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

[DELTA9]

This FUD is great...keeping the price down so I can buy more cheap coins.

[Synarchist]

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?

[AlexGR]

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

What prevents the in-between node that is "chosen" to receive the money and not send it further down the line? The solution needs to be trustless that the node doesn't steal the money.

It also needs to be non-exploitable in the sense that commands shouldn't be coming in to one's wallet-node to send money out to third-addresses, otherwise if one tampers with a fake transaction one's wallet can be emptied.

This might require more than patching: It may require redesign.

[ballzdeep]

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?

you have v0.9.1.6x11-coin-1.0 ?

[atcsecure]

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

[Propulsion]

What prevents the in-between node that is "chosen" to receive the money and not send it further down the line? The solution needs to be trustless that the node doesn't steal the money.

It also needs to be non-exploitable in the sense that commands shouldn't be coming in to one's wallet to send money out to third-addresses, otherwise if one tampers with a fake transaction one's wallet can be emptied.

This might require more than patching: It may require redesign.

Agreed. It's scary thinking that the funds pass through your own wallet with a simple RPC command. That is easily manipulatable to exploit.
Wallets can be emptied rather easily with this implementation.

[dbstmddhks]

what's going on..

The wallet really anno ??

[Grifftech]

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

I have been staking since we could and not a darn thing yet. It is frustrating to see all these huge holders piling it up. I don't care if .00000000001 shows up in mine, I just want to see mine is working

[cryptico]

Seems no matter what - that there will be FUD...

Can you help me/us understand this post?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7042123#msg7042123

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

[telostia]

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img842/5966/7135.png

works for me 

[saberu]

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.

[atcsecure]

There is a bounty for a testnet block explorer.. let me know if you can do it quickly

[atcsecure]

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

[Synarchist]

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

Whats the rumour about stake stealing? I see pictures with members getting stakes almost every 1-5 mins. I hold a decent chunk of XC. My wallet weight is at least double over network weight and has been for a few days but nothing still. I am on the latest wallet version v0.9.1.6.

[atcsecure]

Seems no matter what - that there will be FUD...

Can you help me/us understand this post?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7042123#msg7042123

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

[jorneyflair]

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

[Minotaur26]

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?

[atcsecure]

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?

[atcsecure]

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?

/1/]http://xc-official.com/#prettyPhoto[iframes]/1/


high level summary of the concept, the multi-path code is NOT in this release

[the_game1224]

Seems no matter what - that there will be FUD...

Can you help me/us understand this post?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7042123#msg7042123

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

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?