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 |
|
|
|
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? 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s 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 |
|
|
|
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? 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s 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... |
|
|
|
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? 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. the receivers address is XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu show the proof back to the original senders address otherwise your spreading 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? |
|
|
|
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 also your post doesn't clearly show any connection between the address's from the blockchain I am giving you. http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96187.htmhttp://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96160.htmMulti input == same owner == same wallet. In coinjoin, Multi input =/= same owner =/= same wallet. I haven't reviewed those links, but multi-input == multiple different wallets from previous transactions so your statement is incorrect but I will review the data shortly |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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 also your post doesn't clearly show any connection between the address's from the blockchain |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
Guys, take some time to learn how to read the blockchain.
I wanted to see, so I did...I reviewed the information, based on it - chaeplin is correct.
However - why don't you lock down a real test in which neither side has an advantage?
I'd like to know the truth.
Thanks for dropping in from the DRK thread, could you tell us the truth on why the code was delayed? (again) And why is darksend not actually anonymous? IS that why you come here to spread FUD? Okay, forget the first part I said. Lock down the test, I'd like to see it. I reviewed the "test" from earlier - I checked the blockchain....did you? I'm not going over DRK - I've done that a thousand times. I'd like to get this ironed out..cause it's important. Obviously it isn't to most of you?..... I'm not fighting with anyone, looking for a solution cause I'm interested. okay, show the link from SENDER to RECEIVER, and claim the bounty - this is an open challenge, who ever post the proof first gets the bounty And to be clear, the bounty is how much? 100 XC's or the equivalent in BTC |
|
|
|
Guys, take some time to learn how to read the blockchain.
I wanted to see, so I did...I reviewed the information, based on it - chaeplin is correct.
However - why don't you lock down a real test in which neither side has an advantage?
I'd like to know the truth.
Thanks for dropping in from the DRK thread, could you tell us the truth on why the code was delayed? (again) And why is darksend not actually anonymous? IS that why you come here to spread FUD? Okay, forget the first part I said. Lock down the test, I'd like to see it. I reviewed the "test" from earlier - I checked the blockchain....did you? I'm not going over DRK - I've done that a thousand times. I'd like to get this ironed out..cause it's important. Obviously it isn't to most of you?..... I'm not fighting with anyone, looking for a solution cause I'm interested. okay, show the link from SENDER to RECEIVER, and claim the bounty - this is an open challenge, who ever post the proof first gets the bounty |
|
|
|
Hey. bounty ?
I will give you hard link for this.
I got the link.
Once again. Prove up! Put bounty, then I will. there is NO bounty for that test, stop going in circles I am saying hard link. not test. If I provide hard link, what is bounty ? 100 XC's It's design flaw. You have to fix it. it doesn't impact REV2 Really? Good to know. Anyway, You want hard link, that two address of mixer are connected. Right ? yes proof that there is connection from sender to receiver |
|
|
|
|
Lets see the proof/hard link he is talking about
|
|
|
|
Hey. bounty ?
I will give you hard link for this.
I got the link.
Once again. Prove up! Put bounty, then I will. there is NO bounty for that test, stop going in circles I am saying hard link. not test. If I provide hard link, what is bounty ? 100 XC's It's design flaw. You have to fix it. it doesn't impact REV2 |
|
|
|
Hey. bounty ?
I will give you hard link for this.
I got the link.
Once again. Prove up! Put bounty, then I will. there is NO bounty for that test, stop going in circles I am saying hard link. not test. If I provide hard link, what is bounty ? 100 XC's BTC... 100XC's worth of BTC |
|
|
|
Hey. bounty ?
I will give you hard link for this.
I got the link.
Once again. Prove up! Put bounty, then I will. there is NO bounty for that test, stop going in circles I am saying hard link. not test. If I provide hard link, what is bounty ? 100 XC's |
|
|
|
Hey. bounty ?
I will give you hard link for this.
I got the link.
Once again. Prove up! Put bounty, then I will. there is NO bounty for that test, stop going in circles |
|
|
|
Hey. bounty ?
I will give you hard link for this.
I got the link.
lets setup a real test with a bounty |
|
|
|
I think it is time for atcsecure to back his claims with a real BTC bounty.
I understand some of the nuance of the technology (by no means am I an expert), but I know semantic games when I see them. Lay out a verifiable challenge, and see if chaeplin can deliver.
Stop with all of this "that is only part of the answer" bullshit. Set up a very concise challenge and see.
Anyone here should be demanding the same!
Not really. No other coin is publicly testing. we don't even have rev2 yet, atc always made clear that atm it was about proving a link and it never happened plus his guess was wrong.. so enough already Stop with the bullshit semantics. that "test" wasnt clearly laid out, and "no you didnt guess right" isnt anything other that you typing words. Crypto is full of bullshit claims. prove up or shut up I don't need to prove anything, in fact I wasn't involved w/ this test at all.. a user posted his side of the transaction and didn't match Chaeplans guess Do you agree that the technology should be able to prove it does what the developer claims that it does? I think Chaeplan has proved that for us.. |
|
|
|
I think it is time for atcsecure to back his claims with a real BTC bounty.
I understand some of the nuance of the technology (by no means am I an expert), but I know semantic games when I see them. Lay out a verifiable challenge, and see if chaeplin can deliver.
Stop with all of this "that is only part of the answer" bullshit. Set up a very concise challenge and see.
Anyone here should be demanding the same!
Not really. No other coin is publicly testing. we don't even have rev2 yet, atc always made clear that atm it was about proving a link and it never happened plus his guess was wrong.. so enough already Stop with the bullshit semantics. that "test" wasnt clearly laid out, and "no you didnt guess right" isnt anything other that you typing words. Crypto is full of bullshit claims. prove up or shut up I don't need to prove anything, in fact I wasn't involved w/ this test at all.. a user posted his side of the transaction and it didn't match Chaeplans guess |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
