|
Artoodeetoo
|
 |
June 11, 2014, 06:42:05 PM |
|
I think ATC has been pretty open mate, and I think Chaeplens woeful response suggests he cannot link the transactions... I also think we get a hell of a lot more honesty here than anywhere else I have seen.
|
DASH #DashDC #DashIntoDigitalCash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. The most secure are full nodes like Bitcoin Core, but full nodes are more resource-heavy, and they must do a lengthy initial syncing process. As a result, lightweight clients with somewhat less security are commonly used.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
atcsecure
|
|
June 11, 2014, 06:42:09 PM |
|
Really? Good to know.
Anyway, You want hard link, that two address of mixer are connected.
Right ?
yes Then code is right. Sending to real payee works good. Problem is received coins are reused. Proof : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7254769#msg7254769I have to prove two address is related. XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb === XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC Right ? ah but the received coins that are re-used at not from that transaction, it is from an earlier transaction through the mixer, so a different SENDER also your post doesn't clearly show any connection between the address's from the blockchain I am giving you. http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96187.htmhttp://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96160.htmMulti input == same owner == same wallet. In coinjoin, Multi input =/= same owner =/= same wallet. I haven't reviewed those links, but multi-input == multiple different wallets from previous transactions so your statement is incorrect but I will review the data shortly |
Join the revolution - XC - Decentralized Trustless Multi-Node Private Transactions
|
|
|
|
chaeplin
|
|
June 11, 2014, 06:42:40 PM |
|
Really? Good to know.
Anyway, You want hard link, that two address of mixer are connected.
Right ?
yes Then code is right. Sending to real payee works good. Problem is received coins are reused. Proof : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7254769#msg7254769I have to prove two address is related. XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb === XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC Right ? ah but the received coins that are re-used at not from that transaction, it is from an earlier transaction through the mixer, so a different SENDER Right. not from that transaction. Used address by Mixer is related after all. In this case, txs are fewer, so very clear. It's related after 10 ~~ many blocks after. So I call it flaw. Ah, so there is no provable direct link thank you 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. |
|
|
|
|
|
atcsecure
|
|
June 11, 2014, 06:44:03 PM |
|
Really? Good to know.
Anyway, You want hard link, that two address of mixer are connected.
Right ?
yes Then code is right. Sending to real payee works good. Problem is received coins are reused. Proof : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7254769#msg7254769I have to prove two address is related. XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb === XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC Right ? ah but the received coins that are re-used at not from that transaction, it is from an earlier transaction through the mixer, so a different SENDER Right. not from that transaction. Used address by Mixer is related after all. In this case, txs are fewer, so very clear. It's related after 10 ~~ many blocks after. So I call it flaw. Ah, so there is no provable direct link thank you 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. okay show me the proof of link? |
Join the revolution - XC - Decentralized Trustless Multi-Node Private Transactions
|
|
|
acseric
Member
 Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 11, 2014, 06:44:07 PM |
|
Really? Good to know.
Anyway, You want hard link, that two address of mixer are connected.
Right ?
yes Then code is right. Sending to real payee works good. Problem is received coins are reused. Proof : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7254769#msg7254769I have to prove two address is related. XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb === XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC Right ? ah but the received coins that are re-used at not from that transaction, it is from an earlier transaction through the mixer, so a different SENDER also your post doesn't clearly show any connection between the address's from the blockchain I am giving you. http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96187.htmhttp://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96160.htmMulti input == same owner == same wallet. In coinjoin, Multi input =/= same owner =/= same wallet. This is the semantics thing I am talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
chaeplin
|
|
June 11, 2014, 06:44:17 PM |
|
Really? Good to know.
Anyway, You want hard link, that two address of mixer are connected.
Right ?
yes Then code is right. Sending to real payee works good. Problem is received coins are reused. Proof : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7254769#msg7254769I have to prove two address is related. XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb === XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC Right ? ah but the received coins that are re-used at not from that transaction, it is from an earlier transaction through the mixer, so a different SENDER also your post doesn't clearly show any connection between the address's from the blockchain I am giving you. http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96187.htmhttp://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96160.htmMulti input == same owner == same wallet. In coinjoin, Multi input =/= same owner =/= same wallet. I haven't reviewed those links, but multi-input == multiple different wallets from previous transactions so your statement is incorrect but I will review the data shortly Want this  |
|
|
|
|
|
Teka (OP)
|
|
June 11, 2014, 06:44:42 PM |
|
No-one proving any links. All I am seeing is scared DRK owners trying to create FUD and XC price rising like rocket today  Just wait until REV 2 comes out like multipath technology (similar to TOR) and encrypted realtime messaging. Time to start hedging your DRK stack with XC imo. I dont own DRK, but I am looking for a new coin to invest in. The proof is very relevant to my interests. LOL nice tag team, you have a funny way of building rapport then.. Do you always ask the dev for tests? If its a pre req before you invest im assuming you are yet to buy any coins.... Do you realize how many coins claim to either be working on or have anon functionality that works?? Crypto is full of scam artists and liars - anyone who isnt skeptical of every claim is just asking to be duped. I understand you concerns but here is the thing: 1) The identity of the DEV is known which means that the risk is high for him 2) Any bugs that were reported were normally sorted out within the day 3) Question are constantly being answered 4) So far all developments that were promised have been on time 5) We listen to feedback and improving things as we go |
|
|
|
|
acseric
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 11, 2014, 06:46:33 PM |
|
No-one proving any links. All I am seeing is scared DRK owners trying to create FUD and XC price rising like rocket today Just wait until REV 2 comes out like multipath technology (similar to TOR) and encrypted realtime messaging. Time to start hedging your DRK stack with XC imo. I dont own DRK, but I am looking for a new coin to invest in. The proof is very relevant to my interests. LOL nice tag team, you have a funny way of building rapport then.. Do you always ask the dev for tests? If its a pre req before you invest im assuming you are yet to buy any coins.... Do you realize how many coins claim to either be working on or have anon functionality that works?? Crypto is full of scam artists and liars - anyone who isnt skeptical of every claim is just asking to be duped. I understand you concerns but here is the thing: 1) The identity of the DEV is known which means that the risk is high for him 2) Any bugs that were reported were normally sorted out within the day 3) Question are constantly being answered 4) So far all developments that were promised have been on time 5) We listen to feedback and improving things as we go All very good to hear. Just another part of the research I am doing. |
|
|
|
|
|
chaeplin
|
|
June 11, 2014, 06:47:59 PM |
|
Really? Good to know.
Anyway, You want hard link, that two address of mixer are connected.
Right ?
yes Then code is right. Sending to real payee works good. Problem is received coins are reused. Proof : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7254769#msg7254769I have to prove two address is related. XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb === XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC Right ? ah but the received coins that are re-used at not from that transaction, it is from an earlier transaction through the mixer, so a different SENDER Right. not from that transaction. Used address by Mixer is related after all. In this case, txs are fewer, so very clear. It's related after 10 ~~ many blocks after. So I call it flaw. Ah, so there is no provable direct link thank you 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. okay show me the proof of link? 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. |
|
|
|
|
cyberhacker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 11, 2014, 06:48:43 PM |
|
This might be a good suggestion right now: +1 |
|
|
|
|
|
atcsecure
|
|
June 11, 2014, 06:57:42 PM |
|
Really? Good to know.
Anyway, You want hard link, that two address of mixer are connected.
Right ?
yes Then code is right. Sending to real payee works good. Problem is received coins are reused. Proof : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7254769#msg7254769I have to prove two address is related. XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb === XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC Right ? ah but the received coins that are re-used at not from that transaction, it is from an earlier transaction through the mixer, so a different SENDER Right. not from that transaction. Used address by Mixer is related after all. In this case, txs are fewer, so very clear. It's related after 10 ~~ many blocks after. So I call it flaw. Ah, so there is no provable direct link thank you 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. okay show me the proof of link? 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. the receivers address is XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu show the proof back to the original senders address otherwise your spreading FUD |
Join the revolution - XC - Decentralized Trustless Multi-Node Private Transactions
|
|
|
|
atcsecure
|
|
June 11, 2014, 06:58:49 PM |
|
Really? Good to know.
Anyway, You want hard link, that two address of mixer are connected.
Right ?
yes Then code is right. Sending to real payee works good. Problem is received coins are reused. Proof : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7254769#msg7254769I have to prove two address is related. XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb === XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC Right ? ah but the received coins that are re-used at not from that transaction, it is from an earlier transaction through the mixer, so a different SENDER Right. not from that transaction. Used address by Mixer is related after all. In this case, txs are fewer, so very clear. It's related after 10 ~~ many blocks after. So I call it flaw. Ah, so there is no provable direct link thank you 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. okay show me the proof of link? 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. the receivers address is XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu show the proof back to the original senders address otherwise your spreading FUD The bounty is still open until somebody proves the link... |
Join the revolution - XC - Decentralized Trustless Multi-Node Private Transactions
|
|
|
|
chaeplin
|
|
June 11, 2014, 07:00:01 PM |
|
Really? Good to know.
Anyway, You want hard link, that two address of mixer are connected.
Right ?
yes Then code is right. Sending to real payee works good. Problem is received coins are reused. Proof : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7254769#msg7254769I have to prove two address is related. XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb === XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC Right ? ah but the received coins that are re-used at not from that transaction, it is from an earlier transaction through the mixer, so a different SENDER Right. not from that transaction. Used address by Mixer is related after all. In this case, txs are fewer, so very clear. It's related after 10 ~~ many blocks after. So I call it flaw. Ah, so there is no provable direct link thank you 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. okay show me the proof of link? 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. the receivers address is XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu show the proof back to the original senders address otherwise your spreading FUD The bounty is still open until somebody proves the link... Don't you understand this ? I show you mixer address is related. Want more ? |
|
|
|
|
|
atcsecure
|
|
June 11, 2014, 07:01:04 PM |
|
Really? Good to know.
Anyway, You want hard link, that two address of mixer are connected.
Right ?
yes Then code is right. Sending to real payee works good. Problem is received coins are reused. Proof : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7254769#msg7254769I have to prove two address is related. XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb === XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC Right ? ah but the received coins that are re-used at not from that transaction, it is from an earlier transaction through the mixer, so a different SENDER Right. not from that transaction. Used address by Mixer is related after all. In this case, txs are fewer, so very clear. It's related after 10 ~~ many blocks after. So I call it flaw. Ah, so there is no provable direct link thank you 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. okay show me the proof of link? 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. the receivers address is XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu show the proof back to the original senders address otherwise your spreading FUD The bounty is still open until somebody proves the link... Don't you understand this ? I show you mixer address is related. Want more ? all your showing is the mixer address, the bounty is for showing a link from the original sender to the receiver address of XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu of course you can trace back to the mixer from the receiver address, but prove the sender's address and link ON THE BLOCKCHAIN |
Join the revolution - XC - Decentralized Trustless Multi-Node Private Transactions
|
|
|
|
chaeplin
|
|
June 11, 2014, 07:03:27 PM |
|
Really? Good to know.
Anyway, You want hard link, that two address of mixer are connected.
Right ?
yes Then code is right. Sending to real payee works good. Problem is received coins are reused. Proof : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7254769#msg7254769I have to prove two address is related. XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb === XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC Right ? ah but the received coins that are re-used at not from that transaction, it is from an earlier transaction through the mixer, so a different SENDER Right. not from that transaction. Used address by Mixer is related after all. In this case, txs are fewer, so very clear. It's related after 10 ~~ many blocks after. So I call it flaw. Ah, so there is no provable direct link thank you 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. okay show me the proof of link? 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. the receivers address is XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu show the proof back to the original senders address otherwise your spreading FUD The bounty is still open until somebody proves the link... Don't you understand this ? I show you mixer address is related. Want more ? all your showing is the mixer address, the bounty is for showing a link from the original sender to the receiver address of XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu of course you can trace back to the mixer from the receiver address, but prove the sender's address and link ON THE BLOCKCHAIN Oh kiddding. Sender --- a add of mixer -- b add of mixer -- payee. It's in blockchain, a add of mixer == b add of mixer. Waht did you say ?? I have to prove two address is related.
XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb === XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC
Right ?
ah but the received coins that are re-used at not from that transaction, it is from an earlier transaction through the mixer, so a different SENDER
|
|
|
|
|
|
atcsecure
|
|
June 11, 2014, 07:04:22 PM |
|
Really? Good to know.
Anyway, You want hard link, that two address of mixer are connected.
Right ?
yes Then code is right. Sending to real payee works good. Problem is received coins are reused. Proof : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7254769#msg7254769I have to prove two address is related. XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb === XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC Right ? ah but the received coins that are re-used at not from that transaction, it is from an earlier transaction through the mixer, so a different SENDER Right. not from that transaction. Used address by Mixer is related after all. In this case, txs are fewer, so very clear. It's related after 10 ~~ many blocks after. So I call it flaw. Ah, so there is no provable direct link thank you 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. okay show me the proof of link? 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. the receivers address is XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu show the proof back to the original senders address otherwise your spreading FUD The bounty is still open until somebody proves the link... Don't you understand this ? I show you mixer address is related. Want more ? all your showing is the mixer address, the bounty is for showing a link from the original sender to the receiver address of XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu of course you can trace back to the mixer from the receiver address, but prove the sender's address and link ON THE BLOCKCHAIN Oh kiddding. Sender --- a add of mixer -- b add of mixer -- payee. It's in blockchain, a add of mixer == b add of mixer. okay so prove it if you want the bounty - but prove the sender's address and link ON THE BLOCKCHAIN |
Join the revolution - XC - Decentralized Trustless Multi-Node Private Transactions
|
|
|
|
chaeplin
|
|
June 11, 2014, 07:07:01 PM |
|
Really? Good to know.
Anyway, You want hard link, that two address of mixer are connected.
Right ?
yes Then code is right. Sending to real payee works good. Problem is received coins are reused. Proof : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7254769#msg7254769I have to prove two address is related. XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb === XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC Right ? ah but the received coins that are re-used at not from that transaction, it is from an earlier transaction through the mixer, so a different SENDER Right. not from that transaction. Used address by Mixer is related after all. In this case, txs are fewer, so very clear. It's related after 10 ~~ many blocks after. So I call it flaw. Ah, so there is no provable direct link thank you 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. okay show me the proof of link? 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. the receivers address is XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu show the proof back to the original senders address otherwise your spreading FUD The bounty is still open until somebody proves the link... Don't you understand this ? I show you mixer address is related. Want more ? all your showing is the mixer address, the bounty is for showing a link from the original sender to the receiver address of XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu of course you can trace back to the mixer from the receiver address, but prove the sender's address and link ON THE BLOCKCHAIN Oh kiddding. Sender --- a add of mixer -- b add of mixer -- payee. It's in blockchain, a add of mixer == b add of mixer. okay so prove it if you want the bounty - but prove the sender's address and link ON THE BLOCKCHAIN Well I think you don't know anything about multi input. It's used in a input together. |
|
|
|
|
|
atcsecure
|
|
June 11, 2014, 07:08:06 PM |
|
Really? Good to know.
Anyway, You want hard link, that two address of mixer are connected.
Right ?
yes Then code is right. Sending to real payee works good. Problem is received coins are reused. Proof : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7254769#msg7254769I have to prove two address is related. XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb === XFY3XchgfA16dFv9pFVDTpCGg2q7TWUNtC Right ? ah but the received coins that are re-used at not from that transaction, it is from an earlier transaction through the mixer, so a different SENDER Right. not from that transaction. Used address by Mixer is related after all. In this case, txs are fewer, so very clear. It's related after 10 ~~ many blocks after. So I call it flaw. Ah, so there is no provable direct link thank you 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. okay show me the proof of link? 1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s is mine. the receivers address is XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu show the proof back to the original senders address otherwise your spreading FUD The bounty is still open until somebody proves the link... Don't you understand this ? I show you mixer address is related. Want more ? all your showing is the mixer address, the bounty is for showing a link from the original sender to the receiver address of XV49MnmtTirtZSQ2jtgisvNhNr6DduzCNu of course you can trace back to the mixer from the receiver address, but prove the sender's address and link ON THE BLOCKCHAIN Oh kiddding. Sender --- a add of mixer -- b add of mixer -- payee. It's in blockchain, a add of mixer == b add of mixer. okay so prove it if you want the bounty - but prove the sender's address and link ON THE BLOCKCHAIN Well I think you don't know anything about multi input. It's used in a input together. Ah, so you change topics when you can't prove the link from sender to receiver? |
Join the revolution - XC - Decentralized Trustless Multi-Node Private Transactions
|
|
|
evtrmm
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
So much for "Community"
|
|
June 11, 2014, 07:08:31 PM |
|
I think everyone needs to chill out and let people work together.
Whatever his motives, Chapelin is giving his time to this product, and we should be grateful for that.
At this point, with very few transaction, by scrubbing addresses and matching transactions in/out, he can find an address tied to the wallet.
So trying to say he is wrong - is wrong.
I would imagine if we treated him with a little more respect, he would probably do the same in return.
Once transactions pick up, it may be a lot harder to track those transactions, but by using his method - whatever it be, he most likely would be able to match the transaction, or at least narrow it down.
if the sent matches the received, it most likely will be able to be flagged if not by the eye, by a piece of software.
|
|
|
|
|
|
atcsecure
|
|
June 11, 2014, 07:09:20 PM |
|
I think everyone needs to chill out and let people work together.
Whatever his motives, Chapelin is giving his time to this product, and we should be grateful for that.
At this point, with very few transaction, by scrubbing addresses and matching transactions in/out, he can find an address tied to the wallet.
So trying to say he is wrong - is wrong.
I would imagine if we treated him with a little more respect, he would probably do the same in return.
Once transactions pick up, it may be a lot harder to track those transactions, but by using his method - whatever it be, he most likely would be able to match the transaction, or at least narrow it down.
if the sent matches the received, it most likely will be able to be flagged if not by the eye, by a piece of software.
but the issue he is making a statement he can't back up and he is confused on how the software works so he is assuming something and if he is correct, I would like to see the proof otherwise it is FUD |
Join the revolution - XC - Decentralized Trustless Multi-Node Private Transactions
|
|
|
|
