This project is far from a scam, numerous updates have already been released, and actually it does have some of the PoS fix's, REV2 will have an updated core. The related source code will be released in the future, if your not interested in the project then don't get involved.
The plans for the retail market space are moving forward as well, this project is a serious business and is being treated as such by everybody involved. The XC Platform is about building a digital payment solution for anybody and everybody, while offering privacy protection and numerous other applications that will work on top of this platform. I made a living with retail solutions for a loooong time, need help/input/code/test/? Possibly yes |
|
|
|
Of course the trust system will be scrutinized.. but the technology is based on several concepts, one of which is "Web of Trust" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust, the bottom line is that the wallet won't send money to untrusted nodes |
|
|
|
This project is far from a scam, numerous updates have already been released, and actually it does have some of the PoS fix's, REV2 will have an updated core. The related source code will be released in the future, if your not interested in the project then don't get involved.
The plans for the retail market space are moving forward as well, this project is a serious business and is being treated as such by everybody involved. The XC Platform is about building a digital payment solution for anybody and everybody, while offering privacy protection and numerous other applications that will work on top of this platform. |
|
|
|
this is a scam, does not even have the related source code published...
Code is based on MintCoin, which is an old generation of pow/pos code, does not have many recent pos fixes.
Dude, you are stupid  ) you definitely are, as you don't even know what I am talking about. Let dev or someone knows the context answer this. This project is far from a scam, numerous updates have already been released, and actually it does have some of the PoS fix's, REV2 will have an updated core. The related source code will be released in the future, if your not interested in the project then don't get involved. |
|
|
|
I guess you guys mean split up over a period of time. I thought Bitcoin can only handle 10 transactions per second or something low (at the moment)...
No I mean simultaneously in a few blocks maximum. You want to check the network for scaling issues that might occur later, both in terms of size + transaction capacity. If the coin isn't futureproof / can't scale => DOA. I fully understand and have not done a full blown "load test" yet... it is in the project plan to scale out and test with REV2, with this release, pushing 1000 transactions through a mixer in 1 block from the same client could result an issue, however 100-1000 separate clients should work based on the code, but I have not tested that yet either. |
|
|
|
Can somebody make a test and report back:
Use a script / .bat and perform 1000 mixes of 0.1-1 XC each back to a single address of yours.
- Report how many of these 1000 transactions got back (to check the reliability of the network in conducting transactions in terms of %) and what's the total amount back in your single address. For example, I got back 995 out of 1000 and the amount is 995 instead of 1000.
- Report the block # you initiated the transfers (so that we can check consequent numbers in terms of blockchain bloat / megabytes) to calculate the spam attack vector vs the blockchain
- Report any unusual stuff
If anyone is going to do that, state that "I'm doing it" so that no two people are doing it at the same time.
I can do that possibly |
|
|
|
Hi,
I've been lurking in this thread since just before the peak when i bought about 500 XC. I have high hopes for this coin and have been constantly refreshing both this thread, the uncensorred thread all day and night and following constantly.
May I suggest that after the next release there is a bounty for finding the sending address and showing a link between sending and receiving adresses. Maybe send out a few other transactions for the same amount to other addresses at the same time to make guesswork harder.
This test was just "find the sending address". As it stands I think chaeplin deserves the bountry.
ah, so this is a good point, basically chaeplin guess'd the address's but could not document the link on blockchain (as it doesn't exist), so its a win-win in my book I think that the bounty for documenting the link on the blockchain still exists.. |
|
|
|
Oh my...
I realized that the meaning of direct link.
Hell there is no direct link in block chain.
So I stopped conversation.
I do appreciate your feedback and value the input and time you put into this.. it is valuable information to have.. and good to know that technically the block chain provides no direct link... yet pattern recognition protection needs additional coding... |
|
|
|
proof or no proof if chaeplin able to find the sender address then there is flaw with the coin and anon is not working of course if chaeplin able to find all the addresses during this test then there is flaw. the question is if developer able to fix this.
As atc said, if he posts real proof, he will take the time to look at it and analyse it. tracking recent transaction on explorer. only few xnodes and few transactions, and he also know the amounts. This is what I was thinking. There's not a whole lot going on in the blockchain, so it'd be much easier to deduce knowing how much and when it was sent. Yes so this is true, thats why I asked about the actual link between A, B, and C... based on what I have reviewed, that link doesn't exist .. and that is the most critical piece at the moment, is finding a direct link from a to b to c, .. all these other issues are trivial in terms of coding a solution |
|
|
|
Yes so in this release we are NOT splitting the output, the code will be in v1.37, v1.37 will split the outputs randomly as well to stop this type of analysis
this is an easy fix
How about splitting the output amount and randomly delaying the time of each amount sent up to a maximum of five minutes? And sending each random amount to a different mixer though that would be annoying to code and might put too much traffic in the blockchain. If the blockchain has a log of 100 amounts that add up to the total amount sent even if they are split randomly and sent over a longer period of time it is just a matter of time before a good spider can trace it out. If we send each random amount to a different mixer then that makes it easier to obfuscate the data. This would prevent other types of analysis on the blockchain If they cannot trace by amount or time. Though I am just looking at this from a layman`s perspective so I may be wrong. Maybe you were already going to be doing this. Yes all of this is in the REV2 code as this is part of the multi-path design |
|
|
|
|
I appreciate all the feedback, and if we see the proof from chaeplin I will review and make sure the issue is resolved in the next release...
ATCSECURE
|
|
|
|
chaeplin,
thank you for the test results, but my big question aside from the pattern issue, are you seeing a direct link on the block chain?
thanks
atcsecure
Yes Direct Link. can you post that data? thanks atcsecure Sorry, You are the Dev. You should know it. So your saying you can't prove the link on the block chain? I can. are you seeing a direct link on the block chain?"
I use block explorer. okay POST IT You don't need it. You know your design. Mixer use an address for input. YES and that INPUT has NO connection to the OUTPUT - and if your saying otherwise, I would like to see proof to backup your statement |
|
|
|
chaeplin,
thank you for the test results, but my big question aside from the pattern issue, are you seeing a direct link on the block chain?
thanks
atcsecure
Yes Direct Link. can you post that data? thanks atcsecure Sorry, You are the Dev. You should know it. So your saying you can't prove the link on the block chain? I can. are you seeing a direct link on the block chain?"
I use block explorer. okay POST IT |
|
|
|
|
an updated release will resolve the output not being split, but I also want to see if there is an actual link on the blockchain between wallet A and C.. so the release covers any other potential gaps
|
|
|
|
chaeplin,
thank you for the test results, but my big question aside from the pattern issue, are you seeing a direct link on the block chain?
thanks
atcsecure
Yes Direct Link. can you post that data? thanks atcsecure Sorry, You are the Dev. You should know it. So your saying you can't prove the link on the block chain? |
|
|
|
What chaplin is doing is very basic. He is vetting the blockchain for the transaction amount -0.00001 transaction fee.
Just as an example:
So lets say an amount of 1 XC was sent on block 2135. It will be split and sent to 1 mixer address in multiple payments. What happens next is another mixer address sends 0.99999 to the intended address.
What he does is then looks in future blocks for an address that received a total amount of 0.99999 and bam he gets it.
I have a system in mind that I can share with the atcsecure if he wants but it should rather be done in an irc page where we can have a flowing conversation.
Yes so in this release we are NOT splitting the output, the code will be in v1.37, v1.37 will split the outputs randomly as well to stop this type of analysis this is an easy fix I would not only split the output between several xnodes but also split the input too. So allowing the total amount to be sent to multiple addresses and not fix it just to one. This will exponentially increase the difficulty of running such an analysis with every address used to the point of unfeasability and statistical true anonymity. Another feature would be to relay from xnode to xnode for a random or user selected amount of blocks depending on how "much" privacy they want. I am not vetting.  So what are you doing? The only link I can see is the total sum. Design flaw... it is not a design flaw, the code is already in place to split transactions as it is done on the inputs, the function just isn't being called at the moment |
|
|
|
chaeplin,
thank you for the test results, but my big question aside from the pattern issue, are you seeing a direct link on the block chain?
thanks
atcsecure
Yes Direct Link. can you post that data? thanks atcsecure |
|
|
|
|
chaeplin,
thank you for the test results, but my big question aside from the pattern issue, are you seeing a direct link on the block chain?
thanks
atcsecure
|
|
|
|
split the outputs randomly
Is this the multi-path part of the protocol? it is the first part, the 2nd part is using multiple mixers going through another setup of multiple mixers, it will use a TTL type metric, so you can specify how many hops (mixers) to use |
|
|
|
What chaplin is doing is very basic. He is vetting the blockchain for the transaction amount -0.00001 transaction fee.
Just as an example:
So lets say an amount of 1 XC was sent on block 2135. It will be split and sent to 1 mixer address in multiple payments. What happens next is another mixer address sends 0.99999 to the intended address.
What he does is then looks in future blocks for an address that received a total amount of 0.99999 and bam he gets it.
I have a system in mind that I can share with the atcsecure if he wants but it should rather be done in an irc page where we can have a flowing conversation.
Yes so in this release we are NOT splitting the output, the code will be in v1.37, v1.37 will split the outputs randomly as well to stop this type of analysis this is an easy fix |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
