Whoever has all of the sell orders between 160-170k needs to pull them. There's a lot more money to be made then at that price mate.
Indeed. We will be making an announcement later today. Geez man, give the market a break, im still trying to "mine" from multipool. Lemme get some 0.000XC more !!!  Sorry man :-). Keeping up with the pace of XC's development is going to prove quite the task for everyone! |
|
|
|
Whoever has all of the sell orders between 160-170k needs to pull them. There's a lot more money to be made then at that price mate.
Indeed. We will be making an announcement later today. |
|
|
|
Huge momentum buildinh will carry us over 002 this evening. Get on board.
And the wallet release isn't even out yet. Multipath is huge. I can't wait to see the effect it'll have. |
|
|
|
|
Righto fellows, I think I'm gonna make a dent in that little sell wall. The dev's releasing a new wallet version today. Woohoo!
|
|
|
|
Btw, is there a proper way to stake my coins?
I asked the Dev back then about my wallet not staking even though its been days and was told to be patient.
Well its been weeks now and I have yet to see anything even with over 10k coins sitting in my wallet. (v1.41)
Wallet has been encrypted and always unlocked to stake.
Anyone got their wallet to stake? If so, can you share how you got it to work?
8 - 30 days is the time period, so you'll have new coins within a month. Future versions of the wallet should improve user-friendliness (by, for example, informing you whether they're configured properly). We're also putting out user guides rather soon. P.S. Synarchist? As in, instead of the ideal of no political order, an ideal of continuity in political order? Sneaky. Thing is, its been almost a month. It should NOT take this long. Anyway, Ill move my coins around and stake again to see if that helps. P.S. If you simply remove certain assumptions, you may find your answer.  I think the point is that it *should* take this long, since the staking period is any length of time up to 30 days. Moving your coins around and staking again will just mean you'll lose your current stake and create the possibility of waiting close to 60 days before you get new coins. That said, it's possible you have an incorrectly configured wallet. Try posting your settings here and see if anyone can spot an issue. P.S. What assumptions do you mean? |
|
|
|
Btw, is there a proper way to stake my coins?
I asked the Dev back then about my wallet not staking even though its been days and was told to be patient.
Well its been weeks now and I have yet to see anything even with over 10k coins sitting in my wallet. (v1.41)
Wallet has been encrypted and always unlocked to stake.
Anyone got their wallet to stake? If so, can you share how you got it to work?
8 - 30 days is the time period, so you'll have new coins within a month. Future versions of the wallet should improve user-friendliness (by, for example, informing you whether they're configured properly). We're also putting out user guides rather soon. P.S. Synarchist? As in, instead of the ideal of no political order, an ideal of continuity in political order? Sneaky. |
|
|
|
Thanks to synechist for breaking everything down clearly for the less technically inclined to follow.
When Rev 2 is released I'll donate to the bounty.
Im with ^^ Only a pleasure. A central aspect of my role is to nullify FUD. FUD feeds on ambiguity - in this case the opacity of Chaeplin's case - and so the obvious thing to do was to make the case transparent. Henceforth, it's gonna be hard for anyone to spread FUD based on Chaeplin's case, since we now know exactly what he did and did not achieve. Yours in FUD-nullity Synechist |
|
|
|
Team, please setup an official donation adress for the bounty that will be paid to anyone finding the sender adress. I think, we should make it much more than 1 BTC to attract more ppl with the potential to crack it. I guess there are a lot of people willing to donate including me.
the big one should be left for rev2 the final product when its no longer about bug fixing but more as a promo gig, synechist will probably already have it planned, synechist please leave chaep behind and concentrate on promotion, not worth the effort i hope everybody knows that by now. Yes, I think the issue has now been laid to rest. I felt it was worthwhile to work out exactly what Chaeplin had done and to explain it in plain English sentences, so that anyone with the patience to digest them can understand the case. Now that that's been done (and in the absence of a retort of some substance from Chaeplin), there's no further reason for the community to wonder about it. It's properly behind us now. On to the next! which logo won the contest? and when will the source code include the new logo? Thrash won the contest. His team is working on the branding, which includes refining the logo further. Once that's all done you'll see it everywhere. |
|
|
|
Team, please setup an official donation adress for the bounty that will be paid to anyone finding the sender adress. I think, we should make it much more than 1 BTC to attract more ppl with the potential to crack it. I guess there are a lot of people willing to donate including me.
the big one should be left for rev2 the final product when its no longer about bug fixing but more as a promo gig, synechist will probably already have it planned, synechist please leave chaep behind and concentrate on promotion, not worth the effort i hope everybody knows that by now. Yes, I think the issue has now been laid to rest. I felt it was worthwhile to work out exactly what Chaeplin had done and to explain it in plain English sentences, so that anyone with the patience to digest them can understand the case. Now that that's been done (and in the absence of a retort of some substance from Chaeplin), there's no further reason for the community to wonder about it. It's properly behind us now. On to the next! |
|
|
|
SO Chaeplin couldn't prove any thing so he tries to stir up the debate with non-trivial information.
Lets ALL BE CLEAR - PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL SENDERS ADDRESS or STFU!!!!!
Can you deny this ? Is not single entity ? This is your a Xnode address. So that was REV1 code, we are now REV1.5, I posted the transaction details yesterday for testing... get with the program Not interested. "So that was REV1 code," oh hard link exists. I am done. No, ATCSECURE did not assert that a hard link exists. |
|
|
|
Hi everyone. I thought I'd make some sense of the work that Chaeplin has done on XC. (Summary: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7270701#msg7270701.) First, this is what ATCSECURE provided:
- Sender address: ?
- Wallet B: XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G
- Wallet C: XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV
- Recipient address: XVrqrpe2ZDmykAnjcAHN6McbuDEjBZSvRZ
- Payment process: "The mixer tells the [sender address] to send coins to wallet b, however wallet C is used to send coins to the [recipient address], there is NO link from wallet B to wallet C unless somebody manually moves the coins from C to B."
- Aspect of payment being tested: the assertion that there is no link in the Blockchain from Wallet B to Wallet C. Testers are required to falsify this claim in order to receive a bounty.
This is what Chaeplin did:
1. He utilised a technique known as "Satoshi Spam," which is a matter of sending tiny amounts to addresses. One can use this to watch where the money flows in order to work out which addresses have common ownership. 2. Satoshi Spam is based on the pre-coinjoin principle that, given a transaction with multiple inputs and a single output, it follows that the inputs are owned by the same entity. For example, if 7 addresses were spammed with BTC 0.000001 and then all of these addresses were used to pay the resulting amount to another address, one can thereby conclude that the 7 addresses are owned by one person, and in all likelihood are in the same wallet. 3. However, coinjoin falsifies the assumption behind Satoshi Spam because coinjoin uses input addresses owned by several parties are to pay one or more recipient addresses. Thus if coinjoin is even partly implemented for a given coin, it becomes false to assume that one party owns the input addresses, since it's possible that there could be several owners. 4. Chaeplin implemented Satoshi Spam by sending small amounts to Wallet B and Wallet C. 5. His intention was to watch the blockchain to see where the amounts he sent to Wallets B and C would end up when the wallets spent the money. 6. His observation of the blockchain revealed the following information: - Wallets B and C sent payments somewhere, but the outputs are not given in the blockchain - Wallets B and C also paid transaction fees for the payments, but the addresses they're paid to are not given in the blockchain 7. With this information, Chaeplin constructs the following account: - Once Wallets B and C spend the money sent to them, the transaction is recorded in the blockchain, though the recipient address is not. - Nonetheless, he has a record that Wallets B and C spent the money. - On one occasion, Wallet B spends money, and at a similar time, Wallet C pays a transaction fee. - Therefore Wallets B and C are owned by the same entity. 8. However this is obviously false, because: - there's no record in the blockchain linking Wallet B's transaction with Wallet C's transaction fee. - there's no record in the blockchain that a single address received the money that Wallets B and C spent. Therefore Chaeplin did not establish proof of a link between Wallets B and C. Additional comments:
- This analysis is tentative. I might be incorrect about what Chaeplin did. He does not explain why he pastes code and blockchain records in his comments, so it's impossible to be certain about what is argument actually is. I've tried to reconstruct his thought process from what he posted. - Chaeplin appears to have only a vague grasp of the strategy behind Satoshi Spam. Just as it is ineffective when coinjoin is implemented, it is ineffective when output addresses are not shown, as with XC. - Chaeplin has clearly shown that a payment from Wallet B and another payment (probably a transaction fee) from Wallet C co-occurred. - However Chaeplin conflates co-occurrence with a "hard link". Just because a payment from one address and a fee from another address appear in a blockchain at similar times, it does not entail that the two are associated in any way. Even if the blockchain was brand new and consisted of only these two payments, this implication would not be established. Co-occurrence is categorically distinct from a record that one address paid another. - However in my opinion it would be wrong to conclude that Chaeplin is a fudder, since we do not have a "hard link" proving his intentions. There is evidence, sure, but let's not make Chaeplin's mistake of conflating possibility with certainty. We would act honourably by giving him the benefit of the doubt. And in acting honourably, we raise the ethic of this thread, which makes XC's community more attractive. Let's do XC proud. Your statement is wrong. You explain exactly, spamming and common ownership. Xc hasn't implemented coinjoin yet (May be I am wrong)
So, if outputs of two tx are spent in a single tx, B and C is belong to single entity. ... This is the single tx, I provided. check blcok no. 29113 http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?97299.htmCheck input index 14, 18 ndex Previous output Address Amount
14 d191290208e3...:1 XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G 0.03 XC
18 c352aeeeaea9...:1 XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G 0.003 XC
Chaeplin I've just discovered something that establishes the "proof" you are looking for (though it's not yet sufficient). And for this the community is grateful. You asked us to check indices 14 and 18 on block 29113 ( http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?97299.htm). However you should have asked us to check indices 9 and 14: - In index 9, the input address is XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV, which is wallet C. - In index 14, the input address is XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G, which is wallet B. - They have common outputs, establishing that they are owned by the same entity. The question now is: how does this impact ATCsecure's test? Here is the scenario, now updated to include your work: 1. The blockchain reveals that the sender paid wallet B, and wallet C paid the recipient. 2. Your satoshi spamming reveals that wallets B and C are owned by the same entity. 3. Since wallets B and C are owned by the same entity, either: 3a. the owner of wallets B and C passed on a payment to the recipient on behalf of the sender. 3b. the sender paid the owner of wallets B and C for something, and the owner of the wallets then, independently, made a payment to wallet D for something else entirely. 4. If 3b is the case, then it is not true that the sender paid the recipient. 5. Nobody can eliminate the possibility that 3b is the case. 6. Therefore there is no proof that the sender paid the recipient. Conclusion:
In other words, even though you have a "hard link" on the blockchain proving common ownership of wallets B and C, there is no "hard link" proving that wallet A paid wallet D, since it is possible that 3b is the case. The bounty was to prove that wallet A paid wallet D. You have not proved this. In addition you have not found the sender's address. However I think you have made a substantial contribution to the conversation about XC's design. I think that the dev team will value your work and will use it to continue to improve XC's anonymity. (For example, xnodes could be designed to not use multiple inputs when making payments). so thank you very much for your contribution. I hope you will continue to support XC! I understand that English is not your first language, but in future please try to state your argument in plain English. Otherwise it is very, very hard to understand what you are saying. It is not sufficient to just paste code or links. You need to explain why. P.S. I might be mistaken about all this. Anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
8. However this is obviously false, because:
- there's no record in the blockchain linking Wallet B's transaction with Wallet C's transaction fee.
- there's no record in the blockchain that a single address received the money that Wallets B and C spent.
Therefore Chaeplin did not establish proof of a link between Wallets B and C.
So, if outputs of two tx are spent in a single tx, B and C is belong to single entity. And I provided it. Thanks for the reply Chaeplin. I have studied the blockchain and read your post several times and I still cannot see that you provided a direct link. [EDIT: You asked me to check indices 14 and 18. They are from the same address, wallet B. This does not prove that wallet B and C are owned by the same entity.] In which transaction were Wallets B and C used as inputs? Which address is the output of this transaction? Please do not only paste code. You need to also establish what the code implies, using normal English. Alternatively, write in your first language and we will try to find someone to translate it for us. |
|
|
|
[snip] great summary, given the fact that he backed out of the newest challange for the multipath beta i think his intentions are clear now. but that doesn'T metter after all, the whole process helped XC finally but since that wasn't his personal intention (rather the opposite) there is no need for a thank you or any kind of forgiving gesture either. the status quo is this: the only guy who could find the sender with a method that wasn 100% fair play anyway can no longer find it now with REV1.5 !!! the test is still running so i don't celebrate before the final wistle Chaeplin's stated reason for not testing the new release is that he believes ATCSECURE did not acknowledge the hard link Chaeplin provided. I think that we are obliged to give Chaeplin the benefit of the doubt here regarding his beliefs, since we have no proof of the contrary. If I were in his position and genuinely believed that I'd been hard done by, I'd also be unwilling to continue. It's just unfortunate that he's mistaken in his belief. That's all it comes down to, in my opinion. As an aside, I think it's a good idea to be gracious to one's opponents. It makes one a good sport. We gain nothing by being victorious and mean. come on , he allwys kept going without bountys or any acknowledgement and the moment his method doesn't work anymore he plays the emotionally hurt? whatever. i also think its not the moment to confront him but i can understand some people can'T hold back right now. just be happy for the achievments of the whole XC team. well done boys. You're right: we have no reason to believe that he's telling the truth. But what I mean is that we have no proof that he's not telling the truth, so it's better for us if we just accept his reasons. |
|
|
|
[snip] great summary, given the fact that he backed out of the newest challange for the multipath beta i think his intentions are clear now. but that doesn'T metter after all, the whole process helped XC finally but since that wasn't his personal intention (rather the opposite) there is no need for a thank you or any kind of forgiving gesture either. the status quo is this: the only guy who could find the sender with a method that wasn 100% fair play anyway can no longer find it now with REV1.5 !!! the test is still running so i don't celebrate before the final wistle Chaeplin's stated reason for not testing the new release is that he believes ATCSECURE did not acknowledge the hard link Chaeplin provided. I think that we are obliged to give Chaeplin the benefit of the doubt here regarding his beliefs, since we have no proof of the contrary. If I were in his position and genuinely believed that I'd been hard done by, I'd also be unwilling to continue. It's just unfortunate that he's mistaken in his belief. That's all it comes down to, in my opinion. As an aside, I think it's a good idea to be gracious to one's opponents. It makes one a good sport. We gain nothing by being victorious and mean. |
|
|
|
Hi everyone. I thought I'd make some sense of the work that Chaeplin has done on XC. (Summary: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7270701#msg7270701.) First, this is what ATCSECURE provided:
- Sender address: ?
- Wallet B: XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G
- Wallet C: XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV
- Recipient address: XVrqrpe2ZDmykAnjcAHN6McbuDEjBZSvRZ
- Payment process: "The mixer tells the [sender address] to send coins to wallet b, however wallet C is used to send coins to the [recipient address], there is NO link from wallet B to wallet C unless somebody manually moves the coins from C to B."
- Aspect of payment being tested: the assertion that there is no link in the Blockchain from Wallet B to Wallet C. Testers are required to falsify this claim in order to receive a bounty.
This is what Chaeplin did:
1. He utilised a technique known as "Satoshi Spam," which is a matter of sending tiny amounts to addresses. One can use this to watch where the money flows in order to work out which addresses have common ownership. 2. Satoshi Spam is based on the pre-coinjoin principle that, given a transaction with multiple inputs and a single output, it follows that the inputs are owned by the same entity. For example, if 7 addresses were spammed with BTC 0.000001 and then all of these addresses were used to pay the resulting amount to another address, one can thereby conclude that the 7 addresses are owned by one person, and in all likelihood are in the same wallet. 3. However, coinjoin falsifies the assumption behind Satoshi Spam because coinjoin uses input addresses owned by several parties are to pay one or more recipient addresses. Thus if coinjoin is even partly implemented for a given coin, it becomes false to assume that one party owns the input addresses, since it's possible that there could be several owners. 4. Chaeplin implemented Satoshi Spam by sending small amounts to Wallet B and Wallet C. 5. His intention was to watch the blockchain to see where the amounts he sent to Wallets B and C would end up when the wallets spent the money. 6. His observation of the blockchain revealed the following information: - Wallets B and C sent payments somewhere, but the outputs are not given in the blockchain - Wallets B and C also paid transaction fees for the payments, but the addresses they're paid to are not given in the blockchain 7. With this information, Chaeplin constructs the following account: - Once Wallets B and C spend the money sent to them, the transaction is recorded in the blockchain, though the recipient address is not. - Nonetheless, he has a record that Wallets B and C spent the money. - On one occasion, Wallet B spends money, and at a similar time, Wallet C pays a transaction fee. - Therefore Wallets B and C are owned by the same entity. 8. However this is obviously false, because: - there's no record in the blockchain linking Wallet B's transaction with Wallet C's transaction fee. - there's no record in the blockchain that a single address received the money that Wallets B and C spent. Therefore Chaeplin did not establish proof of a link between Wallets B and C. Additional comments:
- This analysis is tentative. I might be incorrect about what Chaeplin did. He does not explain why he pastes code and blockchain records in his comments, so it's impossible to be certain about what is argument actually is. I've tried to reconstruct his thought process from what he posted. - Chaeplin appears to have only a vague grasp of the strategy behind Satoshi Spam. Just as it is ineffective when coinjoin is implemented, it is ineffective when output addresses are not shown, as with XC. - Chaeplin has clearly shown that a payment from Wallet B and another payment (probably a transaction fee) from Wallet C co-occurred. - However Chaeplin conflates co-occurrence with a "hard link". Just because a payment from one address and a fee from another address appear in a blockchain at similar times, it does not entail that the two are associated in any way. Even if the blockchain was brand new and consisted of only these two payments, this implication would not be established. Co-occurrence is categorically distinct from a record that one address paid another. - However in my opinion it would be wrong to conclude that Chaeplin is a fudder, since we do not have a "hard link" proving his intentions. There is evidence, sure, but let's not make Chaeplin's mistake of conflating possibility with certainty. We would act honourably by giving him the benefit of the doubt. And in acting honourably, we raise the ethic of this thread, which makes XC's community more attractive. Let's do XC proud. |
|
|
|
As I indicated, v1.36 was just for testing,
v1.37 will be released tonight, it will require 100 XC's to be an XNode
Also the Encrypted Messaging beta could be released for testing by the end of the week...stay tuned
ATCSECURE
**updated
HERE it is. So, FYI, ATCsecure went for the multi-path tech first and the messaging next. We're keen to put ourselves at least two steps ahead of the competition at any given point. So yes, the latest release will give ol' Chaeplin something to chew on. Bear in mind though that this release is an initial (and partial) implementation of the multi-path feature. Expect bugs, and a more sophisticated implementation in the next few days. I understand why you have been chosen for the PR  It's a nice position to be in. ATCsecure's work is so rapid and so hardcore that people tend to think each release is finished. Much easier on my nerves than having to drum up something to say in order to fill the silence left by a dev team that is stumped. |
|
|
|
Where is the marketing? Please do more promotion before XC to da moonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.
It's coming, and in droves. I've only been working on this project since the middle of Wednesday. :-) |
|
|
|
As I indicated, v1.36 was just for testing,
v1.37 will be released tonight, it will require 100 XC's to be an XNode
Also the Encrypted Messaging beta could be released for testing by the end of the week...stay tuned
ATCSECURE
**updated
HERE it is. So, FYI, ATCsecure went for the multi-path tech first and the messaging next. We're keen to put ourselves at least two steps ahead of the competition at any given point. So yes, the latest release will give ol' Chaeplin something to chew on. Bear in mind though that this release is an initial (and partial) implementation of the multi-path feature. Expect bugs, and a more sophisticated implementation in the next few days. |
|
|
|
+1. 4 weeks old and already a market leader. Bring it on. |
|
|
|
Hello all. This is to announce that I have taken on the role of PR and media liaison for XC.
I'm co-ordinating the PR side of the project and developing a great strategy based on XC's brand (which, as you're probably aware, is currently being created by Thrash).
You'll be hearing a lot of news from us in the near future: we'll be unveiling the development plan, the team, and of course be building up a wave of public awareness about XC's market-leading tech. So stick around, and anticipate big things.
Synechist
Please do us justice We have been wronged for so long. You might want to start with a better and more descriptive name for your coin. Previous 'X11Coin' name made it too clear that this coin was a ripoff from Darkcoin. Then it became XC, which is quite meaningless and random. What about 'Darkcoin Lite'? Very inspirational. Time and Again this has been brought up, and the community has overwhelmingly decided that XC was the right decision. People want to get stuck on shitcoinname1 and whatevercoin2. XC is more than a coin -it is a platform under development that encompasses more than "anyothercopycatcoin" and keeping "coin" out of the name was one of the best decisions that the community made. The thing about names is that they only signify to the imagination the first few times your hear it. After that they just represent your experience of the entity with the name, not whatever the name itself might suggest. XC, as you'll all know by now, signifies market-leading cryptographic tech. That's pretty much all there is to it. Combined with dev's update, ur participation in the team is also great news! Can you share with us maybe a bit of ur work in public or pm(out of curiosity), since you appear very knowledgeable of the scene! btw a couple of troll replies above is EXACTLY the reason I suggested Tesla keeps this topic strictly moderated, we got 2 replies of good news and 3-4 trollers come posting. This HAS to stop. That is really cool congrats!  May I ask what is your background in Marketing? My background is mostly PR rather than strictly marketing. That, and academic anthropology, which is like the metaphysics of marketing. But I have extensive experience in the magazine and music industries. Promoting tours for international bands, facilitating the creation of music scenes, launching publications, creating an ad niche for advertisers, that sort of thing. Generally what I do is create a compelling narrative around a brand, that serves to embody the facts about it, demonstrate why it's important, and keep misconstruals at bay. I'm sure you'll all agree that this is what XC needs, given the FUD it's endured. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
