|
Simcom
|
 |
October 11, 2014, 12:50:07 AM |
|
xpool.net is now operating on donations. Zero Fees! I get webpage not found when I click the anoncoin link  |
|
|
|
|
|
drakoin
|
|
October 11, 2014, 01:38:19 AM
Last edit: October 13, 2014, 02:00:23 PM by drakoin |
|
Ah, I see. Cool. Yes, I had another look - it does always start running again, sure. And then left-over transactions do get processed. The coin is really fully functional - just "stuttering". It is suddenly very fast, and then in a regular rhythm very very slow. (Still - much faster than a standard fiat bank - they need not hours but days for a tx  ) The blockchain doesn't even get much bloated probably - because the slow blocks recreate the average of "3:42 minute block targets" ( = 420 blocks per day) ? Another non-existing problem, good. Still, I was getting more and more fascinated. Irregularities are more interesting than smooth boredom :-) All this is purely empirical, I haven't taken the time to look into the KGW code yet. I just did some preliminary data analysis - What else could I find out? --> The difficulty adjustment algo seems to have a strange pathology that it very suddenly increases the difficulty by a huge factor, from one block to the next one. (for an example, have a look at blocks 252656 and 252657 here http://abe.darkgamex.ch:2751/chain/Anoncoin?count=12&hi=252662). And it is such a strong jump that when the miners are leaving (and every clever miner should leave when there is suddenly a difficulty a hundred times higher) ... then it suddenly takes many hours, even half a day, for the next blocks. That slowness brings the average block time back on track. And 2 or 3 blocks later, it's running fast like mad again. Rinse repeat. As the programmers very very probably did not intend it to be like that  it looks to me as if the difficulty adjustment algo is getting gamed somehow. Different from, but comparable to an instamine. It happens regularly. I call those 2-3 blocks 'difficulty-walls' for now - they can be higher than 6000, while the bottom in between can be as low as difficulty 25. Right now we are on block 253261, the last 'difficulty-wall' was at 253140, the ones before at 253019, and 252898, and 252777, and 252657, before that at block 252534 ... - so the distances are 121, 121, 121, 121 blocks, 120 blocks, 123 blocks, etc ... http://abe.darkgamex.ch:2751/chain/Anoncoin?count=1000 Then the two or three SLOW blocks take 2 - 8 hours, usually. The total time for the ~120 FAST blocks between two such difficulty walls has been 6 - 33 minutes. That's the time in which 600 ANC can be mined in one go - with little effort. One block every 3-16 seconds, worth 5 ANC. Interesting phenomena. And still 20 full days time until November ... make me think now: Why leave all that wealth flow into the pockets of that perhaps only one guy? He would get 5 * (1440/3.42) * 119/122 ~ 2000 ANC per day, which -dumped at the current price- could mean almost 50000 dollars until then. Not much compared to the market cap of a million dollars, actually. (Perhaps that is the reason that this is not even perceived as a huge problem here? - which I found really odd when I encountered this first.) Still, is there anything that could be done about it? First I thought: What if I rent a few rigs now, in order to catch some of that seemingly-easy-to-harvest wealth ... BUT I need to be there in those few minutes, when all those ~120 blocks are generated, at ridiculously low diff. And then as soon as there is a difficulty-wall, while those 1-3 blocks with a 20 - 150 higher difficulty are mined (which takes 2 - 10 hours, seemingly) ... I have to stay away, and simply mine something else. Where can I find such an algorithm? Do I really need a special sgminer variant? Or can I just use cgwatcher to switch? But if I rent rigs, I could not use cgwatcher, only choose the pool - so do you know WHICH pool provides such cleverness? ... BUT then of course, the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant comes to mind ... What would happen if more people used such an algorithm now? ... very probably those difficulty walls would become even higher, right? --> I decided to have a longer look at the time series. The peaks already seem to get higher indeed! The first plot shows the past 10000 blocks.  19/09/2014 00:41 - 10/10/2014 19:31 = 21.78 days
--> 3:08 minutes per block on average, that's pretty close to the targeted 3:42 minutes.
Actually: When did the raping appear first? I only looked at the past few thousand blocks. Conjecture: The recent (re)appearance simply comes from the price surge. While the price was below approx 0.002 BTC/ANC, the problem always went away again - probably other coins were simply more profitable for that clever rapist (Isn't there a more neutral term? Essentially he is simply harvesting money ... in a way that the source code of this coin allows.). But then on October 6h, everyone went nuts about ANC https://cryptrader.com/charts/cryptsy/anc/btc and since October 7th, the stuttering hasn't stopped anymore. The second plot zooms into the recent past, the last 11 difficulty-walls, within the last 1212 blocks.  08/10/2014 15:01 - 10/10/2014 19:31 = 2.19 days
--> 2:36 minutes average block time, only 30% too fast. Not a big deal. N.B.: The x-axis is not proportional to date, but to block number - you can easily see the regular 121 block frequency. While ANC is getting raped, it is 'breathing' with a base frequency of about 10 / ( 2.19 * 24*60*60) = 0.00005 Hertz, and with very fast breath of about 0.3 Hz during those 119 highly profitable blocks. What a stuttering. Here are examples for the 119 fast blocks:  At least no one is getting any coins into exchanges to dump!!
The bright side of very high diff raping situation, lol... Well I was wrong about that I guess, those dumps are insane. Yes, because the leftover 7 - 47 transactions are then simply processed in the fast phases. Speculation: The dumps might actually also happen exactly in those intervals? You can check the times of the dumps yourself, I wouldn't be surprised if they always happen shortly after a fast blocks phase. There have been precicsely 4 dumps in the time span where there were 4 low-diff runs with 600 ANC each. But hey - that is speculation. Welcome to Anoncoin!
Thanks a lot. And thank you strange coin, for these pleasurable nerdy hours, analyzing your unique heartbeat ...  Send me BTC 1NceECxBgg5E7si8gJwinuBcBhpZTn5889 or [ANC] Aa96FUJyZXXZN2AhPtGbbAUsM7Nsxd1xhU If this analysis helps you to make money (or avoid to loose money) - or if you simply enjoyed this, then send me some coins please. Thanks.  EDIT: I started here and here, actually. |
no sign of a signature
|
|
|
DFJ
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 41
Merit: 0
|
|
October 11, 2014, 02:15:43 AM |
|
I guess its already been said in other words but a logo with the guy fawkes mask on it is about as good an idea as a logo with a swastika on it. Very interesting analysis above, by the way.
|
|
|
|
|
CartmanSPC
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1270
Merit: 1000
|
|
October 11, 2014, 02:23:58 AM |
|
xpool.net is now operating on donations. Zero Fees! I get webpage not found when I click the anoncoin link Check to make sure port 8850 is not blocked. Here is the direct link: http://xpool.net:8850 |
|
|
|
niteglider
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
Lean into the curves.
|
|
October 11, 2014, 02:50:54 AM |
|
so do you know WHICH pool provides such cleverness?
Really cool stuff, drakoin. I guess the best thing to do until the fix would be to discover the pool and invite everyone to go for a swim so the wealth could be shared around. But it's got to be someone who just jumps from coin to coin, as you say. Otherwise, if it were someone who understood what ANC is doing, they would hold what they've got and score millions instead of thousands. |
|
|
|
CartmanSPC
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1270
Merit: 1000
|
|
October 11, 2014, 04:17:24 AM |
|
As the programmers very very probably did not intend it to be like that it looks to me as if the difficulty adjustment algo is getting gamed somehow. Different from, but comparable to an instamine. It happens regularly. Commonly known exploit/attack/bug/whatever-you-want-to-call-it of KGW. Most other coins that use KGW have patched/fixed. Think I mentioned this before sometime earlier in this thread. Have lived through it on other coins...search the forums for description/fix. Hint: look for Heartbleed and TimeWarp vulnerabilities. One possible solution is to add the digishield diff retarget: https://github.com/casinocoin/casinocoin/commit/1f0b80e20aa13b8aa9146b61344131c5d555c709Hehehe, ok more than a hint  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simcom
|
|
October 11, 2014, 06:44:32 AM |
|
Awesome. Looks like they are fixing the diff. algo before ZC implementation. Smart move. |
|
|
|
|
gunzeon
Member
Offline
Activity: 73
Merit: 10
There's a new king in the streets
|
|
October 11, 2014, 06:58:51 AM |
|
Ah, I see. Cool. Brilliant Analysis ,,,, Drakcoin, Thanks for gathering facts to clarify the situation with facts ! Let's hope we can correct this situation ASAP because zANC will surely get an intense hammering from all angles by critics/competitors/sour-grapes when it goes live. We'll need to batten down the hatches against attacks; difficulty, xaction storms, spam, ddos, whatever your imagination can come up with, they'll be out there trying to drag us down. |
BTC: 1gunzeo8X7iYznsnmgveUQDuRj6vhzyK6 ~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TeamSDC
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 5
Merit: 0
|
|
October 11, 2014, 07:40:27 AM |
|
That's how it goes bro. SDC is the true winner in this game of anon. |
|
|
|
|
sdcoin
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 129
Merit: 100
Leave nothing but a shadow.
|
|
October 11, 2014, 08:00:57 AM
Last edit: October 11, 2014, 09:28:03 AM by sdcoin |
|
Hi Anoncoin, Don't feed these trolls they are not affiliated with Shadow. We respect the development going on here and wish you all the best.  |
|
|
|
|
|
varun555
|
|
October 11, 2014, 09:39:28 AM |
|
Hi Anoncoin, Don't feed these trolls they are not affiliated with Shadow. We respect the development going on here and wish you all the best. Hahahahahaha........ Nice one! |
|
|
|
|
|
mathgal23
|
|
October 11, 2014, 10:54:03 AM |
|
http://forum.bleutrade.com/index.php/topic,40.0.htmlPOSSIBLE ANONCOIN BUG REPORT Hi. Today we are faced with a problem reported by some Bleutrade users that withdraw his was not working. We found it strange being our lasts withdraws with 0 confirmations. We decided to investigate. ::::: Normal Withdraw Today ::::: { "account" : "", "address" : "ALvNv6ydiqNuey129MXJV4tywqBPn9USyW", "category" : "send", "amount" : -47.78000000, "fee" : 0.00000000, "confirmations" : 0, "txid" : "0013dd6a25d222ceb203b1977d60a7db5f6f9b91c1c186f65517b29abcc8dfbc", "time" : 1412854096, "timereceived" : 1412854096, "comment" : "b w17686 e4050480", "to" : "b w17686 e4050480" }, 0 confirmations? why?... This transaction also does not appear in explorer. hmm... ok, let's investigate... For this example, we will use a normal transaction in the original wallet (Another Normal Withdraw, days ago): { "account" : "", "address" : "ASz5NtGjBRjHoP2RPqeCAEcbvm1KC3xwcx", "category" : "send", "amount" : -446.11059087, "fee" : 0.00000000, "confirmations" : 65164, "blockhash" : "7f5310f1bab45d6157fb4fc00d0f440f1d5db5c6b4d689e72118dce046373512", "blockindex" : 2, "blocktime" : 1401023096, "txid" : "df1298124eb24a0b24dcd80a921e9c60578391bf7eff54241d05760976dd2d07", "time" : 1401022562, "timereceived" : 1401022562, "comment" : "b w2721 e126667", "to" : "b w2721 e126667" }, First step to test, creating a new wallet.dat with all existing addresses and privkeys. After RESCAN and REINDEX and CHECKBLOCKS etc..: :::: SURPRISE ::::: The transaction of example disappears and this appears: { "account" : "", "address" : "AMwxitA4zzi54Ax2kngNnvw8nGChwBDQuh", "category" : "send", "amount" : -757.03044568, "fee" : 0.00000000, "confirmations" : 65193, "blockhash" : "bc31fcc6c5c333e7efdaadbd088e6873a7e7c7c9007444feccd0b8bb4dc321dc", "blockindex" : 1, "blocktime" : 1401017947, "txid" : "deef70d946477552db8b70aac87fe16a5eb06767fd6668e6e00bca3f4ffceb2c", "time" : 1401017947, "timereceived" : 1412871290 }, http://ancblockchain.com/tx/df1298124eb24a0b24dcd80a921e9c60578391bf7eff54241d05760976dd2d07"AYQWQCixS4cpi4gyc8vVdmrNCzKRsm245J(310.91985481 ANC - Unspent)" - Anonymizer? ok, but... Our ORIGINAL wallet.dat does not contain the private key or another key or path of 'AYQWQCixS4cpi4gyc8vVdmrNCzKRsm245J'!!! This is the explanation for non-confirmations of the lasts withdraws. The Blockchain not recognize this and other addresses. Was forgotten in time. This may not have been affected by a forked block, because it is an old transaction. We can not trust the current app, we does not understand because on send 446.11059087, 310.91985481 ANC lost to a arbitrary nonexistent address in a original wallet.dat! The application is not storing correctly the private keys of anonymizer addresses. Final Thoughts We ask immediately withdraw their ANCs from Bleutrade. We do not know what may happen in the future, because this app is not updated over 1 year. We believe that there may exist bug in a hidden zero coin system that does not properly stores the transactions wallet.dat file. Sorry for the inconvenience.Best regards, Felipe McMont COO/CTO & Co-Founder Bleutrade.com OK. Seems bleutrade is dead now too. They are even more stupid than craptsy... One solution would just be to hold ANC and not trade it at all (on either Bleutrade or Cryptsy) right now. Hopefully the upcoming hard fork will fix all the issues above. If Zerocoin beta goes well then valuation may end up being a lot higher after the mining difficulty problems are fixed. At that point it should be safe to send ANC to/from the exchanges again |
|
|
|
|
|
varun555
|
|
October 11, 2014, 11:14:33 AM |
|
Awesome. Looks like they are fixing the diff. algo before ZC implementation. Smart move. Informed anc.cryptotroll.com pool....... any ETA on the upgrade yet ? |
|
|
|
|
|
mathgal23
|
|
October 11, 2014, 11:19:15 AM |
|
Yes, that is my understanding exactly, except I have read over and over that it is only possible to generate trustless parameters with zerocoin, not zerocash. Do you have a source that states it is possible with zerocash?
I am just going off of what they have stated on Twitter. Along with the following statements, they have mentioned the ability to generate the parameters by using multi party computations.. which is basically what the rsa ufo project is doing with ZeroCoin. If you look through their statements on Twitter it doesn't sound much different than they way Anoncoin is computing the ZeroCoin accumulator. Re: Trust required for Zerocash setup   Maybe I am naive, but I think they will find a way to setup Zerocash that people will be able to trust. Well that is interesting, But I think unless they are able to pool hundreds of people to publicly generate the parameters in a trustless manner I kind of doubt the darknetmarket people will use zerocash over zerocoin. I'm willing to bet money they would trust meeh over matt green et al. I think meeh, gnosis, Ian Miers and Matt Green are all trustworthy. That being said aside from first mover advantage I think we all see our trustless RSA UFO project as our key advantage over a Zerocash setup that requires trust. If Zerocash finds a way to become truly trustless then we lose that advantage. As of right now it still sounds like Zerocash will require some element of trust in parameter generation. |
|
|
|
|
|
LucyLovesCrypto
|
|
October 11, 2014, 12:44:51 PM |
|
http://forum.bleutrade.com/index.php/topic,40.0.htmlPOSSIBLE ANONCOIN BUG REPORT Hi. Today we are faced with a problem reported by some Bleutrade users that withdraw his was not working. We found it strange being our lasts withdraws with 0 confirmations. We decided to investigate. ::::: Normal Withdraw Today ::::: { "account" : "", "address" : "ALvNv6ydiqNuey129MXJV4tywqBPn9USyW", "category" : "send", "amount" : -47.78000000, "fee" : 0.00000000, "confirmations" : 0, "txid" : "0013dd6a25d222ceb203b1977d60a7db5f6f9b91c1c186f65517b29abcc8dfbc", "time" : 1412854096, "timereceived" : 1412854096, "comment" : "b w17686 e4050480", "to" : "b w17686 e4050480" }, 0 confirmations? why?... This transaction also does not appear in explorer. hmm... ok, let's investigate... For this example, we will use a normal transaction in the original wallet (Another Normal Withdraw, days ago): { "account" : "", "address" : "ASz5NtGjBRjHoP2RPqeCAEcbvm1KC3xwcx", "category" : "send", "amount" : -446.11059087, "fee" : 0.00000000, "confirmations" : 65164, "blockhash" : "7f5310f1bab45d6157fb4fc00d0f440f1d5db5c6b4d689e72118dce046373512", "blockindex" : 2, "blocktime" : 1401023096, "txid" : "df1298124eb24a0b24dcd80a921e9c60578391bf7eff54241d05760976dd2d07", "time" : 1401022562, "timereceived" : 1401022562, "comment" : "b w2721 e126667", "to" : "b w2721 e126667" }, First step to test, creating a new wallet.dat with all existing addresses and privkeys. After RESCAN and REINDEX and CHECKBLOCKS etc..: :::: SURPRISE ::::: The transaction of example disappears and this appears: { "account" : "", "address" : "AMwxitA4zzi54Ax2kngNnvw8nGChwBDQuh", "category" : "send", "amount" : -757.03044568, "fee" : 0.00000000, "confirmations" : 65193, "blockhash" : "bc31fcc6c5c333e7efdaadbd088e6873a7e7c7c9007444feccd0b8bb4dc321dc", "blockindex" : 1, "blocktime" : 1401017947, "txid" : "deef70d946477552db8b70aac87fe16a5eb06767fd6668e6e00bca3f4ffceb2c", "time" : 1401017947, "timereceived" : 1412871290 }, http://ancblockchain.com/tx/df1298124eb24a0b24dcd80a921e9c60578391bf7eff54241d05760976dd2d07"AYQWQCixS4cpi4gyc8vVdmrNCzKRsm245J(310.91985481 ANC - Unspent)" - Anonymizer? ok, but... Our ORIGINAL wallet.dat does not contain the private key or another key or path of 'AYQWQCixS4cpi4gyc8vVdmrNCzKRsm245J'!!! This is the explanation for non-confirmations of the lasts withdraws. The Blockchain not recognize this and other addresses. Was forgotten in time. This may not have been affected by a forked block, because it is an old transaction. We can not trust the current app, we does not understand because on send 446.11059087, 310.91985481 ANC lost to a arbitrary nonexistent address in a original wallet.dat! The application is not storing correctly the private keys of anonymizer addresses. Final Thoughts We ask immediately withdraw their ANCs from Bleutrade. We do not know what may happen in the future, because this app is not updated over 1 year. We believe that there may exist bug in a hidden zero coin system that does not properly stores the transactions wallet.dat file. Sorry for the inconvenience.Best regards, Felipe McMont COO/CTO & Co-Founder Bleutrade.com OK. Seems bleutrade is dead now too. They are even more stupid than craptsy... Actually Cryptsy thinks its is our fault https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=227287.msg8869037#msg8869037Quote from mullick (Cryptsy): "Ok lets clear this up once and for all. I have NOT modified our daemon in anyway. We have built directly from source with no changes. Anoncoind is creating these transaction and paying the large fee required. yet they are not being accepted into the chain. As you can see by my previous post." Quote from: mullick on August 14, 2014, 07:45:14 PM Hello everyone, Im currently investigating an issue with our ANC wallet where the blockchain isnt picking up the majority of our send transactions. We apologize it took us so long to spot the issue. But we are working hard on correcting it and getting the unconfirmed transactions pushed to the blockchain Some of them get confirmed after a simple restart of the daemon but others do not/ Ill keep everyone informed when I find the solution Thank you for your patience Smiley UPDATE: I think it comes down to transaction sizes. Our daemon is sending transactions that are too large to be accpeted into the chain. Im basing this on the fact that all unconfirmed send transactions have unusually high fees paid. Our default Txfee is .01 ANC and the mean over the last 1000 transactions is 0.10169169169169 which is why our withdrawal fee is set to .1 ANC Code: anoncoind listtransactions "" 1000 | grep -A 1 -B 4 '"confirmations" : 0,' | grep fee "fee" : -0.82000000, "fee" : -0.90000000, "fee" : -0.98000000, "fee" : -0.65000000, "fee" : -0.69000000, "fee" : -0.72000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.76000000, "fee" : -0.77000000, "fee" : -0.81000000, "fee" : -1.00000000, "fee" : -0.68000000, "fee" : -0.72000000, "fee" : -0.73000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.76000000, "fee" : -0.76000000, "fee" : -0.77000000, "fee" : -0.77000000, "fee" : -0.77000000, "fee" : -0.78000000, "fee" : -0.79000000, "fee" : -0.85000000, "fee" : -0.96000000, "fee" : -0.64000000, "fee" : -0.66000000, "fee" : -0.67000000, "fee" : -0.69000000, "fee" : -0.71000000, "fee" : -0.72000000, "fee" : -0.73000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.77000000, "fee" : -0.79000000, "fee" : -0.84000000, "fee" : -0.87000000, "fee" : -0.92000000, "fee" : -0.95000000, "fee" : -0.98000000, "fee" : -0.63000000, "fee" : -0.64000000, "fee" : -0.65000000, "fee" : -0.66000000, "fee" : -0.68000000, "fee" : -0.68000000, "fee" : -0.69000000, "fee" : -0.70000000, "fee" : -0.71000000, "fee" : -0.71000000, "fee" : -0.72000000, "fee" : -0.73000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.76000000, "fee" : -0.78000000, "fee" : -0.80000000, "fee" : -0.83000000, "fee" : -0.88000000, "fee" : -0.92000000, "fee" : -0.99000000, "fee" : -0.98000000, "fee" : -0.97000000, "fee" : -0.87000000, "fee" : -0.81000000, "fee" : -0.86000000, Our daemon is up to date so ill be going over the source to see if I can find anything that would cause this As you can see from my request to the daemon: Code: anoncoind listtransactions "" 1000 | grep -A 1 -B 4 '"confirmations" : 0,' | grep fee I grabbed the last 1000 transactions and searched for any with "confirmations" : 0, and grabbed the fee for the transaction. All of the unconfirmed transactions in our wallet paid a high fee suggesting its due to block size. To counteract this until the issue is resolved by the developers i have merged any input in our wallet less than .1 anc ( about 50k of them ) into inputs over 1 ANC. These may have broken down to some smaller ones now so ill likely have to run it again Here are some others with the same problem Quote from: shtako on August 23, 2014, 07:57:45 AM Quote from: SmokingSkull on August 21, 2014, 07:50:06 PM Same Problem. It makes me mad all the time Angry And It's not good at all for beginners who want to buy into ANC when there are problems with Buying and Withdrawing. Same problem. Tried to withdraw from bleutrade 2 days ago and the transaction still havent gone trough. To fix this should be highest priority. Quote from: niteglider on August 22, 2014, 11:31:12 PM Quote from: TCB4728 on August 21, 2014, 06:32:52 PM Anyone else with the following problems with ANC? My multipool operator sent earned ANC to me on August 18 at 2:01AM CDT, was not received and posted to my wallet until August 21 at 13:58 CDT. The multipool operator states: "The transaction hasn't been included in a block yet. It should make it into a block eventually and be confirmed. I have no control over this. It's been an ongoing issue with the ANC network for a few weeks now." That would seem to be a very strong negative against this coin. Yes, I am on the anonmining.com pool and it took a couple of days for an autotransfer to actually post to my wallet. It was only 5 ANCs. What gives? In conclusion this is not a problem with cryptsy or "craptsy" as it is being called. It seems meeh and k1773R are aware and getting these transactions to confirm eventually so i see no reason to suspend the wallet as suggested above" |
|
|
|
|
|
newb4now
|
|
October 11, 2014, 01:07:49 PM |
|
xpool.net is now operating on donations. Zero Fees! I get webpage not found when I click the anoncoin link The link seems to be working now. Can anyone comment about the reliability of this pool? |
|
|
|
|
|
tljenson
|
|
October 11, 2014, 02:05:12 PM |
|
I wouldn't listen to this guy. SDC completely shut down XST fourm, the dev condoned FUDing the XST thread brought the XST coin down to less than 5000 from a high of 14,000, and cost a lot of investors a lot of money. I hate to see that happen to ANONcoin, but those shadow guys are bad news. Don't feed them. |
|
|
|
|
|
