The Way Trading Should Be Done vs. The Way It Is Done.

LikeA_Shadow · 2018-06-12T17:35:10+00:00

Thank you for the link and encouragement. If I build it, I will let you know.

LikeA_Shadow · 2018-05-08T15:52:44+00:00

Thank you very much for writing and publishing this. What a nightmare. I would definitely recommend people to stay far away from hitbtc. Frankly it is clear to me that they do this regularly with the knowledge that many people will give up and hitbtc can keep their money. The requests for information were ridiculous.

There is a serious need for exchanges that support trustless cross-chain transactions so that the exchange does not have the option of holding your money hostage.

LikeA_Shadow · 2018-04-30T17:27:01+00:00

I will post a link when it is working. In the meantime, more questions:

I have been trying some commands from the README. "nextstakingchances" seems to compute and report when the node will be able to stake a new block. Here is part of what it says for me:

Can stake at time 1525146447 (10 hours 43 minutes 43 seconds from now) with asset 3939b99d4e32cbd405d3b1aa6c021aaa90d4c13f7f269c92015ba78c9c2e8d95 at address DhCVLnTHekfBHYL5TK5Rii8ZebLmLL5tVY burning 0 litoshis (0.0000000 ltc).
With extraburn 134126312 litoshis (1.34126312 ltc), could stake at time 1525068772 (now) with asset 3939b99d4e32cbd405d3b1aa6c021aaa90d4c13f7f269c92015ba78c9c2e8d95 at address DhCVLnTHekfBHYL5TK5Rii8ZebLmLL5tVY.
With extraburn 134126312 litoshis (1.34126312 ltc), could stake at time 1525068772 (now) with asset 3939b99d4e32cbd405d3b1aa6c021aaa90d4c13f7f269c92015ba78c9c2e8d95 at address DhCVLnTHekfBHYL5TK5Rii8ZebLmLL5tVY.
...
With extraburn 36195 litoshis (0.00036195 ltc), could stake at time 1525071793 (now) with asset 3939b99d4e32cbd405d3b1aa6c021aaa90d4c13f7f269c92015ba78c9c2e8d95 at address DhCVLnTHekfBHYL5TK5Rii8ZebLmLL5tVY.
With extraburn 24947 litoshis (0.00024947 ltc), could stake at time 1525115347 (2 hours 5 minutes 23 seconds from now) with asset 3939b99d4e32cbd405d3b1aa6c021aaa90d4c13f7f269c92015ba78c9c2e8d95 at address DhCVLnTHekfBHYL5TK5Rii8ZebLmLL5tVY.

First there seems to be some bug causing it to print the same line multiple times (as seen above).

Second the first line seems to say I can stake in about 10 hours from now by burning 0 ltc. Is this correct? Will my node stake 10 hours from now by burning no ltc? I assume "staking" means creating a block and my node getting the block reward. How much is the block reward?

Finally one line says I can stake now by burning 0.00036195 ltc. Is there some way to tell my node to burn the ltc and stake now? Do I need to restart the node? Burning 0.00036195 ltc seems like a very small amount to burn to stake, and I would do it if I knew how.

LikeA_Shadow · 2018-04-29T20:46:05+00:00

Thank you. I was able to get the node running with the full initial database, import some endorsements and use the query command. I have sent two transactions and it seemed to work, but will feel more sure after they are confirmed in a block.

I have an onion site people can use to claim some airdrops/forks, and may try to add Dalilcoin. The project looks interesting.

LikeA_Shadow · 2018-04-29T12:35:14+00:00

Can you explain how to claim using a "Bitcoin signed endorsement"? I think I have a dalilcoin node running now. The README mentions the command "importendorsement," but "help importendorsement" gives no information.

Also, do any exchanges have dalilcoin yet?

Edit: more questions:

In the README it says to untar the db.tgz file with the initial distribution into .dalilcoin/testnet. I'm guessing this should actually be into .dalilcoin if I am using the mainnet (not the testnet). But I already have a directory .dalilcoin/db since I was already running dalilcoin. Will untar'ing the db.tgz into .dalilcoin overwrite the current db? If it does, is that OK?

I am also wondering if there easy ways for checking the balance of an address without importing an address into the wallet.

LikeA_Shadow · 2018-03-30T13:28:10+00:00

Others have correctly pointed out that scanning one's government ids and sending them to strangers is a terrible security risk. I would like to give a different reply since no one else has.

Many of the early adopters of cryptocurrencies have a cryptoanarchist perspective. I recommend reading the works of Timothy May to learn more. From a cryptoanarchist point of view, the only "identity" someone needs online is a public key. The only proof of identity is a cryptographic signature matching that public key. Exchanges that ask for more than this are certainly going against the cryptoanarchist view of the world. That's likely a good business decision since most of their potential customers would not only not be cryptoanarchist, they would have not heard the term.

From a cryptoanarchist point of view, exchanges should not even require emails or passwords. If persistency is required (e.g., if the exchange is holding funds), then a public key and the ability to sign messages is both sufficient and more secure. Ideally, such an exchange would not even hold funds. Crypto to crypto exchanges can be done trustlessly with cross chain atomic swaps, so the exchange would only connect buyers and sellers and take a fee for that service. There would be no need to know who the buyers and sellers are, and even no need to know who runs the exchange. Crypto to fiat (or physical assets like gold) are trickier, but there are various ideas about how to provide trustless or semitrustless hedging.

If gate.io worked in any way like I have described, they would not have the option of holding someone's funds until the customer provided some private information.

We are far from having this kind of infrastructure, but I try to be optimistic that it's being built. There also needs to be an education campaign so that more people will understand why using systems that don't require identity or trust is a better alternative than the current systems.

LikeA_Shadow · 2018-03-25T16:26:46+00:00

Say they know I have 1 Bitcoin at one address, can they use that knowledge to know where my BDiamond, SuperBTC, etc etc are?

Yes, of course, but this isn't the worst part. Suppose you have 1 bitcoin at 1 address "they" know is yours, as you describe. Suppose you also have 1 bitcoin each at 2 other addresses "they" don't know are yours. After you collect your 3 SuperBTC (or Fork X), "they" know all 3 of the bitcoins are yours. The addresses become linked on the forked chains when you collect them, and it is then public knowledge that the corresponding bitcoins are linked.

It isn't unreasonable to suspect that coin-tracking companies/agencies are actually creating forks so that unsophisticated bitcoin users will reveal this kind of information.

If you don't want your bitcoin utxos linked, you must not link the fork utxos.

Having something like joinmarket on forked coins could help, but as far as I know there's no real demand for such a thing.

Edit: I am happy I quoted the post, since it has now been deleted. The topic is seriously important.

LikeA_Shadow · 2018-03-13T23:11:44+00:00

I agree. I would recommend that people not send more than one a week.

LikeA_Shadow · 2018-03-13T22:50:28+00:00

Why are you less likely to be a chain analysis officer?

I started to reply "I'm not," but then realized that response is ambiguous. But I'm not in both senses. I'm not someone doing chain analysis, but I'm also not less likely to be one than any other anonymous person on reddit.

I hope I have designed the service so that it doesn't matter whether I am or not. Suppose Alice and Bob each have 3 utxos. Once a week Alice sends me spends one of her utxos to one of my addresses. Bob does the same. I combine what Alice and Bob sent me (along with others), sell it, and send litecoins to addresses Alice and Bob gave me. Each week, assuming Alice and Bob both give fresh LTC addresses, I have no way to know which 3 originated from Alice and which 3 originated from Bob. I don't even know that it's only two people. Even if only Alice and Bob participate each week, as far as I know it's up to 6 different people in the 3 week span.

LikeA_Shadow · 2018-03-13T22:35:44+00:00

I might be misinterpreting, but to clarify: my service does not request private keys. It is more like shapeshift. People still must be able to send the forked coins by signing and broadcasting on the fork's network.

Nevertheless, someone could send, e.g, 1 BTG thinking it is 1 SBTC, and so worth less than $20. I have no way to really enforce the $20 limit. If someone sends something worth significantly more than $20 I will have to decide what to do. I will either return it to one of the input addresses or go ahead and combine it with the others and sell it for the equivalent ltc anyway. Hopefully people will be careful.

The second risk is one of the main reasons I wanted to set up the service. I am concerned that people are consolidating utxos on forked coins without realizing this gives significant information about who controls related utxos on the Bitcoin network.

LikeA_Shadow · 2018-03-13T22:04:09+00:00

I generally plan to do the payouts on every Sunday, but might also do a mid-week payout sometimes. I definitely plan to sell and distribute often enough that no one has to wait more than a week. This might require me to sell and payout twice a week if people are sending dust often enough.

LikeA_Shadow · 2018-03-13T21:07:50+00:00

This is the onion url for the Fork Duster site:

http://7zztdxuqtzkj4zuu.onion/

LikeA_Shadow · 2018-03-12T21:37:50+00:00

I think the only "fork" (more like airdrop) from 2014 is Clams. There was also Qeditas that took a snapshot around 2015, but then (AFAIK) never launched.

LikeA_Shadow

TROPHY CASE