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

[evtrmm]

[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?

[1714784688]

1714784688

[1714784688]

1714784688

[1714784688]

1714784688

[jasinlee]

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.

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

[chaeplin]

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.

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]

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!!!!!

[synechist]

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.

[atcsecure]

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.

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

[chaeplin]

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]

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.

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]

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

[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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

[synechist]

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.

[ethereal73]

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]

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...

 

[atcsecure]

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...

[JakeThePanda]

[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]

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]

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...