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

[eXch Support]

It's not helping that OP links to a different domain:

[Clearnet]

I know both are owned by eXch, but different domains make it even easier for phishing. I too keep forgetting which one of the similar domain extensions is legit.

exch.pw is a reserve domain which automatically redirects to exch.cx, it should remove any doubt.

I'm sure this topic has been talked about before. But, with so many posts, it never hurts to remember.
What is the minimum conversion value for the various coins?

You can leave the “Amount” fields blank during order creation, then the system will show the updated minimum deposit possible (also clicking on "Calculate" will give you this information). The minimum and maximum deposits are also always displayed on the order page, below the deposit address.

Also, the plan is to move everything to exch.net, which is in their possession. Although a lot of time has passed since then, I have not seen a later update on the status of this move.

Last update on the matter (still relevant):

I keep asking myself why they don't start using a more traditional domain in order to avoid these types of errors on the user's side.

We will either (a) have exch.net as our corporate site that will point to current platform domains (exch.cx and Tor address) or (b) completely move the platform to exch.net. We are still in a process of making a decision on that with no ETA.

[examplens]

Last update on the matter (still relevant):

I keep asking myself why they don't start using a more traditional domain in order to avoid these types of errors on the user's side.

We will either (a) have exch.net as our corporate site that will point to current platform domains (exch.cx and Tor address) or (b) completely move the platform to exch.net. We are still in a process of making a decision on that with no ETA.

I somehow missed this.
You could have at least made a landing page, a redirect, or posted some info.
As it looks now, this is not an ideal solution.

[bitmover]

I somehow missed this.
You could have at least made a landing page, a redirect, or posted some info.
As it looks now, this is not an ideal solution.

Good catch.

I also tried exch[.cc], and it is not redirecting. It shows the same page but with exch.[cc] instead of exch.cx

I believe this is confusing, users may think one of them is someone else impersonating exch.cx. Also, it may hurt SEO,  as we have duplicated pages.

All domains should be redirected to the main one

[eXch Support]

Good catch.

I also tried exch[.]cc, and it is not redirecting. It shows the same page but with exch[.]cc instead of exch.cx

I believe this is confusing, users may think one of them is someone else impersonating exch.cx. Also, it may hurt SEO,  as we have duplicated pages.

All domains should be redirected to the main one

exch[.]cc is a phishing link and does not belong to eXch anymore, don't be scammed by using it! (By the way can you please edit the links in your message?)

Beware of phishing domains!

Code:

exch[.]cash
exchamp5qu7hdjrbktko7ccsd3zlsbjelnixpwfuxxzev4ap2eqqcfad[.]onion

We invite the community to help us report the phishing website exch[.]cash to Tucows to inform them that they are hosting a malicious domain name. It can be done via sending a phishing report through their webpage https://tucowsdomains.com/abuse-form/phishing/

[bitmover]

Good catch.

I also tried exch[.]cc, and it is not redirecting. It shows the same page but with exch[.]cc instead of exch.cx

I believe this is confusing, users may think one of them is someone else impersonating exch.cx. Also, it may hurt SEO,  as we have duplicated pages.

All domains should be redirected to the main one

exch[.]cc is a phishing link and does not belong to eXch anymore, don't be scammed by using it! (By the way can you please edit the links in your message?)

I didn't know. Thanks for explaining. I already edited my post to remove the malicious link.

[dkbit98]

I could be wrong, but from what I see it was first registered in the end of 2024

See archive.org for it's history.

Strange how this was not reported in whois website, but that old website from few years ago doesn't look anything like eXch we have today.

If I remember correctly, the first official eXch username on Bitcointalk was exch.cc, just because of the domain. They changed that about a year ago. Here is the confirmation

Yeah I remember there was some changes with forum usernames and domains.
Having a clear list of all phishing domains and all valid domains would be a good idea.
On eXch main page there are two valid links posted for .cx and.pw domain, but I would always suggest .onion link first.

[eXch Support]

Having a clear list of all phishing domains and all valid domains would be a good idea.

In the first post of this thread, there's the list of our official domains (excluding exch.net which is not in service yet). Any other active domains you might find will be phishing links.

[Onion]

MAIN DOMAIN: exch.cx
RESERVE DOMAINS: exch.pw  exch.is

On eXch main page there are two valid links posted for .cx and.pw domain, but I would always suggest .onion link first.

You can find the onion address by clicking on Questions & Answers: https://exch.cx/faq#onion_address

[hosemary]

@eXch, you should edit this post and remove Bybit from the list of exchanges that are accepting deposits from eXch.
Someone opened a thread and asked about sending fund from eXch to centralized exchanges and your support account shared a link to that post. Chances are someone reads that post and mistakenly think that ByBit is a good option when sending fund from eXch.

[joker_josue]

I'm sure this topic has been talked about before. But, with so many posts, it never hurts to remember.
What is the minimum conversion value for the various coins?

You can leave the “Amount” fields blank during order creation, then the system will show the updated minimum deposit possible (also clicking on "Calculate" will give you this information). The minimum and maximum deposits are also always displayed on the order page, below the deposit address.

I will check this point, although with the simulations I did, I still have doubts. But, I may have done something wrong. I will analyze it in more detail.
Anyway, I think the information could be clearer and simpler to understand.



Another question. In the BTCLN address, do we put the @ address or does it have to be the invoice address?
^{I'm not familiar with LN, don't take my question the wrong way.}

[Cossyblack]

Nuts bro.

There used to be a time when the government was people's servant, not master. Word to the wise.

Government doing those ancient times were known as kings and Emperor's,some were even seen and worship as gods. I have never heard nor seen when govt were people servant.

[OmegaStarScream]

@exch Not sure what's the ETA on this, but probably worth checking.

https://tether.io/news/tether-brings-usdt-to-bitcoins-lightning-network-ushering-in-a-new-era-of-unstoppable-technology/

[LoyceV]

https://tether.io/news/tether-brings-usdt-to-bitcoins-lightning-network-ushering-in-a-new-era-of-unstoppable-technology/

With USDt— the world’s largest stablecoin, serving over 350 million users

There are only 52 million funded Bitcoin addresses. Even if this number is true, it must be mostly custodial users.

while combining Bitcoin’s robust security

While I prefer LN over Ethereum, it doesn't really matter when using a centralized stablecoin.

powering the AI economy

And this part makes me believe it's all about a hype.

Millions of people will now be able to use the most open, secure blockchain to send dollars globally. It all comes back to Bitcoin.

I don't see millions of people open on-chain LN channels, so it sounds like they're going for custodial.

It sounds like this is mainly good for Tether themselves.

[fillippone]

https://tether.io/news/tether-brings-usdt-to-bitcoins-lightning-network-ushering-in-a-new-era-of-unstoppable-technology/

With USDt— the world’s largest stablecoin, serving over 350 million users

There are only 52 million funded Bitcoin addresses. Even if this number is true, it must be mostly custodial users.

The number of funded Tether wallet is actually much higher:

It sounds like this is mainly good for Tether themselves.

The huge majority of these wallets are on ETH, then other L1 networks
Having such an important player focused on the good working of the LN is actually very bullish for LN itself.

[joker_josue]

I don't see millions of people open on-chain LN channels, so it sounds like they're going for custodial.

It sounds like this is mainly good for Tether themselves.

Besides finding LN still very unstable, in general ^{(I admit that I could be wrong)}.

For me, the biggest problem with LN is the complexity required to open channels and manage them. This makes it demotivating for each person to manage their LN channel. Having an LN channel should be as simple as having a wallet, no matter what system you are using (Windows/Linux/Mac).

This ends up being a bit of an offtopic debate ^{(do we have to take this to another topic - yet another one!?)}.

[Lucius]

@joker_josue, I'm not an LN expert and I personally don't use that technology (for now), but I read that there are LN wallets that are supposedly really easy to use, whether it's a custodial or non-custodial type of wallet. The tips I have read often highlight Wallet of Satoshi and Phoenix Wallet in particular.

[joker_josue]

@joker_josue, I'm not an LN expert and I personally don't use that technology (for now), but I read that there are LN wallets that are supposedly really easy to use, whether it's a custodial or non-custodial type of wallet. The tips I have read often highlight Wallet of Satoshi and Phoenix Wallet in particular.

But Satoshi Wallet and Phoenix Wallet are custodial wallets.
To not be a custodial user, the user must have their own channel, and setting up a channel in a viable and secure way is not simple. That's what I'm referring to.

[Cricktor]

powering the AI economy

And this part makes me believe it's all about a hype.

Maybe just another round of Bullshit Bingo, throw in as much hype (key words) shit as possible, some shit will stick.

I don't see millions of people open on-chain LN channels, so it sounds like they're going for custodial.

Likely needed to be custodial, unless we want another months or years of congested mempools to onboard millions of people on-chain with own LN channels. Own LN channels may be more in the spirit of Bitcoin, but frankly I don't see this happending any soon.

It sounds like this is mainly good for Tether themselves.

Surely it is, but I see also benefits for users if this establishes a reliable "asset and service" for them.

But Satoshi Wallet and Phoenix Wallet are custodial wallets.
To not be a custodial user, the user must have their own channel, and setting up a channel in a viable and secure way is not simple. That's what I'm referring to.

Wallet of Satoshi is custodial, Phoenix Wallet is non-custodial. Please, don't spread wrong information, if you're not sure about the details of what you're talking about.

With Phoenix Wallet you have your own twelve BIP39 mnemonic recovery words with standard BIP84 derivation path for your wallet. Only you have and know the recovery words of your Phoenix Wallet.

I have experience with both wallets and like them both. As I don't feel comfortable to have more than low three-digit $$-value in a mobile phone wallet, I usually only have pocket money amounts in those.

I'm not sure if this is going to be heavily off-topic already. I love LN when it just works, less so when transactions fail for the various possible reasons. Managing and opening strategically "well-placed" channels is a main hurdle in my opinion, I don't like this aspect of LN.

I don't know what's worse: centralized stable coins and/or centralized LN channel hubs or custodial LN wallets which hide away channel and their liquidity management from users. The latter usually not a bad thing though, in my opinion and from own experience.

[joker_josue]

But Satoshi Wallet and Phoenix Wallet are custodial wallets.
To not be a custodial user, the user must have their own channel, and setting up a channel in a viable and secure way is not simple. That's what I'm referring to.

Wallet of Satoshi is custodial, Phoenix Wallet is non-custodial. Please, don't spread wrong information, if you're not sure about the details of what you're talking about.

With Phoenix Wallet you have your own twelve BIP39 mnemonic recovery words with standard BIP84 derivation path for your wallet. Only you have and know the recovery words of your Phoenix Wallet.

I spoke in the sense of LN. The channel does not belong to the wallet user, it belongs to the team that manages the server. Or am I wrong?
It was in this sense that I say that LN money is under the responsibility of whoever manages the server, and in this field it is custody. Or am I wrong?

If I am wrong, far be it from me to spread lies. But from my experience in WoS, I had no control over the channel. Now, maybe it was incompetence on my part... I'm sorry.

[Cricktor]

~~~

I couldn't read from what you wrote before that you refer more to the custody of the channels of those wallets and not the wallet as a whole.

You're correct that in both wallets, WoS and Phoenix, the user doesn't "own" the channels of the wallets. I couldn't find details in both wallets that would allow a user to restore channels to a fully non-custodial LN wallet.

Phoenix gives the user very limited limited control. Currently I can't look at all options because I don't have any channel open in my Phoenix. You can import channels and whatever "Spend channel address" means. I'll have to try to find any hint in the docs for the latter.

At least a user can close and force-close Phoenix channels. No user requested channel closing in WoS.


Did anybody here use eXch with LN? (I didn't so far)

[Pmalek]

I would consider using tether on the Bitcoin blockchain and the LN if it offers something we don't have on other blockchains. I am talking about the complete control from the issuer to freeze the tokens in any address (custodial or non-custodial wallet). That would be an excellent update compared to the tether on other networks. However, if there is a centralized party that can arbitrarily freeze people's money, I see no benefit in engaging with tether on Bitcoin instead of sticking to alternative chains.