ATCSECURE has even offered a bounty to someone who could provide a testnet blockexplorer to answer back the constructive criticism. This is the last step towards the launching of this project, someone please do it.
^^^^^^ How much is the bounty? make an offer |
|
|
|
ATCSECURE has even offered a bounty to someone who could provide a testnet blockexplorer to answer back the constructive criticism. This is the last step towards the launching of this project, someone please do it.
Maybe he can just make it himself. He's a 20 year veteran software developer right? I'm sure he can do it. sure along with the 1000 other things I'm doing??? |
|
|
|
ATCSECURE has even offered a bounty to someone who could provide a testnet blockexplorer to answer back the constructive criticism. This is the last step towards the launching of this project, someone please do it.
^^^^^^ |
|
|
|
Atcsecure, thanks for the progress so far. I hope everyone understands this is preliminary testing of decentralized anon transfers.
But I think it would be helpful if instead of answering one question or criticism at a time, you organized answer to everyones questions and concerns in one big informative post. I think this will be helpful. Thanks again
Does dark currently have decentralized anon transfers? (sorry for talking about dark here) this is not the DRK thread, please no DRK discussion here |
|
|
|
a bit more description pardon my drawing. touchpad and me not good  Thank You for posting this! this shows the details - user A requests to send to user B (user b address is in the sendfrommixer) - but wallet sends to "xnode", not user B |
|
|
|
a bit more description pardon my drawing. touchpad and me not good Thank You for posting this! |
|
|
|
Thank you for your answer.
So you are saying this test release is only anonymous if you use the GUI? Running a simple command reveals the origin wallet address if you know the transaction id?
the receiver can not see the original wallet address |
|
|
|
what's going on..
The wallet really anno ??
Is there a whitepaper of the anonymity concept that you could share while the development is still in progress? It would be great to understand the design better it is really not clear to me how it is trust-less? high level summary of the concept, the multi-path code is NOT in this release |
|
|
|
you cant just replace the address with others ,this is serious buddy , i got 50k coins and support you so long, i see no evidence in the core of the underlying code for any anonymity. a little disappointing  that is not what is happening here at all how did you come to this conclusion? |
|
|
|
what is the question? User A wants to send to user B, instead the coins go to the XNODE - split across several transactions - that is what your seeing - This part "As you can see you can clearly see the values and addresses, so all the wallet does is replacing the sent from text field as 'unknown' in the GUI" So he is saying you just run a command with the transaction id and then you have the wallet address of the person it was sent from. @ATC could you please reply to the post of this guy? I have the same question This release does not have the multi-path paradigm code which will prevent that. This is only a test release |
|
|
|
this is only a test release, the code is 3-4weeks out from being at that level - it does NOT go through your own wallet, it goes through an xnode - which anybody can activate when they launch the wallet
If the transactions cannot be `traced` logwise or programmatically through the blockchain then surely there would need to be a verification system between all Xnodes to verify each others `mixed` transactions so that a hacked/ modified Xnode couldnt steal coins. Though I will admit I am talking out of my depth here. In my head it seems logical for a system where all the Xnodes verify the transactions. Then as long as there is not a single entity that owns many Xnodes then it could stay anonymous. How does a transaction stay anonymous from the Xnodes themselves if they have been programmed to spy on/log the ID`s?  Unless each Xnode can only read one portion of the transaction e.g. one for receive address, one for transaction ID and one for send address? Is this how mixers work? Some kind of random allotment of transaction processing and verification. Then I presume multiple transactions are mixed into one using this method. There is the Xprotocol - which handles this communication and is also encrypted |
|
|
|
|
There is a bounty for a testnet block explorer.. let me know if you can do it quickly
|
|
|
|
K its been a week now and still not getting any stakes, im starting to think the staking part of the code is flawed, anyone able to explain the rumour about stake stealing?
It comes down to weight, the higher the weight the better the stake, however sundays release will have an updated stake code |
|
|
|
this must be fud - that can't be true, if it is, it will be so easyto patch the wallet and comment out the sending, in conclusion i'll recieve the coins from the one whos mixing but i will not send them to the destination and keep them -> easy stealing ...
the protocol will handle this, it won't be "Easy stealing" and yes there are bugs ,this is a test release thanks for the answer - the first i ever get *thumbsup* so i will be waiting how this turns out, many people (like myself) will be trying to crack it, if it flows trough the own wallet that seems to be intresting, not saying it can't be secured, but i highly doubt it will be 100% trustless and secure if the coins are going trough a personal wallet. this is only a test release, the code is 3-4weeks out from being at that level - it does NOT go through your own wallet, it goes through an xnode - which anybody can activate when they launch the wallet |
|
|
|
what is the question? User A wants to send to user B, instead the coins go to the XNODE - split across several transactions - that is what your seeing - |
|
|
|
first thing, we all know this is not a finished product. period. it has been stated as such. Now the question of making a decentralized anon wallet was in question, so I give you:  I did not initiate this transaction, yet I saw it come through on my laptop here. no matter what is said, The fact is that the developer is still here, he continues working on the project, and we are FAR from finished. Troll on. So that picture is showing that this wallet was chosen for this mixed transaction This release is a only a test - as the plan was to fix up some key items and release in 3-4 weeks All this has done has given the FUDers more fuel for the next 3-4 weeks now. Nothing should be released without hard evidence to substantiate the said functionality. Seems no matter what - that there will be FUD... |
|
|
|
this must be fud - that can't be true, if it is, it will be so easyto patch the wallet and comment out the sending, in conclusion i'll recieve the coins from the one whos mixing but i will not send them to the destination and keep them -> easy stealing ...
the protocol will handle this, it won't be "Easy stealing" and yes there are bugs ,this is a test release |
|
|
|
first thing, we all know this is not a finished product. period. it has been stated as such. Now the question of making a decentralized anon wallet was in question, so I give you: I did not initiate this transaction, yet I saw it come through on my laptop here. no matter what is said, The fact is that the developer is still here, he continues working on the project, and we are FAR from finished. Troll on. So that picture is showing that this wallet was chosen for this mixed transaction This release is a only a test - as the plan was to fix up some key items and release in 3-4 weeks |
|
|
|
Definitely something fishy going on. As you can see the two addresses DO exist in the testnet, yet the transaction ID has magically disapeared after the post earlier. Though its possible the new tests are being conducted on a seperate `copied` blockchain from the original testnet, if this is true then I apologise for this post. And Im not trying to spread fud as I own 30k XC myself.
03:22:14

validateaddress mwcaGKQNeJGuaan2m1YQHfSoYJQV3ykiu5
03:22:14

{
"isvalid" : true,
"address" : "mwcaGKQNeJGuaan2m1YQHfSoYJQV3ykiu5",
"ismine" : false
}
03:22:49

validateaddress moRnEx9drbUXfzmpWUTj2woMkv1mSTbAYD
03:22:49

{
"isvalid" : true,
"address" : "moRnEx9drbUXfzmpWUTj2woMkv1mSTbAYD",
"ismine" : false
}
NO there is only 1 block chain or a fork |
|
|
|
Is there a block explorer? Because anyone can just put sending address "Unknown" With a simple method in the wallet.
This on testnet only, you will be able to test it yourself. No, you don't understand what I'm saying. Without a block explorer for testnet, it's trivial to display "Unknown" in the Transaction Details page. To fully analyze the transaction to see if it actually is anonymous, you need a block explorer. If anyone wants to make a testnet block explorer they can, I will message someone right now +1 Absolutely needs a block explorer to prove that the function exists. Thanks Teka. look at posted data, it answers all your questions |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
