For privacy, I use blockchain.info's SharedCoin (a type of mixer) to avoid linking my BTC spends/transfers to my main wallet. Has there been any indication that using a service like that could prevent a company from being willing to transact with you?
Of course, if the answer is no, this brings to mind a question like: why wouldn't a person with BTC from an undesirable source just use a mixer?
1. There is risk sending your bitcoins to be mixed. 2. I guess they can do it. Ultimately it doesn't remove the trail of where the bitcoins go. Yes the thief may get away with it but someone will be possibly blacklisted with their coins should those coins be coming form an undesirable source. what have never understand about mixing: it seems mixing needs a constant flow of "white" bitcoins to mix with. where do they come from? why does anyone sending their clean coins there and pay a fee for mix them with tainted ones? |
|
|
|
There's lot's of false information rolling around this thread  Here's an interview that clarifies the instamine and what happened: https://dashdot.io/alpha/?page_id=118TLDR: The instamine was a bug that turned into a feature, it's also why we're continuing to be a success. If you want to learn about the technology, watch the video series. (there's a hidden message in the series somewhere that no one has found  ) https://www.dashpay.io/dash-video-series/if i where you i'd also say that the instamine is now a feature... at least you got a huge amount of coins that way  I'm going to venture a guess that you either read at 1000wpm or you didn't read that article. i was there in the first days of xcoin and i dont need an article to explain to me what happend back then |
|
|
|
There's lot's of false information rolling around this thread Here's an interview that clarifies the instamine and what happened: https://dashdot.io/alpha/?page_id=118TLDR: The instamine was a bug that turned into a feature, it's also why we're continuing to be a success. If you want to learn about the technology, watch the video series. (there's a hidden message for investors in the series somewhere that no one has found ) https://www.dashpay.io/dash-video-series/if i where you i'd also say that the instamine is now a feature... at least you got a huge amount of coins that way |
|
|
|
I think you're about to see the largest margin call in Poloniex history. Some guy named Cagara opened a 100btc short on Bitshares around 0.00002700 sometime around Sept 23rd. He thought the price was going to go down to 0.00002200 but it didn't, the price went to 2450 or so then recovered to 2700 again while his short is still open. Now this guy has to buy 100 BTC worth straight off the sell wall or wait for the price to go higher and get margin called. Depending if he manually covers his short or waits to get margin called, the price is immediately going to go somewhere between 2900-3100 relatively soon. There's also nobody selling for him to cover his short either because a double sell off wave just happened. He keeps trying to dump into buy support to stop the rise just digging himself deeper in the hole:  Any estimation on % of losses he might have? people... please be aware... polo does not show its margin positions. its impossible to tell if this is a margin position or a normal sell. as bitshares was MUCH higher in the past its very likely this is an old holder cashing out... can we go back to topic please? |
|
|
|
|
i like that addresses.
but buyers should be aware that a forwarder has access to mail contents. thats a show-stopper for me.
|
|
|
|
Profit is bonus fun ??Where do you live in which world?Gambling looks fun but isnt for sure some people waste their lifes because of it ,even playing with a low ammount ,ahead those money should get you something that you cant buy..
well as soon as gambling is no more fun you should stop immediately esp avoid thinking "ive lost * times in a row so the next bet must be a win. i'll stop after that" |
|
|
|
I can be wrong too, we are human and we can make mistakes, but as far as i know we can't verify the signed message if any.
In the post that i mentioned in the OP, i stated that bit-x and xapo wallets that their addresses starts with "3" you can not sign a message from them and i think that the user has his address in one of these 2 that i mentioned (probably xapo) and he found this helpful. I have nothing to say more.
as i said without that line i think your post is helpful. but your vote asks for constructive too: IMHO technical incorrectness leads to confusion. i did not say its a bad post or sth. just explaining my vote. |
|
|
|
Hi all bitcoiners, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg12492110#msg12492110I want to know your opinion about this post if it is constructive, is it helpful? Should it be considered as an ignored post or not? from signature campaigns. Personally i see that i tried my best to help (and warn) the user that addresses that begins with the prefix "3" are mostly from bit-x and xapo and you can't prove your ownership, you basically can't sign a message. And i successfully helped this user and a few hours later he was able to sign from another address and included this address with prefix "3" I added a poll let me know what do you think. If it would be my campaign I would not count any post in that thread. Your answer is also wrong from a technical perspective. I still didnt answer your question, eh? Yes, its helpful, yes as its helpful it should be considered constructive as you helped to avoid a possible issue in the future for someone else. i voted no because it is technically false. otherwise i'd think t is helpful. but as-is it just leads to confusion (addresses that start with a 3 have nothing to with specific wallets) |
|
|
|
|
this forum doesnt moderate scams
and who decides which coins are a scam (and how?)?
imho most are
|
|
|
|
only a little, because it looks like it would be cold to cuddle with "her" |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is perfectly fungible. Anyone who claims otherwise is confusing economic concepts.
we already had this discussion. maybe bitcoin is technically fungible (because any coin can always be send an mixed) but practically you have problems when using coins which where stolen (eg bitstamp hack) or why do you think new minted coins are sold with a premium? Indeed, and as you explain we have established that Bitcoin is "technically fungible" which is really all that matters. Fungibility is a property inherent to a system. It is not dependent on human preferences. well we need to agree to disagree then. i want to use money without thinking about thefts or checking its history. it doesnt help me if is "technically fungible" when i cant use it that way. |
|
|
|
Yeah, I didn't mean on this forum. I just meant that good quality ID sets have value. So in my mind it is a form of collateral.
you are right that a good ID set has value i would not accept it as collateral because a collateral is meant to be sold in case of a default: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_(finance)as in my mind selling IDs is only for scammers i'd suspect any lender who takes this as collateral as a potential scammer (i would not neg rate him though) |
|
|
|
I think a good quality ID set is worth more than .02BTC because it can be used for profitable illicit activity in the event of lender default. That is, assuming the ID looks good. So in my mind, the collateral is sound.
IMHO there are two problems: - how to verify his docs... and still be profitable with a 5$ loan? - in case he defaults what to do? its just 5$... its not worth calling a lawyer That's exactly my point. You don't need to verify them. If the ID looks really good, it has value in itself (good for anyone wanting to scam). I think that value is more than 0.02 BTC but it really depends on the amount of ID he provides. if i get you right you are saying that if he defaults you could sell his id to another scammer? if his id is already fake and you dont see it he could just use it again (maybe not on btct) |
|
|
|
I think a good quality ID set is worth more than .02BTC because it can be used for profitable illicit activity in the event of lender default. That is, assuming the ID looks good. So in my mind, the collateral is sound.
IMHO there are two problems: - how to verify his docs... and still be profitable with a 5$ loan? - in case he defaults what to do? its just 5$... its not worth calling a lawyer |
|
|
|
i'd love to see a decentralized youtube. maybe with freenet this could be possible? edit: just realized that bandwith may be a big issue there  |
|
|
|
I can draw and deface a bank note, does that make fiat not "perfectly fungible"?
imagine this: - you payed in a store with that dollar - the store get robbed and the owner got killed - one employee remebered this dollar was still there - news reports this with an image with that dollar is this dollar still fungible or will the thief has problems paying with it? Assuming the merchant that may accept it is paying attention to the bills coming in...yes they would have problems paying with it. Most people aren't paying attention to the serial numbers on their bills. It's not accessible for many to lookup which serial numbers of bills were tied to a specific crime/theft. luckily in this example mallard made it easy by drawing an image on the dollar and made it unique and easy to remember  |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is perfectly fungible. Anyone who claims otherwise is confusing economic concepts.
wow really? lol here is the definition of the economic concept of FUNGIBILITY: definition: Fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution. That is, it is the property of essences or goods which are "capable of being substituted in place of one another." You sure you want to claim that it is "perfectly fungible"? If someone decides not to accept some bitcoins vs other bitcoins ....then it is no longer "perfectly fungible". I can draw and deface a bank note, does that make fiat not "perfectly fungible"? imagine this: - you payed in a store with that dollar - the store get robbed and the owner got killed - one employee remebered this dollar was still there - news reports this with an image with that dollar is this dollar still fungible or will the thief has problems paying with it? |
|
|
|
|
if you are willing to share your docs maybe try btcjam or bitlend
(i havent tried bitlend and left btcjam looong ago, just take a look and decide for yourself)
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is perfectly fungible. Anyone who claims otherwise is confusing economic concepts.
we already had this discussion. maybe bitcoin is technically fungible (because any coin can always be send an mixed) but practically you have problems when using coins which where stolen (eg bitstamp hack) or why do you think new minted coins are sold with a premium? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
