bitcoin from illegal activities

[iCEBREAKER]

If it meant life in jail then I dont think I would want to take "that risk".  

I don't remember anyone mentioning "life in jail."  Most illegal activities (especially those involving Bitcoiin) carry much less harsh penalties.

Are you just using the most extreme hypothetical example possible because you got caught making an otherwise embarrassingly weak point?

Do you plan to justify your assertion that Shapeshift and XMR.to's knowing your TOR exit node's IP represents anything more than a theoretical risk, or just continue trying to scare us by parading around the hobgoblin of "life in jail?"

Not to mention those SCAAARY centralized services may have .onion or i2p sites, so exit nodes would not be needed.   

[ObscureBean]

How exactly does this technique make it more private? Ok so he's not buying Bitcoin directly from a regular exchange but he's still receiving it to a BTC address of his choice. Wouldn't it be possible to still link the transaction to him same as if he'd bought it from a regular exchange? I've never been interested to learn about mixers or other anonymization techniques so I could be missing something here.

[rustynailer]

If it meant life in jail then I dont think I would want to take "that risk".  

I don't remember anyone mentioning "life in jail."  Most illegal activities (especially those involving Bitcoiin) carry much less harsh penalties.

Are you just using the most extreme hypothetical example possible because you got caught making an otherwise embarrassingly weak point?

Do you plan to justify your assertion that Shapeshift and XMR.to's knowing your TOR exit node's IP represents anything more than a theoretical risk, or just continue trying to scare us by parading around the hobgoblin of "life in jail?"

Not to mention those SCAAARY centralized services may have .onion or i2p sites, so exit nodes would not be needed.   

Okay change "life in jail" to "anytime in jail".

The whole fucking point of bitcoin and especially any anon currency is to not have to trust 3rd parties for your transactions.  So keep pushing your scam coin down everyone's throat if you feel the need.  Maybe one day Monero might have a use but as it stands today you might as well just use bitcoin.

[iCEBREAKER]

If it meant life in jail then I dont think I would want to take "that risk".  

I don't remember anyone mentioning "life in jail."  Most illegal activities (especially those involving Bitcoiin) carry much less harsh penalties.

Are you just using the most extreme hypothetical example possible because you got caught making an otherwise embarrassingly weak point?

Do you plan to justify your assertion that Shapeshift and XMR.to's knowing your TOR exit node's IP represents anything more than a theoretical risk, or just continue trying to scare us by parading around the hobgoblin of "life in jail?"

Not to mention those SCAAARY centralized services may have .onion or i2p sites, so exit nodes would not be needed.   

Okay change "life in jail" to "anytime in jail".

The whole fucking point of bitcoin and especially any anon currency is to not have to trust 3rd parties for your transactions.  So keep pushing your scam coin down everyone's throat if you feel the need.  Maybe one day Monero might have a use but as it stands today you might as well just use bitcoin.

Gee, who should I believe, Peter Todd, or some random n000b that needs to exaggerate because his points are so weak.   

Do you plan to justify your assertion that Shapeshift and XMR.to's knowing your TOR exit node's IP represents anything more than a theoretical risk, or just continue trying to scare us by parading around the hobgoblin of "life time in jail?"

This is a revolution; if you are scared of doing anything more than licking jackboots, we don't need you.

[Cconvert2G36]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3z9gxt/scaling_bitcoin_the_great_block_size_debate_blog/

Jackboot licking piqued my interest, sorry.

[rustynailer]

If it meant life in jail then I dont think I would want to take "that risk".  

I don't remember anyone mentioning "life in jail."  Most illegal activities (especially those involving Bitcoiin) carry much less harsh penalties.

Are you just using the most extreme hypothetical example possible because you got caught making an otherwise embarrassingly weak point?

Do you plan to justify your assertion that Shapeshift and XMR.to's knowing your TOR exit node's IP represents anything more than a theoretical risk, or just continue trying to scare us by parading around the hobgoblin of "life in jail?"

Not to mention those SCAAARY centralized services may have .onion or i2p sites, so exit nodes would not be needed.   

Okay change "life in jail" to "anytime in jail".

The whole fucking point of bitcoin and especially any anon currency is to not have to trust 3rd parties for your transactions.  So keep pushing your scam coin down everyone's throat if you feel the need.  Maybe one day Monero might have a use but as it stands today you might as well just use bitcoin.

Gee, who should I believe, Peter Todd, or some random n000b that needs to exaggerate because his points are so weak.   

Do you plan to justify your assertion that Shapeshift and XMR.to's knowing your TOR exit node's IP represents anything more than a theoretical risk, or just continue trying to scare us by parading around the hobgoblin of "life time in jail?"

This is a revolution; if you are scared of doing anything more than licking jackboots, we don't need you.

It is a risk and tor isn't exactly 100% anonymous so keep peddling that crap and see how well that works out.  And let me say this one more time because you seemed to skip over the point I made.  "The whole fucking point of bitcoin and especially any anon currency is to not have to trust 3rd parties for your transactions."

Do you think i would trust you over myself?  I would rather not rely on anybody but myself when it comes down to doing anything that might land me in jail. 

[iCEBREAKER]

It is a risk and tor isn't exactly 100% anonymous so keep peddling that crap and see how well that works out.  And let me say this one more time because you seemed to skip over the point I made.  "The whole fucking point of bitcoin and especially any anon currency is to not have to trust 3rd parties for your transactions."

Do you think i would trust you over myself?  I would rather not rely on anybody but myself when it comes down to doing anything that might land me in jail. 

Everything is risky.  You could get hit by a bus while crossing the street.  It's about evaluating the risk/reward ratio, not being paralyzed by fear.

Excuse me if I defer to Peter Todd's demonstrated expertise and ignore your cowardly sniveling.  Enjoy living on your knees, kissing the jackboots as required.

Besides, you don't have to (and shouldn't) send all your coins to any untrusted 3rd party at the same time.

There are best practices known to minimize counterparty risk, such as splitting the tx up and/or using multiple exchanges (especially ones with native .onion/i2p sites).

Someday we may have trustless, decentralized exchanges.  Until then, we go to war with the tech we have, not the tech we wish for.

[rustynailer]

It is a risk and tor isn't exactly 100% anonymous so keep peddling that crap and see how well that works out.  And let me say this one more time because you seemed to skip over the point I made.  "The whole fucking point of bitcoin and especially any anon currency is to not have to trust 3rd parties for your transactions."

Do you think i would trust you over myself?  I would rather not rely on anybody but myself when it comes down to doing anything that might land me in jail. 

Everything is risky.  You could get hit by a bus while crossing the street.  It's about evaluating the risk/reward ratio, not being paralyzed by fear.

Excuse me if I defer to Peter Todd's demonstrated expertise and ignore your cowardly sniveling.  Enjoy living on your knees, kissing the jackboots as required.

Besides, you don't have to (and shouldn't) send all your coins to any untrusted 3rd party at the same time.

There are best practices known to minimize counterparty risk, such as splitting the tx up and/or using multiple exchanges (especially ones with native .onion/i2p sites).

Someday we may have trustless, decentralized exchanges.  Until then, we go to war with the tech we have, not the tech we wish for.

Lol what.  Fuck you, you cant win this argument so all you got is personal insults.  And where did i say send all your coins, in any case you only have to send 1 coin to taint your address, dickhead. 

All you have done is prove how shit Monero is at what its supposed to be trying to do.  And don't even bother trying to come back at me with... but but Peter Todd and calling me a noob if that's all you got. 

[iCEBREAKER]

Lol what.  Fuck you, you cant win this argument so all you got is personal insults.  And where did i say send all your coins, in any case you only have to send 1 coin to taint your address, dickhead. 

All you have done is prove how shit Monero is at what its supposed to be trying to do.  And don't even bother trying to come back at me with... but but Peter Todd and calling me a noob if that's all you got. 

The personal insults are just for fun.  Thanks for letting me know they're pissing you off.   

But I don't need them to reiterate the point Peter Todd made about XMR's usefulness in enhancing Bitcoin privacy.




Monero is not "shit...at what its supposed to be trying to do."

Cite: https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdf

Do you even math bro?   

[rustynailer]

Ohh lookie, I found another one of his tweets.

[iCEBREAKER]

Ohh lookie, I found another one of his tweets.

Nice job cropping out the date on that ancient tweet, so the timeline vs the (much more recent) one I posted isn't immediately clear.

Could you be any more dishonest and pissed off about being demolished in an argument?

Nice threadjack BTW.  I love it when Maximalist Monopolist Supremacists go berserk when XMR naturally comes up in a discussion about Bitcoin's lack of fungibility and propensity for taint.   

[Cconvert2G36]

Monerobadger don' care.



inb4 50 cents=50 cents

[rustynailer]

Wow I had no idea that I was a "Maximalist Monopolist Supremacist" and where exactly did you demolish my argument?  You got nothing but personal attacks on me and a tweet from PT, so I don't see the problem in showing another one here.  I am right and it doesn't matter how you try and spin it and I had no idea that the older tweets from Peter Todd are to be disregarded, how silly of me.

Whats funny is you calling me dishonest, lol coming from you. 

[smooth]

I had no idea that the older tweets from Peter Todd are to be disregarded, how silly of me.

Not silly at all, just dishonest.

When the same person writes about lousy code and then later writes about how the same code has been cleaned up, then yes it is pretty clear that the older comment no longer applies.

[rustynailer]

I had no idea that the older tweets from Peter Todd are to be disregarded, how silly of me.

Not silly at all, just dishonest.

When the same person writes about lousy code and then later writes about how the same code has been cleaned up, then yes it is pretty clear that the older comment no longer applies.

Lol I was wondering if you were going to turn up here.

How is it dishonest, I just took a screen cap of the tweet and made it the approximate size of the other one and also I didn't see the need to include all the other irrelevant stuff there as well, for example facebook likes and shares and retweets.  I would have had to include all that other meaningless crap just to include the date.  There was no intention of deceiving anyone its just a tweet for a tweet thing.  Here is the whole thing: https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/507427225927708672

And you are doing the same shit as icebreaker, attack me instead of the point I have raised.  Good luck with that strategy.

[smooth]

I had no idea that the older tweets from Peter Todd are to be disregarded, how silly of me.

Not silly at all, just dishonest.

When the same person writes about lousy code and then later writes about how the same code has been cleaned up, then yes it is pretty clear that the older comment no longer applies.

Lol I was wondering if you were going to turn up here.

How is it dishonest, I just took a screen cap of the tweet and made it the approximate size of the other one and also I didn't see the need to include all the other irrelevant stuff there as well, for example facebook likes and shares and retweets.  I would have had to include all that other meaningless crap just to include the date.  There was no intention of deceiving anyone its just a tweet for a tweet thing.  Here is the whole thing: https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/507427225927708672

And you are doing the same shit as icebreaker, attack me instead of the point I have raised.  Good luck with that strategy.

You raised no meaningful point, since the older tweet you posted is clearly superseded by the newer tweet where he says the code has been cleaned up.

BTW, since you obviously didn't even bother reading the thread before you started posting obviously stupid nonsense, I didn't "turn up", I was already here discussing the Bitcoin fungibility issue, not the off-topic garbage about Monero code you posted.

[rustynailer]

I had no idea that the older tweets from Peter Todd are to be disregarded, how silly of me.

Not silly at all, just dishonest.

When the same person writes about lousy code and then later writes about how the same code has been cleaned up, then yes it is pretty clear that the older comment no longer applies.

Lol I was wondering if you were going to turn up here.

How is it dishonest, I just took a screen cap of the tweet and made it the approximate size of the other one and also I didn't see the need to include all the other irrelevant stuff there as well, for example facebook likes and shares and retweets.  I would have had to include all that other meaningless crap just to include the date.  There was no intention of deceiving anyone its just a tweet for a tweet thing.  Here is the whole thing: https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/507427225927708672

And you are doing the same shit as icebreaker, attack me instead of the point I have raised.  Good luck with that strategy.

You raised no meaningful point, since the older tweet you posted is clearly superseded by the newer tweet where he says the code has been cleaned up.

BTW, since you obviously didn't even bother reading the thread before you started posting obviously stupid nonsense, I didn't "turn up", I was already here discussing the Bitcoin fungibility issue, not the off-topic garbage about Monero code you posted.

You are one of the most deceitful persons on this forum and have zero credibility in my book, what off-topic garbage Monero code did I post here.  I just put a PT tweet up as a response to the other PT tweet. 

And the point I made is that none of you Monero scammers shills devs retards have addressed is: "The whole fucking point of bitcoin and especially any anon currency is to not have to trust 3rd parties for your transactions". 

If all you have is personal attacks on me then bring it on, I know your form all to well smooth.

[smooth]

I had no idea that the older tweets from Peter Todd are to be disregarded, how silly of me.

Not silly at all, just dishonest.

When the same person writes about lousy code and then later writes about how the same code has been cleaned up, then yes it is pretty clear that the older comment no longer applies.

Lol I was wondering if you were going to turn up here.

How is it dishonest, I just took a screen cap of the tweet and made it the approximate size of the other one and also I didn't see the need to include all the other irrelevant stuff there as well, for example facebook likes and shares and retweets.  I would have had to include all that other meaningless crap just to include the date.  There was no intention of deceiving anyone its just a tweet for a tweet thing.  Here is the whole thing: https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/507427225927708672

And you are doing the same shit as icebreaker, attack me instead of the point I have raised.  Good luck with that strategy.

You raised no meaningful point, since the older tweet you posted is clearly superseded by the newer tweet where he says the code has been cleaned up.

BTW, since you obviously didn't even bother reading the thread before you started posting obviously stupid nonsense, I didn't "turn up", I was already here discussing the Bitcoin fungibility issue, not the off-topic garbage about Monero code you posted.

You are one of the most deceitful persons on this forum and have zero credibility in my book, what off-topic garbage Monero code did I post here.  I just put a PT tweet up as a response to the other PT tweet. 

Being a Peter Todd tweet does not make it on topic. The first tweet was about services that add to Bitcoin privacy, clearly on topic.

The (out of date) tweet you posted was about Monero code quality. That has nothing to do with Bitcoin privacy and clearly off topic.

And the point I made is that none of you Monero scammers shills devs retards have addressed is: "The whole fucking point of bitcoin and especially any anon currency is to not have to trust 3rd parties for your transactions". 

Interesting. What does this have to do with Monero code quality, besides nothing at all?

[rustynailer]

Interesting. What does this have to do with Monero code quality, besides nothing at all?

Where have I said anything about Monero's code quality. 

[iCEBREAKER]

How exactly does this technique make it more private? Ok so he's not buying Bitcoin directly from a regular exchange but he's still receiving it to a BTC address of his choice. Wouldn't it be possible to still link the transaction to him same as if he'd bought it from a regular exchange? I've never been interested to learn about mixers or other anonymization techniques so I could be missing something here.

TLDR: The XMR.to Bitcoins received in the last step are free of any taint accrued by the original Bitcoins sent to Shapeshift.

The XMR intermediary point makes them anonymous, because a key feature of Monero is that transactions are unlinkable.

That feature is inherited from Monero's Cryptonote protocol, which uses ring signatures and stealth addresses in a type of zero-knowledge (homomorphic) encryption.

Mixers are not zero-knowledge; they only obfuscate, always leak information, and may be unraveled given sufficient scrutiny.  They require trust; Monero does not.

You're in for a treat; start here: https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_annotated.pdf

PS

PT's technique can be perfected by transferring (with a healthy mixin) the xmr between two separate wallets you control.  That ensures your privacy even if both Shapeshift and xmr.to are compromised (or even full blown, cooperating adversaries).