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

[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...

[atcsecure]

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

[minerjav]

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.

[atcsecure]

I'm willing to offer 1 btc for anybody who can find the senders address for the transaction done yesterday

XXcJEFKxziaH8trY6DruHx9ap39rnDJbK7 - Receivers Address

in order to claim the bounty you need to include the proof and it needs to be "beyond a reasonable doubt"

[PUMPBANDIT]

The heat is on!
This is the funniest sht eva!

[fourdegrees11]

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...

 

This.

He continuously blows off what ATCsecure says and then posts the same garbage. How is this helping?

[pookielax31]

ATC.... are we gonna see a Rev 1.5 wallet release today?