Bitcoin Forum
September 27, 2016, 10:20:42 PM *
News: Due to DDoS attacks, there may be periodic downtime.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 [393] 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 ... 1642 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [XC][XCurrency] Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat / Pos  (Read 1235416 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
ethereal73
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 03:26:39 PM
 #7841



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 Cheesy

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.

1475014842
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475014842

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475014842
Reply with quote  #2

1475014842
Report to moderator
1475014842
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475014842

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475014842
Reply with quote  #2

1475014842
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Teka
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
June 14, 2014, 03:35:27 PM
 #7842

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

Activity: 812


To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2014, 03:36:41 PM
 #7843



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.

XCurrency:  XTUHcobVjdYTeeo9Z66xHaqK29wne7nPLx
XChat:        XHK5fr4hV4pbsdax6kxcD6MRQ1cijxWehX  |  28kxMc4gitHiYXrgzggAhr5KUhsG8onDqqBBGeL8RipZG
Bitcoin:       16WffZKRbnCKSBGXaVpra4dqT72pf3TT3V
Teka
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
June 14, 2014, 03:47:44 PM
 #7844

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
June 14, 2014, 03:51:21 PM
 #7845

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
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 04:00:15 PM
 #7846

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
June 14, 2014, 04:02:12 PM
 #7847

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
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 04:02:49 PM
 #7848

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.

Quote
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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
June 14, 2014, 04:23:02 PM
 #7849




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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 04:25:30 PM
 #7850

[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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 382


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 04:30:01 PM
 #7851

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 ?


Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one
Perl++
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28

Cryptcoin FTW


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 04:43:29 PM
 #7852

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.

Careful moderator "BadBear" is a pedophile
evtrmm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378

So much for "Community"


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 04:54:37 PM
 #7853

[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.

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


From what I have heard, a CJ Variant has been or is soon to be implemented. I am not sure when it has or when it will be added.

Does implementing this nullify the Sat. Spam method of identification?
jasinlee
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742


Its as easy as 0, 1, 1, 2, 3


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 04:55:02 PM
 #7854

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.

Quote
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.

Chaeplin, stop repeatedly saying the same thing. You are wrong. Read the quoted website above.  Learn about chain of custody.

BTC 1JASiNZxmAN1WBS4dmGEDoPpzN3GV7dnjX DVC 1CxxZzqcy7YEVXfCn5KvgRxjeWvPpniK3                     Earn Devcoins Devtome.com
chaeplin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 05:00:52 PM
 #7855

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.

Quote
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.

Chaeplin, stop repeatedly saying the same thing. You are wrong. Read the quoted website above.  Learn about chain of custody.
You should read this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0
atcsecure
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2014, 05:03:08 PM
 #7856



SO Chaeplin couldn't prove any thing so he tries to stir up the debate with non-trivial information.



Lets ALL BE CLEAR - PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL SENDERS ADDRESS or STFU!!!!!



Join the revolution - XC - Decentralized Trustless Multi-Node Private Transactions
synechist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2014, 05:04:34 PM
 #7857

Hi everyone. I thought I'd make some sense of the work that Chaeplin has done on XC. (Summary: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7270701#msg7270701.)

First, this is what ATCSECURE provided:

  • Sender address: ?
  • Wallet B: XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G
  • Wallet C: XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV
  • Recipient address: XVrqrpe2ZDmykAnjcAHN6McbuDEjBZSvRZ
  • Payment process: "The mixer tells the [sender address] to send coins to wallet b, however wallet C is used to send coins to the [recipient address], there is NO link from wallet B to wallet C unless somebody manually moves the coins from C to B."
  • Aspect of payment being tested: the assertion that there is no link in the Blockchain from Wallet B to Wallet C. Testers are required to falsify this claim in order to receive a bounty.


This is what Chaeplin did:

1. He utilised a technique known as "Satoshi Spam," which is a matter of sending tiny amounts to addresses. One can use this to watch where the money flows in order to work out which addresses have common ownership.

2. Satoshi Spam is based on the pre-coinjoin principle that, given a transaction with multiple inputs and a single output, it follows that the inputs are owned by the same entity. For example, if 7 addresses were spammed with BTC 0.000001 and then all of these addresses were used to pay the resulting amount to another address, one can thereby conclude that the 7 addresses are owned by one person, and in all likelihood are in the same wallet.

3. However, coinjoin falsifies the assumption behind Satoshi Spam because coinjoin uses input addresses owned by several parties are to pay one or more recipient addresses. Thus if coinjoin is even partly implemented for a given coin, it becomes false to assume that one party owns the input addresses, since it's possible that there could be several owners.

4. Chaeplin implemented Satoshi Spam by sending small amounts to Wallet B and Wallet C.

5. His intention was to watch the blockchain to see where the amounts he sent to Wallets B and C would end up when the wallets spent the money.

6. His observation of the blockchain revealed the following information:
    - Wallets B and C sent payments somewhere, but the outputs are not given in the blockchain
    - Wallets B and C also paid transaction fees for the payments, but the addresses they're paid to are not given in the blockchain

7. With this information, Chaeplin constructs the following account:
    - Once Wallets B and C spend the money sent to them, the transaction is recorded in the blockchain, though the recipient address is not.
    - Nonetheless, he has a record that Wallets B and C spent the money.
    - On one occasion, Wallet B spends money, and at a similar time, Wallet C pays a transaction fee.
    - Therefore Wallets B and C are owned by the same entity.

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.



Additional comments:

- This analysis is tentative. I might be incorrect about what Chaeplin did. He does not explain why he pastes code and blockchain records in his comments, so it's impossible to be certain about what is argument actually is. I've tried to reconstruct his thought process from what he posted.

- Chaeplin appears to have only a vague grasp of the strategy behind Satoshi Spam. Just as it is ineffective when coinjoin is implemented, it is ineffective when output addresses are not shown, as with XC.

- Chaeplin has clearly shown that a payment from Wallet B and another payment (probably a transaction fee) from Wallet C co-occurred.

- However Chaeplin conflates co-occurrence with a "hard link". Just because a payment from one address and a fee from another address appear in a blockchain at similar times, it does not entail that the two are associated in any way. Even if the blockchain was brand new and consisted of only these two payments, this implication would not be established. Co-occurrence is categorically distinct from a record that one address paid another.

- However in my opinion it would be wrong to conclude that Chaeplin is a fudder, since we do not have a "hard link" proving his intentions. There is evidence, sure, but let's not make Chaeplin's mistake of conflating possibility with certainty. We would act honourably by giving him the benefit of the doubt. And in acting honourably, we raise the ethic of this thread, which makes XC's community more attractive. Let's do XC proud.


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.

...
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


Chaeplin I've just discovered something that establishes the "proof" you are looking for (though it's not yet sufficient). And for this the community is grateful.

You asked us to check indices 14 and 18 on block 29113 (http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?97299.htm). However you should have asked us to check indices 9 and 14:
    - In index 9, the input address is XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV, which is wallet C.
    - In index 14, the input address is XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G, which is wallet B.
    - They have common outputs, establishing that they are owned by the same entity.


The question now is: how does this impact ATCsecure's test?


Here is the scenario, now updated to include your work:

1. The blockchain reveals that the sender paid wallet B, and wallet C paid the recipient.

2. Your satoshi spamming reveals that wallets B and C are owned by the same entity.

3. Since wallets B and C are owned by the same entity, either:

3a. the owner of wallets B and C passed on a payment to the recipient on behalf of the sender.

3b. the sender paid the owner of wallets B and C for something, and the owner of the wallets then, independently, made a payment to wallet D for something else entirely.

4. If 3b is the case, then it is not true that the sender paid the recipient.

5. Nobody can eliminate the possibility that 3b is the case.

6. Therefore there is no proof that the sender paid the recipient.

Conclusion:
In other words, even though you have a "hard link" on the blockchain proving common ownership of wallets B and C, there is no "hard link" proving that wallet A paid wallet D, since it is possible that 3b is the case.

The bounty was to prove that wallet A paid wallet D. You have not proved this.

In addition you have not found the sender's address.


However I think you have made a substantial contribution to the conversation about XC's design. I think that the dev team will value your work and will use it to continue to improve XC's anonymity. (For example, xnodes could be designed to not use multiple inputs when making payments). so thank you very much for your contribution. I hope you will continue to support XC!

I understand that English is not your first language, but in future please try to state your argument in plain English. Otherwise it is very, very hard to understand what you are saying. It is not sufficient to just paste code or links. You need to explain why.


P.S. I might be mistaken about all this. Anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong.

XCurrency:  XTUHcobVjdYTeeo9Z66xHaqK29wne7nPLx
XChat:        XHK5fr4hV4pbsdax6kxcD6MRQ1cijxWehX  |  28kxMc4gitHiYXrgzggAhr5KUhsG8onDqqBBGeL8RipZG
Bitcoin:       16WffZKRbnCKSBGXaVpra4dqT72pf3TT3V
atcsecure
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2014, 05:04:46 PM
 #7858

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.

Quote
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.

Chaeplin, stop repeatedly saying the same thing. You are wrong. Read the quoted website above.  Learn about chain of custody.
You should read this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0

How about you clearly POST the senders address..... instead of trying to divert the discussion with dumb-ass statements that are not relevant

Join the revolution - XC - Decentralized Trustless Multi-Node Private Transactions
chaeplin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 05:05:20 PM
 #7859



SO Chaeplin couldn't prove any thing so he tries to stir up the debate with non-trivial information.



Lets ALL BE CLEAR - PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL SENDERS ADDRESS or STFU!!!!!




Can you deny this ?
Is not single entity ?

This is your a Xnode address.
chaeplin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 05:08:20 PM
 #7860

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.

Quote
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.

Chaeplin, stop repeatedly saying the same thing. You are wrong. Read the quoted website above.  Learn about chain of custody.
You should read this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0

How about you clearly POST the senders address..... instead of trying to divert the discussion with dumb-ass statements that are not relevant
Post your listaddressgroupings result.
Pages: « 1 ... 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 [393] 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 ... 1642 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!