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

[cyberhacker]

proof or no proof if chaeplin able to find the sender address then there is flaw with the coin and anon is not working

of course if chaeplin able to find all the addresses during this test then there is flaw. the question is if developer able to fix this.

As atc said, if he posts real proof, he will take the time to look at it and analyse it.

tracking recent transaction on explorer. only few xnodes and few transactions, and he also know the amounts.

[studio1one]

Teka, can you just delete anything Chaeplin has to say. He can PM atcsecure if he wishes to actually prove his claims but I don't think there is any reason to allow him to continue to toss FUD grenades around the thread.

the reason is chaeplin already proved he could, look a few pages back ...
he got the sending addresses on the first contest you were throwing in, no way he could fake it, he did not only post the address as md5 in here, before the contest was revealed. also he also made an transaction to the senders address before the address got public. Which obv. could have been checked very easy.

So he has proofen that he was able to get the senders address with the current xc design, there is no fud in that.

But still some are purly deny and call him ****! WOW !

He even stepped back from taking the bounty which he clearly deserves, spending his free time for you (i guess he has no xc at all), and the mayority of you are just calling him a laier and some other grown up words -.-

unbelivable !


 

Actually most of us were very friendly and supportive towards him until we realised that he had no intention of helping and was just doing it for the ego trip.

How childish is it to say you have found a flaw with something and then refuse to reveal what that flaw is?

The kind of thing five year olds do. Smart enough to trace the transactions but not smart enough to behave sensibly and maturely with the information.

[saberu]

Yes all of this is in the REV2 code as this is part of the multi-path design

Also force all users to have a random number of multiple addresses in their wallet and randomly balance the amount of coins they have between the addresses then take a random amount from each address for each transaction followed by rebalancing the balances on the addresses.

Though that could be an optional choice for users. How about also having the option of sending a non-anonymous transaction? I think that will be really essential to making this coin go mainstream. I sent a transaction to another wallet of mine and could not see the receiver address even though I wanted to at the time.

[benthach]

so you saying if there are more xnodes it would be hard? also you saying the reason transaction he would use explorer to check one by one to see the transaction?

proof or no proof if chaeplin able to find the sender address then there is flaw with the coin and anon is not working

of course if chaeplin able to find all the addresses during this test then there is flaw. the question is if developer able to fix this.

As atc said, if he posts real proof, he will take the time to look at it and analyse it.

tracking recent transaction on explorer. only few xnodes and few transactions, and he also know the amounts.

[Astroxjr]

tracking recent transaction on explorer. only few xnodes and few transactions, and he also know the amounts.

+1

This is it - time consuming, but is still relevant (to a small degree).


Sadly chaeplin dude is a ignorant and rude twatt trying to elevate what he did into something more then it actually was.

[atcsecure]

proof or no proof if chaeplin able to find the sender address then there is flaw with the coin and anon is not working

of course if chaeplin able to find all the addresses during this test then there is flaw. the question is if developer able to fix this.

As atc said, if he posts real proof, he will take the time to look at it and analyse it.

tracking recent transaction on explorer. only few xnodes and few transactions, and he also know the amounts.

This is what I was thinking. There's not a whole lot going on in the blockchain, so it'd be much easier to deduce knowing how much and when it was sent.

Yes so this is true, thats why I asked about the actual link between A, B, and C... based on what I have reviewed, that link doesn't exist ..  and that is the most critical piece at the moment, is finding a direct link from a to b to c, .. all these other issues are trivial in terms of coding a solution

[JakeThePanda]

proof or no proof if chaeplin able to find the sender address then there is flaw with the coin and anon is not working

of course if chaeplin able to find all the addresses during this test then there is flaw. the question is if developer able to fix this.

As atc said, if he posts real proof, he will take the time to look at it and analyse it.

tracking recent transaction on explorer. only few xnodes and few transactions, and he also know the amounts.

This is what I was thinking. There's not a whole lot going on in the blockchain, so it'd be much easier to deduce knowing how much and when it was sent.

Yes so this is true, thats why I asked about the actual link between A, B, and C... based on what I have reviewed, that link doesn't exist ..  and that is the most critical piece at the moment, is finding a direct link from a to b to c, .. all these other issues are trivial in terms of coding a solution

Let's put out a bounty for proof.

[studio1one]

so you saying if there are more xnodes it would be hard? also you saying the reason transaction he would use explorer to check one by one to see the transaction?

proof or no proof if chaeplin able to find the sender address then there is flaw with the coin and anon is not working

of course if chaeplin able to find all the addresses during this test then there is flaw. the question is if developer able to fix this.

As atc said, if he posts real proof, he will take the time to look at it and analyse it.

tracking recent transaction on explorer. only few xnodes and few transactions, and he also know the amounts.

This is what I think, he is vetting the chain because the size is small and the network is small. He's a bit of a self important conceited type so he like to make out he is doing more than he is.

His ego gets in the way of him being a useful person. Shame really because he's obviously not stupid.


If he could really directly link via the block chain he would prove it.

[Astroxjr]

proof or no proof if chaeplin able to find the sender address then there is flaw with the coin and anon is not working

of course if chaeplin able to find all the addresses during this test then there is flaw. the question is if developer able to fix this.

As atc said, if he posts real proof, he will take the time to look at it and analyse it.

tracking recent transaction on explorer. only few xnodes and few transactions, and he also know the amounts.

This is what I was thinking. There's not a whole lot going on in the blockchain, so it'd be much easier to deduce knowing how much and when it was sent.

Yes so this is true, thats why I asked about the actual link between A, B, and C... based on what I have reviewed, that link doesn't exist ..  and that is the most critical piece at the moment, is finding a direct link from a to b to c, .. all these other issues are trivial in terms of coding a solution

The more xnodes we bring on line I guess the harder it will become to manually troll through them.
Not to mention the further splitting in next release you have planned.

I guess In 3.7 I can help with a Node

[JesstersDead]

Guys, Chaeplin did in fact find the sender address. Whether he wants to share his process or not, that point cannot be refuted. It would be nice if he did, but that is neither here nor there. Resorting to personal attacks is not going to change anything besides making you look childish. He did it, now the dev knows it can be done, and he can find a solution. End of story.

[Astroxjr]

Guys, Chaeplin did in fact find the sender address. Whether he wants to share his process or not, that point cannot be refuted. It would be nice if he did, but that is neither here nor there. Resorting to personal attacks is not going to change anything besides making you look childish. He did it, now the dev knows it can be done, and he can find a solution. End of story.

It was nothing remarkable and the guys arrogance about how he did it opens him up for the attacks.

Its liken to looking for a 108db siren in a haystack ATM.

As soon as there are enough xnodes, the transaction is mixed properly with hundreds of other transaction and also the additions coming in the next release - its fixed already.

[saberu]

This is what I was thinking. There's not a whole lot going on in the blockchain, so it'd be much easier to deduce knowing how much and when it was sent.

Right and my suggestion fixes that (multiple sender addresses). I actually think atcsecure has already thought of this but since he has been working in a corporate environment for so long he has been holding back a lot of the methods behind `multi path paradigm` perhaps to stop competitors like DarkCoin from trying to copy.

If he can release it first without in depth explanation of how it works it prevents others from stealing the method, then as long as XC uses the method first it does not matter if other coins copy it in future because people trust in the original.

Take the Apple Iphone, I do not think it is as good as Samsung`s newer smartphones but because Apple released the first smartphone and have a luxury brand image many people will assume Apple are better by default.

Bitcoin is nowhere near as good as XC technology wise yet the price is way higher for the same reasons. Darkcoin is inferior to XC yet because they were the first coin to claim the anonymous brand that was enough to gain trust and reputation even though they did not even have anonymity.

If XC is a success I can guarantee that in 3-6 months there will be people trying to copy it on a new coin but it will not gain the reputation of XC.

The concepts and programming behind XC coin are not rocket science. Cryptocurrency is still in it`s infancy and very few people have heard of alt coins or know how Bitcoin works. In the real world atcsecure is one of thousands of highly skilled programmers but in the world of cryptocurrency since there are so few developers working in this arena it is possible he could the most skilled programmer working on cryptocoin development.

The smartest part of XC coin will be the encryption layer and having it work over Tor to prevent IP tracing yet no one is talking about either of those features although they have not yet been released.

Personally I think using Tor is a bad idea since it is incredibly slow and unreliable. A better solution would be a VPN relayed via Xnodes but in the beginning there may not be enough Xnodes so Tor might be required as a temporary measure.

[cyberhacker]

proof or no proof if chaeplin able to find the sender address then there is flaw with the coin and anon is not working

of course if chaeplin able to find all the addresses during this test then there is flaw. the question is if developer able to fix this.

As atc said, if he posts real proof, he will take the time to look at it and analyse it.

tracking recent transaction on explorer. only few xnodes and few transactions, and he also know the amounts.

This is what I was thinking. There's not a whole lot going on in the blockchain, so it'd be much easier to deduce knowing how much and when it was sent.

Yes so this is true, thats why I asked about the actual link between A, B, and C... based on what I have reviewed, that link doesn't exist ..  and that is the most critical piece at the moment, is finding a direct link from a to b to c, .. all these other issues are trivial in terms of coding a solution

ANYONE can do the same trick now?  maybe we can have another test to find out what chaeplin is doing.  thanks

[qawzsx]

Guys, Chaeplin did in fact find the sender address. Whether he wants to share his process or not, that point cannot be refuted. It would be nice if he did, but that is neither here nor there. Resorting to personal attacks is not going to change anything besides making you look childish. He did it, now the dev knows it can be done, and he can find a solution. End of story.

Do you even understand that he just waited in the block explorer for an address to receive that amount?

That's just stupid. There are too few transactions for the moment.

[studio1one]

Guys, Chaeplin did in fact find the sender address. Whether he wants to share his process or not, that point cannot be refuted. It would be nice if he did, but that is neither here nor there. Resorting to personal attacks is not going to change anything besides making you look childish. He did it, now the dev knows it can be done, and he can find a solution. End of story.

Do you even understand that he just waited in the block explorer for an address to receive that amount?

That's just stupid. There are too few transactions for the moment.

we were looking for the sender address, not receiver address.

[BADASS]

I think if he had something real he would have gloated, but instead he packed his bags like a shrill when called out.
You decide, because I already have!

[JesstersDead]

Guys, Chaeplin did in fact find the sender address. Whether he wants to share his process or not, that point cannot be refuted. It would be nice if he did, but that is neither here nor there. Resorting to personal attacks is not going to change anything besides making you look childish. He did it, now the dev knows it can be done, and he can find a solution. End of story.

Do you even understand that he just waited in the block explorer for an address to receive that amount?

That's just stupid. There are too few transactions for the moment.

Of course I do...

BUT, the community asked for the test. Even the dev put him up to it. If everyone knows how he did it, why give two shits whether he explains it or not? I don't see how arguing, whining, or complaining about it is advancing the discussion in the slightest.

[megges]

realy dumb short question, if it is so easy to just watch the amounts, then why the hell noone else claimed the bounty?

if its just a 30 sek look at the blockchain (from what i read here some people think so), why noone was taking the 0.2 btc??

[yoo10]

This is what I was thinking. There's not a whole lot going on in the blockchain, so it'd be much easier to deduce knowing how much and when it was sent.

Right and my suggestion fixes that (multiple sender addresses). I actually think atcsecure has already thought of this but since he has been working in a corporate environment for so long he has been holding back a lot of the methods behind `multi path paradigm` perhaps to stop competitors like DarkCoin from trying to copy.

If he can release it first without in depth explanation of how it works it prevents others from stealing the method, then as long as XC uses the method first it does not matter if other coins copy it in future because people trust in the original.

Take the Apple Iphone, I do not think it is as good as Samsung`s newer smartphones but because Apple released the first smartphone and have a luxury brand image many people will assume Apple are better by default.

Bitcoin is nowhere near as good as XC technology wise yet the price is way higher for the same reasons. Darkcoin is inferior to XC yet because they were the first coin to claim the anonymous brand that was enough to gain trust and reputation even though they did not even have anonymity.

If XC is a success I can guarantee that in 3-6 months there will be people trying to copy it on a new coin but it will not gain the reputation of XC.

My opinion：

When xc is released, dev can give a date (such as 2 months later) to open the source

So everyone see the confidence and xc would be cloned 2 months later is a pressure to improve xcself.

[nioccoin]

proof or no proof if chaeplin able to find the sender address then there is flaw with the coin and anon is not working

of course if chaeplin able to find all the addresses during this test then there is flaw. the question is if developer able to fix this.

As atc said, if he posts real proof, he will take the time to look at it and analyse it.

tracking recent transaction on explorer. only few xnodes and few transactions, and he also know the amounts.

This is what I was thinking. There's not a whole lot going on in the blockchain, so it'd be much easier to deduce knowing how much and when it was sent.

Yes so this is true, thats why I asked about the actual link between A, B, and C... based on what I have reviewed, that link doesn't exist ..  and that is the most critical piece at the moment, is finding a direct link from a to b to c, .. all these other issues are trivial in terms of coding a solution

Let's put out a bounty for proof.

That will only teach future testers to find problems, then wait until a bounty shows up to give the info.  Kind of like kidnapping a dog and then "finding" it when the reward poster goes up.