Thank god i sold my portion before the drop.
What drop are you talking about? I think he was talking about his pants because XC didn't drop  I guess. I have a question. Somebody told me that XC isn't anonymous, because you can track it, but with Monero you can't track it, can somebody explain the facts to me? An earlier version of XC which didn't use the multi path tech was subject to a pattern matching analysis by Chaeplin which he said broke the privacy. This was controversial because it was unclear and led to much arguing. Technically the privacy wasn't broken imo. When version 2 of XC came out with multi path, that pattern matching no longer worked and no-one has cracked XC. I believe when XC reaches version 3 there will be a bounty issued to prove that the the privacy is strong. Other things such as IP obfuscation, stealth addresses so you can receive payments to your "real" address without the sender knowing and more is on the way. Synechist, one of the XC team, would probably answer this 100 times more eloquently than me, but that should give you a picture. |
|
|
|
the team beeing quiet again makes me confident they are cooking up some more goodies for the beginning of the week. i like that new style, just hitting us with that announcements that rule the scene.
Or they've left You're confusing us with your beloved Cloak  |
|
|
|
Ok interesting.
So here's another tech questions:
If nodes are on a mix slow/unreliable internet connections and fast/reliable internet --
1) Will this tech be able to weed out the slow connections and bypass them for a more reliable connection
2) Will this tech somehow compensate for the slow connections?
I think it will take time to get all of this 100% right. For something this ambitious and revolutionary we should be happy to get a working proof of concept up and running and then slowly improve it over time until it's perfect. |
|
|
|
how come people can talk about bitsharex for the last few pages without getting called a troll? and i post once or twice about some coin and get accused of advertising and shit?
To be fair you was blatantly telling people to buy a competing anon focused coin. To be fair i was also blatantly telling people to buy it and dump it after to buy more XC With that logic people can tell anyone to buy any competing coin and then buy XC with the profits. Stop being greedy and listen to what everyone tells you - don't spam that rubbish here. If you really don't see why people complained... well, good luck trying to be a day trader with those analytical skills. |
|
|
|
how come people can talk about bitsharex for the last few pages without getting called a troll? and i post once or twice about some coin and get accused of advertising and shit?
To be fair you was blatantly telling people to buy a competing anon focused coin. |
|
|
|
I will admit that I am not a pro coin coder. I've just recently started looking into how some of this works. I have a logical question... "Firstly, not all possible malleability vectors are "fixed" in 0.9, so transactions are still quite malleable and the transaction ID can still change."If I understand what you are saying here, TX IDs can be changed or fudged to cause issues with tracking that transaction. I assume this can cause coins to get lost or stolen. So my question is, assuming my previous two assumptions are correct, if this is a real issue AND is easy to do, why aren't you forging btc transactions and stealing BTC all day long? The problem that you say Super has should be a problem that every coin out there has. A malleability attack doesn't stop the transaction from going through, it just mostly goes through with a different tx ID to the one kicked back by your wallet. Your coins won't disappear, the recipient address will still receive them, and nothing can be stolen. Malleability does not and cannot change the validity of the transaction, the destination, the amount, the p2sh hash (if there is one), the inputs, the outputs, or anything else. The only thing it changes is the transaction ID. Therefore, if you made a payment to your friend, and sent him the transaction ID, he may not be able to match that with his address history by payment ID. He will still be able to match it based on where it came from and the amount. Bitcoin is still vulnerable to this, as pointed out in the link you reference, and Eligius and other pools will still gladly mine valid transactions that fail isStandard() tests. Thanks for the insightful posts fluffy. For the unaware, fluffy is one of the Monero devs and as you can tell from his messages, he knows crypto extremely well. |
|
|
|
BEEEEEP, wrong! Firstly, not all possible malleability vectors are "fixed" in 0.9, so transactions are still quite malleable and the transaction ID can still change. The other thing is that they've made the changes to isStandard(), which is a function that checks for standardness and not for validity. In other words, very new nodes won't relay or mine tx's that already exist but have been modified and rebroadcast, but most of the network (like 90%) will. Furthermore, there are pools like Eligius that mine non-standard transactions (ie. transactions that would fail these new isStandard() malleability checks but are still perfectly valid transactions). Anything relying on a transaction ID in an automated system is fundamentally broken, and harping on "0.9.0 fixes malleability!" is nothing more than an act of desperation. Oh, and lastly - "the only consequence it will cause the anonymous send to fail" - why would anyone touch a system where an attacker can trivially prevent all anonymous transactions from working? Your argument is based on the attacker being able to change TXID of every anon transaction? Can you do that? Is it that easy? or you just saying that some genius hacker can if he really tries? Last time I checked, even Bitcoin is vulnerable if an attacker spends enough money/time to do it. So that's bad also? We both do not know what securities he has put in place nor how easy it is to change txid-reliance in the code. Code isn't finished & public beta test hasn't started. So just wait until it's released before making further accusations.  The foundation is built on tx id's so it doesn't matter what else is in place. The fact is, the Supercoin dev said don't worry about transaction malleability, it's fixed in bitcoin 0.9... except it's not fixed and the transaction ID can still change. So the OP of this topic is still valid. |
|
|
|
Ok I personally had to disturbed our dev during this hardworking time and he took time to answer me. I don't really get the XC/Supercoin "war" (from both sides) and I won't go any further than posting this because my specialty is finance, not tech. the malleability issue is fixed in bitcoin 0.9.0, this is not an issue. The worst scenario is that the p2p trustless transaction will not go through, no one will lose any coins.
btw, strasboug replied the questions. I think overall his views are correct. This is not an issue, and even txid can change in very rare cases (supposely already fixed in bitcoin 0.9), the only consequence it will cause the anonymous send to fail, and coins return to everyone's original accts. It's like a failed tx in p2p marketplace, that's nothing strange to it. Also there are several ways the tx verification can be done (not always need txid) as pointed out by strasboug.
We are a small team, we don't have time to go all over the places. We don't act aggressively. So don't expect all opinions in favor of us. But fact is fact, it will not change, and people ultimately will understand.
Thanks.
/closethread BEEEEEP, wrong! Firstly, not all possible malleability vectors are "fixed" in 0.9, so transactions are still quite malleable and the transaction ID can still change. The other thing is that they've made the changes to isStandard(), which is a function that checks for standardness and not for validity. In other words, very new nodes won't relay or mine tx's that already exist but have been modified and rebroadcast, but most of the network (like 90%) will. Furthermore, there are pools like Eligius that mine non-standard transactions (ie. transactions that would fail these new isStandard() malleability checks but are still perfectly valid transactions). Anything relying on a transaction ID in an automated system is fundamentally broken, and harping on "0.9.0 fixes malleability!" is nothing more than an act of desperation. Oh, and lastly - "the only consequence it will cause the anonymous send to fail" - why would anyone touch a system where an attacker can trivially prevent all anonymous transactions from working? Damn  Supercoin just been delivered a knockout blow. |
|
|
|
I don't know why NXT people are saying this is good publicity. The story has already been dropped off the top page of Coindesk and Cointelegraph (you have to scroll down to find it), unlike MtGox which was there for months and was on international television, magazines and newspapers around the world. At best the only people who know this story are hardcore crypto enthusiasts and they made up their minds about NXT months ago.
By the way NXT won't fail anytime soon as they have a dedicated following, some of whom only became millionaires due to NXT, so they have no problem in performing bail outs of their own coin when the price goes too low. Only way for NXT to fail would be for its' whales to abandon ship.
The same could be said about other coins where there's a self-regulated environment where whales play the equivalent of the US Federal Reserve and launch bail outs if the price falls too low for their liking.
When will the Keynesian bubble pop in the alternates?
There's very few millionaires from NXT. I own > 10 million NXT and I am not a millionaire. I think there's only about 10 people with more NXT than me. |
|
|
|
Really surprised no-one from supercoin is addressing the tx id issue.
Guess the devs just don't care? Have they not even acknowledged this fundamental flaw?
its outdated tech, I dont expect much of it and it corresponds exactly to Super's pathetic market cap. I'm confused then why supercoin "supporters" are spreading FUD and lies about coins with working anon tech like XC... when their own tech is broken |
|
|
|
|
Really surprised no-one from supercoin is addressing the tx id issue.
Guess the devs just don't care? Have they not even acknowledged this fundamental flaw?
|
|
|
|
Wtf why do the NXT devs keep subtly pushing for rollback/blockchain re-write. This is starting to piss me off. No-one wants this shit other than people who stupidly kept their funds on the exchange. One of the devs mentioned he lost coins at bter. So there's your answer. In my mind, the future of NXT is in doubt because contributors and developers may no longer have economic motivation to continue on the project. Thanks for the info. Do you know which dev? Jean Luc? Come from beyond? |
|
|
|
The Supercoin fanboys seem strangely quiet  I should add, I have not deleted any posts here (yet). |
|
|
|
|
Read this comment on Supercoin by fluffypony, one of the Monero devs, who explains why n-of-m multisig used in Supercoin is not safe:
"The "guarantor" is being trusted to do arbitration between the sender and the mixer. Therefore, given the nature of 2-of-3 multisig transactions, the guarantor and the mixer can sign the transaction, and then refuse to sign the cancellation transaction, leaving the sender out of luck and out of funds."
Also, read this, why using the txid to do mixing in Supercoin is not safe:
"Even worse - the workflow is based on the txid and verifying the txid. Have we not learnt by now that the txid can change? How do you people not understand that this was the very thing that mtgox blamed for their destruction?
The issue here is relying on the txid, when malleability has shown that the txid can change. This so-called "trustless system" relies on txid's to confirm transactions in an automated fashion. That is bad, stupid, and fundamentally broken."
Be careful not to fall for new shady coins promising the earth and screaming FUD at more established coins.
|
|
|
|
my first post had been following it for about a week before i posted page 23 first xc thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600706.440 now remember i bought at 10k but i never dumped i held and i'm still not going to dump i just won't be engaging with the community anymore your 2 grumpy for my liking im nice Don't let one guy who never posts here calling you an idiot stop you from posting. Just take a break from the forum for a while, sometime the FUD and passive aggressiveness on bitcointalk gets to me too |
|
|
|
hahaha, m-of-m multisig, this is the first time I see this, very entertaining... used in mix transactions trustlessly?? This is even more a joke, by trustless you mean the m members doing mixing are not trusted, so if there is one bad guy, you all screwed, because m-of-m address in order to spend, you need everyone to sign, if one bad guy not sign, your fund is locked forever. This seems written by a guy who has zero knowledge about multisig, except the word "multisig". That's why the altcoin there are so many scam coins. No: 3) Supplementary information:
- XC's multipath technology, used for obfuscating the amount sent in a transaction and the identity of sender and receiver, makes use of m-of-m transactions in order to achieve trustless mixing.
- Trustless mixing is a world-first. Nobody's ever done it before. Hence my prior request that you ask questions before coming to conclusions.
- m-of-m requires that all parties sign or else the transaction is invalidated.
- As such, m-of-m prevents bad nodes stealing coins instead of forwarding them.
- if a transaction is invalidated, the participating nodes resync the session-based network they form for the transaction in question, and proceed.
Then why you need m-of-m at all, you can just process with the assumption m-of-m will fail. The m-of-m there is absolutely of no use. You're actually quite close to the truth here. The assumption that m-of-m will fail is exactly what is needed for a bad node to fail at stealing coins. If a node doesn't sign, if gets kicked out of the ad-hoc network formed for the transaction in question, and then the network resyncs and signs again. no in this case m-of-m transaction is no use, and if you remove it the system should just function as before. That's why no one is using m-of-m multisig in this kind of trustless system. m-of-m is virtually of no use. m-of-m prevents a node stealing the funds. n-of-m sounds weaker to me. Why wouldn't you want all the relevant parties to sign? What if one of the parties who doesn't sign steals funds? |
|
|
|
hahaha, m-of-m multisig, this is the first time I see this, very entertaining... used in mix transactions trustlessly?? This is even more a joke, by trustless you mean the m members doing mixing are not trusted, so if there is one bad guy, you all screwed, because m-of-m address in order to spend, you need everyone to sign, if one bad guy not sign, your fund is locked forever. This seems written by a guy who has zero knowledge about multisig, except the word "multisig". That's why the altcoin there are so many scam coins. Actually if one person doesn't sign, the transaction is simply rejected, the same as DRK. |
|
|
|
Is that not the POINT of being hidden? What good would it do it you can trace it though the block chain to find out the receivers address?
you completely misunderstand what is anonymous system. A tutorial here: anonymous system simply makes sender-receiver not traceable, it does not mean the transaction not recorded in the block chain? sounds simple enough? Well there still that month old bounty for 2 BTC to anyone who can link sender to receiver should be easy for you ohh great one. let me guess you don't have the time to make 1k even though if XC is as shit as you claim it to be would only take a few minutes, oh lets see you got better stuff to do..lol..like i said 2 BTC up for grabs all you gotta do is accept the challenge...I DARE YOU!! Again, please don't waste time here. I can use a simple mixer and you don't be able to trace my transaction. But here we talk about multisig, and let me repeat this simple question for the last time: provide us a multisig address that has tx associated with it, in the blockchain, so we can inspect and see what is there. This can prove you actually have the capability of multisig.Didn't Dan the XC dev just say that multisig addresses aren't used? And that it relies on the transactions being signed by all parties instead? So why do you keep asking for a multisig address, can you explain? I am not a programmer. Mammoth or supercoin devs can help you with this explanation just visit their OP. If you think in a million years I would put a single satoshi into mammoth or supercoin after all the FUD they have tried to spread you are deluded. You guys have made a lot of enemies. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
