|
phosphorush
|
 |
June 12, 2014, 12:46:53 PM |
|
Sender A, send X transaction to receiver D through the mixer. Mixer created address C and tells A to send the transction through C to B. Chaeplin was pointing C but didn't know A.
Then ATC provided A and D and asked for a direct link between the 2, but none was pointed. Then Chaeplin began to spam A and B with tiny amounts of XC with equal amounts in hope to prove something and there I lost it, but it didn't seem like he proved anything.
Is that right? What did I miss?
|
Your account locked, please contact support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Artoodeetoo
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:47:13 PM |
|
You guys should look at this seriously. I think it can be fixed relatively easily - but if it's ignored it could be a problem for you later.
Chaeplin spent a bunch of time working through every detail to get you a step by step description of the issue.
And no one is responding seriously, no one has given a counter analysis - that is not a good sign for investors.
Can someone show where chaeplin's analysis is flawed? No one has directly responded at any point. Quote a post - draw lines...whatever you need to do.
I came to the same conclusion as him after reviewing a series of transactions yesterday - but it was annoying and took me a long time. If this isn't an issue - can someone just point out where? Or create a counter-example? If you want to be taken seriously - I'm pretty sure it's important and shouldn't be brushed off like it's nothing.
I don't know how you can call it FUD and ignore it......he walked you through the problem.
If you don't understand it...fine - let someone who does argue a counter-analysis. Don't just call it FUD because you don't understand what is going on.
ATCSecure has responded NUMEROUS times that by rev 2 with multi-path, this is a non-issue. Why should he waste any more time on a pattern matcher when this exact problem won't be a problem any more? You guys are confusing. He since posted a FULL walkthrough. Not the partial from yesterday that was responded to. Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you guys has conceded the analysis was correct. That's good, so, the solution is reliant on a second phase....which is awesome. This is exactly why I was asking for information yesterday about the design. Can't find any real material on it except some not-so-good super high level stuff on the website. Confusion could have easily been avoided with some information. It does seem though that you guys want to keep genuine interest away and the dev nor the members of the community - that I'm sure are great - are jumping in a saying much and making anyone feel like there is substance here. Shock horror, 99% of your posts are on the DRK thread, then you kindly come over here with your genuine "concern" we are so lucky. |
DASH #DashDC #DashIntoDigitalCash
|
|
|
sukottosan_d
Member
 Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:47:39 PM |
|
Sender A, send X transaction to receiver D throught the mixer. Mixer created address C and tells A to send the transction through C to B. Chaeplin was pointing C but didn't know A
Then ATC provided A and B and asked for a direct link between the 2, but none was pointed. Then Chaeplin began to spam A and B with tiny amounts of XC with equal amounts in hope to prove something and there I lost it, but it didn't seem like he proved anything.
Is that right? What did I miss?
The full analysis that came later. It was recent. |
|
|
|
|
|
phosphorush
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:51:15 PM |
|
Sender A, send X transaction to receiver D throught the mixer. Mixer created address C and tells A to send the transction through C to B. Chaeplin was pointing C but didn't know A
Then ATC provided A and B and asked for a direct link between the 2, but none was pointed. Then Chaeplin began to spam A and B with tiny amounts of XC with equal amounts in hope to prove something and there I lost it, but it didn't seem like he proved anything.
Is that right? What did I miss?
The full analysis that came later. It was recent. Give me a clear high level description of the problem that Chaeplin is pointing then and what exactly needs to be fixed in the way that the mixer is working. I'm no tech expert, but I can surely understand the logic. |
Your account locked, please contact support.
|
|
|
sukottosan_d
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:51:24 PM |
|
You guys should look at this seriously. I think it can be fixed relatively easily - but if it's ignored it could be a problem for you later.
Chaeplin spent a bunch of time working through every detail to get you a step by step description of the issue.
And no one is responding seriously, no one has given a counter analysis - that is not a good sign for investors.
Can someone show where chaeplin's analysis is flawed? No one has directly responded at any point. Quote a post - draw lines...whatever you need to do.
I came to the same conclusion as him after reviewing a series of transactions yesterday - but it was annoying and took me a long time. If this isn't an issue - can someone just point out where? Or create a counter-example? If you want to be taken seriously - I'm pretty sure it's important and shouldn't be brushed off like it's nothing.
I don't know how you can call it FUD and ignore it......he walked you through the problem.
If you don't understand it...fine - let someone who does argue a counter-analysis. Don't just call it FUD because you don't understand what is going on.
ATCSecure has responded NUMEROUS times that by rev 2 with multi-path, this is a non-issue. Why should he waste any more time on a pattern matcher when this exact problem won't be a problem any more? You guys are confusing. He since posted a FULL walkthrough. Not the partial from yesterday that was responded to. Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you guys has conceded the analysis was correct. That's good, so, the solution is reliant on a second phase....which is awesome. This is exactly why I was asking for information yesterday about the design. Can't find any real material on it except some not-so-good super high level stuff on the website. Confusion could have easily been avoided with some information. It does seem though that you guys want to keep genuine interest away and the dev nor the members of the community - that I'm sure are great - are jumping in a saying much and making anyone feel like there is substance here. Shock horror, 99% of your posts are on the DRK thread, then you kindly come over here with your genuine "concern" we are so lucky. Did you read my post about how I admitted to that and explained the situation. This is nuts. Clearly no genuine stuff here in the forum, I can't speak about the tech - cause there's no info. I will continue to watch on the aside and leave you guys be. But if anyone actually has some links for some information - I was interested in the tech, for the record - just can't find anything, could you please send some my way if you have it and are reasonable? |
|
|
|
|
|
chaeplin
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:51:41 PM |
|
Sender A, send X transaction to receiver D throught the mixer. Mixer created address C and tells A to send the transction through C to B. Chaeplin was pointing C but didn't know A
Then ATC provided A and B and asked for a direct link between the 2, but none was pointed. Then Chaeplin began to spam A and B with tiny amounts of XC with equal amounts in hope to prove something and there I lost it, but it didn't seem like he proved anything.
Is that right? What did I miss?
Incorrect. A ----> B mixer :: C mixer ----> D I have found B and C. As transaction A and D is revealed. Follow transaction Dev question was 'Is there link between B and C'. |
|
|
|
|
sukottosan_d
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:52:37 PM |
|
Sender A, send X transaction to receiver D throught the mixer. Mixer created address C and tells A to send the transction through C to B. Chaeplin was pointing C but didn't know A
Then ATC provided A and B and asked for a direct link between the 2, but none was pointed. Then Chaeplin began to spam A and B with tiny amounts of XC with equal amounts in hope to prove something and there I lost it, but it didn't seem like he proved anything.
Is that right? What did I miss?
The full analysis that came later. It was recent. Give me a clear high level description of the problem that Chaeplin is pointing then and what exactly needs to be fixed in the way that the mixer is working. I'm no tech expert, but I can surely understand the logic. Okay, I'll give it a shot - give me a bit to write it out clearly if I can. |
|
|
|
|
|
CryptoGretzky
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:53:09 PM |
|
Sender A, send X transaction to receiver D throught the mixer. Mixer created address C and tells A to send the transction through C to B. Chaeplin was pointing C but didn't know A
Then ATC provided A and B and asked for a direct link between the 2, but none was pointed. Then Chaeplin began to spam A and B with tiny amounts of XC with equal amounts in hope to prove something and there I lost it, but it didn't seem like he proved anything.
Is that right? What did I miss?
Incorrect. A ----> B mixer :: C mixer ----> D I have found B and C. As transaction A and D is revealed. Follow transaction Dev question was 'Is there link between B and C'. Your analysis is based on that the B mixer address has never been used and then you found a bunch of transactions with matching amounts... that is not really a "hard link"... |
|
|
|
|
cryptico
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:54:11 PM |
|
Sender A, send X transaction to receiver D throught the mixer. Mixer created address C and tells A to send the transction through C to B. Chaeplin was pointing C but didn't know A
Then ATC provided A and B and asked for a direct link between the 2, but none was pointed. Then Chaeplin began to spam A and B with tiny amounts of XC with equal amounts in hope to prove something and there I lost it, but it didn't seem like he proved anything.
Is that right? What did I miss?
The full analysis that came later. It was recent. Is not really nice to dispute the Dev analysis when he is not around to reply is it? |
|
|
|
|
chaeplin
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:56:36 PM |
|
Sender A, send X transaction to receiver D throught the mixer. Mixer created address C and tells A to send the transction through C to B. Chaeplin was pointing C but didn't know A
Then ATC provided A and B and asked for a direct link between the 2, but none was pointed. Then Chaeplin began to spam A and B with tiny amounts of XC with equal amounts in hope to prove something and there I lost it, but it didn't seem like he proved anything.
Is that right? What did I miss?
Incorrect. A ----> B mixer :: C mixer ----> D I have found B and C. As transaction A and D is revealed. Follow transaction Dev question was 'Is there link between B and C'. Your analysis is based on that the B mixer address has never been used and then you found a bunch of transaction with that matching amount... that is not really a "hard link"... What is hard link ? Tansaction from B to C or from C to B ? There is another hard link. If B and C is used in a transaction as input, I means B and C is single wallet, single entity. I have provided single tx with multiple input. |
|
|
|
|
evtrmm
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
So much for "Community"
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:57:20 PM |
|
Whatever it is, let us get to REV 2 and THEN do a true bounty test.
this shit hasn't gotten so stupid and childish.
If 4 transactions happened in the same block and receivers are known, would you be able to tie those transactions back to sender? This is my concern at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
adhitthana
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:58:16 PM |
|
Incorrect.
A ----> B mixer :: C mixer ----> D
I have found B and C.
As transaction A and D is revealed.
Follow transaction
Dev question was 'Is there link between B and C'.
And what is your answer? Are you saying because the mixer address had never been used...it must be a mixer address and that this links A and D? |
|
|
|
|
fearcoka
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:58:31 PM |
|
Hey guys, Fear here. Also Closetmonster for miscers. If you remember me, my friends and I started the big pump for XC. We didnt expect huge fud to drop the price but it had to be done. That being said, insider info. we love this coin.  Cheers |
Just Nao Tomori and Bitcoin ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
|
|
|
|
CryptoGretzky
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:59:51 PM |
|
Incorrect.
A ----> B mixer :: C mixer ----> D
I have found B and C.
As transaction A and D is revealed.
Follow transaction
Dev question was 'Is there link between B and C'.
And what is your answer? His answer is :: (guessed because so few transactions and because it's not multi-path yet) |
|
|
|
|
chaeplin
|
|
June 12, 2014, 01:01:41 PM |
|
Whatever it is, let us get to REV 2 and THEN do a true bounty test.
this shit hasn't gotten so stupid and childish.
If 4 transactions happened in the same block and receivers are known, would you be able to tie those transactions back to sender? This is my concern at the moment.
Yes. If you want hard link, you have to wait enough time. FYI. Owner of Xnode should not spend coins from Xnode for privacy of users. B and C can be used to single input. So when you send from original address A to the receiving address D , it goes to the mixer B, the mixer makes a new address C to send the amount to the receiver D? And Chaeplin doesn't get only A?
And chaeplin is adding that the mixer only uses one address for you, so once you know A, you can trace it. Which is what I said before. You have to assume A is known. that is not how the mixer work's The highlevel summary is this The mixer tells the client to send coins to wallet b, however wallet C is used to send coins to the final user, there is NO link from wallet B to wallet C unless somebody manually moves the coins from C to B |
|
|
|
|
|
mig5000
|
|
June 12, 2014, 01:02:55 PM |
|
Love it when a DRK fan boy come here and spam the thread. As far as I know DRK never showed any piece of code to anybody and their mixer is offline as it was forking the blockchain to no end. Keep it up fan boy. I like to see XC at these prices for the time being.
By the way which part of Beta(rev 1) don't you understand ?
|
|
|
|
|
evtrmm
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
So much for "Community"
|
|
June 12, 2014, 01:03:02 PM |
|
In other news, where are the pumps happening? got an itchy finger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FoldingTime
|
|
June 12, 2014, 01:07:54 PM |
|
What about this? Ref: Hash7337f03cc1d0b726d1fb8b0b9e66bc6cc796853379b75d7dd193e6d5e9c33c4f
Appeared inX11Coin 28533 (2014-06-11 13:25:09)
Number of inputs2 (Jump to inputs)
Total in10
Number of outputs1 (Jump to outputs)
Total out9.99999
Size345 bytes
Fee0.00001
Raw transaction
Inputs
Index Previous output Amount From address ScriptSig
0 235b7cba7a...:1 8.329413 XNECF1CtdkF2DjuVxcCr8VJEdKiH9ByDMb 73:3046...e501 33:03f5...9f33
1 2b46b1f30d...:1 1.670587 XNECF1CtdkF2DjuVxcCr8VJEdKiH9ByDMb 72:3045...3501 33:03f5...9f33
Outputs
Index Redeemed at input Amount To address ScriptPubKey
0 Not yet redeemed 9.99999 XNLdJtLQKnmi7PSUknoPoPRDjnmJnb3y8D DUP HASH160 20:788b...2bb6 EQUALVERIFY CHECKSIG
 * block : 28533 * from mixer XNECF1CtdkF2DjuVxcCr8VJEdKiH9ByDMb to XNLdJtLQKnmi7PSUknoPoPRDjnmJnb3y8D : 9.99999 * Search through pattern user@sv2:~/x11coin> ./run.py 28500 28590
* ====> Working block height 28527 has 8 tx
* ====> Searchng XTiH1AgxVoFYLuLamAzRLGbvoAYyxhZJV1
tx: 2 percent 94 value 0.006
*===> block reached
* ====> Working block height 28527 has 8 tx
* ====> Searchng XNECF1CtdkF2DjuVxcCr8VJEdKiH9ByDMb
tx: 2 percent 94 value 0.006
*===> block reached
* ====> Working block height 28531 has 4 tx
* ====> Searchng XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa
tx: 2 percent 100 value 10.0
*===> block reached
*===> Searchng 28533 : diff : 2
*===> XNLdJtLQKnmi7PSUknoPoPRDjnmJnb3y8D 9.99999 link is : XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa <----> XNECF1CtdkF2DjuVxcCr8VJEdKiH9ByDMb
* ====> Working block height 28587 has 5 tx
* ====> Searchng XUZvnU6MrxH49AVaSKwsXJMsyPoicrP6g2
tx: 2 percent 100 value 0.15
*===> block reached
*===> Searchng 28590 : diff : 3
*===> XE3dFcdQ6aH81J6viKraZwauMk9zcP4Ehz 0.14999 link is : XUZvnU6MrxH49AVaSKwsXJMsyPoicrP6g2 <----> XMDDFuadQFGas9Zn8nTMVFFGz9hUc7Jteo
Possible candidate in 28531 Hash7315a0968d1aa71e01031583446625bde7189bee1642d3c85737a537d7480778
Previous Blockc2ef588b1680c5498151345eacc4a3c363d77d802aff45674a597c3bdbfac00f
Next Block7e5eeaeecda5745b32be824e5da54a9a95b5b350126a216bf5499c0f6e5fa2c9
Height28531
Version4
Transaction Merkle Roote9c293aa46b5f2bc684349e6b4accbbb196f36b04742e26d2df53811a2a9fdfd
Time1402492966 (2014-06-11 13:22:46)
Difficulty0.000 (Bits: 1e047c41)
Cumulative Difficulty11 973 042.889
Nonce0
Transactions4
Value out2070.657277
Transaction Fees-1.62137
Average Coin Age9.27782 days
Coin-days Destroyed17767.243184
Cumulative Coin-days Destroyed62.9868%
Transactions
Transaction Fee Size (kB) From (amount) To (amount)
c6d0da399b... 0 0.077 Generation: 1.62137 + -1.62137 total fees Unknown: 0
dcd8718986... -1.62139 0.258 XXrbb5c4JFJTTXwSPJeVXpT1g6Htd4isH6: 1993.671236
Unknown: 0
XXrbb5c4JFJTTXwSPJeVXpT1g6Htd4isH6: 997.64
XXrbb5c4JFJTTXwSPJeVXpT1g6Htd4isH6: 997.652626
2c3d8fcfa4... 0.00001 0.229 XLS1oGFeJQ7qjhcVYYg6cXaQ5vfGNBA72R: 40.99999
XGn7mdvRKy6LYYdejMYsxx8mCocdyuSXmf: 34.364681
XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa: 6.635299
633fe22002... 0.00001 0.23 XGn7mdvRKy6LYYdejMYsxx8mCocdyuSXmf: 34.364681
XZ2zsBE5oqTciM5bkWtPajqqjQKHNv8Cip: 30.99997
XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa: 3.364701
* multiple tx pattern to same destination  * address never used before 28531 * input value matched.  from address XLS1oGFeJQ7qjhcVYYg6cXaQ5vfGNBA72R to mixer XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa. * coin flow : BLOCK 28531 from address XLS1oGFeJQ7qjhcVYYg6cXaQ5vfGNBA72R to mixer XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa --> BLOCK 28533 * from mixer XNECF1CtdkF2DjuVxcCr8VJEdKiH9ByDMb to XNLdJtLQKnmi7PSUknoPoPRDjnmJnb3y8D : SENDER : XLS1oGFeJQ7qjhcVYYg6cXaQ5vfGNBA72R : MIXER INPUT : XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa / never used before : MIXER OUTPUT : XNECF1CtdkF2DjuVxcCr8VJEdKiH9ByDMb : PAYEE : XNLdJtLQKnmi7PSUknoPoPRDjnmJnb3y8D If outputs of address XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa and XNECF1CtdkF2DjuVxcCr8VJEdKiH9ByDMb are spent as an input for a transaction, Mixer identified. Link from wallet B to wallet C is identified As XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa is nerver used before, check XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa's tx. http://cryptexplorer.com/address/XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa
Transaction Block Approx. Time Amount Balance Currency
2c3d8fcfa4... 28531 2014-06-11 13:22:46 6.635299 6.635299 XC
633fe22002... 28531 2014-06-11 13:22:46 3.364701 10 XC
0d227a1fcf... 28540 2014-06-11 13:39:49 0.003 10.003 XC
07957c70d0... 28555 2014-06-11 14:03:57 0.001 10.004 XC
dd438f2fbd... 28645 2014-06-11 17:06:04 (0.003) 10.001 XC
fe5ad7f573... 28645 2014-06-11 17:06:04 (0.001) 10 XC
36e6e4f1bb... 28646 2014-06-11 17:08:27 (3.364701) 6.635299 XC
d24770a89a... 28653 2014-06-11 17:20:52 (6.635299) 0 XC
8e708043fa... 28847 2014-06-11 22:52:01 0.0001 0.0001 XC
Block 28645 has hard link. http://cryptexplorer.com/block/4255ac4c5e93fa1769f58312d76338779229424538357dc4cf00a07fc1aafb74 * Hard Link is real. Ask him if he will be to identify this 1. When he is not GIVEN all the needed info And 2. When there is more than 1 xnode transaction occurring in the same block...... what if all transactions were handled xnode transactions You guys should look at this seriously. I think it can be fixed relatively easily - but if it's ignored it could be a problem for you later. Chaeplin spent a bunch of time working through every detail to get you a step by step description of the issue. And no one is responding seriously, no one has given a counter analysis - that is not a good sign for investors. Can someone show where chaeplin's analysis is flawed? No one has directly responded at any point. Quote a post - draw lines...whatever you need to do. I came to the same conclusion as him after reviewing a series of transactions yesterday - but it was annoying and took me a long time. If this isn't an issue - can someone just point out where? Or create a counter-example? If you want to be taken seriously - I'm pretty sure it's important and shouldn't be brushed off like it's nothing. I don't know how you can call it FUD and ignore it......he walked you through the problem. If you don't understand it...fine - let someone who does argue a counter-analysis. Don't just call it FUD because you don't understand what is going on. I completely agree with you. Chaeplin has demonstrated a logical flow of the transaction and this needs to be addressed. Simply saying FUD is no counter argument. Either agree that the current system is flawed and will be fixed or prove that chaeplin is wrong. chaeplin is the only one providing quality QA for this coin. You need these people to find the problems so they can be fixed. |
|
|
|
|
|
CryptoGretzky
|
|
June 12, 2014, 01:10:02 PM |
|
I completely agree with you. Chaeplin has demonstrated a logical flow of the transaction and this needs to be addressed. Simply saying FUD is no counter argument. Either agree that the current system is flawed and will be fixed or prove that chaeplin is wrong.
chaeplin is the only one providing quality QA for this coin. You need these people to find the problems so they can be fixed.
Great work !!!!!!!!!! My MasterNode on testnet is behaving well and giving me payouts so all looking good for the fork. Oooh... ANOTHER DRK troll caring about XC. How nice of you... How's that Masternode working out for you? |
|
|
|
|
cryptico
|
|
June 12, 2014, 01:10:50 PM |
|
Whatever it is, let us get to REV 2 and THEN do a true bounty test.
this shit hasn't gotten so stupid and childish.
If 4 transactions happened in the same block and receivers are known, would you be able to tie those transactions back to sender? This is my concern at the moment.
Hi there:) do you know if in REV2 the Mixers will keep transactions for different periods of time choosing it randomly? that would be pretty sweet I believe. mLike for example transaction send to mixer 1 that will split it in three different one in different time orders than mixer two same thing than mixer 3 same thing at the end there will be no time link in the block chain to guess the transactionscorrect? |
|
|
|
|
