a "darknet" exchange without any cryptonote coin sounds like a big red flag to me, its funny people complain about polo and the KYC trap but Monero (and the other cryptonotes) are the only coin that protect individual privacy even in these cases, sure they can know how much you bought and what is your address but thats it, using a darknet exchange will not make any bitcoin clone fungible.
The more interesting question is would there be a spread in the XMR/XBT exchange rates between a "darknet" and "regulated" exchange? In theory if fungibility of XBT is an issue there should be a spread. Edit: As for a spread in the DASH/XMR exchange rate that would be really more interesting. If you mean the original and only dash then yes, I agree with you. The real significance here will come after Monero implements MRL-0004, since we are comparing two Cryptonote coins. Edit: It is important to consider that Monero has and is diverging significantly from the Cryptonote/Bytecoin code while Dashcoin is an automated fork of Bytecoin by design, so in principle the trading spread could be a measure of the market's opinion on the security / privacy improvements in MRL-0004. |
|
|
|
For those interested in the Darkcoin foundation's legal dispute with Karmic Labs over the trademark DASH. Here is a synopsis. The Darkcoin foundation started an opposition to the registration of the Trademark "DASH", by Karmic Labs, over the prior use of "Dashcoin", by the Dashcoin community. They claim "ownership" as far as I understand because they "bought" Dashcoin and the related common law trademark rights. The original idea was to kill Dashcoin but of course the Dashcoin community just kept going on. You may wish to go to http://tmsearch.uspto.gov and search for registration number 86377359. Now in the results page click on TSDR and one can download all the documents. The most interesting is the "Answer" under Proceedings where Karmic Labs claims "unclean hands" http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unclean-hands/ on the part of the Darkcoin Foundation as a defense. |
|
|
|
Any speculation regarding why XMR isn't participating in the current alts pump/rotation ? LTC is +98% over 30 days, XMR is -8% ?
I was thinking about this too a couple of days ago, but it seems that most altcoins were either pumped on BTC-E or BTC38 and XMR is not implemented on both. So this could be a reasonable explanation why it wasn't "pumped". EDIT: In addition, most people just want to ride the wave and pick the most accessible altcoin(s). LTC has had tremendous support from Chinese miners/investors since the very beginning. I'm not sure whether XMR has the same sort of ties. This matters since much of the BTC / LTC price increases over the last 2 years have been heavily influenced by Chinese investments. This isn't just a LTC effect though. A variety of Alts are affected, with the obvious omission of DASH & XMR https://i.imgur.com/RJ55aEo.pngIt is the older alts that are moving notably LTC, but also NMC, and PPC. the more recent DOGE has also moved. |
|
|
|
a "darknet" exchange without any cryptonote coin sounds like a big red flag to me, its funny people complain about polo and the KYC trap but Monero (and the other cryptonotes) are the only coin that protect individual privacy even in these cases, sure they can know how much you bought and what is your address but thats it, using a darknet exchange will not make any bitcoin clone fungible.
The more interesting question is would there be a spread in the XMR/XBT exchange rates between a "darknet" and "regulated" exchange? In theory if fungibility of XBT is an issue there should be a spread. Edit: As for a spread in the DASH/XMR exchange rate that would be really more interesting. |
|
|
|
...
The issue with cryptonote coins is that the server must run a node anonymously. Bitcoin based altcoins can be run over tor, monero etc cannot. This increases the risk of demasking.
Currently CryptoCurrency Exchanges are under increasing regulatory pressure. This Exchange will provide trading services for those traders who don't with to be lawskeyd. Also we are are interested at some point in the future to provide a desktop client similar to MetaTrader that will have i2pd embedded so anyone can trade any coin easily and anonymously without ever having to put any effort into technical computer configurations.
It can be done. |
|
|
|
Le Poisson d’Avril  |
|
|
|
Most use BTC-E or local exchanges like EXMO, localbitcoins or individual p2p exchangers, there's really no problem here to buy bitcoins.
I think, EXMO is a global exchange similar to BTC-e. Is it located in Russia ? Yea, they are registered in offshore zones but their head offcie is here. In 2012, I did a whois search on BTC-E.com and go an address near Moscow. It is now hidden behind a privacy service. Their server has always been on Moscow time. |
|
|
|
|
Congratulations on your site. It does provide an opprtunity for those of us outside of Russia to lean about the Russian bitcoin scene and in particular the whole issue regarding the legal status of Bitcoin and other crypto - currencies in Russia.
|
|
|
|
shapshift has not enough liquidity. also no real price detection can happen there. its a nice service, but can not replace an exchange. the only real untraceable coin can only be bougth through a KYC exchange. What worries me most is that i seem to be the only one worrying  Its not becasue of me. but i think some of our potential users could be hindered by this. and users is what we need and what we want. True. There is nothing preventing using a mixin of say 5 for transactions between one's "current" wallet and one's "savings" wallet. For spending funds can first be transferred to one's "chequing" wallet also using a mixin of say 5 first. Edit: What should not be done is using an exchange "as a bank" particularly a US based exchange with gambling sites. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg11614097#msg11614097 This is just asking for trouble given the laws in the United States regarding gambling sites. The issue here is that a perfectly legal transaction in many jurisdictions, may now become illegal by using the exchange as a bank. |
|
|
|
...
This is not about blocksize. It's about network consensus.
... but Bitcoin was already forked in 2010 to create the 1 MB blocksize limit in the first place. |
|
|
|
... Unlikely. A meltdown in btc marketcap leading up to the fork event can be expected. The thing is pretty much irreversible already. The clock is ticking for BTC suicide and there is nothing anyone can do about it. People are jumping ships which is the only rational thing to do. This LTC pump is just leading up to a much larger pump. Deniers like you will be the ones buying at the top.  Even if Gavincoin doesn't take hold and is dismissed by the community it still keeps lurking in the shadow and will put investors in unease. So btc is really tarnished now. A meltdown in Bitcoin is possible, though unlikely, over the 1 MB blocksize limit. In that scenario I am betting on Monero (adaptive blocksize limits, thereby solving the problem) over Litecoin (fixed blocksize limits thereby pushing the problem into the future). Edit: I am in this for the long term after following this issue for over 3 years already. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is far from being in deep trouble. Litecoin is not likely to replace it. And if Litecoin does, that's almost like a kind of patricide.
It's called "black swan event", dumbo. We just accidentally pump LTC to 1 bln cap before BTC gets dumped to half that cap. Consecutively LTC rises further, everyone migrates to 'Litecointalk' and this forum is renamed 'Gavincointalk' and that'll be the end of the story. Or there is a resolution of the 1 MB problem in Bitcoin with an increase in the blocksize limit and some sort of allowance for further increases in the future. Bitcoin booms and those alts that have a fixed blocksize limit get dumped into oblivion, starting of course with Litecoin. Edit: I have nothing against Litecoin, but seriously the Litecoin community has had ample time to show some innovation and deal with this issue. This has been going on in Bitcoin since 2010 long before Litecoin even existed. |
|
|
|
Why anyone would purchase Litecoin to hedge against the 1 MB blocksize limit issue in Bitcoin is beyond me. Litecoin has a similar fixed blocksize problem as Bitcoin. Furthermore if I suspect the 1 MB limit in Bitcoin is resolved it will still remain in Litecoin. To me, if one is looking to alt-coins to hedge against the 1 MB blocksize limit issue in Bitcoin, I would start with those alt-coins that to not have a fixed blocksize limit baked into the protocol and have adaptive blocksize limits instead. This is what led me to Monero.
You still don't get it that the opposite of what you think is the case. People buying not alts because BTC blocks are too small, they buy alts because 1MB blocksize is just fine and consensus is worth more than that. Gavincoin does not have its priorities right. A controversial hardfork creates a serious need for a hedge. Litecoins' network consensus is not threatened like that of BTC. With a threatened network consensus BTC is over value. Yes, of course. if one belives that the 1 MB blocksize limit is good for Bitcoin and should remain in place for ever, then one should hedge against a possible fork in Bitcoin to increase the blocksize. In this situation Litecoin is a very good choice. Furthermore one should stay well away from a coin with adaptive blocksize limits such as Monero. |
|
|
|
|
I have not any issues with Poloniex, other than the odd failed XMR withdrawal which is handled promptly after posting in the Trollbox. I have completed the verification to the highest level with no problems.
|
|
|
|
I'm not here for friends. I'm here to clean up the mess. Or at least attempt to. Obviously there are already trolls trying to claim I'm a scammer. To hide the fact that they are scoundrels, liars and thieves. You will refute facts based on source. You will refute facts based on cited references. You will lie, you will argue and you will debase anyone who does not go along with your lies and nonsense. So say what you will. Facts will prove who is full of it and who is not. Facts will prove who is the scumbag and who is not.
So argue, complain, cry to whomever you think will listen. I don't care. Hell, I recommend you go ask around about me. Or just go ahead and be the brainless dolts I know you to be and make it even easier for me to humiliate you in public. I won't hide. I don't run. And best of all, you don't know anyone good enough to take me on.
And to you who claim that my statement about devs who try to collect money upfront is harsh, it's a fact. Either you're one of the scum who steal from honest people, or you're just seriously misinformed about how programming works. Especially with FREE, OPEN SOURCE software that does not cost a dime to get or to use.
A donation based FLOSS development model combined with POW emission has the major advantage of minimising regulatory risk. My take is that the SEC and FinCEN will have field day with many a IPO/ICO coin where emission is used to fund development. Ripple Labs is just the first of many to come. |
|
|
|
|
Litecoin seems to me a poor choice in this context because it has a similar max blocksize problem as Bitcoin. Kind of like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. The same issue is present in many POW alt-coins because for the most part they were cloned from Bitcoin and kept the fixed blocksize limit in the process. The notable exceptions are the Cryptonote coins of which the most liquid is Monero.
Edit: I expect Bitcoin to eventually deal with the 1 MB blocksize limit after some turmoil, which is why I still hold some Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
Why anyone would purchase Litecoin to hedge against the 1 MB blocksize limit issue in Bitcoin is beyond me. Litecoin has a similar fixed blocksize problem as Bitcoin. Furthermore if I suspect the 1 MB limit in Bitcoin is resolved it will still remain in Litecoin. To me, if one is looking to alt-coins to hedge against the 1 MB blocksize limit issue in Bitcoin, I would start with those alt-coins that to not have a fixed blocksize limit baked into the protocol and have adaptive blocksize limits instead. This is what led me to Monero.
|
|
|
|
My most bullish prediction ever  I present you: The Massive Monero Head & Shoulders Pattern
 ADVICE*
BUY asap; SELL @ 0.008; BUY @ 0.004* This advice is in no way investment advice. Always consult your professional mainstream investment banker. Never invest more than you can afford to loose.Interesting. There is little doubt in my mind that a break above 0.0043 would be very bullish for XMR; however trend following in this market can be dangerous particulary for anyone buying a substantial amount of XMR. I prefer to buy in a falling or flat market, suffer any short term paper losses, and then hold until the fundamentals show up. Edit: Why wait for a breakout? Why not consider 50% XMR and 50% USD for the same amount of XBT at current prices since one gets the same amount of XMR and one has also the USD as a hedge? |
|
|
|
Litecoin to the moon!!!
Why would Litecoin go to the moon in this scenario when it has a similar maximum blocksize problem as Bitcoin? Furthermore if Bitcoin resolves the maximum blocksize problem, the problem will still remain in Litecoin. If one wants to hedge against the maximum blocksize problem in Bitcoin using alt-coins it only makes sense to pick an alt-coin that has an adaptive blocksize limit that can grow with time such as Monero. Edit: Strikethrough added to quote. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
