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

[Perl++]

me? yes i hold XC.

[1714065267]

1714065267

[1714065267]

1714065267

[1714065267]

1714065267

[synechist]

[snip]

great summary, given the fact that he backed out of the newest challange for the multipath beta i think his intentions are clear now. but that doesn'T metter after all, the whole process helped XC finally but since that wasn't his personal intention  (rather the opposite) there is no need for a thank you or any kind of forgiving gesture either.

the status quo is this: the only guy who could find the sender with a method that wasn 100% fair play anyway can no longer find it now with REV1.5 !!!

the test is still running so i don't celebrate before the final wistle

Chaeplin's stated reason for not testing the new release is that he believes ATCSECURE did not acknowledge the hard link Chaeplin provided.

I think that we are obliged to give Chaeplin the benefit of the doubt here regarding his beliefs, since we have no proof of the contrary. If I were in his position and genuinely believed that I'd been hard done by, I'd also be unwilling to continue.

It's just unfortunate that he's mistaken in his belief. That's all it comes down to, in my opinion.


As an aside, I think it's a good idea to be gracious to one's opponents. It makes one a good sport. We gain nothing by being victorious and mean.

come on , he allwys kept going without bountys or any acknowledgement and the moment his method doesn't work anymore he plays the emotionally hurt? whatever. i also think its not the moment to confront him but i can understand some people can'T hold back right now.
just be happy for the achievments of the whole XC team.

well done boys.

You're right: we have no reason to believe that he's telling the truth. But what I mean is that we have no proof that he's not telling the truth, so it's better for us if we just accept his reasons.

[hoertest]

Some people in this community know the truth, you are a troll.

constant drk namedropping has to stop, its bringing trolls in the thread polluting it which results in an unatractive environement for new investors , don't you get this.
plus its a sign of weaknes. XCs goal isn't beating drk, its beeing the best solution for privacy in crypto no matter the competition. concentrate your enthusiasm and efforts on XC not other coins.

+1

You hold XC?

Staat je naam "Hoertest" ook op je geboortekaartje eigenlijk

Doesnt matter what you say overhere, they won't see the damage they do to there own community.
There seems to be a moderator around here, but i guess he is on vacation, or has put thumbtacks in his eyes, and not his contact lenses.

[/quote]

I'm german , congrats by the way , see you in the final  ,
honestly i think this whole community thing gets overplayed in discussion boards, community is one part of the puzzle but by far not the most important. if xc thread would be 100% assholes which its not by any means but XC is still the best coin with its features guess what. i wouldn't hold one coin less.

when you by a car do you buy the best one or the one with the nicest community? You re probably surprised to hear that from me since i advocate a civiliced discussion. i do but i don't base my investment decission on it to a degree some people here seem to.

I hold XC cause XC is leader in decentralised private cryptocurrency at a bargain price ! you wanna miss out on that because of the current tone of a forum thread?
thats crasy

[hoertest]

me? yes i hold XC.

good decision 

[chaeplin]

8. However this is obviously false, because:
    - there's no record in the blockchain linking Wallet B's transaction with Wallet C's transaction fee.
    - there's no record in the blockchain that a single address received the money that Wallets B and C spent.

Therefore Chaeplin did not establish proof of a link between Wallets B and C.

Your statement is wrong.

You explain exactly, spamming and common ownership.
Xc hasn't implemented coinjoin yet(May be I am wrong)


So, if outputs of two tx are spent in a single tx, B and C is belong to single entity.

And I provided it.
 

Do you think it's fee ? Fee is not appeared in input

This is the single tx, I provided. check blcok no. 29113

http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?97299.htm

Check input index 14, 18

Code:

ndex	Previous output	Address	Amount
14	d191290208e3...:1	XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G	0.03 XC
18	c352aeeeaea9...:1	XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G	0.003 XC

This is previous output, I spammed.
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96523.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96699.htm

EDIT: original spamming
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96522.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96523.htm

Two linked address
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/address.dws?XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/address.dws?XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G.htm

Check block 29111, 29113



I have showed XC community what is input, what is output,
what is change address, what is listaddressgroupings, how to read block explorer.

I am ordinary people, not extra.

I learned how to read block explorer.

So many people in drk thread have taught me.

I have learned every day.



I have proved by spamming.
And there is possibility of linking by Xnode owner(unintentionally spend coins)

I have written these in uxc thread.


XC is yours. Do your job.

[KimmyF]

[snip]

great summary, given the fact that he backed out of the newest challange for the multipath beta i think his intentions are clear now. but that doesn'T metter after all, the whole process helped XC finally but since that wasn't his personal intention  (rather the opposite) there is no need for a thank you or any kind of forgiving gesture either.

the status quo is this: the only guy who could find the sender with a method that wasn 100% fair play anyway can no longer find it now with REV1.5 !!!

the test is still running so i don't celebrate before the final wistle

Chaeplin's stated reason for not testing the new release is that he believes ATCSECURE did not acknowledge the hard link Chaeplin provided.

I think that we are obliged to give Chaeplin the benefit of the doubt here regarding his beliefs, since we have no proof of the contrary. If I were in his position and genuinely believed that I'd been hard done by, I'd also be unwilling to continue.

It's just unfortunate that he's mistaken in his belief. That's all it comes down to, in my opinion.


As an aside, I think it's a good idea to be gracious to one's opponents. It makes one a good sport. We gain nothing by being victorious and mean.

come on , he allwys kept going without bountys or any acknowledgement and the moment his method doesn't work anymore he plays the emotionally hurt? whatever. i also think its not the moment to confront him but i can understand some people can'T hold back right now.
just be happy for the achievments of the whole XC team.

well done boys.

You're right: we have no reason to believe that he's telling the truth. But what I mean is that we have no proof that he's not telling the truth, so it's better for us if we just accept his reasons.

Chaeplin reminds me of many of my co-workers. Believe tech and acknowledgement are his motives. In my mind he did xc a great favor and feel sad so many kids here feld the need to insult him.
Now go find someone with those skills willing to do the same work in a relative small circle.
a big bounty will bring them, together with a lot of publicity so there is now no more room for errors for the dev.

Thanks kids, for nothing!

[jordanlcn]

[snip]

great summary, given the fact that he backed out of the newest challange for the multipath beta i think his intentions are clear now. but that doesn'T metter after all, the whole process helped XC finally but since that wasn't his personal intention  (rather the opposite) there is no need for a thank you or any kind of forgiving gesture either.

the status quo is this: the only guy who could find the sender with a method that wasn 100% fair play anyway can no longer find it now with REV1.5 !!!

the test is still running so i don't celebrate before the final wistle

Chaeplin's stated reason for not testing the new release is that he believes ATCSECURE did not acknowledge the hard link Chaeplin provided.

I think that we are obliged to give Chaeplin the benefit of the doubt here regarding his beliefs, since we have no proof of the contrary. If I were in his position and genuinely believed that I'd been hard done by, I'd also be unwilling to continue.

It's just unfortunate that he's mistaken in his belief. That's all it comes down to, in my opinion.


As an aside, I think it's a good idea to be gracious to one's opponents. It makes one a good sport. We gain nothing by being victorious and mean.

come on , he allwys kept going without bountys or any acknowledgement and the moment his method doesn't work anymore he plays the emotionally hurt? whatever. i also think its not the moment to confront him but i can understand some people can'T hold back right now.
just be happy for the achievments of the whole XC team.

well done boys.

You're right: we have no reason to believe that he's telling the truth. But what I mean is that we have no proof that he's not telling the truth, so it's better for us if we just accept his reasons.

Chaeplin reminds me of many of my co-workers. Believe tech and acknowledgement are his motives. In my mind he did xc a great favor and feel sad so many kids here feld the need to insult him.
Now go find someone with those skills willing to do the same work in a relative small circle.
a big bounty will bring them, together with a lot of publicity so there is now no more room for errors for the dev.

Thanks kids, for nothing!

I seem to remember that Chaeplin isn't a natural English speaker.  Why not ask him to post in his native language and have someone else translate it properly?  Just putting out suggestions out there.  I'm not trying to validate nor discredit  his claims or anything, but as a total outsider to blockchain analysis. I would like to understand his thinking seems just by looking at his posts he was really trying to make people understand that he found a loop hole.  Real or not should be left undecided until there is a clear understanding on what he is trying to say.

Again just trying to help clear all of this.

[ethereal73]

Some people in this community know the truth, you are a troll.

constant drk namedropping has to stop, its bringing trolls in the thread polluting it which results in an unatractive environement for new investors , don't you get this.
plus its a sign of weaknes. XCs goal isn't beating drk, its beeing the best solution for privacy in crypto no matter the competition. concentrate your enthusiasm and efforts on XC not other coins.

+1

You hold XC?

Staat je naam "Hoertest" ook op je geboortekaartje eigenlijk

Doesnt matter what you say overhere, they won't see the damage they do to there own community.
There seems to be a moderator around here, but i guess he is on vacation, or has put thumbtacks in his eyes, and not his contact lenses.

I'm german , congrats by the way , see you in the final  ,
honestly i think this whole community thing gets overplayed in discussion boards, community is one part of the puzzle but by far not the most important. if xc thread would be 100% assholes which its not by any means but XC is still the best coin with its features guess what. i wouldn't hold one coin less.

when you by a car do you buy the best one or the one with the nicest community? You re probably surprised to hear that from me since i advocate a civiliced discussion. i do but i don't base my investment decission on it to a degree some people here seem to.

I hold XC cause XC is leader in decentralised private cryptocurrency at a bargain price ! you wanna miss out on that because of the current tone of a forum thread?
thats crasy
[/quote]

Thanks, the Dutch team felt a little pitty for the spanish players, thats why it isnt 1-7

To a certain degree i agree, but a community is also capable off destroying anything, anywhere at any time.
Its a community that puts trust in this highly unregulated market XC is no exception in that.
Trust comes and trust go in a matter off seconds.

[ethereal73]

8. However this is obviously false, because:
    - there's no record in the blockchain linking Wallet B's transaction with Wallet C's transaction fee.
    - there's no record in the blockchain that a single address received the money that Wallets B and C spent.

Therefore Chaeplin did not establish proof of a link between Wallets B and C.

Your statement is wrong.

You explain exactly, spamming and common ownership.
Xc hasn't implemented coinjoin yet(May be I am wrong)


So, if outputs of two tx are spent in a single tx, B and C is belong to single entity.

And I provided it.
 

Do you think it's fee ? Fee is not appeared in input

This is the single tx, I provided. check blcok no. 29113

http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?97299.htm

Check input index 14, 18

Code:

ndex	Previous output	Address	Amount
14	d191290208e3...:1	XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G	0.03 XC
18	c352aeeeaea9...:1	XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G	0.003 XC

This is previous output, I spammed.
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96523.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96699.htm

EDIT: original spamming
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96522.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96523.htm

Two linked address
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/address.dws?XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/address.dws?XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G.htm

Check block 29111, 29113



I have showed XC community what is input, what is output,
what is change address, what is listaddressgroupings, how to read block explorer.

I am ordinary people, not extra.

I learned how to read block explorer.

So many people in drk thread have taught me.

I have learned every day.



I have proved by spamming.
And there is possibility of linking by Xnode owner(unintentionally spend coins)

I have written these in uxc thread.


XC is yours. Do your job.

ATCSecure put a new test online, Could you show/do it again, and only keep it to the full technical details?
Atleast i would appreciate it.

[Teka]

 To promote discussion within the forum, newbie section will be changed to introduction and limit will be removed.

[synechist]

8. However this is obviously false, because:
    - there's no record in the blockchain linking Wallet B's transaction with Wallet C's transaction fee.
    - there's no record in the blockchain that a single address received the money that Wallets B and C spent.

Therefore Chaeplin did not establish proof of a link between Wallets B and C.

So, if outputs of two tx are spent in a single tx, B and C is belong to single entity.

And I provided it.
 

Thanks for the reply Chaeplin. I have studied the blockchain and read your post several times and I still cannot see that you provided a direct link. [EDIT: You asked me to check indices 14 and 18. They are from the same address, wallet B. This does not prove that wallet B and C are owned by the same entity.]

In which transaction were Wallets B and C used as inputs?
Which address is the output of this transaction?

Please do not only paste code. You need to also establish what the code implies, using normal English.

Alternatively, write in your first language and we will try to find someone to translate it for us.

[Teka]

On another note, I don't see a problem with comparison against different coins from time to time but it shouldn't be the focus. The comparison should also be simply technical.

It's similar to laptops you have apple and hp for example they both make a product that does the same thing but it's always good to benchmark and give the pros/cons of both.

[Teka]

To promote discussion within the forum, newbie section will be changed to introduction and limit will be removed.

It also means that some thread are being moved.

[ethereal73]

On another note, I don't see a problem with comparison against different coins from time to time but it shouldn't be the focus. The comparison should also be simply technical.

It's similar to laptops you have apple and hp for example they both make a product that does the same thing but it's always good to benchmark and give the pros/cons of both.

Technical discussion on the edge are not a problem, i would like to see them here(personally i''m not technical enough to jump in YET)
Compare "products"against eachother is also not a problem.
The personal attacks are way over the top.
What the hell have a screenshot off Chaeplin's information to do with XC in anyway? it doesnt proof anything att all.
 

[Teka]

On another note, I don't see a problem with comparison against different coins from time to time but it shouldn't be the focus. The comparison should also be simply technical.

It's similar to laptops you have apple and hp for example they both make a product that does the same thing but it's always good to benchmark and give the pros/cons of both.

Technical discussion on the edge are not a problem, i would like to see them here(personally i''m not technical enough to jump in YET)
Compare "products"against eachother is also not a problem.
The personal attacks are way over the top.
What the hell have a screenshot off Chaeplin's information to do with XC in anyway? it doesnt proof anything att all.
 

Yes, I agree they should be kept strictly confidential.

[minerjav]

Thanks for the reply Chaeplin. I have studied the blockchain and read your post several times and I still cannot see that you provided a direct link.

In which transaction were Wallets B and C used as inputs?
Which address is the output of this transaction?

Please do not only paste code. You need to also establish what the code implies, using normal English.

Alternatively, write in your first language and we will try to find someone to translate it for us.

Sorry to interrupt, just an interesting reading that could help in the near future related with "privacy/annon" technology . (somewhat related with the hard link request)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_testing.

The DNA parentage test that follows strict chain of custody can generate legally admissible results that are used for child support, inheritance, social welfare benefits, immigration, or adoption purposes. To satisfy the chain-of-custody legal requirements, all tested parties have to be properly identified and their specimens collected by a third-party professional who is not related to any of the tested parties and has no interest in the outcome of the test.

The quantum of evidence needed is clear and convincing evidence; that is, more evidence than an ordinary case in civil litigation, but much less than beyond a reasonable doubt required to convict a defendant in a criminal case.

[provenceday]

I've just completed a test on the multi-path system

Receivers Address --->>>>> XXcJEFKxziaH8trY6DruHx9ap39rnDJbK7 - 0.03 XC's


I am going to put a password zip file online with the details


ATSECURE

it's only fair if you already upload detail somewhere with timestamp before anyone post their answer then release the detail next day. if you don't release the detail then chance the answer is correct but if no answer then chaplin can't find the way to track it.

The file has been uploaded.. And after 24 hours I will release the location and by Sunday the password if nobody has submitted the address

that's great!

[chaeplin]

[snip]

great summary, given the fact that he backed out of the newest challange for the multipath beta i think his intentions are clear now. but that doesn'T metter after all, the whole process helped XC finally but since that wasn't his personal intention  (rather the opposite) there is no need for a thank you or any kind of forgiving gesture either.

the status quo is this: the only guy who could find the sender with a method that wasn 100% fair play anyway can no longer find it now with REV1.5 !!!

the test is still running so i don't celebrate before the final wistle

Chaeplin's stated reason for not testing the new release is that he believes ATCSECURE did not acknowledge the hard link Chaeplin provided.

I think that we are obliged to give Chaeplin the benefit of the doubt here regarding his beliefs, since we have no proof of the contrary. If I were in his position and genuinely believed that I'd been hard done by, I'd also be unwilling to continue.

It's just unfortunate that he's mistaken in his belief. That's all it comes down to, in my opinion.


As an aside, I think it's a good idea to be gracious to one's opponents. It makes one a good sport. We gain nothing by being victorious and mean.

Does Xnode use coinjoin or coinjoin variant ?

As far as I know, not yet.


If multiple inputs are spend in single tx as of input, I can assure address are belong to single entity.

Xnode will not reuse output from previous used address for mixing in normal circumstance.
Because Xnode issue a new address to xnode user, and spend it once later.
EDIT: can be used, if amount is different.

Anyway I have spammed all the suspicious address, 0.00001, 0.003, 0.03~~

When xnode send a real payee those inputs are used as multiple input.

Nomaly will not happen.

http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?97294.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?97299.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?99154.htm

Those 0.00* are my spam.

My addresses are here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7299828#msg7299828
EDIT : addresses are not for tip or bounty. follow input, check addresses who spammed.

[almond]

Bitcoin is losing value now because the US govt. is about to put back into circulation the  30 thousand btc that it confiscated from silk road.  The psuedonymous nature of bitcoin, plus the bad guys' assumption that bitcoin was anonymous is what led the FBI to success in that case.

I can't help but wonder if XC were around in the silk road days, would the case have been cracked ?

[Perl++]

Bitcoin is losing value now because the US govt. is about to put back into circulation the  30 thousand btc that it confiscated from silk road.  The psuedonymous nature of bitcoin, plus the bad guys' assumption that bitcoin was anonymous is what led the FBI to success in that case.

I can't help but wonder if XC were around in the silk road days, would the case have been cracked ?

Silkroad v1 admin was not arrested because of bitcoin.

If the FBI can crack the anonymous coins then there is no anonymous coins.

Only one thing will happen if the coin is add to SR: the price will rise.