synechist
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
|
 |
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
Offline
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
So much for "Community"
|
|
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
|
|
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
Offline
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
So much for "Community"
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
synechist
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
|
|
June 12, 2014, 03:52:35 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. 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. Yes, those are two relevant contributions you've made. The community is (or should be) grateful for your work. Thanks very much. However while your contributions are relevant for future work on XC, they don't have an impact on what ATCSECURE was testing yesterday. So all's well for now. And I hope you will remain involved in the XC community for future testing. As you know, there's a lot at stake. |
Co-Founder, the Blocknet
|
|
|
|
chaeplin
|
|
June 12, 2014, 03:56:05 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. Yes, those are two relevant contributions you've made. The community is (or should be) grateful for your work. Thanks very much. However while your contributions are relevant for future work on XC, they don't have an impact on what ATCSECURE was testing yesterday. So all's well for now. And I hope you will remain involved in the XC community for future testing. As you know, there's a lot at stake. Dev denied everything. That makes me sick. |
|
|
|
|
|
Profetu
|
|
June 12, 2014, 03:57:11 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. So: Original address-->Mixer Fresh Mixer address--Payee If the Mixer owner moves coins Mixer and Fresh Mixer address can be used as inputs tying them together. But then why earn coins if you can't use them? Also can the Mixer = Fresh Mixer address link be made without spamming or owner moving coins? By looking at amounts? |
|
|
|
|
synechist
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
|
|
June 12, 2014, 03:58:29 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. Yes, those are two relevant contributions you've made. The community is (or should be) grateful for your work. Thanks very much. However while your contributions are relevant for future work on XC, they don't have an impact on what ATCSECURE was testing yesterday. So all's well for now. And I hope you will remain involved in the XC community for future testing. As you know, there's a lot at stake. Dev denied everything. That makes me sick. He denied that you provided the proof he was looking for. And he was correct to do this. I don't think he denied that you have made helpful contributions. |
Co-Founder, the Blocknet
|
|
|
policymaker
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
Crypto Currency Supporter
|
|
June 12, 2014, 04:11:47 PM |
|
what makes me sick is lies and fuding. why do we have to put up with guys like him? When atsecure posts another update, more people are gonna do some quality testing, we are not relying on just one guy, not to mention a troll.
|
|
|
|
dadon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1002
Pecvniate obedivnt omnia.
|
|
June 12, 2014, 04:13:17 PM |
|
i really hope Altsecure wakes up soon, see's how he makes cheplen sick, and put's him in his place, but ofc cheplin will mysteriously disappear when ALT confronts him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
chaeplin
|
|
June 12, 2014, 04:15:30 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. So: Original address-->Mixer Fresh Mixer address--Payee If the Mixer owner moves coins Mixer and Fresh Mixer address can be used as inputs tying them together. But then why earn coins if you can't use them? Also can the Mixer = Fresh Mixer address link be made without spamming or owner moving coins? By looking at amounts? If a newly issued address is not holding any amount, you can move. Mixer works like this. Mixer issue a new address(B) to sender(A). Sender(A) spend coins with multiple input or single input to address(B). Mixer spend coins with multiple input or single input(C) to real payee(D). The amounts for multiple input or single input(C) is came from Xnode wallet except address(B). Do you remember path-through Xnode ? Current normal bitcoin design can't control input. http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/2527/how-can-i-control-which-coins-to-spend-in-a-transaction. Address(B) is holding some coins. This will be used for other payee. If there are lots of transactions, Xnode will hold lots of Address(B) thing. If you spend it, lots of Address(B) thing will be used as multiple input. Hard link created. EDIT: sendfrom <fromaccount> <toX11Coinaddress> <amount> [minconf=1] [comment] [comment-to]
sendmany <fromaccount> {address:amount,...} [minconf=1] [comment]
sendtoaddress <X11Coinaddress> <amount> [comment] [comment-to]
EDIT: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Accounts_explainedSending
The sendfrom method sends coins and debits the specified account.
It does **not** change Bitcoin's algorithm for selecting which coins in the wallet are sent
-- you should think of the coins in the wallet as being mixed together when they are received.
There is no way to ask Bitcoin to "create a payment transaction
using the coins received from these previously received transactions"
without using the raw transactions API(which is not part of the account system.)
The sendtoaddress method works like sendfrom, but always debits the default account.
The send will fail if the account has insufficient funds, with two exceptions:
- 'sendtoaddress' always succeeds if there are sufficient funds in the
server's wallet. For example, if your wallet account balances were 100 BTC in account
'foo' and 0 BTC in the default account, then the balances after sendtoaddress
1PC9aZC4hNX2rmmrt7uHTfYAS3hRbph4UN 10.00 would be 100 in account 'foo' and -10.00 in
the default account (and the overall server balance would go from 100 to 90 BTC). On
the other hand, using 'sendfrom' to send from the default account with a zero balance
will fail with message "Account has insufficient funds".
- The check for sufficient funds is done before paying transaction fees (if any); if a
transaction fee is needed, and there are sufficient funds in the wallet, then the
transaction fee will be paid and debited from the account. For example, if account
'foo' contains 10 bitcoins, you sendfrom foo 15VjRaDX9zpbA8LVnbrCAFzrVzN7ixHNsC 10,
and the transaction costs 0.01, 'foo's balance will be -0.01 bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profetu
|
|
June 12, 2014, 04:21:54 PM |
|
Care to address the argument? Religious style much? |
|
|
|
|
|
illodin
|
|
June 12, 2014, 04:22:00 PM |
|
Wow... Sherlock Holmes I presume? |
|
|
|
|
mikesrevenge
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 12, 2014, 04:24:50 PM |
|
Wow... Sherlock Holmes I presume? Just tired of seeing people react to this. |
|
|
|
|
|
hoertest
|
|
June 12, 2014, 04:26:43 PM |
|
Wow... Sherlock Holmes I presume? Just tired of seeing people react to this. yea but his sig is in the open. |
|
|
|
|
mikesrevenge
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 12, 2014, 04:37:31 PM |
|
Wow... Sherlock Holmes I presume? Just tired of seeing people react to this. yea but his sig is in the open. Yeah and I've been following this thread for a while now and I don't recall seeing anyone point it out. Yes, we know he is a DRK fanboy, but its clear as day what is goals are. Why give him all that attention? I realize I'm contributing to the drama, but seriously, enough is enough already. Let the dev move on instead of wasting his time on such a trivial issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
wooder
|
|
June 12, 2014, 05:08:40 PM |
|
which logo won the contest?
and when will it be used?
|
|
|
|
|
|
