💦 splash.tf - instant exchange BTC / ETH / XMR / DAI

[bitmover]

But with XMR, their honeypot turns into a black box. They'll know what came in, and the trail ends there.

Many are ignoring the strength of XMR. I believe that this is due to the fact that it has been removed from major services and is presented as problematic in the narrative of legality.

The problem with XMR is the performance of the price

It makes no sense to hold it. When i have some XMR, I try to convert them to BTC ASAP.

The price of XMR now (378) is 3% below below 2018 ATH (385) . It doesn't even keep up with inflation.

While BTC 2018 ATH was 20k, and the price now is 300% higher.

I understand that XMR is an amazing payment method, but I wouldn't hold it.

[LoyceV]

The problem with XMR is the performance of the price

In dollars, it's more stable than Bitcoin.

I understand that XMR is an amazing payment method, but I wouldn't hold it.

It's meant to be used

[bitmover]

The problem with XMR is the performance of the price

In dollars, it's more stable than Bitcoin.

Stable = lose money to inflation.
About 25% inflation in the period mentioned above.. (in dollars)

[LoyceV]

About 25% inflation in the period mentioned above.. (in dollars)

Comparing "from ATH to current price" isn't really a fair comparison. You could compare the 2018 ATH to 2021 ATH: it went up. If you compare the 2025 ATH, it went up again. If you compare the average 2018 price, it's up quite a lot more than inflation.

That being said: I wouldn't HODL XMR either

[Zwei]

You know all those centralized no-kyc exchanges and mixers have a chance of being an FBI honeypot... splash.tf isn't exception. Not before the serverdown time, not now.

i'm sure the majority of privacy focused users still use them with that in mind, i mean you can never be 100% sure a service is not a honeypot.

Bitcointalk also has a chance of being an FBI honeypot. Even looking at the big picture, the probability is high.

why do you think that?

I understand that XMR is an amazing payment method, but I wouldn't hold it.

i only hold a small amount so i can pay for stuff without having to make a swap every time i need it, anything i get over that i also exchange to bitcoin.

[mindrust]

You know all those centralized no-kyc exchanges and mixers have a chance of being an FBI honeypot... splash.tf isn't exception. Not before the serverdown time, not now.

i'm sure the majority of privacy focused users still use them with that in mind, i mean you can never be 100% sure a service is not a honeypot.

I don’t really care who uses which service tbh but I somehow care when people fanatically claim those centralized privacy services are totally fine and there is nothing to worry about. It is especially worrying when those claims come from the users who carry the signatures of those services. I experienced the same thing when cm was up and running and nowadays nobody knows how much user info they logged. (Obviously cm people were saying they wouldn’t do such thing as the label on cm said they wouldn’t) the Same thing is happening one more time. I used splash and exch before but not because I really believed I would stay anonymous. I just wanted some sweet xmr in my crypto asset portfolio and that’s it. If people use these services with the right expectations, nobody will get hurt imo.

Trusting cm or similar services that run sig camps nowadays with your privacy is no different than trusting protonmail or nordvpn. Once the fbi kicks the doors, they won’t take bullets for you. They’ll hand them the logs. It is their safe exit ticket.

[LoyceV]

It is especially worrying when those claims come from the users who carry the signatures of those services. I experienced the same thing when cm was up and running

They wouldn't have been seized if it would have been a honeypot

and nowadays nobody knows how much user info they logged.

I'm kinda allergic to any site that claims not to log anything, so just make sure you don't leave your information.

Trusting cm or similar services that run sig camps nowadays with your privacy is no different than trusting protonmail or nordvpn. Once the fbi kicks the doors, they won’t take bullets for you. They’ll hand them the logs. It is their safe exit ticket.

FBI has no jurisdiction over Protonmail, and in the cases I've seen, they couldn't give Swiss authorities access to a user's emails because it's all encrypted.

[Forsyth Jones]

I think it's very easy to accuse without any proof, even if it's a honeypot, one day we'll have proof and services like this usually give warnings beforehand, besides who's going to worry about people who have 0.0005 BTC to swap? Big fishes wouldn't swap on an exchange with such low liquidity, most of them probably don't even know Splash exists.

I think Splash has already received enough warnings, the minimum that's expected is some kind of future communication. But look on the bright side of things, this was good for them, look how much activity and visibility they gained on their ANN.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

@splashed, you need an urgent reaction.
Someone reported the Metamask splash.tf domain as harmful. It is necessary to request a delisting from the blocklist
It appears on Chrome and Opera, while Firefox and Brave open the site normally.

How was this issue fixed?

I know of another service that had a similar incident, but for months their issue was never fixed even when they tried to contact metamask to help. In fact, one of the devs or someone like that even started appearing rude.

[splashed]

@splashed, you need an urgent reaction.
Someone reported the Metamask splash.tf domain as harmful. It is necessary to request a delisting from the blocklist
It appears on Chrome and Opera, while Firefox and Brave open the site normally.

How was this issue fixed?

I know of another service that had a similar incident, but for months their issue was never fixed even when they tried to contact metamask to help. In fact, one of the devs or someone like that even started appearing rude.

We have created an issue on Metamask's github.

We would really appreciate your support on the github issue  

We will keep the community updated as the case progresses.

[icopress]

We have created an issue on Metamask's github.

We would really appreciate your support on the github issue  

We will keep the community updated as the case progresses.

I've updated the information regarding Escrow: https://bitlist.co/service/splash

If you send me your username, I'll mark you as "support," and if you reply to users on the service page, your comments will include the appropriate hashtag.

[examplens]

I know of another service that had a similar incident, but for months their issue was never fixed even when they tried to contact metamask to help. In fact, one of the devs or someone like that even started appearing rude.

The case you are referring to was based on an unexecuted order, the exchanger did not respond well to the user's requests. Later, they corrected it, but one Metamask moderator did not see it as a serious way of running a business.
There are also many cases where they reacted very quickly and removed the service from the black list. In this case, a lot depends on why splash.tf is reported.

[KycNotList]

We have added your exchange to our No KYC/AML exchange monitoring platform, KycNotList.

Page: https://kycnotlist.com/en/exchanger/splash

If the exchange owner or users notice any incorrect, outdated, or missing information, please let us know — we will review everything.

Best regards,
KycNotList.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

The amount in the Escrow address is now about 0.10998592 BTC, a little more than the initially escrowed amount, which seems to be official even in the OP. Did splash.tf add more funds to the escrow address and forgot to talk about it, or the amount was just added by the escrow provider for his other transactions?

[examplens]

The amount in the Escrow address is now about 0.10998592 BTC, a little more than the initially escrowed amount, which seems to be official even in the OP. Did splash.tf add more funds to the escrow address and forgot to talk about it, or the amount was just added by the escrow provider for his other transactions?

If you look at the history of this address, it is obvious that the escrow ^SFR10 used the same one for several different deals. The assumption is that the balance we see over 0.08632796 BTC is probably part of some other escrow deal.
It may not be best practice to use the same address for multiple different escrow contracts, but SFR10 can certainly confirm what it is.

[Forsyth Jones]

The amount in the Escrow address is now about 0.10998592 BTC, a little more than the initially escrowed amount, which seems to be official even in the OP. Did splash.tf add more funds to the escrow address and forgot to talk about it, or the amount was just added by the escrow provider for his other transactions?

If you look at the history of this address, it is obvious that the escrow ^SFR10 used the same one for several different deals. The assumption is that the balance we see over 0.08632796 BTC is probably part of some other escrow deal.
It may not be best practice to use the same address for multiple different escrow contracts, but SFR10 can certainly confirm what it is.

It make things a bit confusing, looking at the update on this ANN, it took me a while to get into what was happening. I thought someone had added more funds to the escrow, but until we have an update from splash, it's safe to say that, for now, the old information is still valid.

[SFR10]

The amount in the Escrow address is now about 0.10998592 BTC, a little more than the initially escrowed amount, which seems to be official even in the OP. Did splash.tf add more funds to the escrow address and forgot to talk about it, or the amount was just added by the escrow provider for his other transactions?

examplens's assumption is correct ^{[the excess escrowed funds belong to another platform]}.
^{- It's worth noting that I always sign a new message when a certain service adds to the original escrowed amount.}

It may not be best practice to use the same address for multiple different escrow contracts, but SFR10 can certainly confirm what it is.

You have a point, but the main reason why I've kept using the same address for such deals is transparency ^{[the only time I've used a different address (other than the two mentioned in my ANN thread) is when NDAs are involved]}.

[examplens]

You have a point, but the main reason why I've kept using the same address for such deals is transparency ^{[the only time I've used a different address (other than the two mentioned in my ANN thread) is when NDAs are involved]}.

If you have complete control, everything is ok. I am referring to the fund management itself, even if critical cases arise. For example, if there was a need to send a partial part of BTC somewhere, a change address would also appear, which can make it difficult to see the current status, especially if you have several contracts from the same address at the same time.
It might not be a bad idea to have a separate thread where you will transparently keep records of active escrow deals.

[LoyceV]

It may not be best practice to use the same address for multiple different escrow contracts, but SFR10 can certainly confirm what it is.

The escrow address was first used in 2017, long before Splash existed. That's terrible practice!

You have a point, but the main reason why I've kept using the same address for such deals is transparency

Transparency comes from signing a message. Address reuse is unnecessary and bad for privacy. It's also a (future) risk because of the exposed public key. And don't get me started on still using a legacy address!
By including your own escrow fee in the escrowed amount, it's unclear how much exactly would be available to a user when it comes to this. So I'd say there's ample room for improvement.

[SFR10]

If you have complete control, everything is ok. I am referring to the fund management itself, even if critical cases arise. For example, if there was a need to send a partial part of BTC somewhere, a change address would also appear, which can make it difficult to see the current status, especially if you have several contracts from the same address at the same time.

There are a couple of ways to deal with a change address ^{[manually computing everything (tx fees included) then spending everything or automating the final step if your wallet has such a feature (if such a feature doesn't exist, a combination of HW+SW can do the trick in most cases)]}, but I agree with the lateral part that it'd become harder for other users to see the current status, so a change is needed.

It might not be a bad idea to have a separate thread where you will transparently keep records of active escrow deals.

IIRC, there was a user who recently created a thread about all active escrow deals ^{[that can also be used if he/she is still active]}.

Transparency comes from signing a message. Address reuse is unnecessary and bad for privacy. It's also a (future) risk because of the exposed public key. And don't get me started on still using a legacy address!

Because of its history ^{[I'm a bit old-school in this regard]}, I always wanted to keep things the same for as long as possible, but considering that all of the above things are valid, it looks like from now on, I have to change some things about my escrow services.

By including your own escrow fee in the escrowed amount, it's unclear how much exactly would be available to a user when it comes to this. So I'd say there's ample room for improvement.

You're right... I can always post monthly updates on the 25th ^{[the day I received those funds]} of each month to make things clearer for everyone else and hopefully, splashed will update the opening posts with the remaining funds in escrow.