Bitcoin Forum
January 21, 2022, 10:24:12 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 [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 ... 1633 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [XC][XCurrency] Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat / Pos  (Read 1482880 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.
chaeplin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 05:00:52 PM
 #7761

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
1642760652
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1642760652

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1642760652
Reply with quote  #2

1642760652
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1642760652
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1642760652

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1642760652
Reply with quote  #2

1642760652
Report to moderator
atcsecure
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2014, 05:03:08 PM
 #7762



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: 1190
Merit: 1000


To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2014, 05:04:34 PM
 #7763

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.

Co-Founder, the Blocknet
atcsecure
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2014, 05:04:46 PM
 #7764

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
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 05:05:20 PM
 #7765



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
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 05:08:20 PM
 #7766

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.
atcsecure
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2014, 05:08:55 PM
 #7767



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.




So that was REV1 code, we are now REV1.5, I posted the transaction details yesterday for testing... get with the program

Join the revolution - XC - Decentralized Trustless Multi-Node Private Transactions
minerjav
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 05:09:57 PM
 #7768

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
Yes, apply the knowledge from real life situations, managed and discussed by thousand experts around the world for decades (my suggested reading) to our crypto world (the Chaeplin reading).

Then you will have a better overview about how to distribute your hard worked eggs (in the form of investments) in the crypto "privacy/annon" market.

Important Note: I'm not suggesting or recommending any particular coin here. Just trying to add more inputs,references and potential discussion  points to our crypto markets.
chaeplin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 05:11:04 PM
 #7769



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.




So that was REV1 code, we are now REV1.5, I posted the transaction details yesterday for testing... get with the program


Not interested.

"So that was REV1 code," oh hard link exists.

I am done.
solid12345
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 14, 2014, 05:11:14 PM
 #7770

I'm a layman so this all goes over my head, but in the American court of law we have a thing called "Reasonable Doubt", and from what I gather is there is absolutely no flaw in the XC design that would allow someone to be caught, indicted and convicted on anything based on the evidence shown. Chaeplin's method just seems to be the equivalent of throwing darts at a wall and getting giddy when he hits it right, while this may be technically correct, in the REAL WORLD this is not enough to send anyone up the river, if my understanding is incorrect let me know.
atcsecure
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2014, 05:12:01 PM
 #7771

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.



XXcJEFKxziaH8trY6DruHx9ap39rnDJbK7 - is the receiver's address from yesterdays transaction.. are you claiming you have found the original senders address or change address?



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

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000


To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2014, 05:12:34 PM
 #7772



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.




So that was REV1 code, we are now REV1.5, I posted the transaction details yesterday for testing... get with the program


Not interested.

"So that was REV1 code," oh hard link exists.

I am done.

No, ATCSECURE did not assert that a hard link exists.

Co-Founder, the Blocknet
ethereal73
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 05:12:56 PM
 #7773



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.


What is the senders address, and how did you produce it?
I followed the idea GMaxwell provided in your link, but didnt get the senders address, but i'm pretty new to this stuff could mis a a thing or two.
I believe a senders address could be posted in euh.... just provide the senders address, nothing more!



Artoodeetoo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 05:15:15 PM
 #7774



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.




So that was REV1 code, we are now REV1.5, I posted the transaction details yesterday for testing... get with the program


I dont get all the chaeplin compliments, the guy is clearly not capable of proving anything and just wants to stir things up..

As for his apparent lack of grasp for the English language, I suggest a few of you read his posts on the DRK thread, he seems to have very few problems there...

chaeplin you cannot work out the sender address, just admit it and stop losing whatever credibility you may have left...

 

DASH #DashDC #DashIntoDigitalCash
atcsecure
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2014, 05:15:19 PM
 #7775



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.




So that was REV1 code, we are now REV1.5, I posted the transaction details yesterday for testing... get with the program


Not interested.

"So that was REV1 code," oh hard link exists.

I am done.


Oh ok, Seeing how I provided all the details to that test, sender, receiver and mixer info.. and then your statement was "oh there would be hard link IF the coins are spent", but that statement in of itself isn't proof of anything, and you don't know were those coins are going to end up...





Join the revolution - XC - Decentralized Trustless Multi-Node Private Transactions
JakeThePanda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 14, 2014, 05:15:31 PM
 #7776

[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.

Look, I actually like Chaeplin and it is possible that he backed out of the challenge due to the reasons he stated.  But, based on my real life experience dealing with big egos, it's more likely he just can't find the answer.  The odds are too high that he would love nothing more than to crack another challenge put forth directly from ATCSecure himself.  On top of that, this wasn't just another wallet update, this was Rev1.5.  Blowing a hole in Rev1.5 would make it a whole new ballgame and I seriously doubt he or any other would miss on that opportunity.  IMO, the odds are heavily in favor of him failing to solve the problem.  Backing out is the best course of action because guessing at a completely wrong answer is much worse. He knows it.
chaeplin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 05:17:00 PM
 #7777


What is the senders address, and how did you produce it?
I followed the idea GMaxwell provided in your link, but didnt get the senders address, but i'm pretty new to this stuff could mis a a thing or two.
I believe a senders address could be posted in euh.... just provide the senders address, nothing more!






https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7261379#msg7261379
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7261411#msg7261411
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7266886#msg7266886


Dev already linked who sent it.
http://cryptexplorer.com/tx/042451b85620a8fb87bf45154a09ff65296d4ee1e2deea557deee93a8f19bc89#o1
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7258569#msg7258569

Input is sender, as address is belong to wallet.
n00bnoxious
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250

Bitnation Development Team Member


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 05:17:57 PM
 #7778

I'm a layman so this all goes over my head, but in the American court of law we have a thing called "Reasonable Doubt", and from what I gather is there is absolutely no flaw in the XC design that would allow someone to be caught, indicted and convicted on anything based on the evidence shown. Chaeplin's method just seems to be the equivalent of throwing darts at a wall and getting giddy when he hits it right, while this may be technically correct, in the REAL WORLD this is not enough to send anyone up the river, if my understanding is incorrect let me know.

It is not enough to send someone to jail, but may be enough to warrant a more serious investigation, which is often all that is required in many countries...
atcsecure
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2014, 05:18:32 PM
 #7779


What is the senders address, and how did you produce it?
I followed the idea GMaxwell provided in your link, but didnt get the senders address, but i'm pretty new to this stuff could mis a a thing or two.
I believe a senders address could be posted in euh.... just provide the senders address, nothing more!






https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7261379#msg7261379
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7261411#msg7261411
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7266886#msg7266886


WTF is that?


as I said, POST THE address's



Join the revolution - XC - Decentralized Trustless Multi-Node Private Transactions
minerjav
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 05:19:03 PM
Last edit: June 14, 2014, 05:48:44 PM by minerjav
 #7780

I'm a layman so this all goes over my head, but in the American court of law we have a thing called "Reasonable Doubt", and from what I gather is there is absolutely no flaw in the XC design that would allow someone to be caught, indicted and convicted on anything based on the evidence shown. Chaeplin's method just seems to be the equivalent of throwing darts at a wall and getting giddy when he hits it right, while this may be technically correct, in the REAL WORLD this is not enough to send anyone up the river, if my understanding is incorrect let me know.

As the suggested reading shows, Most of the time in real life you only need a lightly test (like the DNA), to elevate it to something higher (like an "American court" as you mention) if the importance of the case require it. At that level, you can order a more exhaustive search with better tools and technology.

For most users, proof that he is not my father is enough, For most fathers, proof that he is not my son is enough. (the big business for commercial products around the world and  "over the counter")

Edited for clarification.
Pages: « 1 ... 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 [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 ... 1633 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!