The Monero XMR Scam Uncovered
[...]
Hypothesis 1 is accepted. Monero's posting activity is likely to be largely artificial.
Rationale for hypotheses 2 & 3 are coming soon. Stay tuned.
 |
|
|
|
Could you please add rss to your blog? It's on my todo list, I will fix it. But ANC needs some love first  What about this: "For Norwegians with Android phones, today will be a great day. I'll get back to it later " |
|
|
|
|
Aurum is using a forum account that he has either hacked or purchased from the original owner. Just compare his first post in the forum with his current ones. Without looking further into this it seems like Aurum just generated a list of usernames and fake passwords and is trying to make some quick btc by selling air. Nothing to see here.
|
|
|
|
His hashrate is equivalent of 1000 Radeon 290.... or 6000 intel haswell cores
Most likely explanation is a botnet. I read that the devs of BCN use botnet to make fake demand for this coin. Is it true ?   |
|
|
|
Nobody comment this post?? Congratulation on all this projects, and good luck in work! : ) This only can be win-win for ANC. Btw, most of us wait for ZC news.. I know you are working on that, but give us something.. Gracias  And here u get them. I was in talk with orignal now, which is maindev on "Purple I2P" as it now is named. Since I've helped him a lot with the C++ router, and uses much time on ZC because of all the math (waste when he got degree in math. if he help me now, I can help him more afterwards, removing a lot of time I'm using to study the new math). He would probably help me now, which in the end will speed both developments up, since I help him a lot now, but could have done more if it wasn't for ZC. Since he knows math and I know the Anoncoin source, it could go quickly. We have discussed a lot development and delegation of tasks lately, and it was here this was now mentioned. But we will talk more on Monday. If this is the result, it will be win-win for all parts Also, Awesome as hell!! I connected with i2pd, now Purple I2P on IRC 23:15, and it's now 01:48 and still not disconnected, nor has i2pd crashed!! It was also there the discussion took place I will get back when I can confirm more with post on sigterm Do you know if Gnosis is still working on ZC or did he quit? |
|
|
|
It's been over a week now and all they do is respons one time on a ticket and they say they are going to solve this as soon as possible, and then you never hear anything from them.
Same here, but I just asked in chat and they fixed within 5 minutes. Well gonna try that again. In the meantime already lost 20% because XMR and BTC both dropped To be fair, you didn't follow the instructions and sent without payment id. I don't think a week is unreasonable time to wait for a claim on funds. |
|
|
|
It's been over a week now and all they do is respons one time on a ticket and they say they are going to solve this as soon as possible, and then you never hear anything from them.
Same here, but I just asked in chat and they fixed within 5 minutes. |
|
|
|
Wow, thanks for the article. Such a sad read, one man's descent into insanity drags so many others with him  BTW, Brock was born in 1980, so he was 19 when the lawsuit was brought against the trio in 2000. Alexander Burton, the guy who sued them, was born in 1981, one year later. Anyone else see the absurdity of the "child molester" claims? After living in London for about two years, Collins-Rector and Bowles moved to Antwerp, Belgium. Together, they often played an online video game called Entropia Universe, according to people with knowledge of their relationship — Bowles using the name “Colonel Lee Bowles” and Collins-Rector under the moniker “Marcus Slayem Aurelius.” They became prominent players, but in August 2007, members of Entropia Universe identified who “Marcus Slayem Aurelius” really was when a picture of Collins-Rector appeared in a U.K. tabloid article titled “Tycoon paedo on prowl in UK.” The vociferous reaction by many other players soon forced Collins-Rector and Bowles out of the game. What a weird coincidence. I used to play entropia universe with this guy (Lee Bowles) and had no idea. We went hunting several times. It was kind of amazing back then how he went from having nothing / newbie to buying all the best equipment worth tens and tens of thousand of dollars. Let's just say these two guys have quite a history in the entropia community for anyone who wants to dig deeper... I only met him on his later avatar however, not the first one "Colonel Lee Bowles" but on an (female) avatar named "x-x brook x-x". I don't think many knew that he was back in game under a different name. It's a small world. edit: A screenshot I took back then of his new avatar x-x brook x-x holding a modified first aid kit (worth about $30-40k USD at the time) |
|
|
|
Anyone understand the big drop on Cryptsy recently?
Its hard to understand with zerocoin testnet coming soon
Well they started talking about ZC last year, it was first estimated that ZC testnet would be out in March. Then it was estimated that it would be out by mid July. Then it was estimated that it would be out in September. It's natural that people loses faith when deadlines goes by (without any particular explanations as to why). On top of that, zerocash is being developed and is closing in, if zerocash ends up being released before zerocoin I think the spotlight will be on zerocash even though there is a technical differences between them. Everybody is waiting for the zerocoin devs to release a coin so I tend to think ANC will lose its first mover advantage. And then there has been other developments recently such as the crypto note protocol with currencies like Monero gaining traction. These are already fully functional, anonymous currencies. This is what ANC has to compete with and the longer it takes the less likely it is to succeed. |
|
|
|
Where is the work of Gnosis? Probably on his computer, why do you ask? There is no work of Gnosis. This is just a copy/paste of the unfinished zerocoin release, nothing to see here. I'm curious if September is still a realistic estimate, something tells me it's not. Where you can see that I say or wrote Gnosis by that link? Gnosis is working ofc. So what are you so excited about? Some quick copy/paste job and you "can't wait" to hear the "news"... really? what "news"? Am I the only one thinking that this is a rip off?
It's going to be another "Libertycoin XLB"
No |
|
|
|
Where is the work of Gnosis? Probably on his computer, why do you ask? There is no work of Gnosis. This is just a copy/paste of the unfinished zerocoin release, nothing to see here. I'm curious if September is still a realistic estimate, something tells me it's not. |
|
|
|
Guys, can someone explain to me what happened on HitBTC earlier today that made the chart go crazy?
Someone realy bought all the way up to 0.08???
EDIT:
It seems so... Order book shows all trades up to 0.08... so wierd, why would someone do that...?
Oooops. Someone made a MAJOR mistake surely. 163 Moneros for 10 BTC   I'm waiting for an official explanation. Just curious, but from whom? Well seeing as this is either a serious bug in their system or straight up fraud I expect hitbtc to provide an explanation. Yep. The entire transaction was about 623 XMR in all. There's no way that was the entire order book from ~470k to 8000k. Understood. but seriously. if you fat-finger a decimal point in a drunken trade, is the exchange liable for your fubar? Just curious/sayin/wonderin... This has nothing to do with a fat fingered user mistake. Either the exchange is putting up fake bids/asks that will vanish exactly when market order is executed thus leaving only the thin order book of legit orders to match with and once executed the fake bids/asks immediately are placed back (this would be fraud). The other alternative is that there is a bug of some sort in the matching engine. E.g a limit order set at 0.08 executes at that price instead of lower asks like it's supposed to. I'm not sure which it is, so it will be interesting to hear their response. Last I checked (few hours ago) it took more than 100000 XMR to break 0.005. The volume is far less. There is no indication of this being legit. One possible explanation could have been dark orders, but from what I can tell hitbtc don't have that. In other words, trades should be matched against the order book, and it's way too thick for a trade like this. |
|
|
|
Guys, can someone explain to me what happened on HitBTC earlier today that made the chart go crazy?
Someone realy bought all the way up to 0.08???
EDIT:
It seems so... Order book shows all trades up to 0.08... so wierd, why would someone do that...?
Oooops. Someone made a MAJOR mistake surely. 163 Moneros for 10 BTC I'm waiting for an official explanation. Just curious, but from whom? Well seeing as this is either a serious bug in their system or straight up fraud I expect hitbtc to provide an explanation. |
|
|
|
Guys, can someone explain to me what happened on HitBTC earlier today that made the chart go crazy?
Someone realy bought all the way up to 0.08???
EDIT:
It seems so... Order book shows all trades up to 0.08... so wierd, why would someone do that...?
Oooops. Someone made a MAJOR mistake surely. 163 Moneros for 10 BTC I'm waiting for an official explanation. |
|
|
|
Explorers, Distribution and Big Whale Wallets should not be one of the Concerns of ANC fans.
We will never know for sure who the wallet belongs to nor will we ever know the correct Distribution
I'm not concerned, and that top wallets are not so big if you look other coins.. What someone mentioned one or two times on forum, problem is that ANC devs don't have much ANC ANC isnt made for the devs, so why should we have tons of ANC? Owning ANC means there is a financial incentive to make the coin succeed and become valuable. If the developer(s) owns peanuts (and refuses to buy at these low prices), it indicates a complete lack of faith in not only the zerocoin implementation being released in september, but the future of ANC as a whole. The more invested, the more reason they have to work on improving the coin. The less invested, the less reason to give a shit. |
|
|
|
Very disappointing to see so many uninformed replies in this thread. We should welcome anything that can allow decentralization of exchanges, a fiat or gold backed blockchain is definitively one step in the right direction. The issuer needs to be able to deal with the regulatory challenges and that's no small hurdle to overcome, but if it can be done, this could be amazing.
If given the choice between holding a decentralized but centralized backed currency versus a centralized and centralized backed currency I'd likely go with the former. Imagine if victims of mtgox could trade their goxUSD/goxBTC now? Or what if the holders of gold in e-gold could trade it? Perhaps you don't want to wait for 5 years to get your gold back and rather sell it off to someone who is willing to for a discount?
It's not fully decentralized since you must trust the issuer (and more importantly be aware of the government and their intentions), but it's one step in that direction as you now have full control of the token, while previously it would be stuck in your account on some website. Most importantly you can't run a decentralized exchanges with paypal/bank/pm like you can with a blockchain.
There is another advantage: It minimize the likelihood of failure when the only job of the entity is to secure and distribute the funds, versus also running an exchange and/or payment provider at the same time.
Wasn't someone doing this for gold? I seem to recall that. I'd love to see fully backed gold blockchain. The problem the issuer have is how to be left alone (from government thieves). Is there a place on earth where setting up this will work long-term? Perhaps not, but both e-gold and liberty reserve did last for many years. In 5-10 years bitcoin may very well be so widely accepted that there is no longer a big need for it.
I'm watching this.
Damn i thought you killed yourself. So were you able to get your money back from Mt.Gox? No more CCMF? I didn't get anything back from mtgox, but I'm expecting that some 20-25% or so will be returned. Yes I got more than 1k BTC stuck, but it's nothing to kill myself over. Very disappointing to see so many uninformed replies in this thread. We should welcome anything that can allow decentralization of exchanges, a fiat or gold backed blockchain is definitively one step in the right direction. The issuer needs to be able to deal with the regulatory challenges and that's no small hurdle to overcome, but if it can be done, this could be amazing.
If given the choice between holding a decentralized but centralized backed currency versus a centralized and centralized backed currency I'd likely go with the former. Imagine if victims of mtgox could trade their goxUSD/goxBTC now? Or what if the holders of gold in e-gold could trade it? Perhaps you don't want to wait for 5 years to get your gold back and rather sell it off to someone who is willing to for a discount?
It's not fully decentralized since you must trust the issuer (and more importantly be aware of the government and their intentions), but it's one step in that direction as you now have full control of the token, while previously it would be stuck in your account on some website. Most importantly you can't run a decentralized exchanges with paypal/bank/pm like you can with a blockchain.
There is another advantage: It minimize the likelihood of failure when the only job of the entity is to secure and distribute the funds, versus also running an exchange and/or payment provider at the same time.
Wasn't someone doing this for gold? I seem to recall that. I'd love to see fully backed gold blockchain. The problem the issuer have is how to be left alone (from government thieves). Is there a place on earth where setting up this will work long-term? Perhaps not, but both e-gold and liberty reserve did last for many years. In 5-10 years bitcoin may very well be so widely accepted that there is no longer a big need for it.
I'm watching this.
An exchange holds both fiat and crypto (supposedly securely) and this will hold fiat and crypto as well. I don't see a difference there. If they can add and remove digital tokens as required, it means they have the tokens and if they claim they have an actual dollar for every digital dollar it means they have the fiat as well. If an exchange can screw up and lose those things, so can this. If you did get burned by an exchange, the real disappointment is that you would be interested in the next big failure. This is not an attempt to decentralise a digital dollar for the benefit of the community, this is an attempt to create a monopoly on digital dollars for the benefit of a few investors. You won't see as much bashing when a legitimate attempt at decentralised exchanges finally comes around, because we all want that. This is definitely not it, though. This is crap. The difference is that users will hold tokens in a decentralized manner. Storing the realcoinUSD on their own computer. This will allow decentralized trading of these USD. It also provides transparency since all transactions are stored in a blockchain. E.g for proof of solvency. And yes, of course the backer can lose money or have them confiscated and that's what I said. I don't believe this is possible to do long term due to regulatory issues. But if it can be done, it's great. The way I imagine it is multiple USD tokens available. Some may want to trust RealCoin, others may prefer the fully decentralized solution once that arrives. But I think having a decentralized exchange even with something like RealCoin is a step into the right direction. I'm very much looking forward to the fully decentralized solution, but keep in mind it will come with some disadvantages as well. |
|
|
|
So many people (including bitcointalk hero members and btc whales) saying they are buyers at this price but not bid support on the exchanges. I find this curious.
 also my own comment from June 27, 2014: I lost about ~20 BTC here  why XMR is down!!!!!! There are not enough buyers to sustain a price of say 0.008 at the moment. 24k XMR is being mined every day, at 0.008 that's 192 btc. Surely it's not all dumped on the market but it's certainly contributing to downward pressure along with people who bought higher that are now selling in panic and also people who bought much lower who secures profit in btc. Nothing surprising about this, every large price increase tends to overshoot and come back down. Hopefully you still got a decent amount of BTC, buying range 0.002-0.004 is decent (buy more the lower it goes). In fact previous increase when XMR was added to poloniex took us to 0.008 and down to about 0.0017 before it turned up again. I think we're staying above 0.002 this time though. I've been buying all the way down, at 0.004, 0.003 and also placed order @ 0.002. |
|
|
|
So many people (including bitcointalk hero members and btc whales) saying they are buyers at this price but not bid support on the exchanges. I find this curious.
Buy Orders Price XMR BTC 0.00240200 301.44639286 0.72407424 0.00240005 83.33159726 0.2 0.00240003 20.83307292 0.05 0.00240002 2054.5795685 4.93103206 0.00240001 500 1.200005 0.00240000 1658.80367081 3.98112881 There are 75 BTC against 89000 XMRs at Poloniex, divide 75/89000 = 0.0008, that's the average price buyers are willing to pay. Frankly, I don't see how the price can be 5x higher than its closest competitor Boolberry, both coins are technically equal. Even hero members are not bigger than the market and can't support the price indefinately. Network effect, liquidity, first mover advantage. Monero is THE cryptonote currency. Everything else is altcoins. Why do you think bitcoin is worth 70 times more than litecoin? Boolberry does not offer anything significantly better/different than monero. If all it takes is to have a technically equal currency for it to be valued at 1:1 ratio then you also need to understand that all coins will be equally worthless due to unlimited inflation. Come on, what network effect?! Bitcoin had years before altcoins, Monero and others launched about the same time, where is the advantage? I did run cryptonote exchange, with 750 members who were all exposed to monero (and bytecoin) but never boolberry. A few other comparisons to make: | XMR | BBR | Multiplier | | Reddit Subscribers | 512 | 22 | 23x | | People on IRC | 150+ | 30 | 5x | | Forum topic pages | 497 | 117 | 4.25x | | Volume in BTC (today) | 90 | 3.22 | 28x |
Monero is vastly more popular. Yes, boolberry launched fairly soon thereafter, which may explain why it's doing as well as it does. But monero is the currency with the biggest network and highest liquidity. |
|
|
|
BUT.... the decline has been long and steady. What do you think is driving this? And how can this coin recover? Tacotime said: "It’s not until 2-3 years in that we’ll likely see obscene increases in price given simple economics." The said simple economics being mostly inflation rate (the rest being inside (wallet, website) or outside (institution getting into monero) announcements. BTC was cheap for several years. And Monero follows a BTC-like emission curve. Connect the dots. Network effect, liquidity, first mover advantage. Well, technically, First-mover advantage is for Bytecoin But then again, this did not help Tenebrix either. Monero is THE cryptonote currency. Everything else is altcoins. Someone somewhere proposed the word "altnotes" (finally thought about checking the "don't use smiley" checkbox. I feel much better now) Bytecoin can be ignored due to the massive 80% "pre-mine", the only reason it has any value at all is that it has first mover advantage, but so does Monero for being the first fair cryptonote currency. I think bytecoin has a better shot than tenebrix, but not enough to out-compete monero. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
>? 
