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

[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.

The idea is to test if it can be tracked, not guessed...lol
That's why he tested it in a stupid way

He guessed.... what's your point. If you guess on a test and get it correct. It is no less correct. At this point you are criticizing the process, not the outcome. Which again, does nothing to further the discussion since everyone appears to already know the means why which he came to his answer.

Yes and no.  If you can't prove it's my address then it can be denied. If I just say your guess is wrong, then what?

If you lie, it doesn't make him wrong

But the point is you can't prove that I'm lying.  If you were able to prove I was lying, then you truly cracked the anonymity feature.

Your basing the concept of an anonymous transaction on the idea that the tracking party would even need verification from you in the first place. What if they never ask if they are right or not?

A third party with no interaction with yourself would not be inclined to ask you if they were right or not. The NSA or other Acronym Agency is not going to ask you if they guessed it correctly or not. At which point, the burden of proof would be on you. IE: Prove it isn't the address.

Again, lying does not change the validity of the guess. It just makes you a liar.

[provenceday]

wait for the next update from dev,

after Anon feature work smoothly and Xnode also works smoothly, everything will change.

[elviselvis101]

need help to sync after updating;  its stuck at 203 blocks missing;

addnode=east01.xcnode.xc-official.com
addnode=west01.xcnode.xc-official.com
addnode=west02.xcnode.xc-official.com
addnode=162.243.109.24

This from wallet:

blocks" : 23288,
"currentblocksize" : 0,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 5205.79639598,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"networkhashps" : 40851533731,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false

Get info;

"version" : "v0.9.1.5x11-coin-1.0",
"protocolversion" : 71002,
"walletversion" : 60000,

[JesstersDead]

wait for the next update from dev,

after Anon feature work smoothly and Xnode also works smoothly, everything will change.

+1 I have no doubt at all about this

[nioccoin]

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.

The idea is to test if it can be tracked, not guessed...lol
That's why he tested it in a stupid way

He guessed.... what's your point. If you guess on a test and get it correct. It is no less correct. At this point you are criticizing the process, not the outcome. Which again, does nothing to further the discussion since everyone appears to already know the means why which he came to his answer.

The point isn't so much whether it is correct or not, but if it's repeatable, and under what conditions.  Guesses may be correct, but they aren't reliable.  If they were, vegas wouldn't be there.

Testing is retesting.  To test a guess, you need the methodology.  If the methodology is replicable, then you should be able to repeat the guess several times, and at that point it ceases to become a guess.

[KimmyF]

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.

No, delete nothing!
Just remind Cheaplin about this post he made today: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7109580#msg7109580 (help Dev.)

For now it looks to me he just scanned a couple of next blocks & combined some deposits till they added up to the original sum - 2x fee on the same address.

But (just for now) there could be a link we are missing, learn first & talk. We all have our own way, lets respect each other

[Teka]

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.

No, delete nothing!
Just remind Cheaplin about this post he made today: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7109580#msg7109580 (help Dev.)

For now it looks to me he just scanned a couple of next blocks & combined some deposits till they added up to the original sum - 2x fee on the same address.

But (just for now) there could be a link we are missing, learn first & talk. We all have our own way, lets respect each other

I said that if his post is constructive it will stay.

[KimmyF]

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.

No, delete nothing!
Just remind Cheaplin about this post he made today: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7109580#msg7109580 (help Dev.)

For now it looks to me he just scanned a couple of next blocks & combined some deposits till they added up to the original sum - 2x fee on the same address.

But (just for now) there could be a link we are missing, learn first & talk. We all have our own way, lets respect each other

I said that if his post is constructive it will stay.

Some (if not most) people will learn you new things by explaining them to you, some will push you to find the solution yourself.
Second way is better imo

[chaeplin]

To XC community people.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7112753#msg7112753

I should learn more english.

[getmining.info]

To XC community people.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7112753#msg7112753

I should learn more english.

It's al-right mate, you did a good job. Loads of people here are a bit too quick.

[JakeThePanda]

To XC community people.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7112753#msg7112753

I should learn more english.

Since you did get the first one right I will send the 50XC I said I would. Please post your XC addy.

[qawzsx]

To XC community people.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7112753#msg7112753

I should learn more english.

It's al-right mate, you did a good job. Loads of people here are a bit too quick.

He did a good job about what?
Seem you don't get what the test is about...

Show me that the transaction can be traced to an address, don't lookup to the address in a blockchain with few transactions, and guess the transaction based on the transferred amount and on the time.

That's just stupid...

He did no job...just some stupid FUD

Its no point in being able to guess an address when there are so few transactions, if you're not able to do so when the blockchain will contain lots of transactions...which will make tracing impossible.


Its like saying ... "yo test this car for me...it does not have all the wheels now, but it will have them..."
And the tester say ... "well, the car will not move...the idea of a car its flawed..."

[cryptodaknight]

Love this coin, keep up the great work developers. Not many coins I'd invest in, but gotta say this one is great.

[Grifftech]

To XC community people.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7112753#msg7112753

I should learn more english.

In response to what you posted,  How can you tell? What method did you use to determine your end result? Post this so the community can see and verify its repeatability.

[AlexGR]

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.

No, delete nothing!
Just remind Cheaplin about this post he made today: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7109580#msg7109580 (help Dev.)

For now it looks to me he just scanned a couple of next blocks & combined some deposits till they added up to the original sum - 2x fee on the same address.

But (just for now) there could be a link we are missing, learn first & talk. We all have our own way, lets respect each other

When there is a process, no matter what it is, it can the be scripted.

When it's scripted you can have a block explorer that takes the obfuscated transactions, processes them with a script and then makes them ...transparent with probabilities like 50-100% this went from A to B.

When this happens, coin is DOA.

But it will also be DOA if it's based on trusting the nodes to not steal.

Btw if multiple mixing occurs, with transactions splitting 5-10 times all over the place it will also be DOA due to scaling issues. You don't want half a megabyte transactions for moving around 1 XC. Not only would this be problematic but it can also be an attack vector against the blockchain itself (bloating it to FUBAR levels) in which someone will pay something like 1 btc in transaction fees and make the blockchain unusable in terms of size.

[greyskies]

Remember at all times to compare the methodology of our approach with DRK.

[JakeThePanda]

To XC community people.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7112753#msg7112753

I should learn more english.

It's al-right mate, you did a good job. Loads of people here are a bit too quick.

He did a good job about what?
Seem you don't get what the test is about...

Show me that the transaction can be traced to an address, don't lookup to the address in a blockchain with few transactions, and guess the transaction based on the transferred amount and on the time.

That's just stupid...

He did no job...just some stupid FUD

Its no point in being able to guess an address when there are so few transactions, if you're not able to do so when the blockchain will contain lots of transactions...which will make tracing impossible.

Well, if a person can guess right with a few transactions, I'm sure a good programmer can figure out how to correctly guess on a lot of transactions. Yes?

[qawzsx]

To XC community people.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7112753#msg7112753

I should learn more english.

In response to what you posted,  How can you tell? What method did you use to determine your end result? Post this so the community can see and verify its repeatability.

He used no method, he just looked for an address sending that amount in the blockexplorer...
Basically he guessed it since there are few transactions, and he know the aprox. time when the transaction took place...

Its pointless

[Reese212]

To XC community people.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7112753#msg7112753

I should learn more english.

thank you for posting this.
i thought all the time that english is not easy for you because you post not many words, that sounds rude, but it is totally okay for somebody learning the language!

so to me it Looks like this is where we are:

- at current Version (0.9.1.35) it is possible to trace Transactions with having a Close look into blockexplorer. BUT this only works because of very very few Transactions that occur at present day. no matter, it is not truly anonymous, but it will be harder to trace if there are more Transactions.
- at Version 0.9.1.37 this Kind of "searching the blockchain for a known amount of XC" won't work any longer as atcsecure said.


plz tell me if i'm right, thank you!

[getmining.info]

To XC community people.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7112753#msg7112753

I should learn more english.

It's al-right mate, you did a good job. Loads of people here are a bit too quick.

He did a good job about what?

Seem you don't get what the test is about...

Show me that the transaction can be traced to an address, don't lookup to the address in a blockchain with few transactions, and guess the transaction based on the transferred amount and on the time.

That's just stupid...

He did no job...just some stupid FUD

Its no point in being able to guess an address when there are so few transactions, if you're not able to do so when the blockchain will contain lots of transactions...which will make tracing impossible.

Its like saying ... "yo test this car for me...it does not have all the wheels now, but it will have them..."
And the tester say ... "well, the car will not move...the idea of a car its flawed..."

I know exactly what the test is about.

I didn't hear anyone else standing up and giving any answers.

He managed it with guess work possible due to several factors.

Regardless, you are just slating him and now me and he has said there was no 'direct link'

Jeez, have a bit of 'community spirit'