[XC][XCurrency] Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat / Pos

[the_game1224]

Over 20 BTC worth of buy orders in the last 5 min

[1714480785]

1714480785

[1714480785]

1714480785

[1714480785]

1714480785

[1714480785]

1714480785

[atcsecure]

In a real life situation you would not have an MD5 would you?  All you would have is the incoming amount and TX ID.  
Therefore, I hashed the MD5 including the sender and receiver, and zipped it.  It is there. the password will be available later - say 4 pm CST, so 3hr45mins from now.

he already posted something.  check it now

and if he somehow cracked the zip , you guys have to be kidding me

evtrmm, where are you now. need you here.

All chaeplin did was search for transactions that equal = 2.2, he failed to show any link between the two

[Profetu]

Wow. Such community...

MD5 is just to prove a string. I doesn't have to be that, it could be an uploaded image with a time stamp, or a zip protected file. To claim he reversed MD5 is utter nonsense. You can MD5 argrfz-address-fdfgg and that will return a completely different hash.

I am really embarrassed by the people's attitude in this thread. I guess it's human nature after all.

[chaeplin]

In a real life situation you would not have an MD5 would you?  All you would have is the incoming amount and TX ID.  
Therefore, I hashed the MD5 including the sender and receiver, and zipped it.  It is there. the password will be available later - say 4 pm CST, so 3hr45mins from now.

he already posted something.  check it now

and if he somehow cracked the zip , you guys have to be kidding me

evtrmm, where are you now. need you here.

All chaeplin did was search for transactions that equal = 2.2, he failed to show any link between the two

First, say address is correct ?


I will show you hard evidence.

Design flaw.


Is there bounty ( BTC ) ?

[hoertest]

In a real life situation you would not have an MD5 would you?  All you would have is the incoming amount and TX ID.  
Therefore, I hashed the MD5 including the sender and receiver, and zipped it.  It is there. the password will be available later - say 4 pm CST, so 3hr45mins from now.

he already posted something.  check it now

and if he somehow cracked the zip , you guys have to be kidding me

evtrmm, where are you now. need you here.

All chaeplin did was search for transactions that equal = 2.2, he failed to show any link between the two

+1 like the last 500 test, so can you idiots please stop backstabbin your own dev for once.

[greyskies]

In a real life situation you would not have an MD5 would you?  All you would have is the incoming amount and TX ID.  
Therefore, I hashed the MD5 including the sender and receiver, and zipped it.  It is there. the password will be available later - say 4 pm CST, so 3hr45mins from now.

he already posted something.  check it now

and if he somehow cracked the zip , you guys have to be kidding me

evtrmm, where are you now. need you here.

All chaeplin did was search for transactions that equal = 2.2, he failed to show any link between the two

As I said before dev you need to make a dozen transactions, all of the same amount, as a test. Then simply searching for the transaction amoount won't work if you ask him to pick a specific one.

[atcsecure]

In a real life situation you would not have an MD5 would you?  All you would have is the incoming amount and TX ID.  
Therefore, I hashed the MD5 including the sender and receiver, and zipped it.  It is there. the password will be available later - say 4 pm CST, so 3hr45mins from now.

he already posted something.  check it now

and if he somehow cracked the zip , you guys have to be kidding me

evtrmm, where are you now. need you here.

All chaeplin did was search for transactions that equal = 2.2, he failed to show any link between the two

First, say address is correct ?


I will show you hard evidence.

Design flaw.


Is there bounty ?

I don't know the address

and no there is not a bounty for that test

[JakeThePanda]

In a real life situation you would not have an MD5 would you?  All you would have is the incoming amount and TX ID.  
Therefore, I hashed the MD5 including the sender and receiver, and zipped it.  It is there. the password will be available later - say 4 pm CST, so 3hr45mins from now.

he already posted something.  check it now

and if he somehow cracked the zip , you guys have to be kidding me

evtrmm, where are you now. need you here.

All chaeplin did was search for transactions that equal = 2.2, he failed to show any link between the two

+1 like the last 500 test, so can you idiots please stop backstabbin your own dev for once.

We aren't backstabbing anything.  ATCSecure put a test out there.  I'm not looking for a pump and dump here. If you are worried about what you are going to find out from a test then you should sell.  You are obviously here just for a higher price so you can sell now.

[atcsecure]

In a real life situation you would not have an MD5 would you?  All you would have is the incoming amount and TX ID.  
Therefore, I hashed the MD5 including the sender and receiver, and zipped it.  It is there. the password will be available later - say 4 pm CST, so 3hr45mins from now.

he already posted something.  check it now

and if he somehow cracked the zip , you guys have to be kidding me

evtrmm, where are you now. need you here.

All chaeplin did was search for transactions that equal = 2.2, he failed to show any link between the two

As I said before dev you need to make a dozen transactions, all of the same amount, as a test. Then simply searching for the transaction amoount won't work if you ask him to pick a specific one.

agreed, that wasn't a test I put forward

here is one


XYpmyasn9gRZuaumqjkk9XFccrz24XL2bk

Tell me the source

[getmining.info]

In a real life situation you would not have an MD5 would you?  All you would have is the incoming amount and TX ID.  
Therefore, I hashed the MD5 including the sender and receiver, and zipped it.  It is there. the password will be available later - say 4 pm CST, so 3hr45mins from now.

he already posted something.  check it now

and if he somehow cracked the zip , you guys have to be kidding me

evtrmm, where are you now. need you here.

All chaeplin did was search for transactions that equal = 2.2, he failed to show any link between the two

Put an end to this.. People posting up "Tests" or "Challenges" need to know there is clearly a difference between "Tell me the FROMADDRESS" and "Show me a link back to the FROMADDRESS".

If you are going to offer "Tests/Challenges" then do it right. Run the sendfrommixer 10 times, each from a different sentfrom address to the same sendto address with the same amount. Then ask which address is it for 1 of the 10 specific transactions. (This is needed as with so few mixed transactions going on right now, you can massively cut down the "guess work" when you know the amount sent.

[cyberhacker]

where is @evtrmm?

reveal the address now

[chaeplin]

In a real life situation you would not have an MD5 would you?  All you would have is the incoming amount and TX ID.  
Therefore, I hashed the MD5 including the sender and receiver, and zipped it.  It is there. the password will be available later - say 4 pm CST, so 3hr45mins from now.

he already posted something.  check it now

and if he somehow cracked the zip , you guys have to be kidding me

evtrmm, where are you now. need you here.

All chaeplin did was search for transactions that equal = 2.2, he failed to show any link between the two

First, say address is correct ?


I will show you hard evidence.

Design flaw.


Is there bounty ?

I don't know the address

and no there is not a bounty for that test

I am saying hard evidence. hard link.

[phosphorush]

In a real life situation you would not have an MD5 would you?  All you would have is the incoming amount and TX ID.  
Therefore, I hashed the MD5 including the sender and receiver, and zipped it.  It is there. the password will be available later - say 4 pm CST, so 3hr45mins from now.

he already posted something.  check it now

and if he somehow cracked the zip , you guys have to be kidding me

evtrmm, where are you now. need you here.

All chaeplin did was search for transactions that equal = 2.2, he failed to show any link between the two

As I said before dev you need to make a dozen transactions, all of the same amount, as a test. Then simply searching for the transaction amoount won't work if you ask him to pick a specific one.

+1

[atcsecure]

In a real life situation you would not have an MD5 would you?  All you would have is the incoming amount and TX ID.  
Therefore, I hashed the MD5 including the sender and receiver, and zipped it.  It is there. the password will be available later - say 4 pm CST, so 3hr45mins from now.

he already posted something.  check it now

and if he somehow cracked the zip , you guys have to be kidding me

evtrmm, where are you now. need you here.

All chaeplin did was search for transactions that equal = 2.2, he failed to show any link between the two

+1 like the last 500 test, so can you idiots please stop backstabbin your own dev for once.

We aren't backstabbing anything.  ATCSecure put a test out there.

Actually I didn't put that test out there, that was done by evtrmm



So far nobody has provided the source address for any test I have done

[evtrmm]

In a real life situation you would not have an MD5 would you?  All you would have is the incoming amount and TX ID.  
Therefore, I hashed the MD5 including the sender and receiver, and zipped it.  It is there. the password will be available later - say 4 pm CST, so 3hr45mins from now.

he already posted something.  check it now

and if he somehow cracked the zip , you guys have to be kidding me

evtrmm, where are you now. need you here.

just reading through now...

[atcsecure]

In a real life situation you would not have an MD5 would you?  All you would have is the incoming amount and TX ID.  
Therefore, I hashed the MD5 including the sender and receiver, and zipped it.  It is there. the password will be available later - say 4 pm CST, so 3hr45mins from now.

he already posted something.  check it now

and if he somehow cracked the zip , you guys have to be kidding me

evtrmm, where are you now. need you here.

All chaeplin did was search for transactions that equal = 2.2, he failed to show any link between the two

Put an end to this.. There is clearly a difference between "Tell me the FROMADDRESS" and "Show me a link back to the FROMADDRESS".

If you are going to offer "Tests" Then run the sendfrommixer 10 times, each from a different sentfrom address to the same sendto address with the same amount. Then ask which address is it for 1 of the 10 specific transactions.

YES DONE

received payment @ - XYpmyasn9gRZuaumqjkk9XFccrz24XL2bk

[evtrmm]

Where is his answer?

[policymaker]

Chaeplin,

New test.

https://evaltech-my.sharepoint.com/personal/allen_eval-tech_com/_layouts/15/guestaccess.aspx?guestaccesstoken=FUJ7tBTUM8R3KMU2hAwba293Jah2leGT2%2bkg%2fp%2fdFX0%3d&docid=1b12fbf2d34bd495aa8d86071dfff2742

zipped file.
PW protected.
MD5 included

"sendfrommixer" MAIN XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu 2.2

---FROMADDRESS??

FYI:

Code:

* ====> Working block height 28617 has 10 tx
	* ====> Searchng XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb
		tx: 7	percent 95		value 2.2
			*===> block reached
			*===> Searchng 28618 : diff : 1
				*===> XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu 2.19999 link is : XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb <----> XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC

http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/block.dws?28617.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96074.htm

Code:

Details for Transaction
Hash	3680e4bd53607ff677eb94fd0b15f17cdf21f6c8e89a0b5b573c5a2ee13cfdb5
Blockheight	28617 (34 confirmations)
Date/Time	 2014-06-11 16:03:57
Total Output	21.49996 XC
Fee	1,E-5.0 XC

 
Inputs / Outputs
Raw Transaction
Inputs
Index	Previous output	Address	Amount
0	762a501de829...:0	XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw	21.49997 XC
Outputs
Index	Redeemed in	Address	Amount
0	4eba6dee5d2a...	XCfsrU7KGy6hzCmfvF47FjC2Mj56tqxR9d	21.484411 XC
1	dd438f2fbd86...	XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb	0.015549 XC

http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/block.dws?28618.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96083.htm

Code:

Hash	1cd9a9bdc8cadc55de21d1dc640aa35bd0bc631f52d54e373b49c1b4ac3a42ed
Blockheight	28618 (33 confirmations)
Date/Time	 2014-06-11 16:04:47
Total Output	2.210008 XC
Fee	4,E-5.0 XC

 
Inputs / Outputs
Raw Transaction
Inputs
Index	Previous output	Address	Amount
0	2e4b75ef5a19...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
1	cd32a1861879...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
2	3ce0db590e12...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
3	02db662529db...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
4	447508bf02da...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
5	2d78dc9f56f4...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
6	11c03ded1646...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
7	621e30ceab64...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
8	94fdca2ed122...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
9	8b9b2670d7fe...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
10	9e0042d13a8c...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
11	3bf012c2084a...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
12	88d3f916833b...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
13	d3c04cd03e84...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
14	c2f94d8a07f7...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
15	6bf82a41a9ea...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
16	41a3ee9ac44a...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
17	5e4064a65a3b...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
18	3dd4c6f4142d...:1	XXh8LXMKYXiZ8dJMs57cBSZ93tDZddSoF7	0.003 XC
19	0a17a0ab48af...:2	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.003 XC
20	2ef543f876d2...:1	XUZvnU6MrxH49AVaSKwsXJMsyPoicrP6g2	0.100593 XC
21	a5e213619ea1...:1	XFx7u2jjP2TSQA34m6wJRugivcsJPG9yHN	0.003 XC
22	c933acb99fd0...:1	XUZvnU6MrxH49AVaSKwsXJMsyPoicrP6g2	0.003 XC
23	339cf1265d09...:1	XFx7u2jjP2TSQA34m6wJRugivcsJPG9yHN	2.094095 XC
24	b83aee2ba80c...:2	XYjDp5K1XTHn5ajiVxtaKw7CoL9CzRZKM2	0.003 XC
Outputs
Index	Redeemed in	Address	Amount
0	Not yet redeemed	XU9zPC349F4QVJmcn96d1S86bA9TwiyR7q	0.010018 XC
1	Not yet redeemed	XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNuBITTREX	2.19999 XC

[cyberhacker]

maybe we need a large scope test.

[atcsecure]

Chaeplin,

New test.

https://evaltech-my.sharepoint.com/personal/allen_eval-tech_com/_layouts/15/guestaccess.aspx?guestaccesstoken=FUJ7tBTUM8R3KMU2hAwba293Jah2leGT2%2bkg%2fp%2fdFX0%3d&docid=1b12fbf2d34bd495aa8d86071dfff2742

zipped file.
PW protected.
MD5 included

"sendfrommixer" MAIN XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu 2.2

---FROMADDRESS??

FYI:

Code:

* ====> Working block height 28617 has 10 tx
	* ====> Searchng XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb
		tx: 7	percent 95		value 2.2
			*===> block reached
			*===> Searchng 28618 : diff : 1
				*===> XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu 2.19999 link is : XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb <----> XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC

http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/block.dws?28617.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96074.htm

Code:

Details for Transaction
Hash	3680e4bd53607ff677eb94fd0b15f17cdf21f6c8e89a0b5b573c5a2ee13cfdb5
Blockheight	28617 (34 confirmations)
Date/Time	 2014-06-11 16:03:57
Total Output	21.49996 XC
Fee	1,E-5.0 XC

 
Inputs / Outputs
Raw Transaction
Inputs
Index	Previous output	Address	Amount
0	762a501de829...:0	XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw	21.49997 XC
Outputs
Index	Redeemed in	Address	Amount
0	4eba6dee5d2a...	XCfsrU7KGy6hzCmfvF47FjC2Mj56tqxR9d	21.484411 XC
1	dd438f2fbd86...	XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb	0.015549 XC

http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/block.dws?28618.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96083.htm

Code:

Hash	1cd9a9bdc8cadc55de21d1dc640aa35bd0bc631f52d54e373b49c1b4ac3a42ed
Blockheight	28618 (33 confirmations)
Date/Time	 2014-06-11 16:04:47
Total Output	2.210008 XC
Fee	4,E-5.0 XC

 
Inputs / Outputs
Raw Transaction
Inputs
Index	Previous output	Address	Amount
0	2e4b75ef5a19...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
1	cd32a1861879...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
2	3ce0db590e12...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
3	02db662529db...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
4	447508bf02da...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
5	2d78dc9f56f4...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
6	11c03ded1646...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
7	621e30ceab64...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
8	94fdca2ed122...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
9	8b9b2670d7fe...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
10	9e0042d13a8c...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
11	3bf012c2084a...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
12	88d3f916833b...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
13	d3c04cd03e84...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
14	c2f94d8a07f7...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
15	6bf82a41a9ea...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
16	41a3ee9ac44a...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
17	5e4064a65a3b...:1	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.00002 XC
18	3dd4c6f4142d...:1	XXh8LXMKYXiZ8dJMs57cBSZ93tDZddSoF7	0.003 XC
19	0a17a0ab48af...:2	XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC	0.003 XC
20	2ef543f876d2...:1	XUZvnU6MrxH49AVaSKwsXJMsyPoicrP6g2	0.100593 XC
21	a5e213619ea1...:1	XFx7u2jjP2TSQA34m6wJRugivcsJPG9yHN	0.003 XC
22	c933acb99fd0...:1	XUZvnU6MrxH49AVaSKwsXJMsyPoicrP6g2	0.003 XC
23	339cf1265d09...:1	XFx7u2jjP2TSQA34m6wJRugivcsJPG9yHN	2.094095 XC
24	b83aee2ba80c...:2	XYjDp5K1XTHn5ajiVxtaKw7CoL9CzRZKM2	0.003 XC
Outputs
Index	Redeemed in	Address	Amount
0	Not yet redeemed	XU9zPC349F4QVJmcn96d1S86bA9TwiyR7q	0.010018 XC
1	Not yet redeemed	XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNuBITTREX	2.19999 XC

None of this really matters as again - he is not showing a direct link, rather that a single transaction occurred matching the provided send amount of 2.2..