|
illodin
|
 |
November 11, 2015, 03:59:53 PM |
|
An increase in transaction volume (>1) destroys your argument.
Not to mention there is still no link between sender and receiver after all is said and done.
His argument was that converting the tokens weakens anonymity, which is true no matter the volume. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wheatclove
|
|
November 11, 2015, 04:23:20 PM
Last edit: November 11, 2015, 04:39:16 PM by Wheatclove |
|
An increase in transaction volume (>1) destroys your argument.
Not to mention there is still no link between sender and receiver after all is said and done.
His argument was that converting the tokens weakens anonymity, which is true no matter the volume. A specific scenario created by a specific illadvised behavior performed by two parties (converting the exact amount of SDT needed for a transaction immediately before sending while the recipient immediately converts back to SDC upon receipt) creates a potential link between input and output values (of two separate, different transactions broadcast on different blocks with a time difference dictated by the receiver), but not sender and reciever. Operator errors can deanonymize every anonymous system currently being used today. |
|
|
|
|
|
dasource
|
|
November 11, 2015, 04:34:06 PM |
|
An increase in transaction volume (>1) destroys your argument.
Not to mention there is still no link between sender and receiver after all is said and done.
His argument was that converting the tokens weakens anonymity, which is true no matter the volume. His argument is flawed at best ... if I want to buy something for $3.21, I do not go to the ATM and withdraw $3.21 .. I will withdraw $10 or $20 ... Shadow works in the same way, you have a balance of Shadows (SDT) which you can then spend all day long leaving no trail. Likewise if I am a seller I will not be running to the bank every-time I made a sale. I will deposit in a batch i.e. the same way you convert Shadows to SDC leaving no trail. Rest of his points are also flawed but we already know his agenda so I will not waste my time. |
^ I am with STUPID!
|
|
|
|
child_harold (OP)
|
|
November 11, 2015, 06:53:33 PM
Last edit: November 11, 2015, 08:11:08 PM by child_harold |
|
An increase in transaction volume (>1) destroys your argument.
Not to mention there is still no link between sender and receiver after all is said and done.
His argument was that converting the tokens weakens anonymity, which is true no matter the volume. His argument is flawed at best ... if I want to buy something for $3.21, I do not go to the ATM and withdraw $3.21 .. I will withdraw $10 or $20 ... Shadow works in the same way, you have a balance of Shadows (SDT) which you can then spend all day long leaving no trail. Likewise if I am a seller I will not be running to the bank every-time I made a sale. I will deposit in a batch i.e. the same way you convert Shadows to SDC leaving no trail. Rest of his points are also flawed but we already know his agenda so I will not waste my time. I do not believe the argument to be flawed. As illodin distilled quite lucidly: His argument was that converting the tokens weakens anonymity, which is true no matter the volume.I dont know how you can dance around this so how about providing technical reasons why this is incorrect and why CN coins are not substantially more anonymous than Shadow, which I believe they are. EDIT: Even you admit that a user is best to pool some SDT before spending them precisely because of the systems weakness which I have described. Relying on user awareness means the system is fatally flawed since users are dumb Also your ATM example is flawed. In crypto one does not withdraw fixed sums (100, 500, 1000 etc) but rather pays in the specific amounts you describe (3.21, or 6.42 in escrow) Step up and prove me wrong. Additionally the SDT tokens compromise the SDC tokens. The more SDT in circulation the less SDC to secure the network and the less reliable SDC addresses totals become for non-data analysts. The long and short of this is that the SDC compromises the SDT anonymity and the SDT comprises the SDC transparency and the overall network integrity.FUN METAPHOR: BTC is a dog (leaving mess), XMR a cat (without trace). SDC is both in a bag. What could go wrong?
I really love it how you fail even in points you marked as "BASICS".
Oh really? And how exactly do I have the basics wrong? I'll bet I have spent much more time playing with this than you have my unicorn-riding friend. Please correct me and advise this community on my mistakes and I'll hold my hands up. Now bugger off. |
|
|
|
|
dasource
|
|
November 11, 2015, 10:25:25 PM |
|
I dont know how you can dance around this so how about providing technical reasons why this is incorrect and why CN coins are not substantially more anonymous than Shadow, which I believe they are.
It is wrong because you do not fundamentally understand how it works .. I am not here to teach you. EDIT: Even you admit that a user is best to pool some SDT before spending them precisely because of the systems weakness which I have described. Relying on user awareness means the system is fatally flawed since users are dumb
I did not admit any such thing, so stop trying to pretend I said something I did not. Also your ATM example is flawed. In crypto one does not withdraw fixed sums (100, 500, 1000 etc) but rather pays in the specific amounts you describe (3.21, or 6.42 in escrow)
Step up and prove me wrong.
My response earlier was "dummy" proof ... do I need to make it "idiot" proof? Additionally the SDT tokens compromise the SDC tokens. The more SDT in circulation the less SDC to secure the network and the less reliable SDC addresses totals become for non-data analysts.
The long and short of this is that the SDC compromises the SDT anonymity and the SDT comprises the SDC transparency and the overall network integrity.
Long and short of this is that "you are trying to punch above your weight on something you do not understand" - that is as blunt as I can put it. FUN METAPHOR: BTC is a dog (leaving mess), XMR a cat (without trace). SDC is both in a bag. What could go wrong?
This is funny since the joke is on you  Now go figure that a large % of XMR transactions have a mixin of 1 and what that means to anonymity ... I really love it how you fail even in points you marked as "BASICS".
Oh really? And how exactly do I have the basics wrong? I'll bet I have spent much more time playing with this than you have my unicorn-riding friend. Please correct me and advise this community on my mistakes and I'll hold my hands up. Now bugger off. He is right, you do fail to understand the basics. And what community? you, yourself and I? LMAO! Who are you trying to kid? I'll make you a simple deal, I will prove how your assumptions are baseless and how your so called claim of XMR being more anonymous than Shadow is also baseless. You in exchange stop spreading baseless lies and close this thread leaving the Shadow community at peace. Be a man about it and lets put this to bed once and for all! |
^ I am with STUPID!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
illodin
|
|
November 13, 2015, 02:14:12 AM |
|
I could send 2 BTC to Bittrex and withdraw 1 BTC a day later and ask what is the original address and you wouldn't be able to tell. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wanderlust
|
|
November 15, 2015, 07:17:38 PM |
|
WC: I asked for an SDC to SDT
dasource: I accept your terms. Prove me stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wheatclove
|
|
November 16, 2015, 12:10:32 AM |
|
WC: I asked for an SDC to SDT
dasource: I accept your terms. Prove me stupid.
The first link I posted has an SDC to SDT transaction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wanderlust
|
|
November 19, 2015, 10:45:14 AM |
|
CH  I'll take a pop soon, been busy.. not that my efforts matter compared to an attacker who is actively monitoring the flow of traffic on the SDC blockchain... In the meantime I'm waiting for someone to explain how the SDC tokens do not affect the anonymity of SDT tokens, which I believe they might. Certainly it provides clues where cryptonote coins do not. Users unfamiliar with Coin Control will leak even more data. Comments? |
|
|
|
|
|
Wheatclove
|
|
November 19, 2015, 02:18:31 PM |
|
CH I'll take a pop soon, been busy.. not that my efforts matter compared to an attacker who is actively monitoring the flow of traffic on the SDC blockchain... In the meantime I'm waiting for someone to explain how the SDC tokens do not affect the anonymity of SDT tokens, which I believe they might. Certainly it provides clues where cryptonote coins do not. Users unfamiliar with Coin Control will leak even more data. Comments? Do you have anything to substantiate your claim other than "I think they might"? (I don't have time to read through this thread again). SDC -> SDT transactions are only a means for a user to convert their public tokens to private tokens. Even if you monitor the entire blockchain in real time, the recipient of an SDT -> SDT transaction cannot be linked to the sender. The end. |
|
|
|
|
|
child_harold (OP)
|
|
November 19, 2015, 09:49:35 PM |
|
CH ~etherized~ I'll take a pop soon, been busy.. not that my efforts matter compared to an attacker who is actively monitoring the flow of traffic on the SDC blockchain... In the meantime I'm waiting for someone to explain how the SDC tokens do not affect the anonymity of SDT tokens, which I believe they might. Certainly it provides clues where cryptonote coins do not. Users unfamiliar with Coin Control will leak even more data. Comments? Do you have anything to substantiate your claim other than "I think they might"? (I don't have time to read through this thread again). SDC -> SDT transactions are only a means for a user to convert their public tokens to private tokens. Even if you monitor the entire blockchain in real time, the recipient of an SDT -> SDT transaction cannot be linked to the sender. The end. Indeed. SDT>SDT (Cryptonote) should be anon. That is not the issue. Never mind though since better minds are now dealing with this area. Faster than even I expected Ethereum appears to be PAC-MAN'ing (gobbling) the entire altcoin space: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/3tappe/early_alpha_monerolike_linkable_ring_signatures/Farewell wheatclove. |
|
|
|
|
maxvolts
|
|
November 20, 2015, 04:06:12 PM |
|
Child, i have bee following sdc since it started, including all of your posts. about the only thing that is legit about you is your fucking name. why don't you run along and start your own perfect coin.
|
|
|
|
volyova
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 23, 2015, 05:23:13 PM |
|
Let it go SDC is 99% scam and it's final wall is being broken, thank God e.g. No reply vs Cinni, No reply vs PoW change and No reply vs Zeuner scandal Buy at your own peril.. There has been a reply on Zeuner. He needs more documentation. And the documentation is being written as we speak. Then again, the software being developed is open-source and I encourage everyone to do their own research. Fact is that the technology being written is proof that this coin is not a scam. Check the github repository yourself. Meh the documentation isn't being written for Zeuner, but he might be able to use it. Ryno has never been in contact with Zeuner, I believe it was ffmad and trollsroyce who were communicating with him. The consensus in the SDC community is that Zeuner is either lazy, not competent enough to dissect the source code, or doesn't believe he is being compensated enough to take on the work which he originally offered to do for free (I admit the code is a brilliant uncommented mess, but it still isn't that difficult to comb through). Sure..  |
|
|
|
|
volyova
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 23, 2015, 05:31:15 PM |
|
 You are wrong... always. The word "thieves" springs to mind  |
|
|
|
|
|
Wheatclove
|
|
November 23, 2015, 07:41:34 PM |
|
You are wrong... always. The word "thieves" springs to mind The word "donation" comes to mind. |
|
|
|
|
volyova
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 23, 2015, 07:51:29 PM |
|
Are you in love, Wheatclove?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wheatclove
|
|
November 23, 2015, 07:57:46 PM |
|
Are you in love, Wheatclove?
Yeah. Relevancy? |
|
|
|
|
|
