and you have address XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV - which made the payment |
|
|
|
lets start with this wallet that received a payment from the mixer and we can walk through it backwards |
|
|
|
So when you send from original address A to the receiving address D , it goes to the mixer B, the mixer makes a new address C to send the amount to the receiver D? And Chaeplin doesn't get only A?
And chaeplin is adding that the mixer only uses one address for you, so once you know A, you can trace it. Which is what I said before. You have to assume A is known. I see, thanks. So there is no direct link but if you are forced to show your address then they can prove that you made a specific transaction. There are two conversations going on here at once. I want to deal with this side issue. You have to assume the user's address is known. Why? Bitcoin can change your address right now and use the same wallet...so some people think it's anonymous. It's not because you can tie all the transactions one person does back to an address. Once the address is known, you know all the transactions...bitcoin has always had that level of anonymity. This already exists in every implementation of every crypto-coin. That means nothing to this conversation. ATCSecure, I would appreciate if you could confirm this fact...since so many people jumping into this conversation - mistakenly do not understand this fact and its clouding the discussion which could be constructive. This is the fundamental principle on which your solution is built. The problem it is trying to solve, correct? Anonymizing a transaction even if the sender or receiver is known. Yes the REV1 release hides sender even if you know the receiver's address |
|
|
|
yes and the summary is wrong, the mixer has "recieve" wallets and it also has "send" wallets |
|
|
|
So when you send from original address A to the receiving address D , it goes to the mixer B, the mixer makes a new address C to send the amount to the receiver D? And Chaeplin doesn't get only A?
And chaeplin is adding that the mixer only uses one address for you, so once you know A, you can trace it. Which is what I said before. You have to assume A is known. that is not how the mixer work's The highlevel summary is this The mixer tells the client to send coins to wallet b, however wallet C is used to send coins to the final user, there is NO link from wallet B to wallet C unless somebody manually moves the coins from C to B |
|
|
|
|
Since I don't have all the details from evtrmm's earlier test
I've created a new transaction
XVrqrpe2ZDmykAnjcAHN6McbuDEjBZSvRZ
I will put the details in a password protect zip file
|
|
|
|
All we have here is DRK troll Chaeplin with his broken english not making sense and going around in circles whilst still not able to establish the original users sender address.
Mixer identified. Input of mixer address XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb == output from sender XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb will not be used again for any sender. So XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw == XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb. Compare output, count blocks, check explorer, input of XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb will be user for output for another sender. Can find related output address. That's what i am doing in analysis aka mapping. I appreciate the analysis mapping as it provides valuable feedback, for the record "input of XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb will be user for output for another sender" is not ALWAYS accurate as the mixer selects different resources for sending outbound.. |
|
|
|
Dev can deny. Here is point. Mixer address XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb is used for sender.
One time. Every input to mixer got NEW address. Matched....  Are you serious? Where did the mixer get the coins from? who clicked the send button? From sender, with NEW address. of course you can find the sender address used by mixer as it has a direct link to the receiver but the point is what is the original users sender address? |
|
|
|
Dev can deny. Here is point. Mixer address XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb is used for sender.
One time. Every input to mixer got NEW address. Matched.... Are you serious? Where did the mixer get the coins from? who clicked the send button? From sender, with NEW address. of course you can find the sender address used by mixer as it has a direct link to the receiver |
|
|
|
I really don't see chaeplan as here to help, i think he is a paid drk troll, purely here for fud. Luckily we have a pto active dev who is on the forums and here to show him up.. Great job atc.. You have the drk boys very worried
He is famous for being a HUGE DRK FANBOY look at their threads... and ATCSECURE love to see the fire in you calling him out FUCK THESE FUDDERS XC FTW He doesnt appear to be fudding, he appears to have an actual point. Address the point he is making and explain why it isnt an issue. If you can do that, there wont be and Fear, Uncertainty or Doubt. oh his best dtk mate is back, what issue has he raised or shown other than that he cannot work out the challenge.. Which as it stands suggests that rev 1 is err rather anonymous... correct, the wallet it points back to is the not the original senders wallet |
|
|
|
I really don't see chaeplan as here to help, i think he is a paid drk troll, purely here for fud. Luckily we have a pto active dev who is on the forums and here to show him up.. Great job atc.. You have the drk boys very worried
Critics (or testers) arent supposed to help. they are supposed to point out problems. Once you are aware of the problems, you them fix them. Development 101 correct but when you make a statement and then just show the mixer address and claim that links w/ the sender address without showing the sender address - how does that help? He isnt just showing the mixer address. He is able to tie the transaction to a specific wallet. That is a problem. that wallet is not the original wallet |
|
|
|
I really don't see chaeplan as here to help, i think he is a paid drk troll, purely here for fud. Luckily we have a pto active dev who is on the forums and here to show him up.. Great job atc.. You have the drk boys very worried
Critics (or testers) arent supposed to help. they are supposed to point out problems. Once you are aware of the problems, you them fix them. Development 101 correct but when you make a statement and then just show the mixer address and claim that links w/ the sender address without showing the sender address - how does that help? He isnt just showing the mixer address. He is able to tie the transaction to a specific wallet. That is a problem. that wallet is the MIXER wallet.. not the original senders wallet |
|
|
|
I really don't see chaeplan as here to help, i think he is a paid drk troll, purely here for fud. Luckily we have a pto active dev who is on the forums and here to show him up.. Great job atc.. You have the drk boys very worried
He is famous for being a HUGE DRK FANBOY look at their threads... and ATCSECURE love to see the fire in you calling him out FUCK THESE FUDDERS XC FTW He doesnt appear to be fudding, he appears to have an actual point. Address the point he is making and explain why it isnt an issue. If you can do that, there wont be and Fear, Uncertainty or Doubt. what is his point? the mixer address [output] used for this transaction is visible? well of course it yes, we aren't using quantum physics to send the coins, the issue is the mixers input address and original senders output address since we provided the "last leg"of the TX, he can only back trace to the mixer itself, so far he has NOT Proven anything else |
|
|
|
I really don't see chaeplan as here to help, i think he is a paid drk troll, purely here for fud. Luckily we have a pto active dev who is on the forums and here to show him up.. Great job atc.. You have the drk boys very worried
Critics (or testers) arent supposed to help. they are supposed to point out problems. Once you are aware of the problems, you them fix them. Development 101 correct but when you make a statement and then just show the mixer address and claim that links w/ the sender address without showing the sender address - how does that help? |
|
|
|
if the problem is low transaction amounts cant we all send some coin at same time same amount all over the place and dig in that pile ?
Even with the low TX amounts, he wasn't able to show the sender's address... |
|
|
|
I think everyone needs to chill out and let people work together.
Whatever his motives, Chapelin is giving his time to this product, and we should be grateful for that.
At this point, with very few transaction, by scrubbing addresses and matching transactions in/out, he can find an address tied to the wallet.
So trying to say he is wrong - is wrong.
I would imagine if we treated him with a little more respect, he would probably do the same in return.
Once transactions pick up, it may be a lot harder to track those transactions, but by using his method - whatever it be, he most likely would be able to match the transaction, or at least narrow it down.
if the sent matches the received, it most likely will be able to be flagged if not by the eye, by a piece of software.
but the issue he is making a statement he can't back up and he is confused on how the software works so he is assuming something and if he is correct, I would like to see the proof otherwise it is FUD the mixer doesn't use the multi-inputs from sender A to create the output to receiver B, if it does, he should be able to prove that |
|
|
|
I think everyone needs to chill out and let people work together.
Whatever his motives, Chapelin is giving his time to this product, and we should be grateful for that.
At this point, with very few transaction, by scrubbing addresses and matching transactions in/out, he can find an address tied to the wallet.
So trying to say he is wrong - is wrong.
I would imagine if we treated him with a little more respect, he would probably do the same in return.
Once transactions pick up, it may be a lot harder to track those transactions, but by using his method - whatever it be, he most likely would be able to match the transaction, or at least narrow it down.
if the sent matches the received, it most likely will be able to be flagged if not by the eye, by a piece of software.
but the issue he is making a statement he can't back up and he is confused on how the software works so he is assuming something and if he is correct, I would like to see the proof otherwise it is FUD |
|
|
|
Really? Good to know.
Anyway, You want hard link, that two address of mixer are connected.
Right ?
yes Then code is right. Sending to real payee works good. Problem is received coins are reused. Proof : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7254769#msg7254769I have to prove two address is related. XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb === XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC Right ? ah but the received coins that are re-used at not from that transaction, it is from an earlier transaction through the mixer, so a different SENDER Right. not from that transaction. Used address by Mixer is related after all. In this case, txs are fewer, so very clear. It's related after 10 ~~ many blocks after. So I call it flaw. Ah, so there is no provable direct link thank you 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. okay show me the proof of link?  http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96187.htmhttp://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96160.htm1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. the receivers address is XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu show the proof back to the original senders address otherwise your spreading FUD The bounty is still open until somebody proves the link... Don't you understand this ? I show you mixer address is related. Want more ? all your showing is the mixer address, the bounty is for showing a link from the original sender to the receiver address of XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu of course you can trace back to the mixer from the receiver address, but prove the sender's address and link ON THE BLOCKCHAIN Oh kiddding. Sender --- a add of mixer -- b add of mixer -- payee. It's in blockchain, a add of mixer == b add of mixer. okay so prove it if you want the bounty - but prove the sender's address and link ON THE BLOCKCHAIN Well I think you don't know anything about multi input. It's used in a input together. Ah, so you change topics when you can't prove the link from sender to receiver? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
