Official Anoncoin chat thread (including history)

[tljenson]

Here read this about SDC coin trolls and how they caused to Stealth Coin investors thousands of dollars and are trying the same bullshit in order to scare people over to ShadowCash. Don't let what happen to StealthCoin happen to you.

"STEALTHCOIN PRICE PLUMMETS AMID OVERT COMMUNITY CHAOS"

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/stealthcoin-price-plummets-amid-overt-community-chaos/

Theses very same trolls are Fuding your coin now. I am an investor in XST, and lost a lot of money. The reason I'm on this forum, is I am looking into other anon coins, and yours looks like a good bet.

[newb4now]

The reason I'm on this forum, is I am looking into other anon coins, and yours looks like a good bet.

Welcome to the community. Feel free to ask any questions you would like about ANC. We have many knowledgeable users who have been around for a long time.

Our wiki page is a great place to start:
https://wiki.anoncoin.net/Anoncoin_Wiki

[Simcom]

http://forum.bleutrade.com/index.php/topic,40.0.html

POSSIBLE 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#msg8869037

Quote 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"

This was a good review of the problem - thanks for compiling this.  Looks like if the transaction size is too big it will fail to confirm regardless of the the fee included. Can we get a dev response?  Are you guys trying to identify this bug?  The doesn't seem like it should be a very difficult thing to fix, probably just a couple lines of code.

[illodin]

I tried to browse through this thread but it's just huge so sorry if I missed it if this has been discussed already - has there been (and if so, what kind of) improvements made to the original zerocoin wrt scaling/performance, fixed denominations (no change transactions), or hiding tx amounts?

[AnonCoinTwitter]

Just days away from Zerocoin beta testing on Oct 15th! All code will be open sourced @github before public launch on Nov 1st

https://twitter.com/AnoncoinTeam/status/520955264145444864

Imminent hard fork will address the mining difficulty problems discussed above

https://pay.reddit.com/r/Anoncoin/comments/2ix6ny/a_hard_fork_is_imminent_pay_attention_to_forum/

[matthewh3]

I tried to browse through this thread but it's just huge so sorry if I missed it if this has been discussed already - has there been (and if so, what kind of) improvements made to the original zerocoin wrt scaling/performance, fixed denominations (no change transactions), or hiding tx amounts?

Check the official wiki

[K1773R]

This was a good review of the problem - thanks for compiling this.  Looks like if the transaction size is too big it will fail to confirm regardless of the the fee included. Can we get a dev response?  Are you guys trying to identify this bug?  The doesn't seem like it should be a very difficult thing to fix, probably just a couple lines of code.

I posted that they shouldnt change fee settings and/or also shouldnt patch the client o allow such huge txs (txs are limited to 100KB normaly).
Nothing from our side to be done  as there is nothing to fix. If someone dosnt want to play according to the rules, they shouldnt wonder why things break. Thats the beauty of a decentralized system.

[varun555]

How come the ANC/BTC exchange rate in anoncoin mining pool is showing as 0.00000434 ?

EDIT: It's back to normal ! (Phew!!!!)

[Simcom]

This was a good review of the problem - thanks for compiling this.  Looks like if the transaction size is too big it will fail to confirm regardless of the the fee included. Can we get a dev response?  Are you guys trying to identify this bug?  The doesn't seem like it should be a very difficult thing to fix, probably just a couple lines of code.

I posted that they shouldnt change fee settings and/or also shouldnt patch the client o allow such huge txs (txs are limited to 100KB normaly).
Nothing from our side to be done  as there is nothing to fix. If someone dosnt want to play according to the rules, they shouldnt wonder why things break. Thats the beauty of a decentralized system.

I guess what I don't understand is: Cryptsy claims they are compiling directly from source, so why is the wallet creating transactions above 100KB by default? 

[gunzeon]

This was a good review of the problem - thanks for compiling this.  Looks like if the transaction size is too big it will fail to confirm regardless of the the fee included. Can we get a dev response?  Are you guys trying to identify this bug?  The doesn't seem like it should be a very difficult thing to fix, probably just a couple lines of code.

I posted that they shouldnt change fee settings and/or also shouldnt patch the client o allow such huge txs (txs are limited to 100KB normaly).
Nothing from our side to be done  as there is nothing to fix. If someone dosnt want to play according to the rules, they shouldnt wonder why things break. Thats the beauty of a decentralized system.

I guess what I don't understand is: Cryptsy claims they are compiling directly from source, so why is the wallet creating transactions above 100KB by default?  

I imagine that their house wallet contains squillions of sub 1 ANC coins; to make  my withdrawal they needed 400 inputs - all nickel and dime amounts and the size.

EDIT: not exactly sub 1 ANC but relatively small when compared to what is a reasonably sized parcel of ANC to trade

This was it here: http://ancblockchain.com/tx/f615e8772e65dcf1da14154a9926df7e07f30b534745ce980760ff0b3a17aee6

./anoncoin/src/anoncoind getrawtransaction f615e8772e65dcf1da14154a9926df7e07f30b534745ce980760ff0b3a17aee6 | wc
      1       1  143393
( ie: 143kB )

[Simcom]

This was a good review of the problem - thanks for compiling this.  Looks like if the transaction size is too big it will fail to confirm regardless of the the fee included. Can we get a dev response?  Are you guys trying to identify this bug?  The doesn't seem like it should be a very difficult thing to fix, probably just a couple lines of code.

I posted that they shouldnt change fee settings and/or also shouldnt patch the client o allow such huge txs (txs are limited to 100KB normaly).
Nothing from our side to be done  as there is nothing to fix. If someone dosnt want to play according to the rules, they shouldnt wonder why things break. Thats the beauty of a decentralized system.

I guess what I don't understand is: Cryptsy claims they are compiling directly from source, so why is the wallet creating transactions above 100KB by default?  

I imagine that their house wallet contains squillions of sub 1 ANC coins; to make  my withdrawal they needed 400 inputs - all nickel and dime amounts and the size.

EDIT: not exactly sub 1 ANC but relatively small when compared to what is a reasonably sized parcel of ANC to trade

This was it here: http://ancblockchain.com/tx/f615e8772e65dcf1da14154a9926df7e07f30b534745ce980760ff0b3a17aee6

./anoncoin/src/anoncoind getrawtransaction f615e8772e65dcf1da14154a9926df7e07f30b534745ce980760ff0b3a17aee6 | wc
      1       1  143393
( ie: 143kB )

That's my understanding, but shouldn't the wallet be able to handle this by adding a larger mining fee so that the txn gets confirmed?

[K1773R]

This was a good review of the problem - thanks for compiling this.  Looks like if the transaction size is too big it will fail to confirm regardless of the the fee included. Can we get a dev response?  Are you guys trying to identify this bug?  The doesn't seem like it should be a very difficult thing to fix, probably just a couple lines of code.

I posted that they shouldnt change fee settings and/or also shouldnt patch the client o allow such huge txs (txs are limited to 100KB normaly).
Nothing from our side to be done  as there is nothing to fix. If someone dosnt want to play according to the rules, they shouldnt wonder why things break. Thats the beauty of a decentralized system.

I guess what I don't understand is: Cryptsy claims they are compiling directly from source, so why is the wallet creating transactions above 100KB by default?  

I imagine that their house wallet contains squillions of sub 1 ANC coins; to make  my withdrawal they needed 400 inputs - all nickel and dime amounts and the size.

EDIT: not exactly sub 1 ANC but relatively small when compared to what is a reasonably sized parcel of ANC to trade

This was it here: http://ancblockchain.com/tx/f615e8772e65dcf1da14154a9926df7e07f30b534745ce980760ff0b3a17aee6

./anoncoin/src/anoncoind getrawtransaction f615e8772e65dcf1da14154a9926df7e07f30b534745ce980760ff0b3a17aee6 | wc
      1       1  143393
( ie: 143kB )

That's my understanding, but shouldn't the wallet be able to handle this by adding a larger mining fee so that the txn gets confirmed?

The default wallet dosnt create transaction bigger than 100KB, https://github.com/Anoncoin/anoncoin/blob/master/src/main.h#L33
Everything above is non-standard and not mined with default settings/codebase.

[Simcom]

That's my understanding, but shouldn't the wallet be able to handle this by adding a larger mining fee so that the txn gets confirmed?

The default wallet dosnt create transaction bigger than 100KB, https://github.com/Anoncoin/anoncoin/blob/master/src/main.h#L33
Everything above is non-standard and not mined with default settings/codebase.

So if I tried to create a transaction above 100KB would the client throw an error message? Are you absolutely positive that it would be impossible to create a txn above 100KB with this code?  Have we tested it?  I just find it hard to believe the cryptsy rep would come in here and lie about using our source code to create invalid transactions.

[AnonCoinTwitter]

https://twitter.com/AnoncoinTeam/status/521099890303045632

Breaking news: ANC has been added to Bittrex
https://www.bittrex.com/Market/?MarketName=BTC-ANC

[Simcom]

https://twitter.com/AnoncoinTeam/status/521099890303045632

Breaking news: ANC has been added to Bittrex
https://www.bittrex.com/Market/?MarketName=BTC-ANC

Awesome!

[AnonCoinTwitter]

https://twitter.com/AnoncoinTeam/status/521099890303045632

Breaking news: ANC has been added to Bittrex
https://www.bittrex.com/Market/?MarketName=BTC-ANC

Awesome!

Lets retweet this to get the word out:)

[Jaroco]

hi, please help. My wallet sync is stuck at 6 weeks, no more connections. Anoncoin version v0.8.5.1-88-g87bdacc-beta

[An0nj0k3]

Yay we cracked the 4k difficulty block, now we are only stuck on a meager 2k block!  
http://ancblockchain.com/chain/Anoncoin

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.

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/drakoin/diagrams/master/anc10000blocks.png

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.

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/drakoin/diagrams/master/anc1212blocks.png

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:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/drakoin/diagrams/master/anc_fast-blocks.png

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.  

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/4b/4be559cad62cf55e208f5266472e6e3ceeb4e28ce8c63b9f082f5594a0738d3b.jpg

[Simcom]

lol how much are they paying you? Your 3rd trolling account in as many weeks. someone is desperately trying to shake out weak hands.

[AnonCoinTwitter]

troll post deleted

lol how much are they paying you? Your 3rd trolling account in as many weeks. someone is desperately trying to shake out weak hands.

Hardfork to fix mining difficulty is imminent and Zerocoin beta is days away.

We are now traded on Bittrex.  Soon the world will notice our Zero Knowledge anonymous transactions and widespread adoption will begin.

I no longer fear trolls. They are too late.