sukottosan_d
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:26:41 PM |
|
What about this? Ref: Hash7337f03cc1d0b726d1fb8b0b9e66bc6cc796853379b75d7dd193e6d5e9c33c4f Appeared inX11Coin 28533 (2014-06-11 13:25:09) Number of inputs2 (Jump to inputs) Total in10 Number of outputs1 (Jump to outputs) Total out9.99999 Size345 bytes Fee0.00001 Raw transaction
Inputs
Index Previous output Amount From address ScriptSig 0 235b7cba7a...:1 8.329413 XNECF1CtdkF2DjuVxcCr8VJEdKiH9ByDMb 73:3046...e501 33:03f5...9f33 1 2b46b1f30d...:1 1.670587 XNECF1CtdkF2DjuVxcCr8VJEdKiH9ByDMb 72:3045...3501 33:03f5...9f33 Outputs
Index Redeemed at input Amount To address ScriptPubKey 0 Not yet redeemed 9.99999 XNLdJtLQKnmi7PSUknoPoPRDjnmJnb3y8D DUP HASH160 20:788b...2bb6 EQUALVERIFY CHECKSIG
* block : 28533 * from mixer XNECF1CtdkF2DjuVxcCr8VJEdKiH9ByDMb to XNLdJtLQKnmi7PSUknoPoPRDjnmJnb3y8D : 9.99999 * Search through pattern user@sv2:~/x11coin> ./run.py 28500 28590 * ====> Working block height 28527 has 8 tx * ====> Searchng XTiH1AgxVoFYLuLamAzRLGbvoAYyxhZJV1 tx: 2 percent 94 value 0.006 *===> block reached * ====> Working block height 28527 has 8 tx * ====> Searchng XNECF1CtdkF2DjuVxcCr8VJEdKiH9ByDMb tx: 2 percent 94 value 0.006 *===> block reached
* ====> Working block height 28531 has 4 tx * ====> Searchng XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa tx: 2 percent 100 value 10.0 *===> block reached *===> Searchng 28533 : diff : 2 *===> XNLdJtLQKnmi7PSUknoPoPRDjnmJnb3y8D 9.99999 link is : XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa <----> XNECF1CtdkF2DjuVxcCr8VJEdKiH9ByDMb
* ====> Working block height 28587 has 5 tx * ====> Searchng XUZvnU6MrxH49AVaSKwsXJMsyPoicrP6g2 tx: 2 percent 100 value 0.15 *===> block reached *===> Searchng 28590 : diff : 3 *===> XE3dFcdQ6aH81J6viKraZwauMk9zcP4Ehz 0.14999 link is : XUZvnU6MrxH49AVaSKwsXJMsyPoicrP6g2 <----> XMDDFuadQFGas9Zn8nTMVFFGz9hUc7Jteo
Possible candidate in 28531 Hash7315a0968d1aa71e01031583446625bde7189bee1642d3c85737a537d7480778 Previous Blockc2ef588b1680c5498151345eacc4a3c363d77d802aff45674a597c3bdbfac00f Next Block7e5eeaeecda5745b32be824e5da54a9a95b5b350126a216bf5499c0f6e5fa2c9 Height28531 Version4 Transaction Merkle Roote9c293aa46b5f2bc684349e6b4accbbb196f36b04742e26d2df53811a2a9fdfd Time1402492966 (2014-06-11 13:22:46) Difficulty0.000 (Bits: 1e047c41) Cumulative Difficulty11 973 042.889 Nonce0 Transactions4 Value out2070.657277 Transaction Fees-1.62137 Average Coin Age9.27782 days Coin-days Destroyed17767.243184 Cumulative Coin-days Destroyed62.9868%
Transactions
Transaction Fee Size (kB) From (amount) To (amount) c6d0da399b... 0 0.077 Generation: 1.62137 + -1.62137 total fees Unknown: 0 dcd8718986... -1.62139 0.258 XXrbb5c4JFJTTXwSPJeVXpT1g6Htd4isH6: 1993.671236 Unknown: 0 XXrbb5c4JFJTTXwSPJeVXpT1g6Htd4isH6: 997.64 XXrbb5c4JFJTTXwSPJeVXpT1g6Htd4isH6: 997.652626 2c3d8fcfa4... 0.00001 0.229 XLS1oGFeJQ7qjhcVYYg6cXaQ5vfGNBA72R: 40.99999 XGn7mdvRKy6LYYdejMYsxx8mCocdyuSXmf: 34.364681 XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa: 6.635299 633fe22002... 0.00001 0.23 XGn7mdvRKy6LYYdejMYsxx8mCocdyuSXmf: 34.364681 XZ2zsBE5oqTciM5bkWtPajqqjQKHNv8Cip: 30.99997 XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa: 3.364701
* multiple tx pattern to same destination * address never used before 28531 * input value matched. from address XLS1oGFeJQ7qjhcVYYg6cXaQ5vfGNBA72R to mixer XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa. * coin flow : BLOCK 28531 from address XLS1oGFeJQ7qjhcVYYg6cXaQ5vfGNBA72R to mixer XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa --> BLOCK 28533 * from mixer XNECF1CtdkF2DjuVxcCr8VJEdKiH9ByDMb to XNLdJtLQKnmi7PSUknoPoPRDjnmJnb3y8D : SENDER : XLS1oGFeJQ7qjhcVYYg6cXaQ5vfGNBA72R : MIXER INPUT : XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa / never used before : MIXER OUTPUT : XNECF1CtdkF2DjuVxcCr8VJEdKiH9ByDMb : PAYEE : XNLdJtLQKnmi7PSUknoPoPRDjnmJnb3y8D If outputs of address XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa and XNECF1CtdkF2DjuVxcCr8VJEdKiH9ByDMb are spent as an input for a transaction, Mixer identified. Link from wallet B to wallet C is identified As XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa is nerver used before, check XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa's tx. http://cryptexplorer.com/address/XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa Transaction Block Approx. Time Amount Balance Currency 2c3d8fcfa4... 28531 2014-06-11 13:22:46 6.635299 6.635299 XC 633fe22002... 28531 2014-06-11 13:22:46 3.364701 10 XC 0d227a1fcf... 28540 2014-06-11 13:39:49 0.003 10.003 XC 07957c70d0... 28555 2014-06-11 14:03:57 0.001 10.004 XC dd438f2fbd... 28645 2014-06-11 17:06:04 (0.003) 10.001 XC fe5ad7f573... 28645 2014-06-11 17:06:04 (0.001) 10 XC 36e6e4f1bb... 28646 2014-06-11 17:08:27 (3.364701) 6.635299 XC d24770a89a... 28653 2014-06-11 17:20:52 (6.635299) 0 XC 8e708043fa... 28847 2014-06-11 22:52:01 0.0001 0.0001 XC
Block 28645 has hard link. http://cryptexplorer.com/block/4255ac4c5e93fa1769f58312d76338779229424538357dc4cf00a07fc1aafb74* Hard Link is real. Ask him if he will be to identify this 1. When he is not GIVEN all the needed info And 2. When there is more than 1 xnode transaction occurring in the same block...... what if all transactions were handled xnode transactions You guys should look at this seriously. I think it can be fixed relatively easily - but if it's ignored it could be a problem for you later. Chaeplin spent a bunch of time working through every detail to get you a step by step description of the issue. And no one is responding seriously, no one has given a counter analysis - that is not a good sign for investors. Can someone show where chaeplin's analysis is flawed? No one has directly responded at any point. Quote a post - draw lines...whatever you need to do. I came to the same conclusion as him after reviewing a series of transactions yesterday - but it was annoying and took me a long time. If this isn't an issue - can someone just point out where? Or create a counter-example? If you want to be taken seriously - I'm pretty sure it's important and shouldn't be brushed off like it's nothing. I don't know how you can call it FUD and ignore it......he walked you through the problem. If you don't understand it...fine - let someone who does argue a counter-analysis. Don't just call it FUD because you don't understand what is going on.
|
|
|
|
CryptoGretzky
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:33:19 PM |
|
You guys should look at this seriously. I think it can be fixed relatively easily - but if it's ignored it could be a problem for you later. Chaeplin spent a bunch of time working through every detail to get you a step by step description of the issue. And no one is responding seriously, no one has given a counter analysis - that is not a good sign for investors. Can someone show where chaeplin's analysis is flawed? No one has directly responded at any point. Quote a post - draw lines...whatever you need to do.
I came to the same conclusion as him after reviewing a series of transactions yesterday - but it was annoying and took me a long time. If this isn't an issue - can someone just point out where? Or create a counter-example? If you want to be taken seriously - I'm pretty sure it's important and shouldn't be brushed off like it's nothing.
I don't know how you can call it FUD and ignore it......he walked you through the problem. If you don't understand it...fine - let someone who does argue a counter-analysis. Don't just call it FUD because you don't understand what is going on.
ATCSecure has responded NUMEROUS times that by rev 2 with multi-path, this is a non-issue. Why should he waste any more time on a pattern matcher when this exact problem won't be a problem any more?
|
|
|
|
benthach
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:33:29 PM Last edit: June 12, 2014, 12:47:46 PM by benthach |
|
Ask him if he will be to identify this 1. When he is not GIVEN all the needed info And 2. When there is more than 1 xnode transaction occurring in the same block...... what if all transactions were handled xnode transactions
i bet not more then 10 xnodes is working correct and running right now. it is hard to know if this thing is working even myself is a very tech guy. i also believed not many people know how to use debug command and send anonomous right now so that might be the reason most xnodes sitting for days with no transaction. it would be convenience and easy if we have click check button to send anonymous transaction, just like unlock and check button for staking.
|
reddit btcwriter1 - twitter kingpininvestor
|
|
|
adhitthana
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:35:10 PM |
|
You guys should look at this seriously. I think it can be fixed relatively easily - but if it's ignored it could be a problem for you later. Chaeplin spent a bunch of time working through every detail to get you a step by step description of the issue. And no one is responding seriously, no one has given a counter analysis - that is not a good sign for investors. Can someone show where chaeplin's analysis is flawed? No one has directly responded at any point. Quote a post - draw lines...whatever you need to do.
I came to the same conclusion as him after reviewing a series of transactions yesterday - but it was annoying and took me a long time. If this isn't an issue - can someone just point out where? Or create a counter-example? If you want to be taken seriously - I'm pretty sure it's important and shouldn't be brushed off like it's nothing.
I don't know how you can call it FUD and ignore it......he walked you through the problem. If you don't understand it...fine - let someone who does argue a counter-analysis. Don't just call it FUD because you don't understand what is going on.
I agree. This a problem when the bounty is only 100XC. It's maybe not enough to get serious analysis from multiple people
|
|
|
|
evtrmm
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
So much for "Community"
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:36:48 PM |
|
sukottosan_d , I am rather sure this is being looked at. this is still under development, and is nowhere near a final product. The concerns that are raised ARE valid.
I do not believe ATC has been on since this was posted, and I am sure he will address it. BUT, I would rather him not sit and argue all day and just get back to the task.
|
|
|
|
CryptoGretzky
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:37:42 PM |
|
You guys should look at this seriously. I think it can be fixed relatively easily - but if it's ignored it could be a problem for you later. Chaeplin spent a bunch of time working through every detail to get you a step by step description of the issue. And no one is responding seriously, no one has given a counter analysis - that is not a good sign for investors. Can someone show where chaeplin's analysis is flawed? No one has directly responded at any point. Quote a post - draw lines...whatever you need to do.
I came to the same conclusion as him after reviewing a series of transactions yesterday - but it was annoying and took me a long time. If this isn't an issue - can someone just point out where? Or create a counter-example? If you want to be taken seriously - I'm pretty sure it's important and shouldn't be brushed off like it's nothing.
I don't know how you can call it FUD and ignore it......he walked you through the problem. If you don't understand it...fine - let someone who does argue a counter-analysis. Don't just call it FUD because you don't understand what is going on.
I agree. This a problem when the bounty is only 100XC. It's maybe not enough to get serious analysis from multiple people Does anyone have ANY link where DRK offered a bounty to prove their anon work?? Anyone? Bueller?
|
|
|
|
phosphorush
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:39:20 PM |
|
You guys should look at this seriously. I think it can be fixed relatively easily - but if it's ignored it could be a problem for you later. Chaeplin spent a bunch of time working through every detail to get you a step by step description of the issue. And no one is responding seriously, no one has given a counter analysis - that is not a good sign for investors. Can someone show where chaeplin's analysis is flawed? No one has directly responded at any point. Quote a post - draw lines...whatever you need to do.
I came to the same conclusion as him after reviewing a series of transactions yesterday - but it was annoying and took me a long time. If this isn't an issue - can someone just point out where? Or create a counter-example? If you want to be taken seriously - I'm pretty sure it's important and shouldn't be brushed off like it's nothing.
I don't know how you can call it FUD and ignore it......he walked you through the problem. If you don't understand it...fine - let someone who does argue a counter-analysis. Don't just call it FUD because you don't understand what is going on.
I agree. This a problem when the bounty is only 100XC. It's maybe not enough to get serious analysis from multiple people +1
|
Your account locked, please contact support.
|
|
|
chaeplin
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:39:41 PM |
|
sukottosan_d , I am rather sure this is being looked at. this is still under development, and is nowhere near a final product. The concerns that are raised ARE valid.
I do not believe ATC has been on since this was posted, and I am sure he will address it. BUT, I would rather him not sit and argue all day and just get back to the task.
Yesterday, hard link provided. Dev refused it.
|
|
|
|
Artoodeetoo
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:39:49 PM |
|
You guys should look at this seriously. I think it can be fixed relatively easily - but if it's ignored it could be a problem for you later. Chaeplin spent a bunch of time working through every detail to get you a step by step description of the issue. And no one is responding seriously, no one has given a counter analysis - that is not a good sign for investors. Can someone show where chaeplin's analysis is flawed? No one has directly responded at any point. Quote a post - draw lines...whatever you need to do.
I came to the same conclusion as him after reviewing a series of transactions yesterday - but it was annoying and took me a long time. If this isn't an issue - can someone just point out where? Or create a counter-example? If you want to be taken seriously - I'm pretty sure it's important and shouldn't be brushed off like it's nothing.
I don't know how you can call it FUD and ignore it......he walked you through the problem. If you don't understand it...fine - let someone who does argue a counter-analysis. Don't just call it FUD because you don't understand what is going on.
I agree. This a problem when the bounty is only 100XC. It's maybe not enough to get serious analysis from multiple people Does anyone have ANY link where DRK offered a bounty to prove their anon work?? Anyone? Bueller? +1 why is it always here we are expected to do these things, its totally ridiculous... DRK fudders posing as serious interested investors, that is why...
|
DASH #DashDC #DashIntoDigitalCash
|
|
|
phosphorush
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:40:11 PM |
|
You guys should look at this seriously. I think it can be fixed relatively easily - but if it's ignored it could be a problem for you later. Chaeplin spent a bunch of time working through every detail to get you a step by step description of the issue. And no one is responding seriously, no one has given a counter analysis - that is not a good sign for investors. Can someone show where chaeplin's analysis is flawed? No one has directly responded at any point. Quote a post - draw lines...whatever you need to do.
I came to the same conclusion as him after reviewing a series of transactions yesterday - but it was annoying and took me a long time. If this isn't an issue - can someone just point out where? Or create a counter-example? If you want to be taken seriously - I'm pretty sure it's important and shouldn't be brushed off like it's nothing.
I don't know how you can call it FUD and ignore it......he walked you through the problem. If you don't understand it...fine - let someone who does argue a counter-analysis. Don't just call it FUD because you don't understand what is going on.
I agree. This a problem when the bounty is only 100XC. It's maybe not enough to get serious analysis from multiple people Does anyone have ANY link where DRK offered a bounty to prove their anon work?? Anyone? Bueller? they do not have anon
|
Your account locked, please contact support.
|
|
|
adhitthana
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:40:57 PM |
|
ATCSecure has responded NUMEROUS times that by rev 2 with multi-path, this is a non-issue. Why should he waste any more time on a pattern matcher when this exact problem won't be a problem any more?
So...Chaeplin is guessing and getting at least part of it right because there is a "single path" (and not too many variables) ...but when there is a "multi path" this will all be mixed up too much?
|
|
|
|
Artoodeetoo
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:41:20 PM |
|
sukottosan_d , I am rather sure this is being looked at. this is still under development, and is nowhere near a final product. The concerns that are raised ARE valid.
I do not believe ATC has been on since this was posted, and I am sure he will address it. BUT, I would rather him not sit and argue all day and just get back to the task.
Yesterday, hard link provided. Dev refused it. LOL you were made to look silly last night, DEV destroyed you.. https://twitter.com/chaeplinGet back on the boat and do some more fishing....
|
DASH #DashDC #DashIntoDigitalCash
|
|
|
Artoodeetoo
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:42:02 PM |
|
ATCSecure has responded NUMEROUS times that by rev 2 with multi-path, this is a non-issue. Why should he waste any more time on a pattern matcher when this exact problem won't be a problem any more?
So...Chaeplin is guessing and getting at least part of it right because there is a "single path" (and not too many variables) ...but when there is a "multi path" this will all be mixed up too much? All he could show was the mixer, not the source and destination, he could not link the transactions...
|
DASH #DashDC #DashIntoDigitalCash
|
|
|
hoertest
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:42:16 PM |
|
he is defenatly not getting ignored or called fud easily , go through the last pages here and you know what i mean. as i understand it he is matching amounts he send to the mixer himself. the dev and him have been going back and forth yesterday to the point where he didn't respond anymore. Rev2 will make what he does impossible as i understand it. Rev1 never was intended to make this matching of amounts impossible. there are to little transactions for that atm in about two or three weeks XC will be the first working decentralized anonymous coin and there will be panic to a point you haven't seen in a long time.
|
|
|
|
CryptoGretzky
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:42:23 PM |
|
sukottosan_d , I am rather sure this is being looked at. this is still under development, and is nowhere near a final product. The concerns that are raised ARE valid.
I do not believe ATC has been on since this was posted, and I am sure he will address it. BUT, I would rather him not sit and argue all day and just get back to the task.
Yesterday, hard link provided. Dev refused it. TLDR...
|
|
|
|
Artoodeetoo
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:43:38 PM |
|
he is defenatly not getting ignored or called fud easily , go through the last pages here and you know what i mean. as i understand it he is matching amounts he send to the mixer himself. the dev and him have been going back and forth yesterday to the point where he didn't respond anymore. Rev2 will make what he does impossible as i understand it. Rev1 never was intended to make this matching of amounts impossible. there are to little transactions for that atm in about two or three weeks XC will be the first working decentralized anonymous coin and there will be panic to a point you haven't seen in a long time.
+1 Interesting how he chooses come back when dev is not around... Read through last nights posts where he was made to look stupid.
|
DASH #DashDC #DashIntoDigitalCash
|
|
|
CryptoGretzky
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:44:17 PM |
|
he is defenatly not getting ignored or called fud easily , go through the last pages here and you know what i mean. as i understand it he is matching amounts he send to the mixer himself. the dev and him have been going back and forth yesterday to the point where he didn't respond anymore. Rev2 will make what he does impossible as i understand it. Rev1 never was intended to make this matching of amounts impossible. there are to little transactions for that atm in about two or three weeks XC will be the first working decentralized anonymous coin and there will be panic to a point you haven't seen in a long time.
+1 Interesting how he chooses come back when dev is not around... Read through last nights posts where he was made to look stupid. If ATCSecure is around, then how can he create FUD... that's how trolls operate.
|
|
|
|
Artoodeetoo
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:45:00 PM |
|
he is defenatly not getting ignored or called fud easily , go through the last pages here and you know what i mean. as i understand it he is matching amounts he send to the mixer himself. the dev and him have been going back and forth yesterday to the point where he didn't respond anymore. Rev2 will make what he does impossible as i understand it. Rev1 never was intended to make this matching of amounts impossible. there are to little transactions for that atm in about two or three weeks XC will be the first working decentralized anonymous coin and there will be panic to a point you haven't seen in a long time.
+1 Interesting how he chooses come back when dev is not around... Read through last nights posts where he was made to look stupid. If ATCSecure is around, then how can he create FUD... that's how trolls operate. By simply filling the thread with garbage.... He asks for a challenge, he got a challenge, he asked for a bounty he got a bounty, he then could not work it out so complains he wants BTC not XC... Sorry the guy is not credible...
|
DASH #DashDC #DashIntoDigitalCash
|
|
|
sukottosan_d
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:45:16 PM |
|
You guys should look at this seriously. I think it can be fixed relatively easily - but if it's ignored it could be a problem for you later. Chaeplin spent a bunch of time working through every detail to get you a step by step description of the issue. And no one is responding seriously, no one has given a counter analysis - that is not a good sign for investors. Can someone show where chaeplin's analysis is flawed? No one has directly responded at any point. Quote a post - draw lines...whatever you need to do.
I came to the same conclusion as him after reviewing a series of transactions yesterday - but it was annoying and took me a long time. If this isn't an issue - can someone just point out where? Or create a counter-example? If you want to be taken seriously - I'm pretty sure it's important and shouldn't be brushed off like it's nothing.
I don't know how you can call it FUD and ignore it......he walked you through the problem. If you don't understand it...fine - let someone who does argue a counter-analysis. Don't just call it FUD because you don't understand what is going on.
ATCSecure has responded NUMEROUS times that by rev 2 with multi-path, this is a non-issue. Why should he waste any more time on a pattern matcher when this exact problem won't be a problem any more? You guys are confusing. He since posted a FULL walkthrough. Not the partial from yesterday that was responded to. Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you guys has conceded the analysis was correct. That's good, so, the solution is reliant on a second phase....which is awesome. This is exactly why I was asking for information yesterday about the design. Can't find any real material on it except some not-so-good super high level stuff on the website. Confusion could have easily been avoided with some information. It does seem though that you guys want to keep genuine interest away and the dev nor the members of the community - that I'm sure are great - are jumping in a saying much and making anyone feel like there is substance here.
|
|
|
|
chaeplin
|
|
June 12, 2014, 12:45:21 PM |
|
ATCSecure has responded NUMEROUS times that by rev 2 with multi-path, this is a non-issue. Why should he waste any more time on a pattern matcher when this exact problem won't be a problem any more?
So...Chaeplin is guessing and getting at least part of it right because there is a "single path" (and not too many variables) ...but when there is a "multi path" this will all be mixed up too much? He never responded with hard link. He has responded to my analysis that finding sender. Read this What is multiple input. multiple input means single entity(mixer, single wallet) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7269594#msg7269594
|
|
|
|
|