To view the list of links, please access this site using Tor Browser.
If you’re seeing this message, access is restricted for regular browsers.
Already using Tor? If you are sure you’re currently in Tor Browser, proceed to our .onion version:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2505.02392
But usually, it’s not a big deal because users trust these providers not to share details like timestamps, amounts, or other info
Authorities have tracked down major operators, likely due to the on-chain trail left by Retoswap activities.
Proceed with extreme caution.
thinking to address this paper, increasing trade statistic randomization to +-10%, and adding a random delay to when trade stats are published. using higher fees to discern trades is already addressed
You should not trust coinswap services to not disclose to anyone.
That's not something you can fix except finding another system for escrow (rewrite most of the trade logic)) or having more independent arbitrators to prevent being the one attributed to the same trade.
How was the commit released before the research paper? I thought the commit is an reaction to the paper. It isn't.
weather this commit is significantly reducing the chance of tracking or not? I really doubt,
Darknet users who trust these platforms are walking into a trap, a honeypot designed to expose them.
This isn’t privacy. It’s a prison. Use extreme caution!
And let’s not forget, you wouldn’t even be able to use your own liquidity without those liquidity providers you’re now trashing. It’s obvious you’ve made enough fees from your 81 swaps and now suddenly call them honeypots. Are you seriously implying that your own service used to be a honeypot? Since you relied on those liquidity providers yourself, you’re essentially admitting you were complicit all along.
Calling us complicit misses the point, our system cuts down on data retention and custody risks, which means fewer ways for anyone to track or attack users. When we say “honeypot,” we’re talking about structural vulnerabilities, not how many fees someone’s made.
On top of that, the community should really question those thousands of trades shown on your site that never actually happened on your platform. That’s a red flag for data accuracy and user privacy.
Anyway, at the end of the day, our focus is on protecting privacy and offering truly secure peer-to-peer trades.
Visit openmonero.markets for trade stats
If those trades didn’t happen on your platform, what exactly are you showing?
dumpliwoard5qsrrsroni7bdiishealhky4snigbzfmzcquwo3kml4id onion/image/84840887e580c836.png
dumpliwoard5qsrrsroni7bdiishealhky4snigbzfmzcquwo3kml4id onion/image/81d5cfd2f004b9c1.png
dumpliwoard5qsrrsroni7bdiishealhky4snigbzfmzcquwo3kml4id onion/image/18aab946f9876d55.png
dumpliwoard5qsrrsroni7bdiishealhky4snigbzfmzcquwo3kml4id onion/image/9a885a44a18902cd.png
dumpliwoard5qsrrsroni7bdiishealhky4snigbzfmzcquwo3kml4id onion/image/f89c3c61e57a115b.png
If your site “shows external trades as well” then explain this:
Total Trades: 22,794
External Trades: 3,587
Simple math says 19,207 trades are “non-external”, meaning they’re claimed as happening on your platform. Yet you just stated OpenMonero hasn’t even reached 1,000 trades.
So which is it?
This isn’t a small oversight. It’s a deliberate design to mislead users into believing there’s high trust and activity. And this isn’t an isolated case. In the rest of the user profiles in screenshots I’ve taken, the same pattern appears, some even worse than this one. In many cases the math doesn’t just fail, it completely exposes how misleading these stats really are.
Care to clarify?
There are 3 ways to see the internal trades:
frontpage
if you hover on the username, you will see all stats for each domain/platform
openmonero.markets
go to section "Top 20 Vendors" to see internal trades for each vendor
public profile
total trades - LM trades (see container for reputation imports) = internal trades
NOTE: It is not possible to register an OM username, that is already taken on localmonero since both platforms are syncronized, you have to add import key to LM pub profile
This isn’t transparency, it’s deception by design. You’re padding user reputations with trades and feedback that never happened on OpenMonero, creating a fake sense of trust and liquidity.
Call it clever marketing if you want, but the community sees it for what it really is: classic FUD shilling.
Why should reputation be locked into just one platform? As long as transparency is maintained, which it is, there's nothing suspicious about this approach. Platforms like LocalMonero and LocalBitcoins have operated similarly. You can also see a star symbol for imports like LCS, paxful, noones, etc, indicating that the reputation encompasses both internal and external trading stats.
Your kind of thinking seems to come from someone with very limited freedom. It's amusing that you often talk about freedom as if it’s your hallmark, yet your comments suggest that feedback and reputation stats should be confined to a single centralized platform. Why do you want to restrict vendors’ freedom? Their reputation is earned through their efforts, and it should be portable, importable and exportable, so vendors don't lose years of accumulated reputation if a platform closes.
Portability of reputation is only ethical when it’s clearly and unmistakably separated. What you’re doing is blending internal and external stats so seamlessly that casual users are misled into believing all those trades happened on your platform. That’s not empowering vendors, it’s deceiving buyers.
LocalMonero and LocalBitcoins never had to resort to this. They earned trust with clarity and integrity, not smoke and mirrors. You’re not giving freedom, you’re giving users a false sense of security.
It is worth noting that the openmonero platform is fully open source, whereas yours is not. The OM platform comprises four repositories, three for the frontend and one for the backend.
Why do you think openmonero is approaching 1,000 trades so rapidly? It is due to established trust, a seamless user experience, and exceptional support, factors that demand significant effort. I sincerely wish your service the best, however, it might be better for you to consider transitioning to an openmonero instance.
Have you ever thought running an OpenMoenro instance? You can clone openmonero-dex and openmonero-dex-api on my git instance.
An OM instance could enhance trust and user experience within your community, since the reputation system is decentralized and the order book is federated across all OM instances. Nevertheless, such improvements will be insufficient without 24/7 support to assist your users.