very thought out panic... Yes we have to reward an activity. Since we don't charge for trades the activity most desired would be deposits as you have to withdraw eventually. I've sent you all the documents you are asking for the verification days ago. Why don't you respond to my tickets? What the hell should i do to have my money back? Pay them a 10% fee? I mean 0.5% isn't enough obviously. |
|
|
|
very thought out panic... Yes we have to reward an activity. Since we don't charge for trades the activity most desired would be deposits as you have to withdraw eventually. Hook em in...and then trap em in. Seems to be the case here based on user responses thus far... |
|
|
|
[...]
I don't disagree that this happens or will happen but IMO the issue as you present it is a construction of fiat parasites especially interested in undermining the privacy and fungibility of Bitcoin.
As we slowly move away from this paradigm I believe it will eventually become a non-issue. Moreover I understand there is significant progress being made toward implementation of privacy related features in things such as sidechains which contribute to solve the related issues.
I agree that this is exacerbated by "fiat parasites", but I disagree it comes only from this. Even in a fully Bitcoin-based economy, I don't see why it would disappear. You could still refuse to deal with coins out of belief or social pressure. Think of the US dentist who went to kill this lion and was everywhere in the news: imagine if he had paid for the "right to kill" with bitcoins, that the entire world would know at a given instant would be on an address X. Don't you think some people out there would refuse them for a payment? I believe it will always happen, if you can attach history to coins (in practice outputs). You could also refuse to deal with coins out of legal fear. If you own anything (money or objets) that you know is coming from a theft, you're legally liable as well (fence in English?). If you don't know but didn't take sufficient precautions, and the circonstances should have raised suspicions from you, you're liable as well; at least where I live. Why would the legal system be any different with coins? In fact it's worse: it is much easier to do your due diligence with bitcoins than with real world items, so you can be also accused more easily. EDIT: I forgot about sidechains. A sidechain implementing "confidential transactions" would help with privacy (despite not providing untraceability - that is not hiding the origin of the funds). But they don't solve fungibility: they could be seen like a mixer, and with limited liquidity. Coins seen entering in to be made more private, then seen going out. It is easy to be "hey why did you sent coins to this sidechain?", or "I don't want coins that visibly were mixed on the sidechain!". The reason I believe no meaningful functionality to bring more privacy to the bitcoin protocol any time soon or ever is because it would violate the social contract bitcoin has in place with corporations and businesses that are attempting to be compliant with regulators in their respective countries of operation.  Get outta here.... Bitcoin has no such "social contract" with fiat corporations and regulators. That is absolute nonsense. We obviously disagree. Go tell Coinbase that you as a user (hypothetically YOU are) are going to now operate on a side chain or with CT which may make it difficult for them to determine where you coins came from given the original definitive protocol for bitcoin is 100% transparent blockchain. See how much they disagree that the social contract was NOT broken by developers of bitcoin and its users (i.e. Coinbase) for this example. Fuck Coinbase. The only reason why they'd bother with these details is because they need to suck up to fiat institutions. What the hell would I use Coinbase for anyway? Coinbase could go bankrupt for all I know Bitcoin doesn't care and it certainly has no social contract with these banking parasites. The whole system was built on the premise of being permissionless. You think they have a right to say anything if somehow chooses to develop privacy features on top of Bitcoin? I dont use Coinbase either but if you use my example you will see my point. People will use centralized services for some time to come. And I think it will be that way to a certain extent for a very long time, doesnt matter the system. Your supposed perfect world where everyone uses bitcoin to transact and says "fuck you" to any business attempting to operate as an exchange, mixer, payment processor is not going to happen any time soon (within the next 5-10 years), if ever. Sure bitcoin will be still around but I doubt there will be that perfect scenario where the issues I've brought up do not exist. Just because you do not choose to use 3rd party centralized services to transact does not stop others from doing it. And ignoring that fact is actually very ignorant as sometimes you have to put yourself in the shoes of others to really understand what the implications of those people choosing to operate/transact mean for the overall marketplace. Coinbase is to be used to buy AND SELL bitcoins. If you are intelligent enough you will move them out of there ASAP. If you are one of these noobs you describe you will buy from Coinbase and use their wallet but seeing as you've bought from them you should expect to have "clean" coins, no?  What you are essentially saying is that people unable to use Bitcoin as it is intended to be might encounter problems.... well frankly that's too bad for them but it has no incidence on Bitcoin. That's like saying Bitcoin has a security issue because of Mt. Gox. No, the problem is the user, not the technology. FTFY as people still use coinbase to cash out to fiat. Don't forget that caveat. A user not being able to have their bitcoin accepted by a business like coinbase is not the users fault...it is because the block chain allows analysis to be done to determine if a certain address has stolen bitcoins or used for illegal means flagged by a past crime. That isn't the users flaw. It is the flaw of having a 100% transparent ledger. |
|
|
|
Click Here to WatchTravis Patron argues that bitcoin violates the principles of money fungibility - that each individual unit of currency being of the same value does not hold true in bitcoin. Already, businesses are springing up that are selling bitcoin with no previous transaction fee at a premium. This violates the principle of money fungibility. In the video, the investment analysis of bitcoin vs. gold is also discussed in depth. I find this as a complete BS. You can start selling US dollars that were never used as well at a premium. I blame greed for these and these crazy business that never had enough and are just trying to find a way how to make another dollar more! That's their fault really, for starting this nonsense. Is it still BS principally when a customer gets coins that are not accepted by businesses because it was part of a theft in the past history of those particular coins? It is BS from the User's perspective in that they are being denied usage of the coins they bought legitimately. It is BS and the customer should move his business elsewhere. Assuming he can. There are a lot of hypotheticals to throw out there. But it will be interesting to see who is right in the end. I honestly dont believe bitcoin will ever successfully implement any other protocol level functionality which allows it to operate more privately for users, meaning 100% of users can utilize this function and not get backlash from businesses/corps/govts that want everything to be 100% transparent because "terrorists". Heck the devs can't even come to agreement on the block size issue yet we are to believe they will eventually implement a protocol level change that introduces new privacy features for users? No one is suggesting it would be implemented on the protocol level. Do you know what sidechains are? Do you? Has it been implemented yet? I don't see it anywhere. Nor anyone using it on the public domain in the bitcoin community. Do you even know how it would work with bitcoin down to the core level of interoperating within the source? Do you know for sure that there would not need to be a protocol change that perhaps might be unforeseen at first glance of the proposed system? It's easy to say "aha we have a solution - SIDE CHAINS!" before actually implementing it, and see if there are any problems in the implementation as you roll it out and fully test it. I don't, nor do I care. The side chain approach has its own flaws. You will still be able to see what bitcoins go into and come out of side chains, hence why coins can be "flagged" that use SC. |
|
|
|
[...]
I don't disagree that this happens or will happen but IMO the issue as you present it is a construction of fiat parasites especially interested in undermining the privacy and fungibility of Bitcoin.
As we slowly move away from this paradigm I believe it will eventually become a non-issue. Moreover I understand there is significant progress being made toward implementation of privacy related features in things such as sidechains which contribute to solve the related issues.
I agree that this is exacerbated by "fiat parasites", but I disagree it comes only from this. Even in a fully Bitcoin-based economy, I don't see why it would disappear. You could still refuse to deal with coins out of belief or social pressure. Think of the US dentist who went to kill this lion and was everywhere in the news: imagine if he had paid for the "right to kill" with bitcoins, that the entire world would know at a given instant would be on an address X. Don't you think some people out there would refuse them for a payment? I believe it will always happen, if you can attach history to coins (in practice outputs). You could also refuse to deal with coins out of legal fear. If you own anything (money or objets) that you know is coming from a theft, you're legally liable as well (fence in English?). If you don't know but didn't take sufficient precautions, and the circonstances should have raised suspicions from you, you're liable as well; at least where I live. Why would the legal system be any different with coins? In fact it's worse: it is much easier to do your due diligence with bitcoins than with real world items, so you can be also accused more easily. EDIT: I forgot about sidechains. A sidechain implementing "confidential transactions" would help with privacy (despite not providing untraceability - that is not hiding the origin of the funds). But they don't solve fungibility: they could be seen like a mixer, and with limited liquidity. Coins seen entering in to be made more private, then seen going out. It is easy to be "hey why did you sent coins to this sidechain?", or "I don't want coins that visibly were mixed on the sidechain!". The reason I believe no meaningful functionality to bring more privacy to the bitcoin protocol any time soon or ever is because it would violate the social contract bitcoin has in place with corporations and businesses that are attempting to be compliant with regulators in their respective countries of operation. Get outta here.... Bitcoin has no such "social contract" with fiat corporations and regulators. That is absolute nonsense. We obviously disagree. Go tell Coinbase that you as a user (hypothetically YOU are) are going to now operate on a side chain or with CT which may make it difficult for them to determine where you coins came from given the original definitive protocol for bitcoin is 100% transparent blockchain. See how much they disagree that the social contract was NOT broken by developers of bitcoin and its users (i.e. Coinbase) for this example. Fuck Coinbase. The only reason why they'd bother with these details is because they need to suck up to fiat institutions. What the hell would I use Coinbase for anyway? Coinbase could go bankrupt for all I know Bitcoin doesn't care and it certainly has no social contract with these banking parasites. The whole system was built on the premise of being permissionless. You think they have a right to say anything if somehow chooses to develop privacy features on top of Bitcoin? I dont use Coinbase either but if you use my example you will see my point. People will use centralized services for some time to come. And I think it will be that way to a certain extent for a very long time, doesnt matter the system. Your supposed perfect world where everyone uses bitcoin to transact and says "fuck you" to any business attempting to operate as an exchange, mixer, payment processor is not going to happen any time soon (within the next 5-10 years), if ever. Sure bitcoin will be still around but I doubt there will be that perfect scenario where the issues I've brought up do not exist. Just because you do not choose to use 3rd party centralized services to transact does not stop others from doing it. And ignoring that fact is actually very ignorant as sometimes you have to put yourself in the shoes of others to really understand what the implications of those people choosing to operate/transact mean for the overall marketplace. |
|
|
|
Click Here to WatchTravis Patron argues that bitcoin violates the principles of money fungibility - that each individual unit of currency being of the same value does not hold true in bitcoin. Already, businesses are springing up that are selling bitcoin with no previous transaction fee at a premium. This violates the principle of money fungibility. In the video, the investment analysis of bitcoin vs. gold is also discussed in depth. I find this as a complete BS. You can start selling US dollars that were never used as well at a premium. I blame greed for these and these crazy business that never had enough and are just trying to find a way how to make another dollar more! That's their fault really, for starting this nonsense. Is it still BS principally when a customer gets coins that are not accepted by businesses because it was part of a theft in the past history of those particular coins? It is BS from the User's perspective in that they are being denied usage of the coins they bought legitimately. It is BS and the customer should move his business elsewhere. Assuming he can. There are a lot of hypotheticals to throw out there. But it will be interesting to see who is right in the end. I honestly dont believe bitcoin will ever successfully implement any other protocol level functionality which allows it to operate more privately for users, meaning 100% of users can utilize this function and not get backlash from businesses/corps/govts that want everything to be 100% transparent because "terrorists". Heck the devs can't even come to agreement on the block size issue yet we are to believe they will eventually implement a protocol level change that introduces new privacy features for users? |
|
|
|
[...]
I don't disagree that this happens or will happen but IMO the issue as you present it is a construction of fiat parasites especially interested in undermining the privacy and fungibility of Bitcoin.
As we slowly move away from this paradigm I believe it will eventually become a non-issue. Moreover I understand there is significant progress being made toward implementation of privacy related features in things such as sidechains which contribute to solve the related issues.
I agree that this is exacerbated by "fiat parasites", but I disagree it comes only from this. Even in a fully Bitcoin-based economy, I don't see why it would disappear. You could still refuse to deal with coins out of belief or social pressure. Think of the US dentist who went to kill this lion and was everywhere in the news: imagine if he had paid for the "right to kill" with bitcoins, that the entire world would know at a given instant would be on an address X. Don't you think some people out there would refuse them for a payment? I believe it will always happen, if you can attach history to coins (in practice outputs). You could also refuse to deal with coins out of legal fear. If you own anything (money or objets) that you know is coming from a theft, you're legally liable as well (fence in English?). If you don't know but didn't take sufficient precautions, and the circonstances should have raised suspicions from you, you're liable as well; at least where I live. Why would the legal system be any different with coins? In fact it's worse: it is much easier to do your due diligence with bitcoins than with real world items, so you can be also accused more easily. EDIT: I forgot about sidechains. A sidechain implementing "confidential transactions" would help with privacy (despite not providing untraceability - that is not hiding the origin of the funds). But they don't solve fungibility: they could be seen like a mixer, and with limited liquidity. Coins seen entering in to be made more private, then seen going out. It is easy to be "hey why did you sent coins to this sidechain?", or "I don't want coins that visibly were mixed on the sidechain!". The reason I believe no meaningful functionality to bring more privacy to the bitcoin protocol any time soon or ever is because it would violate the social contract bitcoin has in place with corporations and businesses that are attempting to be compliant with regulators in their respective countries of operation. Get outta here.... Bitcoin has no such "social contract" with fiat corporations and regulators. That is absolute nonsense. We obviously disagree. Go tell Coinbase that you as a user (hypothetically YOU are) are going to now operate on a side chain or with CT which may make it difficult for them to determine where you coins came from given the original definitive protocol for bitcoin is 100% transparent blockchain. See how much they disagree that the social contract was NOT broken by developers of bitcoin and its users (i.e. Coinbase) for this example. Yes we know you could care less and in your perfect world everyone is using bit coin so who needs these 3rd party businesses. Well we aren't there yet nor will we be any time soon. |
|
|
|
Click Here to WatchTravis Patron argues that bitcoin violates the principles of money fungibility - that each individual unit of currency being of the same value does not hold true in bitcoin. Already, businesses are springing up that are selling bitcoin with no previous transaction fee at a premium. This violates the principle of money fungibility. In the video, the investment analysis of bitcoin vs. gold is also discussed in depth. I find this as a complete BS. You can start selling US dollars that were never used as well at a premium. I blame greed for these and these crazy business that never had enough and are just trying to find a way how to make another dollar more! That's their fault really, for starting this nonsense. Is it still BS principally when a customer gets coins that are not accepted by businesses because it was part of a theft in the past history of those particular coins? It is BS from the User's perspective in that they are being denied usage of the coins they bought legitimately. |
|
|
|
[...]
I don't disagree that this happens or will happen but IMO the issue as you present it is a construction of fiat parasites especially interested in undermining the privacy and fungibility of Bitcoin.
As we slowly move away from this paradigm I believe it will eventually become a non-issue. Moreover I understand there is significant progress being made toward implementation of privacy related features in things such as sidechains which contribute to solve the related issues.
I agree that this is exacerbated by "fiat parasites", but I disagree it comes only from this. Even in a fully Bitcoin-based economy, I don't see why it would disappear. You could still refuse to deal with coins out of belief or social pressure. Think of the US dentist who went to kill this lion and was everywhere in the news: imagine if he had paid for the "right to kill" with bitcoins, that the entire world would know at a given instant would be on an address X. Don't you think some people out there would refuse them for a payment? I believe it will always happen, if you can attach history to coins (in practice outputs). You could also refuse to deal with coins out of legal fear. If you own anything (money or objets) that you know is coming from a theft, you're legally liable as well (fence in English?). If you don't know but didn't take sufficient precautions, and the circonstances should have raised suspicions from you, you're liable as well; at least where I live. Why would the legal system be any different with coins? In fact it's worse: it is much easier to do your due diligence with bitcoins than with real world items, so you can be also accused more easily. EDIT: I forgot about sidechains. A sidechain implementing "confidential transactions" would help with privacy (despite not providing untraceability - that is not hiding the origin of the funds). But they don't solve fungibility: they could be seen like a mixer, and with limited liquidity. Coins seen entering in to be made more private, then seen going out. It is easy to be "hey why did you sent coins to this sidechain?", or "I don't want coins that visibly were mixed on the sidechain!". Yes it will call into question why someone sent coins to a side chain which has "C.T." It almost appears that there is infrastructure being built around bitcoin to attempt to fix the privacy issue that bitcoin currently has given likely there will be no successful implementation of any form of privacy features put into bitcoin from a untraceability and unlinkiability standpoint in the near future if ever. The reason I believe no meaningful functionality to bring more privacy to the bitcoin protocol any time soon or ever is because it would violate the social contract bitcoin has in place with corporations and businesses that are attempting to be compliant with regulators in their respective countries of operation. |
|
|
|
Click Here to WatchTravis Patron argues that bitcoin violates the principles of money fungibility - that each individual unit of currency being of the same value does not hold true in bitcoin. Already, businesses are springing up that are selling bitcoin with no previous transaction fee at a premium. This violates the principle of money fungibility. In the video, the investment analysis of bitcoin vs. gold is also discussed in depth. Nothing new... This is intimitely tied to the lack of privacy. The actual fungibility and privacy to expect from Bitcoin is wrongly grasped by most people, due to the technicity of the topic I suppose. Without a deep understanding of how Bitcoin works, you simply can't grasp it yourself and have to rely on other's claims. Those claims were wrongly of the kind "anonymous internet money!" for years. People did not take the same amount of precautions on silk road back then in 2012 than they do now. The perception is slowly changing, in that it is getting closer to reality. The reality did not change, and it comes to no surprise to those who could see it in the first place. An interesting evolution to observe is the different answers given by people over time, to support their view/claim that Bitcoin is fungible. Nowadays we're at "joinmarket does the trick!". Funnily enough this is the most trivial breach of fungibility we ever had (together with the premium for newly mined coins). Premium for newly mined coins is a matter of one individual's arbitrary preference and has no incidence on Bitcoin's fungibility. To the risk of repeating myself: send these coins to an exchange and see what the market thinks of your premium. The market will be happy not to give a shit about those clean coins. But try to send stolen coins to see what happens. Hint: https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/2zrkg6/withdrawals_halted_as_stolen_evolution_coins_make/About the bolded part: it is a recurrent flawed argument. You're applying a view from the legacy decentralized world to a decentralized system. In a decentralized system such as Bitcoin, everything is about arbitrary preference. This results in social pressure that impedes your ability to use your coins freely (and for a constant price), since this will be all based on the other party arbitrary preference. Fungibility is not an attribute you can achieve voluntarily. As soon as individuals can based their preference on enough factual hindsights (such as history of outputs), fungibility is broken. The only way to achieve it is by technically not giving anyone any hindsight; that is, through privacy. See this presentation (the first part is about Bitcoin). In the presentation you've linked you refer to coin "taints". If Bitcoin, as it was designed, is used in a purely peer-to-peer manner how do you propose this "taint" is advertised to the participants? If we assume that in the future every one will use Bitcoin in such a peer-to-peer way than I find it unlikely that people would be bothered by this "social pressure" you speak of. Are we expecting users to transact using wallets that support black/redlists? Do you propose that every user will dutifully proceed with an output analysis of every coin they interact with and transaction they are involved in? At what cost? Seems like you are applying concepts of a legacy system to bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Click Here to WatchTravis Patron argues that bitcoin violates the principles of money fungibility - that each individual unit of currency being of the same value does not hold true in bitcoin. Already, businesses are springing up that are selling bitcoin with no previous transaction fee at a premium. This violates the principle of money fungibility. In the video, the investment analysis of bitcoin vs. gold is also discussed in depth. Nothing new... This is intimitely tied to the lack of privacy. The actual fungibility and privacy to expect from Bitcoin is wrongly grasped by most people, due to the technicity of the topic I suppose. Without a deep understanding of how Bitcoin works, you simply can't grasp it yourself and have to rely on other's claims. Those claims were wrongly of the kind "anonymous internet money!" for years. People did not take the same amount of precautions on silk road back then in 2012 than they do now. The perception is slowly changing, in that it is getting closer to reality. The reality did not change, and it comes to no surprise to those who could see it in the first place. An interesting evolution to observe is the different answers given by people over time, to support their view/claim that Bitcoin is fungible. Nowadays we're at "joinmarket does the trick!". Funnily enough this is the most trivial breach of fungibility we ever had (together with the premium for newly mined coins). Premium for newly mined coins is a matter of one individual's arbitrary preference and has no incidence on Bitcoin's fungibility. To the risk of repeating myself: send these coins to an exchange and see what the market thinks of your premium. Didn't you already advocate not to use centralized service providers that could possibly be "back doored" into black listing bitcoins from certain addresses? But now you use an example of sending coins to an exchange to see what the market thinks of this "premium". |
|
|
|
When someone's hyping, someone is getting ready to pump... Then dump.
This is exactly what I thought when reading the thread title... |
|
|
|
When I heard about Monero, I did not "worry" about Bitcoin. (should have... ) Maybe in the long run, but we are not there yet My cryptic text should be understood as: "When I heard about and invested into Monero, I did not have any worries that the value of my much larger BTC stash would be affected. What happened, though, is that it has declined 60% since then, probably due to the very things that Monero fixes (anonymity, fungibility, blocksize). Also I never thought BTC would have caused silver price decline, but from hindsight it seems to be the case." What makes you think Bitcoin has decline because of the lack of privacy that monero has? Specific example? Trends are not specific examples. Despite technically knowing the facts (which have not changed), using Bitcoin in 2013 felt like "good, I am striking the controllers back and using my own decentralized money the way I want, and they cannot even know". Now it feels more like "nah, again I am touching this totally-monitored big brother system, which happens to be the best medium for this exchange since it is [enter BTC's advantages here]". Using bitcoin is not fun (any more) due to lack of fungibility. Using Monero is fun. Using CK is __________ This is not by accident. It is funny how your description of your own inner monologue is pretty much the same as mine. I feel the same way about mining. When I first learned about Bitcoin, it was a totally run by individuals, democratic, decentralized, p2p, etc. I was among those mining it and I felt that my role in the mining made me a true part of the system. It wasn't a bank or other regulated financial service, it was a piece of software you ran on your computer, and that's it. It was disruptive and totally unlike anything else current or previous, and exciting and appealing for that reason. Now the whole thing is run by big corporations in massive data centers (third parties to almost everyone) and subject to all manner of regulations under which you can maybe stay out of trouble if you are careful but will likely violate if you look at it the wrong way. Not so interesting, nor so different from other payment systems. That transition represents an inherent loss of subjective value, which as rpietila points out is probably not unrelated to the decline in price. The loss of fun is quite bad for something still an the early adopter phase. Well see my quote on the S7 discussion   That probably was a smart move on your part. I gave up on the mining rat race in 2011 and never looked back. Mining is an arms race and I refuse to race for the tiny carrot reward at the end of the race. Rather just buy whatever it is you are considering mining. You're missing the point a bit, I think. When I was mining back then it wasn't so much about getting the coins, so there wasn't an arms race or carrot aspect to it, really. Buying coins was certainly an option, though it was probably a bit more hassle than mining at the time. The motivation was more about the fun of being an essential part of the system itself, and getting more and more people involved, to promote Bitcoin and keep it all decentralized. That was why I always solo mined, even when it got to the point of taking months to get a block. I was more interested in the fun of being a direct part of the system that seemed to have so much potential than I was in consistent income. I'm not sure that cryptocurrencies can ever truly succeed without keeping the fun in it. It just becomes a corporate machine that is narrowly focused on its profit margin at the expense of broad participation and inconvenient social objectives, as Bitcoin largely has. But in doing so that destroys its reason to exist at all. Centralized systems likely have higher profit margins. From a philosophical point of view I mined bitcoin for the same reason as you. But of course there was monetary incentive (at least that's what I saw aside from the decentralized nature of bitcoin at the time). One could argue that if you hold bitcoin you essentially are participating in the system. Just like holding monero. So it depends on your approach. I'm over the mining scene as it was too much work to keep rigs cool, make sure they are up 24/7, and have the space to do it in (not to mention the worry about possible fire etc). So from many stand points I stopped mining. Another way I am trying to contribute (hopefully) is understanding the source code for Monero so that perhaps I will be able to help others under stand it fully. In fact this is "FUN" to me. I'm finding it very enlightening to look at the source and dig into it to hopefully understand how it all works together. So in essence there is many facets of having "fun" in crypto. It all depends on your approach. As Risto eluded earlier to the "fun" comment. He appear to not be a miner but a user of bitcoin and eventually found it not to be "fun", the same reason I'm losing interest in it with all of the hoorah hoorah drama of the block size etc going on, and the apparent stagnation in bitcoin development (IMO). Fun can = coding, mining, trading, transacting, marketing, teaching others...and the list can go on i'm sure. |
|
|
|
auction link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1213325.msg12726108#msg12726108-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 October 18th, 2015: Auction for TWELVE (1 DOZEN) 2013 LEALANA 1/2 OZ .999 Fine Silver 10 LTC Coins Batch Two   *****Carefully read this auction post in its entirety before bidding*****Auction ends October 21st, 2015 at 3:00 PM Hawaiian Standard TimeMinimum bid will start at 1.2BTC. Bidding will be done in 0.01BTC increments. Shipping will be $30 for US and $50 for International bidders. This will be added to the winning bid after the auction.(ID will be required upon delivery for pickup) for both domestic U.S. and international customers. Bitcoin is the only accepted form of payment for this auction. Coins for this auction will ship out by October 31st, 2015.You can combine this auction with another auction you won/win to save on shipping costs.You are bidding for the following unfunded/buyer funded coins:
TWELVE (1 DOZEN) 2013 LEALANA 1/2 OZ .999 Fine Silver 10 LTC Coins Batch Two By bidding on this auction you are agreeing to the terms listed at: http://lealana.com/tac.phpThe winner can choose how many coins they want to pre fund. All coins not pre funded before it ships will be marked "BUYER FUNDED" with a laser mark to each coin's hologram.
THESE COINS ARE BUYER FUNDED. The winner by bidding on this auction will accept the risks involved with shipping funded coins through USPS registered mail. The coins will be valued at the price paid plus the litecoin that is loaded on to them. Winner agrees to hold LEALANA, LLC. and myself innocent of any losses while in transit (in the small event the coin goes missing/stolen while in transit).
These coins utilize the ORIGINAL LEALANA Litecoin holograms used for all Lealana silver coins. Address prefix is "LTC" for these coins
Any customs/VAT taxes or fees that are placed on the package while going through customs for international customers are the responsibility of the buyer/winner to pay.Please bid in the following format (no extra precision decimals): CORRECT FORMAT
"I bid 1.07 BTC" INCORRECT FORMAT
"I bid 1.074839282"Should bids come in at the last minute I will allow for the auction to extended by 15 minute increments between bids. Once the 15 minutes is up and no bidding is done after the deadline specified ABOVE, the auction will end. To be clear on the precision of the auction times in 15 minute increments we are talking about the actual MINUTE and not the seconds that are posted on the forum timestamp. Payment address: 1Dg1LXErJv5NCN8oDKKD5AC8Bj9pU6x9hnPlease do not send payment to any winner address until the winner has been declared which I will post once the auction ends. If you would like a non-public payment address PM me and I will create a PGP signed address for you to send payment to. Payment is due within 72 hours from the time the auction ends. Should the winner not honor their bid and not provide payment in that 72 period the next highest bidder will be required to honor their bid. By bidding in this auction thread you agree to this stipulation. In other words, please make sure you are able to honor your bid(s) in a timely manner before you bid.I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO INVALIDATE A BID FROM NEWBIE USERS. USUALLY THIS WILL BE THE CASE IF I HAVE NEVER DONE BUSINESS WITH YOU BEFORE.AUCTION WINNER INFORMATION SUBMISSION:
*If you win, please send me (IN ONE PRIVATE MESSAGE) immediately ALL of the following information as it is needed to ship you your coins correctly/promptly:
1. The # of coins you want to prefund. Which types and how many.
2. FULL Shipping information:
FIRST AND LAST NAME
STREET ADDRESS & BUILDING/SUITE #
CITY
STATE
COUNTRY
POSTAL CODE
PHONE NUMBER
EMAIL ADDRESS
3. If you are outside of the US and want to insure prefunded coins please send me PM for details.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWJKXVAAoJEJqyV7+nZNgzocIIAIuNwjgQiW3YaDN/a4dGJ73E JK1yrOtoqgPeY/8To0gzuxnYF38JiWgJL0vvdwyBpTk8gSbY8na9zDR1CsnwUJ0r VbpjXfgA1l89FQ1tFQKBEf+1uwh+TBebPjvWC7tgmqYzeD3bX4x+Ulo/Rs/NJLKe umOLEZY6hznw2n4jfV4mzqK3qcCudr8EOVqTMUnl976/o7Vv3KvFzfr7PbzI+bw9 rr8BZaqvzfkE3Du+dgPcXrj19OBGpdA/rF+cFMv7wQ3zfT4zx7OYxmZMgwvyTaks DNAqkks3VC2Tno5knX9rtWBSs7gtYYIYNrRhTVyvEn1KbCNyO4F5DeH/Ekk8KfA= =YcM5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
|
|
auction link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1213325.msg12726108#msg12726108-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 October 18th, 2015: Auction for TWELVE (1 DOZEN) 2013 LEALANA 1/2 OZ .999 Fine Silver 10 LTC Coins Batch Two *****Carefully read this auction post in its entirety before bidding*****Auction ends October 21st, 2015 at 3:00 PM Hawaiian Standard TimeMinimum bid will start at 1.2BTC. Bidding will be done in 0.01BTC increments. Shipping will be $30 for US and $50 for International bidders. This will be added to the winning bid after the auction.(ID will be required upon delivery for pickup) for both domestic U.S. and international customers. Bitcoin is the only accepted form of payment for this auction. Coins for this auction will ship out by October 31st, 2015.You can combine this auction with another auction you won/win to save on shipping costs.You are bidding for the following unfunded/buyer funded coins:
TWELVE (1 DOZEN) 2013 LEALANA 1/2 OZ .999 Fine Silver 10 LTC Coins Batch Two By bidding on this auction you are agreeing to the terms listed at: http://lealana.com/tac.phpThe winner can choose how many coins they want to pre fund. All coins not pre funded before it ships will be marked "BUYER FUNDED" with a laser mark to each coin's hologram.
THESE COINS ARE BUYER FUNDED. The winner by bidding on this auction will accept the risks involved with shipping funded coins through USPS registered mail. The coins will be valued at the price paid plus the litecoin that is loaded on to them. Winner agrees to hold LEALANA, LLC. and myself innocent of any losses while in transit (in the small event the coin goes missing/stolen while in transit).
These coins utilize the ORIGINAL LEALANA Litecoin holograms used for all Lealana silver coins. Address prefix is "LTC" for these coins
Any customs/VAT taxes or fees that are placed on the package while going through customs for international customers are the responsibility of the buyer/winner to pay.Please bid in the following format (no extra precision decimals): CORRECT FORMAT
"I bid 1.07 BTC" INCORRECT FORMAT
"I bid 1.074839282"Should bids come in at the last minute I will allow for the auction to extended by 15 minute increments between bids. Once the 15 minutes is up and no bidding is done after the deadline specified ABOVE, the auction will end. To be clear on the precision of the auction times in 15 minute increments we are talking about the actual MINUTE and not the seconds that are posted on the forum timestamp. Payment address: 1Dg1LXErJv5NCN8oDKKD5AC8Bj9pU6x9hnPlease do not send payment to any winner address until the winner has been declared which I will post once the auction ends. If you would like a non-public payment address PM me and I will create a PGP signed address for you to send payment to. Payment is due within 72 hours from the time the auction ends. Should the winner not honor their bid and not provide payment in that 72 period the next highest bidder will be required to honor their bid. By bidding in this auction thread you agree to this stipulation. In other words, please make sure you are able to honor your bid(s) in a timely manner before you bid.I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO INVALIDATE A BID FROM NEWBIE USERS. USUALLY THIS WILL BE THE CASE IF I HAVE NEVER DONE BUSINESS WITH YOU BEFORE.AUCTION WINNER INFORMATION SUBMISSION:
*If you win, please send me (IN ONE PRIVATE MESSAGE) immediately ALL of the following information as it is needed to ship you your coins correctly/promptly:
1. The # of coins you want to prefund. Which types and how many.
2. FULL Shipping information:
FIRST AND LAST NAME
STREET ADDRESS & BUILDING/SUITE #
CITY
STATE
COUNTRY
POSTAL CODE
PHONE NUMBER
EMAIL ADDRESS
3. If you are outside of the US and want to insure prefunded coins please send me PM for details.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWJKXVAAoJEJqyV7+nZNgzocIIAIuNwjgQiW3YaDN/a4dGJ73E JK1yrOtoqgPeY/8To0gzuxnYF38JiWgJL0vvdwyBpTk8gSbY8na9zDR1CsnwUJ0r VbpjXfgA1l89FQ1tFQKBEf+1uwh+TBebPjvWC7tgmqYzeD3bX4x+Ulo/Rs/NJLKe umOLEZY6hznw2n4jfV4mzqK3qcCudr8EOVqTMUnl976/o7Vv3KvFzfr7PbzI+bw9 rr8BZaqvzfkE3Du+dgPcXrj19OBGpdA/rF+cFMv7wQ3zfT4zx7OYxmZMgwvyTaks DNAqkks3VC2Tno5knX9rtWBSs7gtYYIYNrRhTVyvEn1KbCNyO4F5DeH/Ekk8KfA= =YcM5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 October 18th, 2015: Auction for TWELVE (1 DOZEN) 2013 LEALANA 1/2 OZ .999 Fine Silver 10 LTC Coins Batch Two *****Carefully read this auction post in its entirety before bidding*****Auction ends October 21st, 2015 at 3:00 PM Hawaiian Standard TimeMinimum bid will start at 1.2BTC. Bidding will be done in 0.01BTC increments. Shipping will be $30 for US and $50 for International bidders. This will be added to the winning bid after the auction.(ID will be required upon delivery for pickup) for both domestic U.S. and international customers. Bitcoin is the only accepted form of payment for this auction. Coins for this auction will ship out by October 31st, 2015.You can combine this auction with another auction you won/win to save on shipping costs.You are bidding for the following unfunded/buyer funded coins:
TWELVE (1 DOZEN) 2013 LEALANA 1/2 OZ .999 Fine Silver 10 LTC Coins Batch Two By bidding on this auction you are agreeing to the terms listed at: http://lealana.com/tac.phpThe winner can choose how many coins they want to pre fund. All coins not pre funded before it ships will be marked "BUYER FUNDED" with a laser mark to each coin's hologram.
THESE COINS ARE BUYER FUNDED. The winner by bidding on this auction will accept the risks involved with shipping funded coins through USPS registered mail. The coins will be valued at the price paid plus the litecoin that is loaded on to them. Winner agrees to hold LEALANA, LLC. and myself innocent of any losses while in transit (in the small event the coin goes missing/stolen while in transit).
These coins utilize the ORIGINAL LEALANA Litecoin holograms used for all Lealana silver coins. Address prefix is "LTC" for these coins
Any customs/VAT taxes or fees that are placed on the package while going through customs for international customers are the responsibility of the buyer/winner to pay.Please bid in the following format (no extra precision decimals): CORRECT FORMAT
"I bid 1.07 BTC" INCORRECT FORMAT
"I bid 1.074839282"Should bids come in at the last minute I will allow for the auction to extended by 15 minute increments between bids. Once the 15 minutes is up and no bidding is done after the deadline specified ABOVE, the auction will end. To be clear on the precision of the auction times in 15 minute increments we are talking about the actual MINUTE and not the seconds that are posted on the forum timestamp. Payment address: 1Dg1LXErJv5NCN8oDKKD5AC8Bj9pU6x9hnPlease do not send payment to any winner address until the winner has been declared which I will post once the auction ends. If you would like a non-public payment address PM me and I will create a PGP signed address for you to send payment to. Payment is due within 72 hours from the time the auction ends. Should the winner not honor their bid and not provide payment in that 72 period the next highest bidder will be required to honor their bid. By bidding in this auction thread you agree to this stipulation. In other words, please make sure you are able to honor your bid(s) in a timely manner before you bid.I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO INVALIDATE A BID FROM NEWBIE USERS. USUALLY THIS WILL BE THE CASE IF I HAVE NEVER DONE BUSINESS WITH YOU BEFORE.AUCTION WINNER INFORMATION SUBMISSION:
*If you win, please send me (IN ONE PRIVATE MESSAGE) immediately ALL of the following information as it is needed to ship you your coins correctly/promptly:
1. The # of coins you want to prefund. Which types and how many.
2. FULL Shipping information:
FIRST AND LAST NAME
STREET ADDRESS & BUILDING/SUITE #
CITY
STATE
COUNTRY
POSTAL CODE
PHONE NUMBER
EMAIL ADDRESS
3. If you are outside of the US and want to insure prefunded coins please send me PM for details.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWJKXVAAoJEJqyV7+nZNgzocIIAIuNwjgQiW3YaDN/a4dGJ73E JK1yrOtoqgPeY/8To0gzuxnYF38JiWgJL0vvdwyBpTk8gSbY8na9zDR1CsnwUJ0r VbpjXfgA1l89FQ1tFQKBEf+1uwh+TBebPjvWC7tgmqYzeD3bX4x+Ulo/Rs/NJLKe umOLEZY6hznw2n4jfV4mzqK3qcCudr8EOVqTMUnl976/o7Vv3KvFzfr7PbzI+bw9 rr8BZaqvzfkE3Du+dgPcXrj19OBGpdA/rF+cFMv7wQ3zfT4zx7OYxmZMgwvyTaks DNAqkks3VC2Tno5knX9rtWBSs7gtYYIYNrRhTVyvEn1KbCNyO4F5DeH/Ekk8KfA= =YcM5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
|
|
Current map of nodes:  |
|
|
|
reminded by that graph that there's no presence in south america. Well that's kind of sad if you take in consideration the naming of MONERO. Maybe we should host a VPS there.... based on that map, shhhhhhh don't tell the chinese en masse about Monero ....yet. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
