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

[sukottosan_d]

What about this?

Ref:

Mixer Test using v1.42


http://cryptexplorer.com/tx/7337f03cc1d0b726d1fb8b0b9e66bc6cc796853379b75d7dd193e6d5e9c33c4f#o0

Code:

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

Code:

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

Code:

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

Code:

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]

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]

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.

[adhitthana]

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]

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]

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]

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

[chaeplin]

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]

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...

[phosphorush]

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

[adhitthana]

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]

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/chaeplin

Get back on the boat and do some more fishing....

[Artoodeetoo]

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...

[hoertest]

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]

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]

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.

[CryptoGretzky]

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]

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...

[sukottosan_d]

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]

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