Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 65 results by markcolls
Suppose I have millions in crypto that I want to convert to fiat and assume I can show proof of source. Which country would have the best banking for my needs? I have heard Dubai, Georgia, and Switzerland are popular options.
Re: Will major exchanges release my funds, despite mixer use, if I provide evidence?
I'm not sure that would help in anyway tho? I mean if the funds you received are deemed "coming from a hacked exchange" or a "terrorist organization" because they went through a mixer. I don't think that you providing those details would really help. It might even escalate things.
So you're saying there is no way to use a mixer and cash that crypto out to fiat at an exchange?
Will major exchanges release my funds, despite mixer use, if I provide evidence?
Let's say I took $10k from my bank account, which I earned from my job, and sent it to a mixer. After mixing the funds, I used them to invest in an altcoin. Once the altcoin’s value increased to $15k, I sold it for USDC and then cashed out at a different exchange (let's say a major well-regulated exchange like Binance).
If I provide every transaction on the blockchain from my bank account to the final exchange, except for the mixer where I can't show blockchain details, but I can show amount correlation and transaction clusters, would that be enough to get my funds released?
If I have a document prepared by crypto tax accountants and lawyers, would that speed up their process or at least force them to release my funds?
If I provide every transaction on the blockchain from my bank account to the final exchange, except for the mixer where I can't show blockchain details, but I can show amount correlation and transaction clusters, would that be enough to get my funds released?
If I have a document prepared by crypto tax accountants and lawyers, would that speed up their process or at least force them to release my funds?
This is a Monero (XMR) specific question.
Someone recently told me that churning is detrimental to privacy. Churning is the process of sending funds to one-self, effectively increasing the number of ring members exponentially. But I don't understand how this can be detrimental to privacy when address and amount are hidden in monero.
Someone recently told me that churning is detrimental to privacy. Churning is the process of sending funds to one-self, effectively increasing the number of ring members exponentially. But I don't understand how this can be detrimental to privacy when address and amount are hidden in monero.
Re: Is the "volume" on livecoinwatch.com the 24-hour volume?
Why is their value so much different than coinmarketcap and coingecko?
CMC: $34,54 BillionCG: $31,97 Billion
LCW: $21.4 Billion
They all have totally different values for everything, including 24h volume, probably because they are tracking different exchanges.
I wouldn't fully trust any of this website, and coinmarketcap is owned by binance so I would trust their numbers even less.
THANK YOU!!
Re: Is the "volume" on livecoinwatch.com the 24-hour volume?
- Is the volume information the total volume of transactions conducted in the last 24 hours?
- Why is their value so much different than coinmarketcap and coingecko?
Coinmarketcap and Coingecko track more bitcoin markets and the total 24 hour volumes reported by them are bigger than livecoinwatch.
THANK YOU!!
If you go to https://www.livecoinwatch.com/price/Bitcoin-BTC, then switch to 24H view, you will see price and volume information change every 5 minutes. I have two questions regarding this:
- Is the volume information the total volume of transactions conducted in the last 24 hours?
- Why is their value so much different than coinmarketcap and coingecko?
I would like to short crypto, but I don't want to do it via a centralised exchange. What atomic swaps did for exchanging cryptos, I am looking for a similar mechanism/service for shorting crypto. Does such a thing exist?
⭐ Merited by hd49728 (1)
Why is there to "copy to clipboard" or "copy" button to copy each of the addresses?
Strange. Not sure what was wrong.I use the newest version GUI 0.17.2.2-937cb98 and the Copy icon is on the right side of each receiving address.
The next icon on the left of Copy icon is Label Editing icon.
I was asking why I have no copy button.
Regardless, I mananaged to find the answer from another place. It turns out there is a bug in the previous to last version of monero-gui, upgrading to the latest version will fix this problem.
So what is the version of Monero wallet you used and got problems?Regardless, I mananaged to find the answer from another place. It turns out there is a bug in the previous to last version of monero-gui, upgrading to the latest version will fix this problem.
I had problems with version 0.17.2.1. Version 0.17.2.2 fixed it. They even listed it as one of the bugs v0.17.2.2 fixes:
Copy to clipboard means that you just have to paste it if you're about to send.
Copy to clipboard and copy are usual in wallets because it saves time instead of copying each character for sending balances to addresses.
Copy to clipboard and copy are usual in wallets because it saves time instead of copying each character for sending balances to addresses.
Are you dumb? Why are you stating the obvious? I was asking why I have no copy button.
Regardless, I mananaged to find the answer from another place. It turns out there is a bug in the previous to last version of monero-gui, upgrading to the latest version will fix this problem.
Do I have to practice coin control with Monero like with Bitcoin?
With bitcoin we have to practice coin control. That is to not spend bitcoins from different addresses at the same place. Do we still have to do this with Monero given that the amount and addresses are hidden?
My main problem with USDT is that they can and have frozen people's USDT. That feature is a deal breaker for me. The whole point of cryptos is that they are decentralized and free from human intervention. For that reason I don't like USDC or most of the other stable coins. I think your best bet is to go with Dai - where your funds cannot be frozen and you don't have to trust that someone has the USD in reserve like they say. The only issue I guess is collapse of ethereum.
Re: Why do so many people set their fees so unnecessarily high?
The higher you set the fee's once you have sent a transaction there is the chance that you will be first in line, meaning sending transaction will be faster, try to set your fee's at low and it will take hours or a day, that is the reason why they set fees at a higher one.
Did you not read what I said? There is no reason to set the fees at 50 sat/vbyte if you see that the mempool has less than 1 MB of <1 sat/vbyte and 0.5 MB of everything else. Then you can set a fee of 2-3 sat/vbyte and it will get confirmed with a high degree of probability. Setting fee at 50-60 or 80-90 sat/vbyte in that kind of scenario has no purpose other than flushing money down the toilet. Similarly when people set the fee at 600 or 1000 or 4000 as I have seen.
Why do so many people set their fees so unnecessarily high?
⭐ Merited by DdmrDdmr (2)
I finally figured out how the mempool and fees work and I've been watch the mempool constantly for a few days now. I have noticed lots people including ridiculously high fees. Like when 50 sat/vbyte is the minimum there were people including 6000 sat/vbyte. Or when 2 sat/vbyte would be enough like 30% of the people were setting there fees at 60 sat/vbyte. Why do people set their fees so unnecessarily high? Is it simply because of how default fees are set in wallets, by exchanges, or by services? If so, why do professional developers miscalculate the fee so poorly?
The recommendations from all the JoinMarket people is that a single join doesn't really improve privacy that much and that I should always do a tumble schedule (multiple coinjoins) Why is this? When I look at the transaction of a single coin join, the same amount has been sent to a 7 people. Any of those 7 could be me, so I don't get how a single coin join is useless. Could someone please explain.
Re: What is the tie-breaker between transactions of same fee and size?
I am not sure my answer is correct (I guess it is inaccurate in some parts) but let's give me this post to discuss. I can learn more from my inaccurate understandings.
I guess if two waiting transactions have same size, same mining fee (not fee rate), the older will be chosen to be confirmed first by miners, according to [1]
Formula
You can imagine when fee rates on the network drops to 2 sat/(v)byte, ie. and all waiting transactions with that fee rate are totally fitted in size (and max number of transactions) of one block, they all will be confirmed at the same time. In rare cases, the tip of mempool (1 MB) is cut at exactly transaction A, while transaction B with same fee rate, same size, same mining fee so B will be confirmed in the next one block. Of course, if same fee rate will be used in next one block.
[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Miner_fees#Priority_transactions
I guess if two waiting transactions have same size, same mining fee (not fee rate), the older will be chosen to be confirmed first by miners, according to [1]
Formula
Code:
priority = sum(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes
In fact, it can be more complex than such. How many transactions will be confirmed in one block of bitcoin.You can imagine when fee rates on the network drops to 2 sat/(v)byte, ie. and all waiting transactions with that fee rate are totally fitted in size (and max number of transactions) of one block, they all will be confirmed at the same time. In rare cases, the tip of mempool (1 MB) is cut at exactly transaction A, while transaction B with same fee rate, same size, same mining fee so B will be confirmed in the next one block. Of course, if same fee rate will be used in next one block.
[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Miner_fees#Priority_transactions
The first time my transaction is included in the block and hashed by the miners I get a confirmation. What does the second confirmation mean? And the third and so on?
Quote
After a transaction is broadcast to the Bitcoin network, it may be included in a block that is published to the network. When that happens it is said that the transaction has been mined at a depth of 1 block. With each subsequent block that is found, the number of blocks deep is increased by one. To be secure against double spending, a transaction should not be considered as confirmed until it is a certain number of blocks deep.
tl;dr number of blocks (within the currently dominant chain) the transaction exists in.
EDIT: By "exists", I mean that if you took the entire dominant chain at a certain number of blocks and parsed it (e.g. in Bitcoin wallet app), the transaction would be included in some block within that chain (either the newest or any older one). So if, hypothetically, your transaction was included in block 5 in the dominant chain and the newest block is now 6, your transaction has 2 confirmations since it "exists" in blocks 5 and 6.
I didn't understand what you said.Re: What is the tie-breaker between transactions of same fee and size?
I am not sure my answer is correct (I guess it is inaccurate in some parts) but let's give me this post to discuss. I can learn more from my inaccurate understandings.
I guess if two waiting transactions have same size, same mining fee (not fee rate), the older will be chosen to be confirmed first by miners, according to [1]
Formula
You can imagine when fee rates on the network drops to 2 sat/(v)byte, ie. and all waiting transactions with that fee rate are totally fitted in size (and max number of transactions) of one block, they all will be confirmed at the same time. In rare cases, the tip of mempool (1 MB) is cut at exactly transaction A, while transaction B with same fee rate, same size, same mining fee so B will be confirmed in the next one block. Of course, if same fee rate will be used in next one block.
[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Miner_fees#Priority_transactions
I guess if two waiting transactions have same size, same mining fee (not fee rate), the older will be chosen to be confirmed first by miners, according to [1]
Formula
Code:
priority = sum(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes
In fact, it can be more complex than such. How many transactions will be confirmed in one block of bitcoin.You can imagine when fee rates on the network drops to 2 sat/(v)byte, ie. and all waiting transactions with that fee rate are totally fitted in size (and max number of transactions) of one block, they all will be confirmed at the same time. In rare cases, the tip of mempool (1 MB) is cut at exactly transaction A, while transaction B with same fee rate, same size, same mining fee so B will be confirmed in the next one block. Of course, if same fee rate will be used in next one block.
[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Miner_fees#Priority_transactions
The first time my transaction is included in the block and hashed by the miners I get a confirmation. What does the second confirmation mean? And the third and so on?
What is the tie-breaker between transactions of same fee and size?
Suppose 1 last transaction is going to be included in a blocked. Suppose then the two next highest fee transactions have both the exact same size and fee/byte. Then how is it decided which one is included in the block? Is it by which ever transaction was broadcast first? Or is it done randomly?
In JoinMarket, whenever transaction fees are manually set, the fees are varied by +/-20% to prevent fee correlation. I want to turn off this 20% fee variation feature temporarily for something I'm doing, but I don't see anything in the joinmarket.cfg regarding it. Do any of you know how I can turn it off?