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

[Teka]

All we have here is DRK troll Chaeplin with his broken english not making sense and going around in circles whilst still not able to establish the original users sender address.

Mixer identified.
Input of mixer address XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb == output from sender XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw
XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb will not be used again for any sender.

So XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw == XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb.
Compare output, count blocks, check explorer, input of XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb will be user for output for another sender.
Can find related output address.

That's what i am doing in analysis aka mapping.

GTFO: The guy has a lot of knowledge, who cares about his english. Facts are facts & all that count

English is not my 1st language so I agree with the first aspect of your point. However so far he has only proven that he can find the mixer address and that the system works.

[1714876786]

1714876786

[1714876786]

1714876786

[1714876786]

1714876786

[1714876786]

1714876786

[1714876786]

1714876786

[greyskies]

I don't understand what is wrong with chaeplin's analysis here.
He proves a sender is tied to one mixer.... and then to an output.

You can change the wallet address, the anonymity has to assume the sender's wallet can be identified and addresses can be pulled from that...
You can change an address in your bitcoin wallet already and send from a new address....but that's not anonymity because, say...a search warrant was enacted against you...they can just get that info from your machine - or maybe they pull your address from a known transaction (ex. transaction with an online store that has it tied to your account with them).
So..bitcoin has that level of anonymity already.
The solution has to assume this is possible and still make the transactions anonymous regardless.


Please, can someone explain what piece I am missing?...and this isn't FUD...I'm actually asking. I must be missing something, right?

So you mean it's on the same level of anonymity as DRK?

Except DRK requires nodes which need to be set up on VPS's and doesn't offer encryption?

Ok.

[Junkey]

Let me give a non tech breakdown of what chaplin is saying with the example of snail mail.  He is seeing the mail man deliver the mail and shouts, "Oh there it is, the guy sending the mail. I know where it comes from!"  He doesn't seem to understand that the mailman isn't the starting point of the transaction, he is just the middle man.  He still doesn't know who gave the mailman the letter b/c there is no return to address on it.  He just seems to not under stand it on the most basic level.

[evtrmm]

Dev can deny.

Here is point.

Mixer address XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb is used for sender.



One time.

Every input to mixer got NEW address.


Matched....

Are you serious? Where did the mixer get the coins from? who clicked the send button?

From sender, with NEW address.

Okay... but you still don't know who the original sender is, correct?  Isn't that the point of anonymous transfers -- to mask the original sender's address?

Urm, that's the same as just generating a new bitcoin address and sending a transaction.

"Sendfrommixer" MAIN
MAIN = XM4f4GbzaCnMphTKitAYMSX8vdkUPrwYuQ not XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb

That is the whole argument here.  Even though Main was empty, it still sent from MAIN, but from an imposter address.  

You can only envision where it goes from here.  
Steps in the right direction.

Being that Main only had 1 transaction sent to it, it does stand out pretty substantially once you pin it down.  but once numerous transactions are sent to that address, it will be highly undetectable.

[atcsecure]

All we have here is DRK troll Chaeplin with his broken english not making sense and going around in circles whilst still not able to establish the original users sender address.

Mixer identified.
Input of mixer address XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb == output from sender XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw
XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb will not be used again for any sender.

So XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw == XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb.
Compare output, count blocks, check explorer, input of XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb will be user for output for another sender.
Can find related output address.

That's what i am doing in analysis aka mapping.

I appreciate the analysis mapping as it provides valuable feedback, for the record "input of XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb will be user for output for another sender" is not ALWAYS accurate as the mixer selects different resources for sending outbound..

[KimmyF]

All we have here is DRK troll Chaeplin with his broken english not making sense and going around in circles whilst still not able to establish the original users sender address.

Mixer identified.
Input of mixer address XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb == output from sender XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw
XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb will not be used again for any sender.

So XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw == XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb.
Compare output, count blocks, check explorer, input of XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb will be user for output for another sender.
Can find related output address.

That's what i am doing in analysis aka mapping.

The guy has a lot of knowledge, who cares about his english. Facts are facts & all that count

English is not my 1st language so I agree with the first aspect of your point. However so far he has only proven that he can find the mixer address and that the system works.

Excuse me, english is not my first language also. Just do not like personal attacks, thats weak.
Still trying to learn: He links 3 different steps in 1 story: 2 addresses to the same mixer wallet in the middle and 1 incomming & 1 outgoing based on amount.
See no prove in there they belong to the same transaction. That mixer could be busy with many other active transactions. In court it will not stand up & as this chain get more and more used this so called link gets weaker and weaker

[madmanbts]

Do you guys think we are missing a third leg up in this small uptrend? If feels to me like it was abruptly cut...

[chaeplin]

"Sendfrommixer" MAIN
MAIN = XM4f4GbzaCnMphTKitAYMSX8vdkUPrwYuQ not XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb

That is the whole argument here.  Even though Main was empty, it still sent from MAIN, but from an imposter address.  

You can only envision where it goes from here.  
Steps in the right direction.

Being that Main only had 1 transaction sent to it, it does stand out pretty substantially once you pin it down.  but once numerous transactions are sent to that address, it will be highly undetectable.

MAIN = XM4f4GbzaCnMphTKitAYMSX8vdkUPrwYuQ has zero balance. already changed.
When you send coins, a new address issued for change.

XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw is used for your transaction.

TX is here : http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96074.htm


And XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw is matched to XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb.
XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb is used for olny your trabnsaction.

[JakeThePanda]

Do you guys think we are missing a third leg up in this small uptrend? If feels to me like it was abruptly cut...

Stop looking for reasons the price hasn't gone higher.  3 touch points on a trend line is common.  It went up 40% or so since yesterday.  That's a lot and has nothing to do with what's going on here.

[evtrmm]

"Sendfrommixer" MAIN
MAIN = XM4f4GbzaCnMphTKitAYMSX8vdkUPrwYuQ not XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb

That is the whole argument here.  Even though Main was empty, it still sent from MAIN, but from an imposter address.  

You can only envision where it goes from here.  
Steps in the right direction.

Being that Main only had 1 transaction sent to it, it does stand out pretty substantially once you pin it down.  but once numerous transactions are sent to that address, it will be highly undetectable.

MAIN = XM4f4GbzaCnMphTKitAYMSX8vdkUPrwYuQ has zero balance. already changed.
When you send coins, a new address issued for change.

XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw is used for your transaction.

TX is here : http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96074.htm


And XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw is matched to XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb.
XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb is used for olny your trabnsaction.

Yes

[phosphorush]

So when you send from original address A to the receiving address D , it goes to the mixer B, the mixer makes a new address C to send the amount to the receiver D? And Chaeplin doesn't get only A?

[atcsecure]

Since I don't have all the details from evtrmm's earlier test

I've created a new transaction


XVrqrpe2ZDmykAnjcAHN6McbuDEjBZSvRZ


I will put the details in a password protect zip file

[BrewCrewFan]

Do you guys think we are missing a third leg up in this small uptrend? If feels to me like it was abruptly cut...

Stop looking for reasons the price hasn't gone higher.  3 touch points on a trend line is common.  It went up 40% or so since yesterday.  That's a lot and has nothing to do with what's going on here.

So your saying that its over priced because it has nothing to do with anything on in here? Am I understanding this correctly?

[sukottosan_d]

So when you send from original address A to the receiving address D , it goes to the mixer B, the mixer makes a new address C to send the amount to the receiver D? And Chaeplin doesn't get only A?

And chaeplin is adding that the mixer only uses one address for you, so once you know A, you can trace it. Which is what I said before. You have to assume A is known.

Which is why I don't understand what is wrong with his analysis.

[chaeplin]

"Sendfrommixer" MAIN
MAIN = XM4f4GbzaCnMphTKitAYMSX8vdkUPrwYuQ not XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb

That is the whole argument here.  Even though Main was empty, it still sent from MAIN, but from an imposter address.  

You can only envision where it goes from here.  
Steps in the right direction.

Being that Main only had 1 transaction sent to it, it does stand out pretty substantially once you pin it down.  but once numerous transactions are sent to that address, it will be highly undetectable.

MAIN = XM4f4GbzaCnMphTKitAYMSX8vdkUPrwYuQ has zero balance. already changed.
When you send coins, a new address issued for change.

XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw is used for your transaction.

TX is here : http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96074.htm


And XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw is matched to XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb.
XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb is used for olny your trabnsaction.

Yes

Code:

  but once numerous transactions are sent to that address, it will be highly undetectable.

Because of that, it's detectable.

[phosphorush]

So when you send from original address A to the receiving address D , it goes to the mixer B, the mixer makes a new address C to send the amount to the receiver D? And Chaeplin doesn't get only A?

And chaeplin is adding that the mixer only uses one address for you, so once you know A, you can trace it. Which is what I said before. You have to assume A is known.

I see, thanks. So there is no direct link but if you are forced to show your address then they can prove that you made a specific transaction.

[atcsecure]

So when you send from original address A to the receiving address D , it goes to the mixer B, the mixer makes a new address C to send the amount to the receiver D? And Chaeplin doesn't get only A?

And chaeplin is adding that the mixer only uses one address for you, so once you know A, you can trace it. Which is what I said before. You have to assume A is known.

that is not how the mixer work's


The highlevel summary is this

The mixer tells the client to send coins to wallet b, however wallet C is used to send coins to the final user, there is NO link from wallet B to wallet C unless somebody manually moves the coins from C to B

[hunterwolf]

[atcsecure]

yes and the summary is wrong, the mixer has "recieve" wallets and it also has "send" wallets

[madmanbts]

Do you guys think we are missing a third leg up in this small uptrend? If feels to me like it was abruptly cut...

Stop looking for reasons the price hasn't gone higher.  3 touch points on a trend line is common.  It went up 40% or so since yesterday.  That's a lot and has nothing to do with what's going on here.

So your saying that its over priced because it has nothing to do with anything on in here? Am I understanding this correctly?

I'm just asking from a pure trading perspective: usualy there are 3 legs up and 2 down, but this one only has 2 up...so if feels to me that a third one is missing. I don't care about all this FUD.