of Alts" seems to enjoy dragging me into their off-topic posts in other gambling threads: Royse777 is also involved in this, he is a corrupt member as well. Loycev might be the alt of him, and betnomi paid him to sponsor something, so they will leave him alone. Betnomi bought the influence from DT users here like Royse, Loycev and steamyme,. I'm still waiting for my payments  It's not the first time they try to drag me in. Could that be because of my negative feedback on their main account? |
|
|
|
I don't think that it will be the case, if the manager knows that you are an alt account, there is a 100% chance that you are not going to be accepted in that campaign. Why would it be a problem if the campaign manager doesn't allow you to join with more than one account? That doesn't justify cheating. Your analogy is good but we all know that in this forum, if you have a proven alt account then you are shunned for it. That's not true. Anyone can make an alt account, and nobody will hold that against you unless you do shady things. Exceptions include if you are in the club and you know the right users. Please name some examples of alt abusers who get away with it. |
|
|
|
which flys in the face of this: It doesn't, it's just your faulty reading comprehension. Having alts, plagiarising, or evading a ban is not proof of high risk in trading, is what LoyceV was likely trying to say. But if the person otherwise deserves red trust and has alts obviously you can and probably should red-trust all those alts. Otherwise let mods deal with ban evasion and plagiarism. This is my reasoning indeed. Certainly there are instances where a user (e.g. Humbertin) has both alts and repeatedly avoids bans to continue scamming. I agree. In such a case, you can leave negative feedback for the fact that it's an alt of a scammer. And you can report his ban evasion so he'll get banned again. But just being an alt account is no reason for negative feedback. Merit abuse usually occurs e.g. where a gang are trying to propel each-other into the ranks of DT1 or e.g. to build up an alt for an exit scam. Plagiarists are usually scamming e.g. an ICO/IEO lifting the work of others to launch a shill coin and run with the bag. I didn't think of this scenario. If plagiarism is used for scamming, obviously negative feedback is warranted. Other than that, don't lose sleep over it. Most of the plagiarism I've seen came from users who wanted to earn from their signature, or earn Merit. In those cases, I wouldn't leave negative feedback but only report them to be banned. |
|
|
|
Even Dutch media mention Elon Musk's tweet" that Bitcoin's price seems high. Let me guess: next month he'll post that he bought another billion dollars worth of Bitcoin? Why do so many people care about the opinion of a billionaire, who has different or even opposing interests than the general public? |
|
|
|
Can somebody remind me again how I can default distrust someone who already has a tilda in their user profile name? If you can post it with the code tag so that it doesn't get muddled in the copy and paste I'd appreciate it. Excluding this user works like any other username: add ~ in front of the username. Only for including this user you need to do something different: If you want to trust someone whose name begins with a tilde, prefix their name with a backslash. |
|
|
|
the whole world is using it without issues I've seen several mixers turn into a scam. You're not convincing me with claims like this. Issues have been discussed in this thread already, such as the claim in the title ("Freshly Mined Coins") which is a lie. |
|
|
|
I was watching an Andreas video about stuck transactions and he stated that regardless, in 14 days it will be settled whether included in a block or cancelled...is this accurate ? There is no fixed time limit. I've had unconfirmed transactions last "forever": as long as my wallet keeps broadcasting them, they don't drop out of mempool. If the fee is at least 10 sat/byte, you can use [urlhttps://www.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/]ViaBTC's transaction accelerator[/url] for free. This requires impeccable timing. Entering the TXID on for instance Blockchair.com will show if RBF is enabled. CPFP means nothing more than sending the unconfirmed change from your own wallet to another address, with a much higher fee. I've never used Trezor or Wasabi, but any wallet that allows Coin Control should be able to do this. Feel free to share the TXID (by PM), and I'll have a look. |
|
|
|
It's called a buying opportunity and you're supposed to feel good about it. I'm already more in BTC than I probably should be  |
|
|
|
Yesterday: €48k. Just now: €39k. Even though 20% drops happen a lot, it always feels bad Any reason for this, or just the regular stop loss triggering? |
|
|
|
I keep convincing myself there are always bumps on the way up  |
|
|
|
I did leave myself a cryptic message that was supposed to serve as a reminder as to what the transposition was ... I like puzzles, can you share it (without sharing the 99 numbers)? |
|
|
|
The order is gone but the letter is still there (why?). Good find! That doesn't make sense: either the letter was created after the scam report was created, or the server stores data longer than it should: 24 hours upon successful mixing, all logs are automatically and permanently deleted from our databases. Judging by MyCryptoMixer's post, they don't know the LoG is being kept. That's bad. |
|
|
|
It's like if you buy a TV and the shop show you the guarantee on the screen instead to give the possibility to download it You're missing the point: if I click to download a LoG, the website knows I've downloaded it. So if I don't download it, the website knows I can't prove it if they cheat me. By showing the LoG on the screen, the website doesn't know if I saved it or not, so it would be much riskier to selectively scam users. All hypothetical of course. |
|
|
|
Quote taken from another topic: had we have LoG we could confirm whether it was an user error, or a malicious actor's doing. Question: would it be possible to show the LoG inside for instance code tags, like this: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
{
"comment": "Never share your Letter of Guarantee with third parties. Attach this document to our Support Team only when you are facing problems with your mixing order. The Letter of Guarantee is only available during the active mixing operation. After the completion all data about your order will be deleted automatically from our database.",
"createdAt": "2021-02-21T13:08:48.062Z",
"orderId": "0krc30-xthmbe-ck0spo",
"currency": "BTC",
"serviceFee": "4.04%",
"feePerAddress": "0.00025 BTC",
"depositAddress": "3FXBcxnhuxJJxSLrSiQnjxAj8d8gQMtTH5",
"destinations": [
{
"address": "1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD",
"share": "33.8%",
"delay": "129 minutes"
},
{
"address": "1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD",
"share": "32.6%",
"delay": "187 minutes"
},
{
"address": "1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD",
"share": "33.6%",
"delay": "296 minutes"
}
]
}
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=4SNe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If you embed it on the page instead of having users click to download it, you can no longer know whether or not the user saved it, am I right? I think that would be an improvement. |
|
|
|
demanding money to remove this negative trust . Technically, that's not what your screenshot shows. It shows there will be a view to review it again, not to remove the negative feedback. In other words, there's no guarantee a review will remove it. This is not ethical If the PM is authentic, I agree it's unethical indeed. |
|
|
|
Reminder: downloading and verifying the Letter of Guarantee should be the first thing you do before depositing anything!
Without it, you can't prove anything. but according to mycryptomixer.com the "Order ID" serves as proof, at least Is what I understood when they said it can serve in case of dispute OP's order ID shows " We couldn't find this page" and in the screenshot-conversation they say: "After your order expires we have no other information than what was in the letter of guarantee". I'd say the Order ID can only serve as internal proof, as long as the order hasn't expired. There's no way for anyone to verify it now, and a phishing site could just come up with a similar number. |
|
|
|
I can confirm the minimum amount: Transfer between 0.0030 BTC and 76.2558 BTC to the following address: I'll highlight a part of this image:  Above that, they wrote: "we do not provide refunds for too low orders because of high blockchain fees". If these screenshots are real (and not from a phishing site), asking for another 0.003 BTC doesn't make sense (even if the amount would have been too low). That will only add another input and thus increase transaction fees. Don't send them more!
Reminder: downloading and verifying the Letter of Guarantee should be the first thing you do before depositing anything! Without it, you can't prove anything.
if 7 days go by without him solving your problem then I suggest you create a flag against him: I wouldn't Support such a Flag. The website offers the possibility to get solid evidence in case of any wrongdoing, so any scam accusation should include this to make a Flag valid. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
