policymaker
Full Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
Crypto Currency Supporter
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 02:49:03 PM |
|
The Foundation's main goals are to bring XC into the mainstream. XC is still in it's early days of development but we plan to in time follow through with the objectives set in the mission statement.For now enjoy the cheap XC values. I myself with a business partner will be helping with the ATM/POS adoption of XC as we have experience with bringing UK first two way Bitcoin ATM in London: http://www.coindesk.com/robocoin-machine-heats-competition-londons-bitcoin-atms/oh thats a really nice update, are u the PR team atsecure was talking about or different project alltogether?
|
|
|
|
silverkinguk
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 02:50:14 PM |
|
PR team is different but am in touch with PizPie who is helping with the social network aspects of XC. My main company is a connected with Crowdfunding for various projects that accepts Bitcoins currently.
|
Co-Founder Visionary of QIBUCK uk.linkedin.com/in/silverkinguk
|
|
|
hoertest
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 02:55:11 PM |
|
PR team is different but am in touch with PizPie who is helping with the social network aspects of XC.
so there is a dedicated PR team , thats good to hear, any more hints on whats going on in the background? ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
|
|
|
silverkinguk
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 02:56:24 PM |
|
That's all I know for now.Encrypted messaging sounds good to me.
|
Co-Founder Visionary of QIBUCK uk.linkedin.com/in/silverkinguk
|
|
|
Profetu
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 03:03:52 PM |
|
Seems like indeed there is a blockchain connection. At least in this state. Yes REV2 or the next patch will fix this but the dev made a test because he was sure there is no link. I think he should swallow his ego, pay the bounty and fix the problem. I'm not sure how will he fix this before REV2 without locking the XNODE coins. An address can be deleted from the wallet but it will still be used as a reference for the next transaction.
Thanks to chaeplin and the rest for the work and expertise. He helped this coin more than the defensive speculators in this thread using "arguments" like "but DRK is not anon either..." or "this is only REV1".
@short term speculators in this thread: don't worry, this bug won't affect the price as the whales control the market. It will only make this coin stronger.
there may be a problem, and it's small, but you must be delusional if you think cheplin is trying to help us, he is doing his best to find flaws in XC not so we can improve it, but to hurt it, because he is invested in DRK, he may of identified important flaws, even though this is rev 1 and the Dev said from the get go rev 1 would not be 100% anon, but this is not because he has a kind heart and wants to help us, the suggestion of this makes me roll my eyes....rev 2 it will be fixed, and all the drk boys will have to actually work harder on there product more instead of slapping it together calling them selves king,and slandering any competition that comes along, i'm not concerned still only a month old and we are neck to neck with drk that is 6 months old, so cheplin and all your sad little friends, best think of a better attack plan, concentrate on improving your own product because frankly it's a piece of shit that doesn't work, and Evan just used to get rich off, and soon after rev 2 and you can't trace the transactions anymore, you will have nothing but slanderous tweets to save your sorry excuse for cryto innovation, i would just dump and buy XC because seriously nothing can save DRK. So besides "but DARK..." and "this is only REV1" "arguments"(that you used again) you brought a 3rd great "argument" : "the guy has a DARK motive and hes not trying to help". Why the hell does that matter? Facts are facts. The guy spent his time proving a bug while you smucks were crying "FUD !". He didn't have to do this, or he could have waited to maybe damage the coin later, he didn't do it for the bounty and I thank him for his contribution. As suspected I didn't see any price drop. Yes there was FUD in the beginning but all I have seen on this thread lately are defensive speculators. Also I never owned DRK and XC is my main investment. In which I truly believe.
|
|
|
|
NewWorldCoiner
Sr. Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 490
Merit: 250
Saved you from a scam? Send me some BTC!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 03:10:12 PM |
|
PR team is different but am in touch with PizPie who is helping with the social network aspects of XC. My main company is a connected with Crowdfunding for various projects that accepts Bitcoins currently.
Hi, This isn't anything to do with you is it? http://net-elite.org/xc/Thanks
|
|
|
|
hoertest
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 03:11:02 PM |
|
Seems like indeed there is a blockchain connection. At least in this state. Yes REV2 or the next patch will fix this but the dev made a test because he was sure there is no link. I think he should swallow his ego, pay the bounty and fix the problem. I'm not sure how will he fix this before REV2 without locking the XNODE coins. An address can be deleted from the wallet but it will still be used as a reference for the next transaction.
Thanks to chaeplin and the rest for the work and expertise. He helped this coin more than the defensive speculators in this thread using "arguments" like "but DRK is not anon either..." or "this is only REV1".
@short term speculators in this thread: don't worry, this bug won't affect the price as the whales control the market. It will only make this coin stronger.
there may be a problem, and it's small, but you must be delusional if you think cheplin is trying to help us, he is doing his best to find flaws in XC not so we can improve it, but to hurt it, because he is invested in DRK, he may of identified important flaws, even though this is rev 1 and the Dev said from the get go rev 1 would not be 100% anon, but this is not because he has a kind heart and wants to help us, the suggestion of this makes me roll my eyes....rev 2 it will be fixed, and all the drk boys will have to actually work harder on there product more instead of slapping it together calling them selves king,and slandering any competition that comes along, i'm not concerned still only a month old and we are neck to neck with drk that is 6 months old, so cheplin and all your sad little friends, best think of a better attack plan, concentrate on improving your own product because frankly it's a piece of shit that doesn't work, and Evan just used to get rich off, and soon after rev 2 and you can't trace the transactions anymore, you will have nothing but slanderous tweets to save your sorry excuse for cryto innovation, i would just dump and buy XC because seriously nothing can save DRK. So besides "but DARK..." and "this is only REV1" "arguments"(that you used again) you brought a 3rd great "argument" : "the guy has a DARK motive and hes not trying to help". Why the hell does that matter? Facts are facts. The guy spent his time proving a bug while you smucks were crying "FUD !". He didn't have to do this, or he could have waited to maybe damage the coin later, he didn't do it for the bounty and I thank him for his contribution. As suspected I didn't see any price drop. Yes there was FUD in the beginning but all I have seen on this thread lately are defensive speculators. did he really? as i understand he send his own 0.003 tx to the mixer then linking them in the blockchain cause he knew the amounts. i'm not expert enough to explain but thats how it looks to me. thats not a bug by any means then . he is just nowing all variables . if i tell you how many coins i sent to whom their would be no need for an anonymous transaction anyway.
|
|
|
|
jasemoney
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1008
Forget-about-it
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 03:11:08 PM |
|
I mentioned I'd repost if it was na issue after 12 hours, its been almost 24. I have been running an xnode since Friday or earlier, have kept up the updated wallets as theyre released, have many connections, proper conf file, use the batch etc etc.. I have not seen any transactions flow through my wallet as an xnode ![Sad](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/sad.gif)
|
$MAID & $BTC other than that some short hodls and some long held garbage.
|
|
|
silverkinguk
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 03:16:03 PM |
|
Don't know of that fundraiser site it's new to me.Must be site of the guy raising money for independent wallet on android.
|
Co-Founder Visionary of QIBUCK uk.linkedin.com/in/silverkinguk
|
|
|
FoldingTime
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 03:16:18 PM |
|
I completely agree with you. Chaeplin has demonstrated a logical flow of the transaction and this needs to be addressed. Simply saying FUD is no counter argument. Either agree that the current system is flawed and will be fixed or prove that chaeplin is wrong.
chaeplin is the only one providing quality QA for this coin. You need these people to find the problems so they can be fixed.
Great work !!!!!!!!!! My MasterNode on testnet is behaving well and giving me payouts so all looking good for the fork. Oooh... ANOTHER DRK troll caring about XC. How nice of you... How's that Masternode working out for you? I'm running both Masternode and xnode and want both to succeed. I know this comes as a shock to most of you but, hey I don't believe in only just choosing one side. I am probably the most impartial here. I'm waiting for the Linux xnode code so I can start it up on my VPS.
|
|
|
|
NewWorldCoiner
Sr. Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 490
Merit: 250
Saved you from a scam? Send me some BTC!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 03:20:29 PM |
|
Don't know of that fundraiser site it's new to me.
It's new to all of us. As far as I know no permission has been given for it by any member of the XC team. Looks like a scam.
|
|
|
|
520Bit
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 03:21:59 PM |
|
Don't know of that fundraiser site it's new to me.
It's new to all of us. As far as I know no permission has been given for it by any member of the XC team. Looks like a scam. It should be a SCAM, right?
|
|
|
|
NewWorldCoiner
Sr. Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 490
Merit: 250
Saved you from a scam? Send me some BTC!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 03:30:41 PM |
|
Don't know of that fundraiser site it's new to me.
It's new to all of us. As far as I know no permission has been given for it by any member of the XC team. Looks like a scam. It should be a SCAM, right? I'm calling it a scam because the guy who posted it couldn't tell me who he had spoken to, or who had requested that he launch a website to get donations from the XC community. If he had permission, a contract, even a verbal agreement, he would have said so. Instead, he was just evasive, not a single straight answer.
|
|
|
|
dadon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1002
Pecvniate obedivnt omnia.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 03:31:57 PM |
|
Seems like indeed there is a blockchain connection. At least in this state. Yes REV2 or the next patch will fix this but the dev made a test because he was sure there is no link. I think he should swallow his ego, pay the bounty and fix the problem. I'm not sure how will he fix this before REV2 without locking the XNODE coins. An address can be deleted from the wallet but it will still be used as a reference for the next transaction.
Thanks to chaeplin and the rest for the work and expertise. He helped this coin more than the defensive speculators in this thread using "arguments" like "but DRK is not anon either..." or "this is only REV1".
@short term speculators in this thread: don't worry, this bug won't affect the price as the whales control the market. It will only make this coin stronger.
there may be a problem, and it's small, but you must be delusional if you think cheplin is trying to help us, he is doing his best to find flaws in XC not so we can improve it, but to hurt it, because he is invested in DRK, he may of identified important flaws, even though this is rev 1 and the Dev said from the get go rev 1 would not be 100% anon, but this is not because he has a kind heart and wants to help us, the suggestion of this makes me roll my eyes....rev 2 it will be fixed, and all the drk boys will have to actually work harder on there product more instead of slapping it together calling them selves king,and slandering any competition that comes along, i'm not concerned still only a month old and we are neck to neck with drk that is 6 months old, so cheplin and all your sad little friends, best think of a better attack plan, concentrate on improving your own product because frankly it's a piece of shit that doesn't work, and Evan just used to get rich off, and soon after rev 2 and you can't trace the transactions anymore, you will have nothing but slanderous tweets to save your sorry excuse for cryto innovation, i would just dump and buy XC because seriously nothing can save DRK. So besides "but DARK..." and "this is only REV1" "arguments"(that you used again) you brought a 3rd great "argument" : "the guy has a DARK motive and hes not trying to help". Why the hell does that matter? Facts are facts. The guy spent his time proving a bug while you smucks were crying "FUD !". He didn't have to do this, or he could have waited to maybe damage the coin later, he didn't do it for the bounty and I thank him for his contribution. As suspected I didn't see any price drop. Yes there was FUD in the beginning but all I have seen on this thread lately are defensive speculators. Also I never owned DRK and XC is my main investment. In which I truly believe. he didn't prove shit, and he can't wait to damage the coin latter because in rev 2 it will no longer be an issue, and you can say i am repeating the argument over again, but there is nothing more to the argument, and your repeating the same stuff to, what he brought to light is not an issue, were not worried, if you are, dump, and i will buy them, but he should really be working on drk is all im saying he considers himself one of the drk dev team, and it doesn't even work? so why is he here trying to help us fix our nonexistent problem, when the coin he is supposed to be working on has been out 5x longer and works even less, if he can find the addresses in rev 2 we have a problem, until then he should fix his own teams mess.
|
|
|
|
synechist
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 03:34:35 PM |
|
Here, I am done - I think this makes sense.
Read this while reviewing the flow chaeplin posted: The transactions sent from the mixer (C) to the end address is of a set size (his example was 10). This is D.
He can then search the blockchain for possible candidates (value 10) via a script. Which gets us to block 28531 - this matches the 10.00 XC value. This can be linked at blocked 28533 with the mixer C - we already know C (output 9.99999). This allows him to trace back to 28531 in the blockchain - to find the values that == 10.00 and match to a specific address - in this case: XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa which is B.
You can then take all the transactions for this address B - review them and find two matching amounts that == 10 which belong to one single address. This address is A. Since this address B has never been used before this transaction - this is easy to do - and - even if it had multiple transactions - they would not all related back to one single point with one single value (10).
Just for the record, - I think this is right. Again - I'm participating to participate - nothing else. If my logic is flawed, let me know please, this is vexing me - because this looks right and all I get is nothing constructive back.
Thanks, this is a helpful description of what Chaeplin did. However it does not adequately express what ATCsecure wanted tested. He wanted *proof* of a direct link, not just interestingly coincidental amounts sent and received. This is because he's testing the mixer and xnode functionality, not the multi-path feature which is yet to be implemented. For more information, read page 356 of this thread, and also the following quotation: sending 0.03 to both address's doesn't count as a LINK but thanks for the XC's So read page 356 and you will see that XC's implementation is successful and that Chaeplin was trying to test for the wrong thing. He returned later when ATCSECURE was gone and make his case again - yet concealed the fact that what he presents is not what's at stake here.
|
Co-Founder, the Blocknet
|
|
|
KimmyF
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 03:42:02 PM |
|
Seems like indeed there is a blockchain connection. At least in this state. Yes REV2 or the next patch will fix this but the dev made a test because he was sure there is no link. I think he should swallow his ego, pay the bounty and fix the problem. I'm not sure how will he fix this before REV2 without locking the XNODE coins. An address can be deleted from the wallet but it will still be used as a reference for the next transaction.
Thanks to chaeplin and the rest for the work and expertise. He helped this coin more than the defensive speculators in this thread using "arguments" like "but DRK is not anon either..." or "this is only REV1".
@short term speculators in this thread: don't worry, this bug won't affect the price as the whales control the market. It will only make this coin stronger.
there may be a problem, and it's small, but you must be delusional if you think cheplin is trying to help us, he is doing his best to find flaws in XC not so we can improve it, but to hurt it, because he is invested in DRK, he may of identified important flaws, even though this is rev 1 and the Dev said from the get go rev 1 would not be 100% anon, but this is not because he has a kind heart and wants to help us, the suggestion of this makes me roll my eyes....rev 2 it will be fixed, and all the drk boys will have to actually work harder on there product more instead of slapping it together calling them selves king,and slandering any competition that comes along, i'm not concerned still only a month old and we are neck to neck with drk that is 6 months old, so cheplin and all your sad little friends, best think of a better attack plan, concentrate on improving your own product because frankly it's a piece of shit that doesn't work, and Evan just used to get rich off, and soon after rev 2 and you can't trace the transactions anymore, you will have nothing but slanderous tweets to save your sorry excuse for cryto innovation, i would just dump and buy XC because seriously nothing can save DRK. So besides "but DARK..." and "this is only REV1" "arguments"(that you used again) you brought a 3rd great "argument" : "the guy has a DARK motive and hes not trying to help". Why the hell does that matter? Facts are facts. The guy spent his time proving a bug while you smucks were crying "FUD !". He didn't have to do this, or he could have waited to maybe damage the coin later, he didn't do it for the bounty and I thank him for his contribution. As suspected I didn't see any price drop. Yes there was FUD in the beginning but all I have seen on this thread lately are defensive speculators. did he really? as i understand he send his own 0.003 tx to the mixer then linking them in the blockchain cause he knew the amounts. i'm not expert enough to explain but thats how it looks to me. thats not a bug by any means then . he is just nowing all variables . if i tell you how many coins i sent to whom their would be no need for an anonymous transaction anyway. As i understand it, both where right: ATC was right all along: after an anonymous transaction there is "No Hard Link" between address B & C. What Cheaplin showed was that at a later time there was a possibility that the mixer spend some coins in a single transaction using both the funds from B & C as input, eg: linking them to the same wallet and so, creating the link. Think this can be fixed, so in my mind ATC won the challenge but Cheaplin did XC a favor by showing this possibility That some (previous) DRK supporters are interested in anon tech seems normal to me. Can we please stop using words like Troll & FUD and remember we are all crypto enthousiasts & focus on the facts?
|
|
|
|
synechist
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 03:45:19 PM |
|
Seems like indeed there is a blockchain connection. At least in this state. Yes REV2 or the next patch will fix this but the dev made a test because he was sure there is no link. I think he should swallow his ego, pay the bounty and fix the problem. I'm not sure how will he fix this before REV2 without locking the XNODE coins. An address can be deleted from the wallet but it will still be used as a reference for the next transaction.
Thanks to chaeplin and the rest for the work and expertise. He helped this coin more than the defensive speculators in this thread using "arguments" like "but DRK is not anon either..." or "this is only REV1".
@short term speculators in this thread: don't worry, this bug won't affect the price as the whales control the market. It will only make this coin stronger.
there may be a problem, and it's small, but you must be delusional if you think cheplin is trying to help us, he is doing his best to find flaws in XC not so we can improve it, but to hurt it, because he is invested in DRK, he may of identified important flaws, even though this is rev 1 and the Dev said from the get go rev 1 would not be 100% anon, but this is not because he has a kind heart and wants to help us, the suggestion of this makes me roll my eyes....rev 2 it will be fixed, and all the drk boys will have to actually work harder on there product more instead of slapping it together calling them selves king,and slandering any competition that comes along, i'm not concerned still only a month old and we are neck to neck with drk that is 6 months old, so cheplin and all your sad little friends, best think of a better attack plan, concentrate on improving your own product because frankly it's a piece of shit that doesn't work, and Evan just used to get rich off, and soon after rev 2 and you can't trace the transactions anymore, you will have nothing but slanderous tweets to save your sorry excuse for cryto innovation, i would just dump and buy XC because seriously nothing can save DRK. So besides "but DARK..." and "this is only REV1" "arguments"(that you used again) you brought a 3rd great "argument" : "the guy has a DARK motive and hes not trying to help". Why the hell does that matter? Facts are facts. The guy spent his time proving a bug while you smucks were crying "FUD !". He didn't have to do this, or he could have waited to maybe damage the coin later, he didn't do it for the bounty and I thank him for his contribution. As suspected I didn't see any price drop. Yes there was FUD in the beginning but all I have seen on this thread lately are defensive speculators. did he really? as i understand he send his own 0.003 tx to the mixer then linking them in the blockchain cause he knew the amounts. i'm not expert enough to explain but thats how it looks to me. thats not a bug by any means then . he is just nowing all variables . if i tell you how many coins i sent to whom their would be no need for an anonymous transaction anyway. As i understand it, both where right: ATC was right all along: after an anonymous transaction there is "No Hard Link" between address B & C. What Cheaplin showed was that at a later time there was a possibility that the mixer spend some coins in a single transaction using both the funds from B & C as input, eg: linking them to the same wallet and so, creating the link. Think this can be fixed, so in my mind ATC won the challenge but Cheaplin did XC a favor by showing this possibility That some (previous) DRK supporters are interested in anon tech seems normal to me. Can we please stop using words like Troll & FUD and remember we are all crypto enthousiasts & focus on the facts? +1
|
Co-Founder, the Blocknet
|
|
|
evtrmm
Sr. Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
So much for "Community"
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 03:46:04 PM |
|
Here, I am done - I think this makes sense.
Read this while reviewing the flow chaeplin posted: The transactions sent from the mixer (C) to the end address is of a set size (his example was 10). This is D.
He can then search the blockchain for possible candidates (value 10) via a script. Which gets us to block 28531 - this matches the 10.00 XC value. This can be linked at blocked 28533 with the mixer C - we already know C (output 9.99999). This allows him to trace back to 28531 in the blockchain - to find the values that == 10.00 and match to a specific address - in this case: XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa which is B.
You can then take all the transactions for this address B - review them and find two matching amounts that == 10 which belong to one single address. This address is A. Since this address B has never been used before this transaction - this is easy to do - and - even if it had multiple transactions - they would not all related back to one single point with one single value (10).
Just for the record, - I think this is right. Again - I'm participating to participate - nothing else. If my logic is flawed, let me know please, this is vexing me - because this looks right and all I get is nothing constructive back.
Thanks, this is a helpful description of what Chaeplin did. However it does not adequately express what ATCsecure wanted tested. He wanted *proof* of a direct link, not just interestingly coincidental amounts sent and received. This is because he's testing the mixer and xnode functionality, not the multi-path feature which is yet to be implemented. For more information, read page 356 of this thread, and also the following quotation: sending 0.03 to both address's doesn't count as a LINK but thanks for the XC's So read page 356 and you will see that XC's implementation is successful and that Chaeplin was trying to test for the wrong thing. He returned later when ATCSECURE was gone and make his case again - yet concealed the fact that what he presents is not what's at stake here. "somebody is trying to make a link AFTER the fact LOL" Tells me that he knew exactly what Chapelin was doing. He was successful in making that link AFTER the fact, but as I have stated, I believe this methodology is severely diminished or nullified when numerous XCend transactions would be occurring instead of 1 every couple blocks. By the way, I would like to get royalties from the following: XCend PrivXC and... The XC "DARK" wallet...... jk on the last one.
|
|
|
|
chaeplin
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 03:47:45 PM |
|
Here, I am done - I think this makes sense.
Read this while reviewing the flow chaeplin posted: The transactions sent from the mixer (C) to the end address is of a set size (his example was 10). This is D.
He can then search the blockchain for possible candidates (value 10) via a script. Which gets us to block 28531 - this matches the 10.00 XC value. This can be linked at blocked 28533 with the mixer C - we already know C (output 9.99999). This allows him to trace back to 28531 in the blockchain - to find the values that == 10.00 and match to a specific address - in this case: XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa which is B.
You can then take all the transactions for this address B - review them and find two matching amounts that == 10 which belong to one single address. This address is A. Since this address B has never been used before this transaction - this is easy to do - and - even if it had multiple transactions - they would not all related back to one single point with one single value (10).
Just for the record, - I think this is right. Again - I'm participating to participate - nothing else. If my logic is flawed, let me know please, this is vexing me - because this looks right and all I get is nothing constructive back.
Thanks, this is a helpful description of what Chaeplin did. However it does not adequately express what ATCsecure wanted tested. He wanted *proof* of a direct link, not just interestingly coincidental amounts sent and received. This is because he's testing the mixer and xnode functionality, not the multi-path feature which is yet to be implemented. For more information, read page 356 of this thread, and also the following quotation: sending 0.03 to both address's doesn't count as a LINK but thanks for the XC's So read page 356 and you will see that XC's implementation is successful and that Chaeplin was trying to test for the wrong thing. He returned later when ATCSECURE was gone and make his case again - yet concealed the fact that what he presents is not what's at stake here. You have missed one thing. I have spammed two address to create multiple input which should not occur. Have you heard satoshi spamming ? Anyway Xnode owner should not send any coins from Xnode. It will create multiple input.
|
|
|
|
evtrmm
Sr. Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
So much for "Community"
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 12, 2014, 03:47:54 PM |
|
As i understand it, both where right: ATC was right all along: after an anonymous transaction there is "No Hard Link" between address B & C. What Cheaplin showed was that at a later time there was a possibility that the mixer spend some coins in a single transaction using both the funds from B & C as input, eg: linking them to the same wallet and so, creating the link. Think this can be fixed, so in my mind ATC won the challenge but Cheaplin did XC a favor by showing this possibility That some (previous) DRK supporters are interested in anon tech seems normal to me. Can we please stop using words like Troll & FUD and remember we are all crypto enthousiasts & focus on the facts? +1 +13
|
|
|
|
|