Dynamic trust learns, Multi-path is pretty self explanatory, coins take MULTIPLE path's to reach destination, they are split and broken off into smaller and smaller pieces and sent over tons of addresses.
Thanks. So does "dymamic trust" relate or help with the issue of having to trust the mixer? |
|
|
|
Is there anyone who would be kind enough to explain. 1. Dymanic trust 2. Multipath Thanks you  |
|
|
|
Was there a court case that game them ownership of the coins? Or do they just do whatever they want? |
|
|
|
Here, I am done - I think this makes sense.
Read this while reviewing the flow chaeplin posted:
The transactions sent from the mixer (C) to the end address is of a set size (his example was 10). This is D.
He can then search the blockchain for possible candidates (value 10) via a script. Which gets us to block 28531 - this matches the 10.00 XC value. This can be linked at blocked 28533 with the mixer C - we already know C (output 9.99999).
This allows him to trace back to 28531 in the blockchain - to find the values that == 10.00 and match to a specific address - in this case: XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa which is B.
You can then take all the transactions for this address B - review them and find two matching amounts that == 10 which belong to one single address. This address is A. Since this address B has never been used before this transaction - this is easy to do - and - even if it had multiple transactions - they would not all related back to one single point with one single value (10).
Just for the record, - I think this is right.
Again - I'm participating to participate - nothing else.
If my logic is flawed, let me know please, this is vexing me - because this looks right and all I get is nothing constructive back.
Thank you . |
|
|
|
B and C can be used to single input.
Do you mean B and C can be used connected to single input. ? If you mean this then HOW can they be ? |
|
|
|
Incorrect.
A ----> B mixer :: C mixer ----> D
I have found B and C.
As transaction A and D is revealed.
Follow transaction
Dev question was 'Is there link between B and C'.
And what is your answer? Are you saying because the mixer address had never been used...it must be a mixer address and that this links A and D? |
|
|
|
ATCSecure has responded NUMEROUS times that by rev 2 with multi-path, this is a non-issue. Why should he waste any more time on a pattern matcher when this exact problem won't be a problem any more?
So...Chaeplin is guessing and getting at least part of it right because there is a "single path" (and not too many variables) ...but when there is a "multi path" this will all be mixed up too much? |
|
|
|
You guys should look at this seriously. I think it can be fixed relatively easily - but if it's ignored it could be a problem for you later.
Chaeplin spent a bunch of time working through every detail to get you a step by step description of the issue.
And no one is responding seriously, no one has given a counter analysis - that is not a good sign for investors.
Can someone show where chaeplin's analysis is flawed? No one has directly responded at any point. Quote a post - draw lines...whatever you need to do.
I came to the same conclusion as him after reviewing a series of transactions yesterday - but it was annoying and took me a long time. If this isn't an issue - can someone just point out where? Or create a counter-example? If you want to be taken seriously - I'm pretty sure it's important and shouldn't be brushed off like it's nothing.
I don't know how you can call it FUD and ignore it......he walked you through the problem.
If you don't understand it...fine - let someone who does argue a counter-analysis. Don't just call it FUD because you don't understand what is going on.
I agree. This a problem when the bounty is only 100XC. It's maybe not enough to get serious analysis from multiple people |
|
|
|
but i can tell he's not worth watching when i see that doggycoin frame.
Might just mean he has a sense of humour. IIUC he is a security expert and crypto fan with at least some credibility. |
|
|
|
Tends to happen with all market leaders.
Toyota is the world's largest car manufacturer today, yet they didn't start till the 1930's. But maybe the tautology was tongue in cheek  |
|
|
|
2. DRK has a mixer (coinjoin) XC has a mixer that is also encrypted? Better for XC?
Did you not read the post above yours - XC mixer is flawed - hard link is proven I know Chaeplin has lamented that he wishes his English was better (but hey he probably speaks more languages than myself).. So it's not clear to me what was proven. But since you believe it has been proven can you explain it to us. Remembering Albert Einsteins words. " If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." |
|
|
|
He still never mentions XC in His Program on youtube,
He mentions it here, and says he would not recommend speculating on it as he hasn't looked at the code. Which is good as we'd have to pay more if he looked at it and liked it. From about the 18 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHlBMFM2ZXg |
|
|
|
He still never mentions XC in His Program on youtube,
Can you link to that youtube video? Thanks |
|
|
|
|
I wanted to do a comparison between DRK and XC, and I invite input from anyone.
It seems that DRK has an advantage in that it preceded XC and gained a significant following before XC appeared. However after that I'm not sure how it is better.
1. DRK relies on Masternodes. With XC each wallet can act as a node. Better for XC?
2. DRK has a mixer (coinjoin) XC has a mixer that is also encrypted? Better for XC?
3. Both coins have talented developers, but XC 's developer has important business experience too, which may help in gaining widespread adoption...?
4. It is claimed that XC is building an entire platform ? Is DRK doing this or seeing it as important?
5. The name Darkcoin is very different in it's connotations to XC 11 coin. Will Darkcoins name possibly impede it's progress?
6. DRK presently trades much bigger volume and is on at least one bigger important exchange
7. XC is a lot cheaper.
I welcome discussion and am happy to be proved wrong if I have got any facts wrong
|
|
|
|
|
So Monero and Quazar are very similar.
Monero is doing pretty well.
Quazar is doing poorly.
What is Monero doing that Quazar is not that is making the difference?
One obvious thing is that Monero has several developers
|
|
|
|
Heard this several times on the channel as well, thanks for your input. 30k is too much - I'm requesting 10K from the dev. Pretty confident he'll be OK with that. Keep in mind, this app is usable RIGHT NOW. Thankfully Apple changed their stance on crypto recently. He's put of fair bit of time into the dev work and is focussed on releasing new mobile features. He'll be working on the SMS app tonight, but targeting the weekend to have it out.
Alliance
What apps has the Developer done before? Did Apple change their stance on all cryptos? |
|
|
|
Chaplaen has been shown to be incapable of linking the transactions. That is good enough for me and for the 1% who it is not good enough for read - hidden agenda...
That's good, but who is Chaeplin, and why is what he says or does the the final word? But things have moved very very well so far in a short space of time |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
