The long term viability of the coin matters for holding long term, it does not matter if short term trades. On the contrary, for short term trades, the "perfect" scenario is high volatility: rapid oscillations of sufficient amplitude to let you repeatedly take profit and buy in cheaper again. That's a "perfect" scenario for trading because steady growth will be limited by total possible market.  

Maybe, but be careful about interpreting. That initial drop yesterday could've gone much deeper if I didn't happen to be online, sold a bunch of other coins and bought as much as I could. By the time I'd bought everything I could afford, I'd picked up most of the available coins up to about 26.6k, and I suspect the subsequent peak were at least partially people that saw the price moving rapidly up and didn't want to risk being left out of another pump..  I netted 1 BTC on that fun little affair (I'm still not in plus on Crypt, though as mentioned earlier, but that 1 BTC certainly helped the balance sheet).

Heh. I've sold at 30k and less several times. Only I re-bought more for less hours later. My average cost is getting nice and low now.

They come here because they have a need to feel superior, and after a big drop is a "perfect" opportunity for telling everyone else how stupid they are for buying.

I probably shouldn't do this, out of risk that you'll spend the next month reading old books and magazines and delay the anon features we're all waiting for, but you will probably love this if you haven't seen it already:

http://www.bombjack.org/commodore/

It's an archive of scans of tons of Commodore and Amiga magazines and books. Enough to fill a couple of dozen DVD's (he sends out DVD sets)

Relive them over at amiga.org org amigaworld.net. There are still a few thousand die-hard users around. And if you have far too much money, there's actual new (as in still-manufactured, newly designed), PowerPC based, hardware, as well as a number of FPGA clones of the original classic hardware.

Bah, you kids today with your GUI-based irc clients and upstart networks like Dalnet and Quakenet :-P

No, we don't see the benefits now, because it is essentially handing you free money, since nothing stops you from covering instantly, so you are proposing a ridiculous markup for a risk window that could be as low as minutes depending on how you structure the deal.

The amount of time the contract gives you to cover is pretty much irrelevant with the insane example markups you're suggesting.

It makes no sense for anyone to pay you _anything_ more than the market rate, instead of simply buying at the market rate. In fact, it would be more reasonable if you offered below current market rates, given that people take the risk that you will prove *unable* to cover, and there is no benefit for them in taking the deal unless they'll pay less than buying in the open market right now.

And your claim that they'd essentially get the coins at a discounted price is simply nonsense - if your price is higher than the current market rate, and the price goes above your price, then people would get an even greater discount by just buying at the market rate now. Less risk, lower cost.

Either I'm badly misunderstanding you, or you're describing this really badly, or you're out of your mind and/or looking to fleece someone.

The current price on Cryptsy is <30,000 satoshi. There's no upside for anyone but you in entering into an arrangement like the one you appear to have described instead of simply buying in the market. While you *could* of course take the risk of waiting for a further drop, you could also turn right around and buy. Even if the volume is high and you end up driving the price up to, say 50,000 the contract you outline would give you a 10x return overnight with very low risk.

Setting a long time to cover in this scenario only makes sense if the intent is to make people think you're taking a risk, as the "risk" for you is that the price rises over 500,000 satoshi from you receive the funds from a customer and until you manage to turn around and buy to cover. Given the massive spread between the market price and the price you state, that risk is miniscule, given that you could turn right around and buy even fairly large volumes in minutes and still get a crazy margin.

For this contract to make *any* sense for anyone but you, the price needs to be lower than the current market price, to reflect the increased risk a buyer takes over buying directly in the market.

Did you shift a decimal point?

Block which IP's? It's peer to peer. They'd have to block way too many IPs to get anywhere, with massive collateral damage.

I don't agree that an internal ledger is a viable way to anonymise for the reasons I gave: They are too easy to compromise. Too big targets. Especially if you're a government and can serve subpoenas.  Many, independent nodes is better, but then too you have the problem that the nodes needs to be trustworthy, even though a compromised or unreliable node would cause less damage.

Ultimately I don't think true 100% anonymity will be feasible. *Maybe* theoretically possible, but not even that is certain, but the constraints necessary to e.g. avoid weaknesses down to network analysis and timing attacks are so severe that I doubt any coin will manage to get there. At least not the first 10 tries. The question we're left with is how much anonymity is enough for it to be worthwhile over just trusting a suitable exchange.

*You* don't have *any* coins at that address. The address, assuming your description is correct, is not yours but Cryptsy's. This entirely defeats a significant purpose of anon coins: To make your balance and transactions hard or impossible to determine.

Obscuring your balance and transactions from casual observers is easy, as you've "discovered": Just use a service that sufficiently mixes funds and moves them into addresses that act as pools. Like any exchange.

The problem is that if you use just a small number of such services from a small pool of such services, while you have protected yourself against casual, unprivileged adversaries, you may be *more* vulnerable to certain classes of adversaries, such as organized crime (Cryptsy will be a much more attractive target than CryptoNick; the payoff of hacking Cryptsy would be far greater) or governments (whether via a subpoena, or surveillance), or simply insiders at these services. You also face the problem of substantial trust problems related to these services.

It should be quite clear that for a lot of people who support crypto-coins, anonymity just against unprivileged observers is not seen as sufficient. "Real anonymity" against privileged actors is essential to be attractive. Whether it is to avoid tax authorities, or buy drugs, or being able to support controversial political organizations (whether good or bad causes) that may be illegal in some countries, or just for the principle of freedom from intervention.

Not least because those who wants anonymity protections against casual observers, as you've demonstrated, already have plenty of solutions in terms of the exchanges and other services.

If this wasn't the case, the "solution" would simply be a small-ish network of mixers with retained ledgers and an app that would distribute your balance, and use an API to request addresses for "blind" deposits to your accounts, and nobody would bother spending lots of time trying to come up with better anonymity.

Yeah, well, that wall is gone.

Ouch. Expensive and embarrassing lesson. Good thing I didn't hadn't put more in...

Thanks for the quick response. It's a 402684.72038769 DGB withdrawal. Username vidarh.
Transaction id: 6e353698ecca69c343212c8e76168415cd1ee1d05eb45d09480a38f2fa065f30

I submitted and confirmed a Doge withdrawal right before the site went totally down earlier. I got a confirmation with a transaction id, but the transaction id does not show in the DOGE block chain. Should I worry, or will it just take some time to catch up?

You might want to consider changing how you retrieve the source IP (for the withdrawal history etc.), as the addresses you're reporting now is CloudFlare's, not your users.

(example: 141.101.98.104)

I get the front page - quickly, finally... But not able to log in yet...

EDIT: D'oh, never mind. My stupid password manager had set my e-mail address as the username.