Why haven't the coins moved?
If the coins moved you can bet they would move to a mixer. Whether it's MCM stealing them, a hacker stealing them, or the OP playing games - in all of these scenarios it the perp must obfuscate them so any tracking would not be successful. Come to think of it, the "OP playing games" scenario probably has the least incentive for the coins to be moved. If someone stole them there is no reason to wait. The only other scenario that I can think of is that the OP sent coins to an address no one has private keys for. This would also explain why the coins haven't moved. It's not easy to do accidentally though. A simple typo would result in an valid address. Anything else we can read from this fact? |
|
|
|
Only for dope. Millennials, all haters - get lost.
TFTFY. See, it's not too hard, and conveys the message much better. |
|
|
|
He has the ability to give franky1 a ban if he deems it necessary. I assume mods consult with each other too (since there are specific boards for them to do so).
I'm not sure if he can ban (he's not a global mod) but he can delete the posts as he stated and I would suggest to report any franky1's posts you see on that board. Banning him permanently would be too harsh IMO since this wasn't a real forum-wide ban, just one mod's policy. |
|
|
|
|
This is not twitbook. It's ok to use full sentences and punctuation.
|
|
|
|
At least eight of Adkins shill accounts have received signature bans for one year:
But but but muh free speech!!!#@$@! Don't get me wrong, nice to see those shitheads temp-and-sig-banned, but I haven't seen this done to any shills ever so I wonder who and why decided to open this can of worms. Edit - and why are these not banned for example: |
|
|
|
That whole hotel was the worst fucking thing i could ever imagine.
This probably means youy have very poor imagination, also evidenced by the fact that of all places to complain about a hotel, from Expedia to Yelp, you chose Bitcoin forum. |
|
|
|
QS brought up a concern he had. He was worried there was no liquidity on the buy side of the auction. I responded by saying NastyMining or myself would purchase up to 15 BTC of seats at 0.0005 BTC per seat (currently worth $833,250) if anyone was interested. That offer will put a floor under seat prices in BTC terms which is something I think people have wanted to see with this organization for a long time.
So you're buying up the seats at 0.0005 when there is 0.00056 worth of savings per seat but you're resisting a buyback by the club itself because "[you] want to grow the organization, not shrink it". Does that adequately capture your conflict of interest here? How does your buying grow it? |
|
|
|
For the moment I am only trying to gauge people's feelings on this. You have a JoinMarket node running permanently, but others do not.
I am specifically trying to gauge how people feel about receiving a Coin that has been "CoinJoined" VS a Coin that may or may not have a directly "questionable" lineage.
FWIW I probably wouldn't be running my own node if there was a better (quicker, more convenient, not horribly expensive, etc) way to use CoinJoin so you might be onto something here. Wasabi doesn't quite cut it. But I'm not certain that a centralized option is the answer either. |
|
|
|
I love how this was actually moved to Meta as if the OP has a real valid complaint. And all the snarky replies have been deleted  I don't know why we're making Meta into a troll central but here we go again. |
|
|
|
Ok, I take your word for it here on tracking the UTXOs but the second part kinda contradicts your OP where you said the mixer would be a maker. Are you going to run takers too, or just produce a client and expect others to run it?
The Maker and Taker code would be written from scratch. However, still interfacing and communicating with same IRC channels as the regular JoinMarket Python software. Transactions produced would still appear as if they had been produced from the Python software. I would not be running on an entirely different network, but the internals and decision making in terms of which UTXOs were selected and which Output Addresses I chose would be up to my own software. But you would be running makers AND takers? Strictly speaking, 1 CoinJoin away, I think you're definitely right. Sorry for that, but at what point does this change? I am not sure this is "absolute" as it dilutes to some extent with time?
If you sent Coins to an Entity which then performed 20 CoinJoins in a row over time (each CJ with other JM parties, each time). If you received Coins back from that later, 20 CoinJoins down the line, are these still "Your Coins"?
As I said earlier, I don't think that TX graph is a big JM issue to begin with... plausible deniability is good enough for me, especially by the time it gets to depth 4, let alone if it has been circling there for months. I'm just picking on your claim that the advantage of this service (over using JM directly) is that would break the TX graph, which it doesn't really do, or at least doesn't do it any better. And it could make input commingling a bigger problem. If I'm not mistaken the default maker tries to avoid co-spending my own inputs at all depths. If I send coins to your proposed service there's probably a higher a chance my coins could be spent together as early as the next CoinJoin after the initial one. |
|
|
|
Becoming a Maker, I would always provide strong liquidity, forever, which is built up from a wide variety of UTXOs which continually refreshes naturally based on regular mixing, let alone JoinMarket participation.
I mean liquidity from the taker side. I'm quite sure you would be cutting the branch you're sitting on. You would have takers subsidize your TX fees - which is about the only real advantage I can think of in this scheme, and it's an advantage mostly for the mixer, not its customers - while at the same time telling them to come use your service because it's better (faster, less technically-involved, no minimum, etc) than JM/Wasabi/whathaveyou. As far as anonynimity is concerned, I am unsure of what the issue would be? I would need to keep track of which UTXOs had been presented in combination with others, which is not a huge task, I think the JoinMarket software already does this, however I would be writing the Maker implementation code from scratch (I don't code with Python) and later a Taker implementation for on-demand ad-hoc Cold purposes (i.e. Initiating a JM CoinJoin direct from Cold Storage to Cold Storage). I wouldn't have 4 "mixing depths", I would do my own entirely separate thing picking UTXOs and Output Addresses accordingly based on my own requirements.
Ok, I take your word for it here on tracking the UTXOs but the second part kinda contradicts your OP where you said the mixer would be a maker. Are you going to run takers too, or just produce a client and expect others to run it? And it seems that this: All CoinJoins are easily identified, to the point where it's even known exactly which implementation has been used
May apply to your custom implementation as well, defeating another potential advantage of it. If I ensured that all deposits must first be CoinJoined prior to going out again, that's never going to happen. Just saying. That even includes a 1 BTC merchant flying through the doors, because by the time their 1 BTC Deposit has confirmed, a Taker (Cold) CoinJoin has already been performed, with 9 other participants and is ready to go again in the same block.
You said it yourself - CoinJoin doesn't break the TX graph. So I don't think you can also claim that I'll never get my previously deposited coins and it's incorrect to say this: The user would get the best of both worlds so to speak, they would jump the transaction graph
|
|
|
|
~
Ok, got it. I'm quite familiar with CoinJoin disadvantages, have been running a maker node for a long time so there is never a lack of fresh funds at depth 4 and I can live with that. As for a centralized mixer using this - there might be some problems (e.g. liquidity and perhaps even anonymity if they try to grab more liquidity with multiple nodes). And I'm still not certain if you're solving a problem that actually needs solving. I use CoinJoin for non-custodial mixing. I use a centralized mixer to get coins faster if I need to and if I'm willing to take the risk. Jumping the TX graph is a non-issue for me after several rounds of CoinJoins and even if it was, a centralized service using CoinJoin has the same problem, doesn't it? If I use it a few times they can't ensure that I won't get my own coins. |
|
|
|
I like chicken.
It's a shitpost, but not particularly funny. Try harder.
Marketplace masterpiece... uniek golden platen machine with lion feets, or a secret for 1 BTC to feed a hungry dog: you want to earn a secretI'm selling my secret about how to make fast money and once you got it you'r futur will change . So people if you want more about it just make a bid my secret will be send in a package with track and trace system so there cannot be problems with this sell I ask just an 1bitcoin for the secret and the send cost becquse its sending without the secret box also my dog is hungry So if you want to buy this secret say it and we will trade hello everybody i am selling a secret in a secret box
To change the futur of one happy person i am selling 1 of my 3 secret boxes with off course a big secret inside of this box
The secret will change you'r futur and that off the people with who you are livin.
I sell it for bitcoins because the price for fact it gonna make you win such amounts of money that you gonna laugh with this bitcoins you just payd
If you want to i can send picture or put one here off the box but you cannot see the secret inside because that stays a secret for everybody only the buyer and me gonna know what is inside i repeat just one thing when i buyed it i didn believe it but hey i never thought i gonne be trader and now i am one so the secret inside that box is true and changes live be smart like me buy it and change your live and that of your childs wife mom everybody around you bless yourself with this
Awesome box and secret inside
For more information just ask
I am selling more stuff uniek rare
Like a golden platen melted chocolat machine for holding warm and liquid with lion feets
And signature the piece is 23 kilo and made of metal and gold
This next nutcase has been trolling the lending board for months so this is just the top of the shitberg: Title of the thread: "For some reason what I say becomes true" I have many, many millions coming my way, many, many women, the losers such as people who can't loan money to me can only watch and envy from a distance when there are hundreds of women around me and many many millions
|
|
|
|
|
I must be missing something... what exactly are you proposing that would be different from e.g. running my own JM maker node or if I want it faster maybe using Wasabi? And then maybe moving the coins a few times to distance them from the CoinJoin transactions if that's really a concern. Why involve a centralized mixer in this?
|
|
|
|
|
OP, you seem to be one of those slightly advanced not-100%-shitposters who managed to survive here by blowing up their one-liners into 3-4 lines of text, but it's still mostly vague paragraphs in spam megathreads, often posted without reading (not that there is any reason to read or post in such threads to begin with) and I doubt this forum lost anything of significant value with those deleted posts. I remember looking through your post history a while ago, as I often do when I send merits to someone for the first time - to check if I missed other good posts - and couldn't really find much.
My advice would be to take time to read all your deleted posts (remember, you expected others to read them, right? otherwise why bother) and compare to posts you received merits for and try to understand the difference.
|
|
|
|
As an example, my positive trust rating is 19 (as of now, via DT-base) compared to DarkStar_'s 54. Should I be trusted with a corresponding 35% of the value DarkStar_ typically transacts? Abso-fucking-lutely not. How much should I be trusted with at this point? Who can tell? There are no risked amounts and you'd have to develop a case file, researching the feedback and references just to determine my scam threshold!
True, counts of trust ratings don't really mean much, neither does this green dick measuring contest in general. Reading trust ratings and references etc is imperative. However if we start spamming the trust system with a rating about every fart it makes due dilligence harder for everyone. |
|
|
|
Positive should be indicators of actually having done some sort of business/trade, risk or not.. Just having made successful trades is a good indicator that they aren’t here just trying to scam..
No. That's a recipe for trust farming. Just go buy some trinkets from someone who hands out ratings to everyone and is in DT (and these days half of the forum is in DT)... no. "Unlikely to scam" should mean something otherwise what's the point. Just like with the negs, which shouldn't be used against anyone you dislike, positive ratings shouldn't be used just because you're happy you sold a trinket to someone. This is not eBay. And we have neutral ratings if we're really itching to twitterize every trade.  |
|
|
|
Yet another example. This could be OgNasty hearing what he wants to hear, but I'm not sure.
Well, I didn't quote the other part of that post where he was blatantly making shit up - don't wanna feed his trollyness too much - although you can probably guess which part that is. I appreciate you trying to be open minded about it but this is not the first or 20th time he's lied so pretty much anything he says, particularly about people he has beef with, is more than likely false. |
|
|
|
Tomorrow Bukowskis deliver asset appraisal for baseline reference to investors, creditors, speculators. Or not!  Oh no... who could have possibly predicted this: Bukowskis refuses to appraise it
|
|
|
|
What I would like to see is what reasons will be provided by members that have already done or have contemplated adding users to their distrust list on the basis of making improper use of the trust system by leaving negative trust and quoting that reason yet they have not taken the same actions against members that leave positive counter-feedbacks. I will add this to the OP as well.
Last attempt to spell it out for you but I don't think you're looking for an actual answer but rather to justify your actions and/or smear your opponent. Order of preference for actions to deal with improper use of negative trust (e.g. for trolling or opinions): - Users leaving such trust ratings should not do it.
- Other users should no longer include them (not vote them into DT1 and not make them DT2).
- Other DT1 members should exclude them (remove them from DT1/DT2).
- Other DT members may counter with neutral or positive ratings where appropriate.
It is your responsibility to fix it, not everyone else's responsibility to fix your mess or penalize other users for trying to fix your mess. When I see the first three actions taken with any sort of consistency and responsibility I may consider no longer supporting counter feedbacks. Until then it's fair game, albeit neutrals would probably work better in some cases. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
