⭕️LEALANA BRASS XMR COINS FOR SALE ⭕️

[AwfulCrawler]

The way it works is it creates a signature of a single output and key image.

The idea is that it operates as a degenerate ring signature (only one output is used in creating the "ring signature")

I think that's enough info for me to figure it out.  Thanks for clarifying.

Edit:  After having a look, I think I'm doing the right thing.  In the end only a single public key gets sent to the check / sign crypto_ops functions.  I.e. for this part:

Code:

const public_key *const *pubs, size_t pubs_count

pubs only contains one public_key and pubs_count==1.  So unless you modified the nuts and bolts of the signature generation / checking beyond just sending a single public key (which seems unlikely)
I think it's all good.  Will be interested to test it on an actual digital certificate.

[1714708118]

1714708118

[1714708118]

1714708118

[1714708118]

1714708118

[1714708118]

1714708118

[1714708118]

1714708118

[A-10]

I received my roll of 20 today. Thank you for making such a great coins.

[owlcatz]

After checking out my brass coins for a bit, I figured I should find out how to prove they are funded using the digital COAs

For anyone wanting to know how to do this:

1. Go here:  http://xmr.llcoins.net/checktx.html
2. On the digital COA, copy and paste the "tx_id" value into the "Transaction Hash" on the webpage form.
3. On the digital COA, copy and paste the "VIEW KEY" into the "Private Key" field, and change the drop-down to "Private Viewkey"
4. On the digital COA, copy and paste the "XMR ADDRESS" into the "Recipient's Public Address" field and hit "Check"

Results should look something like this:

This address doesn't own output 1 with pubkey: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for amount: 0.3
This address owns output          2 with pubkey: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for amount: 5
This address doesn't own output 3 with pubkey: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for amount: 8

The red line proves the coin is funded, as output_public_key on the COA should match the one shown in red.

Cheers!

[AwfulCrawler]

owlcatz,

I think there are a couple more steps to verify that the coin is funded.

The steps you have above show that the coin had 5 XMR deposited to it, but it doesn't confirm that they are still there.

In order to confirm they are still there you need to:

1) Check the signature/s.  This confirms that the listed key image matches with the output public key on the digital certificate.
2) Check the spent status of the key image.

If step 1) was successful and step 2) shows that it is unspent, then the funds are still there.

I believe step (2) can be done on some blockchain explorers but step (1) isn't readily available yet without doing some coding yourself.
I've made a little command line thing for myself which verifies the digital certificates, and if I can tidy it up enough I'll get it up on github or something.

[smoothie]

owlcatz,

I think there are a couple more steps to verify that the coin is funded.

The steps you have above show that the coin had 5 XMR deposited to it, but it doesn't confirm that they are still there.

In order to confirm they are still there you need to:

1) Check the signature/s.  This confirms that the listed key image matches with the output public key on the digital certificate.
2) Check the spent status of the key image.

If step 1) was successful and step 2) shows that it is unspent, then the funds are still there.

I believe step (2) can be done on some blockchain explorers but step (1) isn't readily available yet without doing some coding yourself.
I've made a little command line thing for myself which verifies the digital certificates, and if I can tidy it up enough I'll get it up on github or something.

This is pretty much correct ^ as far as I am aware.

That is awesome that you managed to code something for verifying this.

I've had several users already ask me about my code on my end and I am at the same point, still needing to clean it up and release it (the verify/check ring_sig portion of it). The only thing is my code is a hack of an older version of monero within one of the existing files.

Not the most ideal, yeah I know.  

Please share what you have when you have it, it would definitely make less work for me (hopefully) and help users of the coins and other physical XMR coins.  

[AwfulCrawler]

Please share what you have when you have it, it would definitely make less work for me (hopefully) and help users of the coins and other physical XMR coins.  

Will do.  The main problem (which isn't actually major) is that I can't get the hashes to match still.  This doesn't affect whether you can verify the
balance of the coin, but it is a bit annoying and is another check which would be nice to do.  I've tried sha256, keccak, cryptonite with the start and end
tags either included / not included.  Extra newlines.  Saving with Windows newline format, unix newline format.   

So I'm missing something that someone else might catch if I just put it out there as it is.

Another 'problem' is that it's C++ code using Monero libraries and at the moment only compiles on my machine running Ubuntu 16.04, so it will take
a little bit of work to get it to compile on another OS.  I really have very little clue when it comes to compiling with make or other things (or even github).

Will let people know when / if it's up in a usable form.

[owlcatz]

Please share what you have when you have it, it would definitely make less work for me (hopefully) and help users of the coins and other physical XMR coins.  

Will do.  The main problem (which isn't actually major) is that I can't get the hashes to match still.  This doesn't affect whether you can verify the
balance of the coin, but it is a bit annoying and is another check which would be nice to do.  I've tried sha256, keccak, cryptonite with the start and end
tags either included / not included.  Extra newlines.  Saving with Windows newline format, unix newline format.   

So I'm missing something that someone else might catch if I just put it out there as it is.

Another 'problem' is that it's C++ code using Monero libraries and at the moment only compiles on my machine running Ubuntu 16.04, so it will take
a little bit of work to get it to compile on another OS.  I really have very little clue when it comes to compiling with make or other things (or even github).

Will let people know when / if it's up in a usable form.

Yeah I realized this last weekend, and meant to edit my post, but Smoothie basically outlined it above already. 

Great news/work - Please do let us know when/if you can release it. I run ubuntu same release here.

Regards

[smoothie]

Please share what you have when you have it, it would definitely make less work for me (hopefully) and help users of the coins and other physical XMR coins.  

Will do.  The main problem (which isn't actually major) is that I can't get the hashes to match still.  This doesn't affect whether you can verify the
balance of the coin, but it is a bit annoying and is another check which would be nice to do.  I've tried sha256, keccak, cryptonite with the start and end
tags either included / not included.  Extra newlines.  Saving with Windows newline format, unix newline format.   

So I'm missing something that someone else might catch if I just put it out there as it is.

Another 'problem' is that it's C++ code using Monero libraries and at the moment only compiles on my machine running Ubuntu 16.04, so it will take
a little bit of work to get it to compile on another OS.  I really have very little clue when it comes to compiling with make or other things (or even github).

Will let people know when / if it's up in a usable form.

When I get some time I will look at this again.

[digicoinuser]

AwfulCrawler, that is great to hear!  Don't rush it and I'm looking forward to verifying my monero when it's completed.  Owl would be a great test subject.

[smoothie]

Please share what you have when you have it, it would definitely make less work for me (hopefully) and help users of the coins and other physical XMR coins.  

Will do.  The main problem (which isn't actually major) is that I can't get the hashes to match still.  This doesn't affect whether you can verify the
balance of the coin, but it is a bit annoying and is another check which would be nice to do.  I've tried sha256, keccak, cryptonite with the start and end
tags either included / not included.  Extra newlines.  Saving with Windows newline format, unix newline format.  

So I'm missing something that someone else might catch if I just put it out there as it is.

Another 'problem' is that it's C++ code using Monero libraries and at the moment only compiles on my machine running Ubuntu 16.04, so it will take
a little bit of work to get it to compile on another OS.  I really have very little clue when it comes to compiling with make or other things (or even github).

Will let people know when / if it's up in a usable form.

Okay so I went through my code on my end to see if I was overlooking anything that gets fed to cn_fast_hash(...) and found nothing really new that hasn't already been shared with you.

There is a '\n' at the end of the END tag line that gets added into the string that is then hashed. For more clarity I am running this on Ubuntu 14.04.

QUESTION: Just to be clear are you able to run your own version of "check_ring_signature" against the information contained in the digital certificate?

If yes, then is your issue mainly about reproducing the hash with the cn_fast_hash(...) function with the input of the digital certificate text?

The hash of the text is used in checking the signature, so if it were incorrect I would assume the check wouldn't work (as in "check out") on my end nor your end. I'm leaning towards this is not the case on your end.

[AwfulCrawler]

Please share what you have when you have it, it would definitely make less work for me (hopefully) and help users of the coins and other physical XMR coins.  

Will do.  The main problem (which isn't actually major) is that I can't get the hashes to match still.  This doesn't affect whether you can verify the
balance of the coin, but it is a bit annoying and is another check which would be nice to do.  I've tried sha256, keccak, cryptonite with the start and end
tags either included / not included.  Extra newlines.  Saving with Windows newline format, unix newline format.  

So I'm missing something that someone else might catch if I just put it out there as it is.

Another 'problem' is that it's C++ code using Monero libraries and at the moment only compiles on my machine running Ubuntu 16.04, so it will take
a little bit of work to get it to compile on another OS.  I really have very little clue when it comes to compiling with make or other things (or even github).

Will let people know when / if it's up in a usable form.

Okay so I went through my code on my end to see if I was overlooking anything that gets fed to cn_fast_hash(...) and found nothing really new that hasn't already been shared with you.

There is a '\n' at the end of the END tag line that gets added into the string that is then hashed. For more clarity I am running this on Ubuntu 14.04.

QUESTION: Just to be clear are you able to run your own version of "check_ring_signature" against the information contained in the digital certificate?

If yes, then is your issue mainly about reproducing the hash with the cn_fast_hash(...) function with the input of the digital certificate text?

The hash of the text is used in checking the signature, so if it were incorrect I would assume the check wouldn't work (as in "check out") on my end nor your end. I'm leaning towards this is not the case on your end.

I can check and verify the signatures using the hash that you supply (not the one that I have been producing). The problem is purely with reproducing the hash of the message, which actually is a fairly minor problem.

I was trying cn_fast_hash along with sha256 and cn_slow_hash. Knowing that it's cn_fast_hash helps, so I'll have another go at it.


Thanks!

EDIT: I've updated to use cn_fast_hash.  My hashes now match those given when you enter text into this link: https://emn178.github.io/online-tools/keccak_256.html (by my understanding keccak-256 should be equivalent to cn_fast_hash).  At least, they match when using the text I'm feeding them.  There may just be some obscure issue here.

[AwfulCrawler]

OK,

Even though I'm still unable to match the hashes, I'm going to post a link to the github repository for verifying digital certificates.  If anyone can get it to compile and work, it will for sure give a warning message about the hashes, but that can be ignored.  It's not particularly important for verifying that the funds are there.  Here is the link:

https://github.com/AwfulCrawler/Physical-XMR-Verifier

The Repo includes a tool to produce sample certificates, so it should do something similar to what Smoothie does.  But any difference there is the likely reason why the hashes don't match.

There are some sample certificates in the repository, produced using testnet wallets.  E.g.:

Code:

HASH:<9e0956c9af03cec2e6da6681273179b4a8d67d44566a01c3da1fbeaa7336e53f>

--------------------------------------------------START-----------------------------------------------------
XMR PHYSICAL COIN CERTIFICATE

XMR ADDRESS: 9uNMjn3wUeUVGHspwdkEEPSLtqcUjeb9AUAcqwZX3GppPVcpUCV1fqM1oL3FP6H7AvLcLoBFFosLje8a9ucnbihF749cL69

VIEW KEY: c7a039e0539e2ab5d57e092de93a46872a49e9f27b91146a9c2cc5c6bfd5ef0a
Total # of outputs:1
*************************************INDIVIDUAL OUTPUT INFORMATION******************************************
key_image: ........6e08fffd369e7aa68ff1cedb660193cd017b5473c85d1997cbb96ce5a2584dda
tx_id: ............ad3039a882daca308d426d87533fc7f749ba8b66c8dea7dd69d9d1f56479224a
output_public_key: 1c0975e48bc6cf4783b25c07c1f40452c99c5215d71dbe3c9259c360bd9f7345
xmr_amount: .......25.000000000000

---------------------------------------------------END------------------------------------------------------

SIGNATURES:
<24ca221c0b400dbe7fd48c4d0df46161553ff9b640e5bce02956c0e2f95dcd0a011df03579201d57b5f96385212ac7c8f3c9e7eaf1f6dc2891fe9f2bbfd83c0a>

I hope someone else can get it to work.  There are instructions in the link but they may not be totally clear.

[NattyLiteCoin]

Can you pick the SN's contained in a roll or are they randomly selected?

I may also be interested in splitting a roll if someone is on the fence about getting a whole one.

[owlcatz]

Can you pick the SN's contained in a roll or are they randomly selected?

I may also be interested in splitting a roll if someone is on the fence about getting a whole one.

I don't believe you get to choose, but I never asked - I split a roll with someone a few months back, and they were all random, but still at least under #500, so that was cool.

Also, I sent 4 into ANACS and they all came back graded MS69, so that was a nice surprise as well.

[smoothie]

Can you pick the SN's contained in a roll or are they randomly selected?

I may also be interested in splitting a roll if someone is on the fence about getting a whole one.

They are randomly selected.

[ResistantLaw]

I'm interested, are these still available?

I've read the whole post but it is kinda confusing. Do we fund these coins ourselves before you send them out? (I don't want it to say unfunded). Does it have to be 5 XMR?

Thanks.

[smoothie]

I'm interested, are these still available?

I've read the whole post but it is kinda confusing. Do we fund these coins ourselves before you send them out? (I don't want it to say unfunded). Does it have to be 5 XMR?

Thanks.

The answer to all of your questions above is Yes.

[owlcatz]

Just curious - Has anyone tested redeeming one of these yet? They are getting pretty high in loaded value, so I'm a bit nervous and thinking of peeling one to find out if noone else has yet? Thanks. 

[digicoinuser]

Just curious - Has anyone tested redeeming one of these yet? They are getting pretty high in loaded value, so I'm a bit nervous and thinking of peeling one to find out if noone else has yet? Thanks. 

That's a good question, I don't believe I've seen one stated to be redeemed and I'm wondering the same.  I don't think you'll have any problem and if you peel one please let us know the outcome. 

[owlcatz]

Just curious - Has anyone tested redeeming one of these yet? They are getting pretty high in loaded value, so I'm a bit nervous and thinking of peeling one to find out if noone else has yet? Thanks. 

That's a good question, I don't believe I've seen one stated to be redeemed and I'm wondering the same.  I don't think you'll have any problem and if you peel one please let us know the outcome. 

I should have one in hand in a week or two that I plan to peel. I don't expect any issues, and will post the outcome.