|
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?  http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96187.htmhttp://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96160.htm1FzikiCbBUM2YnatvHS9ufJtrUqkmuMD8s 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
|
|
|
|
atcsecure
|
|
June 11, 2014, 07:10:07 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 the mixer doesn't use the multi-inputs from sender A to create the output to receiver B, if it does, he should be able to prove that |
Join the revolution - XC - Decentralized Trustless Multi-Node Private Transactions
|
|
|
|
phosphorush
|
|
June 11, 2014, 07:10:11 PM |
|
he did change the subject and didn't provide the proof  |
Your account locked, please contact support.
|
|
|
lnash
Member
Offline
Activity: 73
Merit: 10
|
|
June 11, 2014, 07:10:40 PM |
|
Cryptogretzky, Dadon, DRRobert, Wevus, Evtrmm, Mikemikemike, Jestersdead, Greyskies, 520bit, Jasinlee, Teka, Pizpie and anyone else interested:
Huge differentiator XC MOBILE APP has been created (Android and IPhone) but not released
- quick mobile transfer
- balance checks
- full control over keys
- advanced QR code scanner
- mixer support coming
If we want to do an exclusive launch with XC - message me in our IRC channel #XCofficial - I'm there as Alliance.
I spoke with the mobile app developer and he sees the potential in XC, likes the community, and may do it for a XC bounty.
He was originally looking to do the launch with a different coin; however, if we can get in there quickly, it's ours.
|
|
|
|
|
sukottosan_d
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
June 11, 2014, 07:10:49 PM |
|
This argument is really confusing.
I see chaeplin making points...then people asking him to show them...but he is showing you.
I see no counter-explanation that shows he is incorrect, just people arguing with him who don't know what they are looking at. I see some attempt at it from atcsecure - but no real explanation of why what is happening is the correct behaviour and how it provides anonymity.
Do you guys have a whitepaper I can look at or something for the overall design?
|
|
|
|
|
|
chaeplin
|
|
June 11, 2014, 07:11:12 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? Input
An input is a reference to an output in a different transaction. Multiple inputs are often listed in a transaction.
The values of the referenced outputs are added up, and the total is usable in the outputs of this transaction.
Previous tx is a hash of a previous transaction. Index is the specific output in the referenced transaction. ScriptSig is the first half of a script (discussed in more detail later).
The script contains two components, a signature and a public key. The public key belongs to the redeemer of the output
transaction and proves the creator is allowed to redeem the outputs value. The other component is an ECDSA signature over
a hash of a simplified version of the transaction. It, combined with the public key, proves the transaction was created
by the real owner of the address in question.
Various flags define how the transaction is simplified and can be used to create different types of payment.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/TransactionsRelated. pass-through mixer. |
|
|
|
|
acseric
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 11, 2014, 07:12:56 PM |
|
This argument is really confusing.
I see chaeplin making points...then people asking him to show them...but he is showing you.
I see no counter-explanation that shows he is incorrect, just people arguing with him who don't know what they are looking at. I see some attempt at it from atcsecure - but no real explanation of why what is happening is the correct behaviour and how it provides anonymity.
Do you guys have a whitepaper I can look at or something for the overall design?
Exactly. I work in tech, and it reminds me of when a hardcore developer tries to explain something to someone on the business side. |
|
|
|
|
|
