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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teka (OP)
|
|
June 12, 2014, 05:10:23 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hashnine
|
|
June 12, 2014, 05:13:31 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.
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.
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.
The question is... have you the technical skill to prove that is "FUD" or "lies" ? We don't care about if this guy is a fanboy or not, just because you want to call him a fanboy, we want to know the truth... maybe you can explain us where he is wrong ? ps: serious people here don't care about the competition between DRK and XC (and i have more XC than DRK... just saying) |
Careful XC anonymous coin is a scam
|
|
|
|
getmining.info
|
|
June 12, 2014, 05:20:50 PM |
|
The question is... "DO I" have the technical skill to prove that is "FUD" or "lies" ?
Fixed that for you. maybe you can explain us where he is wrong ?
Getting a bit tired of this now. I'll post up loads of details with arrows and all sorts and you'll just wait for someone to _prove_ me wrong (implying I am correct, I must be.. I used arrows and all sorts) /yawn Either you get it or you don't.. Chaeplin gets it.. ACT gets it.. The ongoing debate is at a loggerhead over different specifics. I guess if you don't have whits you quote and post right? |
All views are my own, except those that I have subconsciously inherited from my parents and those that I have nicked from far cleverer people.
|
|
|
|
hashnine
|
|
June 12, 2014, 05:23:37 PM |
|
The question is... "DO I" have the technical skill to prove that is "FUD" or "lies" ?
Fixed that for you. maybe you can explain us where he is wrong ?
Getting a bit tired of this now. I'll post up loads of details with arrows and all sorts and you'll just wait for someone to _prove_ me wrong (implying I am correct, I must be.. I used arrows and all sorts) /yawn Either you get it or you don't.. Chaeplin gets it.. ACT gets it.. The ongoing debate is at a loggerhead over different specifics. I guess if you don't have whits you quote and post right? Mad? where is the proof? i'm just asking... you seems to be so mad and stupid. I will stop here because some people will said i'm a fanboy me too xD bb |
Careful XC anonymous coin is a scam
|
|
|
mikesrevenge
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 12, 2014, 05:24:40 PM |
|
The question is... "DO I" have the technical skill to prove that is "FUD" or "lies" ?
Fixed that for you. maybe you can explain us where he is wrong ?
Getting a bit tired of this now. I'll post up loads of details with arrows and all sorts and you'll just wait for someone to _prove_ me wrong (implying I am correct, I must be.. I used arrows and all sorts) /yawn Either you get it or you don't.. Chaeplin gets it.. ACT gets it.. The ongoing debate is at a loggerhead over different specifics. I guess if you don't have whits you quote and post right? Mad? where is the proof? I will stop here because some people will said i'm a fanboy me too xD bb Nice sig, fanboy Edit: Im joking, getmining.info saved me the hard work of replying. |
|
|
|
|
|
KimmyF
|
|
June 12, 2014, 05:25:08 PM |
|
Trying to learn something:
Would it be possible for a Xnode to combine multiple accounts eg: all B-addresses for receiving & all C-addresses for sending. (you initially start your Xnode with your own balance in the C-account group) After a while coins would be "moved" from C -> B-account by handling anon transactions.
Then the Xnode uses another Xnode to move the coins from B, back to a new address in C.
As long as the second fase is larger than atleast 2 transactions from the first fase it seems possible to me, prove seems difficult coz the second transaction would combine the input of multiple other anon-transactions. Maybe even combine this with more standard 'parts' of an anon transaction (eg: split them up like std money bills, first 1, 2, 5, 10 etc and then some small coins)
The output to the other node will combine all b-addresses but how to prove they match an previous handeld anon-transaction from that node?
|
|
|
|
|
|
