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!
No, do not agree. Trust the Dev, he delivered so far and is at the moment the only one who knows his code well enough. Patients, that test will be there one day & Chaeplin is not the only one that needs to check it. The developer claims the transactions cant be tracked. chaeplin claims he can track them. One is right. One is wrong. We need to find out which. Trust the developer is bullshit when the claims are easily verifiable with proof. The best way to earn trust is to back it up with actual verifiable facts. and he guess'd wrong on this 1 off transaction test.. Plus I didn't see any proof of anything |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
The address he posted doesn't match your "guess".. regardless this was just a 1 off transaction .. we can organize a valid test with bounty |
|
|
|
None of this really matters as again - he is not showing a direct link, rather that a single transaction occurred matching the provided send amount of 2.2..
well he keeps talking about design flaw, so unless he provides hard evidence we should just ignore him from now on, and if the design is flawed and u continue updating without tracing it, other prestigious members will eventually find it and report truthfully It is not a design flaw and nor does it apply to future release's.. it is just to create more FUD Then bounty ? bounty for what? prove to me who sent the payment to XWbKXuTjW65VhQ2yk7zhhUbiuPN4XMGE2k and you can get a bounty |
|
|
|
None of this really matters as again - he is not showing a direct link, rather that a single transaction occurred matching the provided send amount of 2.2..
well he keeps talking about design flaw, so unless he provides hard evidence we should just ignore him from now on, and if the design is flawed and u continue updating without tracing it, other prestigious members will eventually find it and report truthfully It is not a design flaw and nor does it apply to future release's.. it is just to create more FUD |
|
|
|
FYI: * ====> Working block height 28617 has 10 tx
* ====> Searchng XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb
tx: 7 percent 95 value 2.2
*===> block reached
*===> Searchng 28618 : diff : 1
*===> XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu 2.19999 link is : XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb <----> XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC
Details for Transaction
Hash 3680e4bd53607ff677eb94fd0b15f17cdf21f6c8e89a0b5b573c5a2ee13cfdb5
Blockheight 28617 (34 confirmations)
Date/Time 2014-06-11 16:03:57
Total Output 21.49996 XC
Fee 1,E-5.0 XC
Inputs / Outputs
Raw Transaction
Inputs
Index Previous output Address Amount
0 762a501de829...:0 XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw 21.49997 XC
Outputs
Index Redeemed in Address Amount
0 4eba6dee5d2a... XCfsrU7KGy6hzCmfvF47FjC2Mj56tqxR9d 21.484411 XC
1 dd438f2fbd86... XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb 0.015549 XC
Hash 1cd9a9bdc8cadc55de21d1dc640aa35bd0bc631f52d54e373b49c1b4ac3a42ed
Blockheight 28618 (33 confirmations)
Date/Time 2014-06-11 16:04:47
Total Output 2.210008 XC
Fee 4,E-5.0 XC
Inputs / Outputs
Raw Transaction
Inputs
Index Previous output Address Amount
0 2e4b75ef5a19...:1 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.00002 XC
1 cd32a1861879...:1 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.00002 XC
2 3ce0db590e12...:1 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.00002 XC
3 02db662529db...:1 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.00002 XC
4 447508bf02da...:1 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.00002 XC
5 2d78dc9f56f4...:1 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.00002 XC
6 11c03ded1646...:1 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.00002 XC
7 621e30ceab64...:1 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.00002 XC
8 94fdca2ed122...:1 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.00002 XC
9 8b9b2670d7fe...:1 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.00002 XC
10 9e0042d13a8c...:1 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.00002 XC
11 3bf012c2084a...:1 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.00002 XC
12 88d3f916833b...:1 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.00002 XC
13 d3c04cd03e84...:1 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.00002 XC
14 c2f94d8a07f7...:1 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.00002 XC
15 6bf82a41a9ea...:1 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.00002 XC
16 41a3ee9ac44a...:1 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.00002 XC
17 5e4064a65a3b...:1 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.00002 XC
18 3dd4c6f4142d...:1 XXh8LXMKYXiZ8dJMs57cBSZ93tDZddSoF7 0.003 XC
19 0a17a0ab48af...:2 XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC 0.003 XC
20 2ef543f876d2...:1 XUZvnU6MrxH49AVaSKwsXJMsyPoicrP6g2 0.100593 XC
21 a5e213619ea1...:1 XFx7u2jjP2TSQA34m6wJRugivcsJPG9yHN 0.003 XC
22 c933acb99fd0...:1 XUZvnU6MrxH49AVaSKwsXJMsyPoicrP6g2 0.003 XC
23 339cf1265d09...:1 XFx7u2jjP2TSQA34m6wJRugivcsJPG9yHN 2.094095 XC
24 b83aee2ba80c...:2 XYjDp5K1XTHn5ajiVxtaKw7CoL9CzRZKM2 0.003 XC
Outputs
Index Redeemed in Address Amount
0 Not yet redeemed XU9zPC349F4QVJmcn96d1S86bA9TwiyR7q 0.010018 XC
1 Not yet redeemed XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNuBITTREX 2.19999 XC
None of this really matters as again - he is not showing a direct link, rather that a single transaction occurred matching the provided send amount of 2.2.. |
|
|
|
In a real life situation you would not have an MD5 would you? All you would have is the incoming amount and TX ID.
Therefore, I hashed the MD5 including the sender and receiver, and zipped it. It is there. the password will be available later - say 4 pm CST, so 3hr45mins from now.
he already posted something. check it now and if he somehow cracked the zip , you guys have to be kidding me evtrmm, where are you now. need you here. All chaeplin did was search for transactions that equal = 2.2, he failed to show any link between the two Put an end to this.. There is clearly a difference between "Tell me the FROMADDRESS" and "Show me a link back to the FROMADDRESS". If you are going to offer "Tests" Then run the sendfrommixer 10 times, each from a different sentfrom address to the same sendto address with the same amount. Then ask which address is it for 1 of the 10 specific transactions. YES DONE received payment @ - XYpmyasn9gRZuaumqjkk9XFccrz24XL2bk |
|
|
|
In a real life situation you would not have an MD5 would you? All you would have is the incoming amount and TX ID.
Therefore, I hashed the MD5 including the sender and receiver, and zipped it. It is there. the password will be available later - say 4 pm CST, so 3hr45mins from now.
he already posted something. check it now and if he somehow cracked the zip , you guys have to be kidding me evtrmm, where are you now. need you here. All chaeplin did was search for transactions that equal = 2.2, he failed to show any link between the two +1 like the last 500 test, so can you idiots please stop backstabbin your own dev for once. We aren't backstabbing anything. ATCSecure put a test out there. Actually I didn't put that test out there, that was done by evtrmm So far nobody has provided the source address for any test I have done |
|
|
|
In a real life situation you would not have an MD5 would you? All you would have is the incoming amount and TX ID.
Therefore, I hashed the MD5 including the sender and receiver, and zipped it. It is there. the password will be available later - say 4 pm CST, so 3hr45mins from now.
he already posted something. check it now and if he somehow cracked the zip , you guys have to be kidding me evtrmm, where are you now. need you here. All chaeplin did was search for transactions that equal = 2.2, he failed to show any link between the two agreed, that wasn't a test I put forward here is one XYpmyasn9gRZuaumqjkk9XFccrz24XL2bk Tell me the source |
|
|
|
In a real life situation you would not have an MD5 would you? All you would have is the incoming amount and TX ID.
Therefore, I hashed the MD5 including the sender and receiver, and zipped it. It is there. the password will be available later - say 4 pm CST, so 3hr45mins from now.
he already posted something. check it now and if he somehow cracked the zip , you guys have to be kidding me evtrmm, where are you now. need you here. All chaeplin did was search for transactions that equal = 2.2, he failed to show any link between the two First, say address is correct ? I will show you hard evidence. Design flaw. Is there bounty ? I don't know the address and no there is not a bounty for that test |
|
|
|
In a real life situation you would not have an MD5 would you? All you would have is the incoming amount and TX ID.
Therefore, I hashed the MD5 including the sender and receiver, and zipped it. It is there. the password will be available later - say 4 pm CST, so 3hr45mins from now.
he already posted something. check it now and if he somehow cracked the zip , you guys have to be kidding me evtrmm, where are you now. need you here. All chaeplin did was search for transactions that equal = 2.2, he failed to show any link between the two |
|
|
|
ATCSecure? do whatever md5, sha, anything.
like this 'tuuiuauiyduayidsyauiydsaiuydsiuayd_[real_address]_lkjlkajslkdjalksjdalskdjalkjdsalkdjalks'
and post result.
Then when I submit address, Dev should tell input of whatever hash.
Again, I'm not doing that, if he knows the address then he should post it |
|
|
|
Do I lost all of my below unconfirmed transactions, almost 10 XC? I used to have 10 XC in my wallet. I have performed repairwallet for many times, not recovered. Not FUD. Status: 0/unconfirmed
Date: 2014/6/11 19:36
To: XRM2qeBigPykpxLkS11ttxU73iVEdvZZg7
Debit: -0.056125 XC
Transaction fee: -0.00001 XC
Net amount: -0.056135 XC
Transaction ID: 3cbf080024c736ab36f7b5c8fbf675f55552f2ecc6f518613a0fc0d2e0824373
Status: 0/unconfirmed
Date: 2014/6/11 23:32
Debit: -7.75316 XC
Credit: 7.75316 XC
Transaction fee: -0.00001 XC
Net amount: -0.00001 XC
Transaction ID: 55f8a7daaaf032180489fd63c46bc20f7478825cedad3c67cb37435659f747bb
Status: 0/unconfirmed
Date: 2014/6/11 23:39
Debit: -8.46374 XC
Credit: 8.46374 XC
Transaction fee: -0.00001 XC
Net amount: -0.00001 XC
Transaction ID: 1211e6b906d890671e592a9e28ebeaf95e30288d055e246cd62a06dad105001a
Status: 0/unconfirmed
Date: 2014/6/11 23:48
To: XE3dFcdQ6aH81J6viKraZwauMk9zcP4Ehz
Debit: -8.46373 XC
Transaction fee: -0.00001 XC
Net amount: -8.46374 XC
Transaction ID: 41e20493cabf34c42fea3fbac5f4791a70c5735da324988708d84c791f9ee6f0
Status: 0/unconfirmed
Date: 2014/6/11 23:56
To: XE3dFcdQ6aH81J6viKraZwauMk9zcP4Ehz
Debit: -0.71058 XC
Transaction fee: -0.00001 XC
Net amount: -0.71059 XC
Transaction ID: bb5311e8f93f21f0472b258b1f3bdded2715536663f8d0c2bc37c2832ea152a0
do they show up in the block explorer? if not you may need to rescan w/ fresh wallet using private key imports |
|
|
|
Yes he reverse MD5 every address on the block chain. Do you hear yourself?
Also dev never posted a MD5 before. Not sure why is he dogging now. Can we get over this already and move on?
yes hear myself loud & clear, just go back from the given block, desc. order. Sounds easy enough for me. Not even needed to scan all addresses. Also please read back about previous tests, MD5 was online exactly... |
|
|
|
same tx
sender -------- > mixer ----> payee change<--------|  First tell dev to post md5 of whateverattached_senderaddress. If he knows the address he should post it... ATC is right not to post the MD5, someone could write a scrypt scanning the blockchain for all used addresses & checking there MD5. With both start & begin addresses finding the route between is easy. If md5 posted it should be in a encrypted file we can all download first. After the answer has been given, release the password. there is no need, when/if somebody posts the address, I will provide the details to the other side of the transaction which will either prove they are correct or prove they are wrong |
|
|
|
same tx
sender -------- > mixer ----> payee change<--------| First tell dev to post md5 of whateverattached_senderaddress. If he knows the address he should post it... |
|
|
|
sorry I keep screwing up trying to host a node.. I get no transactions through my mixer...
Followed all (most?) directions
x11coin.conf below
listen=1
server=1
xmixer=1
rpcuser=der
rpcpassword=x
addnode=east01.xcnode.xc-official.com
addnode=west01.xcnode.xc-official.com
addnode=west02.xcnode.xc-official.com
reservebalance=550
I setup a new wallet with one address with 550.99999 XC
named it MIXER
run the xnode mainnet batch file...
ive been trying and keep updating to the latest wallets, I havent ever gotten a transaction flow through my wallet..
(version 1.41 since yesterday evening)
Does it have to be encrypted then allowed open? thats the only thing i can think of??
are you running via the batch file as well? you want to enable DNSSEED and disable IRC - which the batch file does for you (run-xc.bat) I have that conf shown above and had been launching using the xnode mainnet batch file, I added xmixer to conf file because i never saw anything happen.. Ill try running with the run-xc batch and leaving the conf as it sits just make sure that your RPCPASSWORD isn't what YOU POSTED RPCPASSWORD - should be a random secure PW its true, it should be random and secure to anyone wtaching do not use 1 character password! thanks for replies ATC, I'll update in 12 hours if i see anything come through my wallet. also update to v1.42... |
|
|
|
sorry I keep screwing up trying to host a node.. I get no transactions through my mixer...
Followed all (most?) directions
x11coin.conf below
listen=1
server=1
xmixer=1
rpcuser=der
rpcpassword=x
addnode=east01.xcnode.xc-official.com
addnode=west01.xcnode.xc-official.com
addnode=west02.xcnode.xc-official.com
reservebalance=550
I setup a new wallet with one address with 550.99999 XC
named it MIXER
run the xnode mainnet batch file...
ive been trying and keep updating to the latest wallets, I havent ever gotten a transaction flow through my wallet..
(version 1.41 since yesterday evening)
Does it have to be encrypted then allowed open? thats the only thing i can think of??
are you running via the batch file as well? you want to enable DNSSEED and disable IRC - which the batch file does for you (run-xc.bat) I have that conf shown above and had been launching using the xnode mainnet batch file, I added xmixer to conf file because i never saw anything happen.. Ill try running with the run-xc batch and leaving the conf as it sits just make sure that your RPCPASSWORD isn't what YOU POSTED RPCPASSWORD - should be a random secure PW |
|
|
|
sorry I keep screwing up trying to host a node.. I get no transactions through my mixer...
Followed all (most?) directions
x11coin.conf below
listen=1
server=1
xmixer=1
rpcuser=der
rpcpassword=x
addnode=east01.xcnode.xc-official.com
addnode=west01.xcnode.xc-official.com
addnode=west02.xcnode.xc-official.com
reservebalance=550
I setup a new wallet with one address with 550.99999 XC
named it MIXER
run the xnode mainnet batch file...
ive been trying and keep updating to the latest wallets, I havent ever gotten a transaction flow through my wallet..
(version 1.41 since yesterday evening)
Does it have to be encrypted then allowed open? thats the only thing i can think of??
are you running via the batch file as well? you want to enable DNSSEED and disable IRC - which the batch file does for you (run-xc.bat) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
