Is the official site down?
Not for me. |
|
|
|
Wow. Glad I woke up. Looks like we're going to test 0.001225 again, probably rebound @ 0.001. If we fall through 0.001 then I suggest everyone gets their buy orders in above 0.00075, anything lower than that is crazy.
I agree that it's trying to retest. At first glance there is about 100btc of buy support between 12 and 125. Yea. Problem is I don't think even if we rebound off of 0.0012 range we will last that long, I think we will keep retesting it until we break through. And It is only 100BTC. I've got 80k coins left that might have to go, will prob then rebuy @ 0.001. Lets wait for this bull trap to finish then ill decide Thanks for the advance warning. Hanging out here with the trolls has some benefits. Lol no worries. I feel kinda sorry for all the small holders who get caught up in whale games, always good to give them a headsup, makes me feel a little bit better at the end of the day. Thanks man. Keep going and a few of us might learn to anticipate the odd whale. (But alas, I think emotion will prevail on the whole.) |
|
|
|
Any such 'dynamic trust system' seems vulnerable to the iterated prisoners dilemma by design. The goal of any blockchain based currency is fully trustless transactions. That's the entire killer app of bitcoin and bitcoin like systems. 'Dynamic trust models' represent a clear problem that has been *long* known about in the literature.
Would you be able to explain the problem in plain english, or give a"dumbed down" version for people like me. thanks  We'd need to get Alpharisc to state it for the scenario he foresees for XC. But the problem in general concerns two "rationally self-interested" prisoners who (a) get out of jail if one betrays the other prisoner, (b) get a longer sentence if both prisoners betray each other, or (c) get a shorter sentence if neither of them betray the other. Edit: the idea is that it's rational to betray the other prisoner. However things get more complicated in the iterative version of the dilemma: prisoners get to repeatedly choose to betray or not betray one another. Alpharisc, to my mind this plays into the hands of a WOT model as long as it's combined with a means of punishment. What's your view? |
|
|
|
Any such 'dynamic trust system' seems vulnerable to the iterated prisoners dilemma by design. The goal of any blockchain based currency is fully trustless transactions. That's the entire killer app of bitcoin and bitcoin like systems. 'Dynamic trust models' represent a clear problem that has been *long* known about in the literature. People should not keep deferring to somebodies resume to assume infallibility. Just because someone is obviously very smart does not mean they are not prone to attempting to 're-invent the wheel' without reference to fields they are not perhaps as familiar with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoners.27_dilemmaGreat to see some argumentation given. Nothing more refreshing after the trollriver. I'm very keen to hear you out. For clarity in conversation, can you state exactly how the prisoners' dilemma plays out here? I'm aware of the nature of the scenario, but it's seldom applied in the purely standard way. I'm not sure but I was thinking that someone that has the ability to steal will eventually attempt it at the moment they don't want to hold XC anymore. It's like a last turn just before they want to liquidate their position. Is this wrong? I don't think that would be very profitable. Nodes would only hold fragments of transactions at any given moment. I think the strategy would be to find a way to run masses of nodes and steal a whole lot simultaneously. |
|
|
|
Wow. Glad I woke up. Looks like we're going to test 0.001225 again, probably rebound @ 0.001. If we fall through 0.001 then I suggest everyone gets their buy orders in above 0.00075, anything lower than that is crazy.
I agree that it's trying to retest. At first glance there is about 100btc of buy support between 12 and 125. Yea. Problem is I don't think even if we rebound off of 0.0012 range we will last that long, I think we will keep retesting it until we break through. And It is only 100BTC. I've got 80k coins left that might have to go, will prob then rebuy @ 0.001. Lets wait for this bull trap to finish then ill decide Thanks for the advance warning. Hanging out here with the trolls has some benefits. |
|
|
|
Any such 'dynamic trust system' seems vulnerable to the iterated prisoners dilemma by design. The goal of any blockchain based currency is fully trustless transactions. That's the entire killer app of bitcoin and bitcoin like systems. 'Dynamic trust models' represent a clear problem that has been *long* known about in the literature. People should not keep deferring to somebodies resume to assume infallibility. Just because someone is obviously very smart does not mean they are not prone to attempting to 're-invent the wheel' without reference to fields they are not perhaps as familiar with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoners.27_dilemmaGreat to see some argumentation given. Nothing more refreshing after the trollriver. I'm very keen to hear you out. For clarity in conversation, can you state exactly how the prisoners' dilemma plays out here? I'm aware of the nature of the scenario, but it's seldom applied in the purely standard way. |
|
|
|
Wow. Glad I woke up. Looks like we're going to test 0.001225 again, probably rebound @ 0.001. If we fall through 0.001 then I suggest everyone gets their buy orders in above 0.00075, anything lower than that is crazy.
Now that would be pleasant. 0.00075 would double my position size. I'll go with that, if only because I'm having trouble doing Fib extensions lower. Ha ha. |
|
|
|
Operative word: will.
Which means, as it is right now, with nodes being able to steal money, you don't want much attention because it can instantly snap the other way around to ...negative attention. Let's see the fix first...
It's a little vexing to honour this with a reply, but I think you were asked to provide an argument for your claim that nodes can steal money. And to state the context, if I recall correctly, ATCSecure speculated that it might somehow be possible for someone to figure out a way to do this. By implication, this is not a "problem", it's a strictly theoretical possibility. And it will be given due consideration when testing will begin. And proper testing will begin when the spec is fully implemented. Not now. So there's no need to raise this as some kind of live issue. |
|
|
|
That would defeat the purpose of "the troll." Their sole objective is to present a misrepresentation.
Ah well. I live in hope that trollishness can be exorcised by addressing them in good faith. |
|
|
|
Milestone 1 -- obfuscate inputs and outputs. This is done, it doesn't mean the the anno transaction code is finished, it means the first stage is done and finished and the second stage can be moved onto.
No one is suggesting it is not still possible to link transactions. They are suggesting that a direct link between input and output is not possible. This has been queried for days now and no one has been able to.
Sure Chaeplin either recognised the mixer code on the blockchain
or
was able to trace the transactions back through amount and time due to lack of activity on each block
No one denies that. At this stage, for a reason, tx can be traced back to the sender
That reason is not a direct link on the block chain between transactions.
The developer has clearly stated that the current milestone was not uncrackable anonymity but to remove any direct blockchain link between input and output
This has been done.
Now he is moving on to the second stage of further obfuscating the way the mix works, by using multiple paths and varied splits of mix amounts.
+1. Solid summary. Trolls please make an attempt to avoid misrepresenting it. |
|
|
|
So ATCSecure puts out another test for what 1-2 hours, then when no-one responds he proclaims "Yes its secure and anonymous". Get real....
As others have said put out a real reward to the community 5-10btc and leave it for 1 week and see what happens when you attract the attention of people that do real block-chain analysis. Are you confident enough to risk the death of the coin on it at this point? If not then you obviously have more work to do this this space.
ATC you seem like you are rushing through things saying you are wrapping up Rev1 as "there's not much time" - anonymity is NOT A JOKE, it takes time to get right as the number of attack vectors is HUGE - take the time to listen to the community, have in depth technical discussions....people are screaming around you with red flags and you keep pushing forward with business plans, ATMs and VISA cards etc.
Unless I'm mistaken the idea of a 5-10BTC bounty will probably be implemented in the near future. It's not a matter of ATCSecure rushing through this aspect of development; it's a matter of implementing the coin as specified and then testing it, presumably with brutal thoroughness. |
|
|
|
[snip]
I dunno about you guys, but I think we are about to hit the "media attention" phase.
We definitely will if we get a PR person. Also, the media will need a strong brand with a strong story. It would come across as unprofessional if we got big media attention in the state XC is in at the moment. The dev is looking at ways of co-ordinating the community to get things done; let's hope PR is a big aspect of this. |
|
|
|
mintpal up again
And cryptsy is down with "500 - Internal Server Error" Something very very fishy is happening  XC has the highest trade volume on MintPal right now. This is a good sign. 1500 btc trade volume. Cryptsy trade volume doubled from 86 btc to around 150 btc, but still a far cry from 1400+ btc when Darkcoin forked and when XC was at its previous high. Dev has proven to be a solid rock on solid ground in the face of tribulation and stormy weather. In XC we trust. Hah. Imagine the volume if they implemented shorting! I'd be going nuts. +1 for that though. This is a solid project. And it's getting increasingly solid at quite a rate. |
|
|
|
mintpal up again
And cryptsy is down with "500 - Internal Server Error" Something very very fishy is happening Cryptsy appears to be working fine for me. I've been using it to track the reaction when Mintpal came back online. It's been working fine the whole time. |
|
|
|
The current method works perfectly fine, any further mixing/time delayed mixing/ multipath will only make the anonymity compounded.
Imagine where this coin will be after four months of development. Not even one month old coin yet +1 |
|
|
|
so whats the good news?
That no-one can prove a link between sender and receiver. you should prob get chaplein to try again... considering he can do it consistently He can track links between senders and receivers only due to there being about three transactions to choose from. All he has to do is identify addresses with common amounts sent and received. However he can't "prove" a link on the blockchain - which would be to demonstrate the reliability of his method for establishing a link between sender and receiver. And thus far he's kicked up several excuses instead of telling us his exact method. So no proof from Chaeplin as yet. |
|
|
|
163 @cryptsy now
mintpal still down
And Mintpal appears to be back... |
|
|
|
so whats the good news?
That no-one can prove a link between sender and receiver. |
|
|
|
So nobody has claimed the bounty?  I would say success!!!! and this is only 1 small step!!! Good to know. I though it might be hard to fix this anonymous transaction so I dump a small amount of XC. So can we declare XC is now anonymous? That would be a contentious claim. XC's anonymising system is only partially implemented - but what's implemented (the mixing tech) is working as intended. Nonetheless without greater transaction volume and/or the multi-path technology (which is the novel and central piece of tech this coin is bringing to the marketplace) it's still possible to track transactions by matching amounts on the blockchain. So I'd say no, it's not the time to declare that XC is anonymous. However it's already succeeded in implementing a level of anonymity that certain coins are still struggling to attain. |
|
|
|
|
Mintpal appears to be down/slow. You guys getting this too?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
