***The XC Daily Update***
Hello all It's been confirmed by the developers that XChat will include voice calling in post-Rev 3 editions, and video calling further into the future. So basically we have a decentralised, private, Skype.  Here's to the future! Good lord! Feel like my head is about to explode. So you are telling me when this is all completed we could install the XCurrency App on our phone run an XNode automatically while staking at the same time and have private Skype functionality?!?!? Yes, that is what they are telling you. AFK while I sell my house... Precisely. XC's design has had mobile platforms in mind from the outset. |
|
|
|
***The XC Daily Update***
Hello all It's been confirmed by the developers that XChat will include voice calling in post-Rev 3 editions, and video calling further into the future. So basically we have a decentralised, private, Skype. https://i.imgur.com/eYlbx70.jpgHere's to the future! OH. MY.... That is from a mobile screenshot.... That's just a mockup. Yes, of course, but that shows what the team is thinking.  Indeed :-) |
|
|
|
***The XC Daily Update***
Hello all It's been confirmed by the developers that XChat will include voice calling in post-Rev 3 editions, and video calling further into the future. So basically we have a decentralised, private, Skype. https://i.imgur.com/eYlbx70.jpgHere's to the future! OH. MY.... That is from a mobile screenshot.... That's just a mockup. |
|
|
|
***The XC Daily Update***
Hello all It's been confirmed by the developers that XChat will include voice calling in post-Rev 3 editions, and video calling further into the future. So basically we have a decentralised, private, Skype. Here's to the future!
|
|
|
|
- the node will be identifiable as the sender of the fragments
- the node will not be identifiable as the originator of the payment that the fragments partly comprise
So any node within a path can divide it to further fragments? This mean that the node count involved in a path grows exponentially? No, it just means that any given node can't tell whether what it's received is the original transaction or a fragment. |
|
|
|
The goal when ddos'ing nodes is to first set up many nodes yourself, then ddos the other nodes, so you can then have a control of big enough percentage of the nodes so you can spy the transactions with good enough success. Again, since transactions are fragmented into small pieces and then sent through the network, this attack would not be effective. The attacker could try to spy the network, but the truth of the matter is that the remaining good nodes are still going to end up handling the transactions, however few they may be. But again, since every single wallet is a node, I just don't see this attack being feasible. How can you tell which nodes are good and which nodes are spying? You can't. You can't spy productively on XC nodes because private transactions are fragmented and because every node forwards them trustless. This creates a scenario where there's no telling if the sender/recipient of a fragment is the original sender or final recipient, and there's no telling whether the amount sent is the whole amount. Furthermore since fragments can be sent, even non-private transactions become "private" in this respect, since the amount sent could be a fragment, and so a spy has no grounds to assert that the amount sent/received is the total amount, or that the sender/recipient is the original sender/final recipient. If the attacker is controlling nodes A and B, and they both receive fragments (= XC encrypted messages?) from the same IP at the same time, he knows that is the IP of the sender, not another node forwarding fragments. And if the attacker is controlling all nodes in a path starting from A or B, he knows the sending and receiving addresses. Or is this totally wrong? Hmm... let's say that an attacker controlling two nodes receives fragments from a single other node at the same time: - the node's IP will be concealed due to it being either on TOR or something proprietary which I can't reveal yet. (TOR is current - the XC TOR Stick is releasing on Thur next week; it's its own OS, runs as a TOR node, and does payments and XChat. However in future there are other, even more secure plans...) - the node will be identifiable as the sender of the fragments - the node will not be identifiable as the originator of the payment that the fragments partly comprise - the node will not be identifiable as the sender of the payment - if it's a message rather than a private payment, it's not forwarded but sent directly to the recipient and encrypted from end to end, so to snoop on it you'd need to decrypt it (which is computationally infeasible). - even if attacker nodes happen to receive all the fragments of a transaction, there will be no way to know that this is the case, and so the amount sent will not be ascertainable. |
|
|
|
anybody can paste a screenshot of EM? we don't have mac version  Here you go:  |
|
|
|
This is not a discuses anyone more ... everyone is just throwing his coin in here and trying to advertise so their coin gets pumped how pathetic is this really... Please stay on the topic and let us only focus on DARKCOIN and CLOAKCOIN. Can we do this ? Thank you
I feel we should discuss any Anon coin as long as its related to similar protocols so they are comparable.. If you want a thread on a one vs one, then i suggest you create a self moderated topic so you can do that. Then you don't understood why we made this thread in the first place.... If there's general consensus that this thread should only be concerned with Cloak and DRK then I'm quite happy to not talk about XC. I have no intention of irritating you guys. On the other hand, if there's a general interest in viable anon systems - since Cloak and DRK are hardly the only significant contenders - then I'd say that discussing XC is pretty valuable. |
|
|
|
The goal when ddos'ing nodes is to first set up many nodes yourself, then ddos the other nodes, so you can then have a control of big enough percentage of the nodes so you can spy the transactions with good enough success. Again, since transactions are fragmented into small pieces and then sent through the network, this attack would not be effective. The attacker could try to spy the network, but the truth of the matter is that the remaining good nodes are still going to end up handling the transactions, however few they may be. But again, since every single wallet is a node, I just don't see this attack being feasible. How can you tell which nodes are good and which nodes are spying? You can't. You can't spy productively on XC nodes because private transactions are fragmented and because every node forwards them trustless. This creates a scenario where there's no telling if the sender/recipient of a fragment is the original sender or final recipient, and there's no telling whether the amount sent is the whole amount. Furthermore since fragments can be sent, even non-private transactions become "private" in this respect, since the amount sent could be a fragment, and so a spy has no grounds to assert that the amount sent/received is the total amount, or that the sender/recipient is the original sender/final recipient. |
|
|
|
I don't get it but ok I guess.  If people can only use their wallets to make payments or to stake, there's no incentive to run them that often. However if your wallet has XChat, that is, true P2P instant messaging with end-to-end encryption and IP obfuscation, then you'll use it a whole lot more often. You'll use it every time you chat to someone. So there'll be larger percentage of XC nodes running at any given point due to XChat. |
|
|
|
You're right about Cryptonote coins. I should've worded my statement more carefully.
My opinion of Cryptonote is that it causes an unworkable degree of blockchain bloat - so much so that it's unlikely to scale even on PCs, never mind on mobile phones. Boolberry have made hotly disputed claims about being able to reduce bloat, but to my knowledge this has not been implemented yet.
If a coin bloats, then in my opinion it should not be considered "workable", since it simply can't scale to mainstream (or even sizeable niche) adoption.
So although there's a clear sense in which Cryptonote coins are "working", there's also a clear sense in which they're not workable solutions.
XC, on the other hand, is designed from the ground up for mobile. It's eminently scalable.
I'm confused, are you suggesting that mobile devices will run a full node? That seems ill-advised for XC or Monero or any other cryptocurrency. Some mobile devices will run with a full node. They'll stake and everything. Other devices (say, dumbphones) that can't run a node will end up using PoBC. The basic idea is: - dumbphone node contacts other nodes - provably establishes that the other nodes' blockchains are legit - thereby proves that a given tx is legit Why would you say that this is ill-advised? In my view mobile-friendliness is absolutely critical to mainstream adoption. |
|
|
|
You're right that it's quite possible to DDOS any coin's nodes like this.
However it'll take up massively more resources to DDOS XC nodes with any noticeable severity, since every single node is a "masternode". The number of nodes an attacker would need to control is proportionally huge.
Disagree. Not every XC user will run their wallet 24/7 - how many nodes are there right now? There are 800+ DRK masternodes running 24/7 atm. Even though some people are running DRK masternodes in their home computers behind adsl or cable connections, most of them are still on dedicated servers or clouds that have gigabit connections. I would imagine it is completely opposite in XC's case. It doesn't take much to ddos someones laptop running on dsl or 3g phone. Obviously this is not easily quantifiable, but the bolded part is just not true imo. There'll be absolutely masses of running nodes on XC's network. Because of XChat:  |
|
|
|
Every coin says this. Nothing against xc but do coins not check if others have currently working anon?
Fair point. Maybe I haven't checked sufficiently. Who else has it? Let me know and I might be able to qualify what I mean by "working" and "anonymity". ;-) All of the CryptoNote coins do (Monero, Boolberry, Bytecoin (BCN) etc.) They have working anonymity from their launch. If you take Bytecoin's claim at face value (it's pretty clear it's bullshit) they have been around for 2 years. Even knowing that it's likely a false claim meant to cover up their 82% premine, you still come face-to-face with an indisputable fact: Bytecoin's first commit to github was on 15 November 2013, and already then the code worked and provided cryptographically untraceable and unlinkable transactions. Monero, too, was launched (fairly) on 18 April 2014, before XC even came into existence. As much as I think Bytecoin is a fail because of their premine, they are the ONLY ones that can lay claim to having the FIRST "working anonymity". Monero and the all the other CryptoNote coins can lay claim to being the ONLY cryptocurrencies that currently have a 100% working solution to cryptographically untraceable and unlinkable transactions. If you don't believe me, pick any transaction on the Monero blockchain (eg. http://monerochain.info/tx/49ee290a4e65bc554382089d778c1ac26b20a5b6044d3fa4b1767780e2617546) and try figure out the address of the person that sent the coins, the address of the person they were sending to, and they amount. I'll gladly even setup two wallets and transfer between them and give you the transaction ID to give it a try. Oh and these transactions are instantaneous, no waiting for a mixing hop to finish or anything. You're right about Cryptonote coins. I should've worded my statement more carefully. My opinion of Cryptonote is that it causes an unworkable degree of blockchain bloat - so much so that it's unlikely to scale even on PCs, never mind on mobile phones. Boolberry have made hotly disputed claims about being able to reduce bloat, but to my knowledge this has not been implemented yet. If a coin bloats, then in my opinion it should not be considered "workable", since it simply can't scale to mainstream (or even sizeable niche) adoption. So although there's a clear sense in which Cryptonote coins are "working", there's also a clear sense in which they're not workable solutions. XC, on the other hand, is designed from the ground up for mobile. It's eminently scalable. |
|
|
|
Glad to hear that Darkcoin has built-in protection for this attack vector, it's certainly a valid concern.
It doesn't have that, it was just something I was suggesting in DRK thread earlier and asking what people's thoughts about it are. But if the idea is feasible and provides additional security, the implementation probably should be pretty straightforward. XC does also, in that every single wallet is a node. Thus, there's no central point that can be targeted for a ddos.
It's the same thing. XC node that participates in anonymization requires an open incoming TCP port, and the attacker can ddos those nodes just as well as drk masternodes. In addition, transactions are multisig so they require several parties to sign before they are processed. If a bad node alters a transaction to steal funds, or refuses to sign, the transaction won't be processed, so you can't lose funds. Also, since there are redundant connections between nodes that provide multiple pathways for funds, if a node fails to sign a transaction there are others ready to take its place. Pretty cool stuff, really.
The goal when ddos'ing nodes is to first set up many nodes yourself, then ddos the other nodes, so you can then have a control of big enough percentage of the nodes so you can spy the transactions with good enough success. You're right that it's quite possible to DDOS any coin's nodes like this. However it'll take up massively more resources to DDOS XC nodes with any noticeable severity, since every single node is a "masternode". The number of nodes an attacker would need to control is proportionally huge. |
|
|
|
- XC is the only project with an already-implemented anonymity solution that is currently working.
Every coin says this. Nothing against xc but do coins not check if others have currently working anon? Fair point. Maybe I haven't checked sufficiently. Who else has it? Let me know and I might be able to qualify what I mean by "working" and "anonymity". ;-) |
|
|
|
Why don't you include Monero?
Most likely due to the fact that the DRK thread has been filling up with CLOAK talk. Regarding DRK, looks like they are getting closer to releasing RC4 with yesterday's release. I am open to listing other coins, if someone can give me pros and cons with sources like in post #1. Sure. |
|
|
|
"Quote from: numisma on Today at 11:39:20 AM While we're at it, why not add XCurrency also into this discussion? All three coins are in the same basket, aren't they? Sure i am open to that, can you send me some pros and cons with sources to each point?" this could be cool to be part of: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=718489.0I can only come up with pros though  - fully decentralised trustless privacy feature, world first - known and reputable dev and Team, http://xc-official.com/the-xc-team/- helpfull community and spirit (at least we could capitalise on keycoin review here on our own) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=695457.msg8092391#msg8092391- EM , Blockchain 2.0 what would be the source for the first , the OP? what else comes to mind? Btw synechist I think you should talk to Dan and tackle the topic hoertest addressed to us. I think there are many eyes in that topic w8ing to find something promising.
Posted.Thanks Arlyn, I have a feeling your post may cause some strong reactions from other alt supporters. I hope that thread can stay rational and on topic but you may have your hands full Indeed. I'm up for it. I'll write respectfully to counterbalance the offense XC's tech will cause. Ha ha. |
|
|
|
"Quote from: numisma on Today at 11:39:20 AM While we're at it, why not add XCurrency also into this discussion? All three coins are in the same basket, aren't they? Sure i am open to that, can you send me some pros and cons with sources to each point?" this could be cool to be part of: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=718489.0I can only come up with pros though - fully decentralised trustless privacy feature, world first - known and reputable dev and Team, http://xc-official.com/the-xc-team/- helpfull community and spirit (at least we could capitalise on keycoin review here on our own) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=695457.msg8092391#msg8092391- EM , Blockchain 2.0 what would be the source for the first , the OP? what else comes to mind? Btw synechist I think you should talk to Dan and tackle the topic hoertest addressed to us. I think there are many eyes in that topic w8ing to find something promising.
Posted. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
