eXch - instant exchange BTC / LN / XMR / LTC / ETH / ERC20

[Pmalek]

Any chance you might consider adding support for DOGE?

bitmover suggested adding support for dogecoin back in January, but we didn't get a direct response from the eXch team for that particular asset. Considering that all other suggestions for adding new coins/tokens and new blockchains haven't been successful, I doubt things will be different for dogecoin.

[GazetaBitcoin]

I made here a list with all domains impersonating eXch which were observed until this moment, for having all of them stored in a single place...

• site1.spam.com -- spotted by Baadcaptain111
• site2.spam.com -- spotted by SFR10
• site3.spam.com -- spotted by JeromeTash
• site4.spam.com || site5.spam.com || site6.spam.com -- spotted by BitMaxz

paid2, do you think you can try your magic on them...?

Later edit: I edited the post to hide those links from being directly indexed...

[paid2]

I made here a list with all domains impersonating eXch which were observed until this moment, for having all of them stored in a single place...

• excx.ch -- spotted by Baadcaptain111
• https://exch[dot]ac -- spotted by SFR10
• exch[dot]ws -- spotted by JeromeTash
• exch[dot]zone || exch[dot]site || exch[dot]trade -- spotted by BitMaxz

paid2, do you think you can try your magic on them...?

Thanks for aggregating all these links GazetaBitcoin, I'm going to send out emails right now, hoping for quick feedback!

exch.ch is already down:

[d5000]

Just a small contribution to the discussion about the feature request to add stablecoins with lower fees:

Some options which weren't discussed here still are USDC on Stellar and USDT on TON (The Open Network, the "Telegram chain"). I'm no expert regarding these two chains, but Stellar is already around a lot of time (2014/15) and may be an interesting option perhaps, even if it's a bit less popular than Tron or Polygon. TON seems to have become quite popular, so also the main token may be an interesting addition, although of course I don't know how trustworthy the founders are and if the hype lasts for more than a year or so ...

If Stellar/TON have already been discussed disregard this post

It would be of course ideal to have a stablecoin on the Bitcoin chain (Tether on Omni unfortunately is being discontinued) or for example LTC so it could be supported easily on exch. I've seen a proposal for a stablecoin on BTC via the Runes protocol   (called BAMK) but I'm very skeptical regarding the trustworthiness.

[LoyceV]

I made here a list with all domains impersonating

You should probably not give them a free backlink from Bitcointalk....

Some options which weren't discussed here still are USDC on Stellar and USDT on TON (The Open Network, the "Telegram chain"). I'm no expert regarding these two chains

I'd like to see a low-fee stable coin (not based on Binance). High transaction fees make them pointless for what I'd use them for.

[JollyGood]

I think a great many would also be very sceptical of BAMK too as almost nothing is known about them but there is other news in a different thread. There is another thread with details on Lightning Labs (the team that created the Lightning Network on Bitcoin) running successful tests for Stablecoins on Bitcoin blockchain.

I suppose have a tried and tested as well as trusted group launching a new addition on the bitcoin network would carry far more weight than a start-up but they also will have to convince people. Clearly there will not be community consensus when it comes to this. Even in that thread the idea did not receive universal acclaim or support.

I've seen a proposal for a stablecoin on BTC via the Runes protocol   (called BAMK) but I'm very skeptical regarding the trustworthiness.

[Pmalek]

Just a small contribution to the discussion about the feature request to add stablecoins with lower fees:

Some options which weren't discussed here still are USDC on Stellar and USDT on TON (The Open Network, the "Telegram chain").

Nothing against your suggestions, but I see no logic in adding support for blockchains and their tokens on stellar or TON if they replied negatively to adding USDT over Tron, which is the 1st or 2nd most popular blockchain for the tether stablecoin. Unless those two networks are starting to dominate compared to the TRC20 version of USDT in terms of trading volume, why provide support for something from the bottom of the popularity list?!

[fillippone]

Just a small contribution to the discussion about the feature request to add stablecoins with lower fees:

Some options which weren't discussed here still are USDC on Stellar and USDT on TON (The Open Network, the "Telegram chain").

Nothing against your suggestions, but I see no logic in adding support for blockchains and their tokens on stellar or TON if they replied negatively to adding USDT over Tron, which is the 1st or 2nd most popular blockchain for the tether stablecoin. Unless those two networks are starting to dominate compared to the TRC20 version of USDT in terms of trading volume, why provide support for something from the bottom of the popularity list?!

Maybe exchanges are prioritising some chains over others based on considerations that are different from pure customer efficiency.
For example I see many exhcnages adding support for USDC as it is now one of the few stablecoins allowed in Europe (like it or not).
 

[Kramerc]

I am, once more, asking why exch does not offer a 3-5% premium to monero sellers seeing how there is unlimited demand for it on the exchange at virtually any price.

Help us help you.

[Lucius]

Any chance you might consider adding support for DOGE? Transactions so fast & cheap, plus I think its due for a nice pump -- could see increased demand for that as an option throughout the second half of the year.

Considering that this coin has always had great support from the community, I think that its addition would bring even more users to the platform. The campaign signature states that more coins will be available soon, and considering that some have already asked about the same coin, I have no doubt that it is one of those in the shortlist.

[Pmalek]

For example I see many exhcnages adding support for USDC as it is now one of the few stablecoins allowed in Europe (like it or not).

USDC is the second most popular stablecoin, and providing support for it makes sense if you are running an exchange service. But the point is the following: Adding support for USDC on Hedera and Flow and not doing it for Ethereum, Solana, and/or Arbitrum (https://www.circle.com/en/multi-chain-usdc) would be a weird business decision. You would be neglecting that which is the most popular in the community to support something that is least used.

[bitmover]

This is much easier to remember. The cx TLD is too hard to remember as I already posted in my last post.

.cx it's not hard to remember, it's just unusual,

I thought the name of the service was exch.cx until few weeks ago 

I think it is a good name. I have no problem with that domain name.

Even .com domain can fool people. For example, exchcx.com could fool someone. This is user responsibility to double check domain name.

[joker_josue]

Even .com domain can fool people. For example, exchcx.com could fool someone. This is user responsibility to double check domain name.

In fact, any domain, it may be possible to be deceived. And logically it is up to the user to check which domain they are actually entering.

On the other hand, there are areas that are easier to reduce errors or for the user to be deceived than others.

[d5000]

Nothing against your suggestions, but I see no logic in adding support for blockchains and their tokens on stellar or TON if they replied negatively to adding USDT over Tron, which is the 1st or 2nd most popular blockchain for the tether stablecoin. Unless those two networks are starting to dominate compared to the TRC20 version of USDT in terms of trading volume, why provide support for something from the bottom of the popularity list?!

As far as I have interpretated exch's posts on the subject, they evaluate each blockchain separately, popularity not being the main aspect. They have for example stated that they distrust some of the founder teams, even of very popular altcoin blockchains.

What I had done is to revise Tether's and Circle's websites for potential new blockchains they're supporting, and TON and Stellar were the networks I have not read about in the discussion about the topic. Stellar, at least to me, seems relatively trustworthy due to its long history, while in the case of TON the recent popularity could be an argument for them. Tron was controversial from the start, as is Solana (albeit for different reasons), and I can understand their decision to not add them.

I'm personally quite neutral about that topic because the only chain from the so called "Ethereum killers" or "smartchains" I use is Avalanche, but it would be totally ok if they distrust AVAX and indeed add Stellar for example. There are open source clients for almost all blockchains so the barrier to use one or another stablecoins should be low.

There is another thread with details on Lightning Labs (the team that created the Lightning Network on Bitcoin) running successful tests for Stablecoins on Bitcoin blockchain.

Yep, I've seen the thread (and also posted there some months ago), but until now I have not heard news about a "real" stablecoin project on Taproot Assets. Even a recent Bitcoin Magazine article called "Stablecoins are coming to Bitcoin's Lightning Network" still has no real information about that issue. So we may have to wait a bit more.

[bitmover]

I tried to make a swap using Lightning Network, sending from Aqua wallet.

However, Aqua wallet requires amount in the LN invoice. So , I wasn't able to send the coins.



Can you please verify this? You might be losing customers, as other wallets might have the same limitation.

If you could add an option to add the amount, i think it would work.

[mikeywith]

I tried to make a swap using Lightning Network, sending from Aqua wallet.

However, Aqua wallet requires amount in the LN invoice. So , I wasn't able to send the coins.

Can you please verify this? You might be losing customers, as other wallets might have the same limitation.

If you could add an option to add the amount, i think it would work.

That's pretty strange, LN has been allowing no-amount invoices for a couple of years now, I don't remember when but it's probably at least 2-3 years old news, I'm not sure why Aqua Wallet hasn't caught up with that change, probably because of the bug that came along with LN zero invoice? Do you have any other LN wallet to test with while eXch looks at the issue? I also think it would be a lot better if you would create a support ticket for this one.

[nc50lc]

If you could add an option to add the amount, i think it would work.

This would remove the exchange's invoice amount flexibility just to support a wallet that can't keep its features up to date.
Most wallets that support lightning already support such invoice.

There's a neat feature that allows eXch to adjust the resulting amount based from the actual amount sent by the user.
This is useful in case the wallet cannot send the initial amount typed in the main page.

But Aqua users may just have to wait since their article has a note that they will eventually support lightning invoices w/o amount, (posted 2 months ago)
here: https://jan3.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/21945913121819-I-can-t-edit-the-amount-when-sending-Bitcoin-via-Lightning

[paid2]

Everyone is welcome to join the 15^th Free Raffle to try to win a nice Custom eXch Cryptosteel Capsule! 

[FREE RAFFLE] - Custom eXch Cryptosteel Capsule (#15)!

Good luck

[dkbit98]

WARNING: exch[.]ac - PHISHING WEBSITE!!!

I see that Phishing Warning message was already added on that scam website, but scammers will probably move to different domain soon, so everyone should always stay alert.
Reporting all fake domain works, so I suggest everyone to report here any new phishing domains you spot in the wild.

Can you please verify this? You might be losing customers, as other wallets might have the same limitation.

If you could add an option to add the amount, i think it would work.

This is limitation of Aqua wallet, you can write them and ask them to find solution for this issue.
Meanwhile you can try using alternative LN wallets like Zeus to accept sats... but Lightning Network is a mess 

[eXch]

We now have a dedicated forum support operator that is available to answer exchange and order-related questions via PM or in this thread.

eXch Support (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=317539)