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

[synechist]

there is very little to it and its unclear what was delivered.... Again just my opinion..

Fair enough. In that case I'll say it again and keep saying it:

The full Rev 2 has been out since 7/7/14

The final Rev 2 will just be refinements and UI improvements

Rev 2 includes an unprecedented world-first: trustless mixing

Rev 2 is multinode multipath: transaction fragments are sent to multiple nodes and then mixed and forwarded trustlessly

Private transactions are multisig and nodes cannot steal coins

Every XC app is an Xnode

      (You don't need 550XC to run an Xnode)

XC's anonymity level is ridiculously high. There's nothing like it.

[1714049876]

1714049876

[1714049876]

1714049876

[1714049876]

1714049876

[1714049876]

1714049876

[CrazyLeoW]

Why not set a bounty for GUI design??? think about what we did for XC LOGO.
I think wallet UI inheriting from BTC is really ugly!!!
Current GUI just like a win95 application!!!! FUCK!

[CryptoGretzky]

Every child in here wants a statement from Daddy (atcsecure).

Why don't you guys use the XC anon feature for your transactions and figure out its features? Oh right, most of you don't give a fuck about it. Please stop wasting the mods + devs + my time with these whiny comments.

+1


The "sky is falling" trolls are out in full force tonight.  Wow.

Leigh2k14... you are one serious impulsive and impatient MF...    How old are you?  5?   

[Queeq]

Could you please remind, what prevents malicious party from creating so many Xnodes that it would allow them to see the majority of private transactions? As far as I understand, there are no specific requirements (like 550 XCs before) so it's fairly easy for one party to have like 99% of the network nodes.

[shfc]

HI, the developer, when to start released Rev 3 ?

[synechist]

Why not set a bounty for GUI design??? think about what we did for XC LOGO.
I think wallet UI inheriting from BTC is really ugly!!!
Current GUI just like a win95 application!!!! FUCK!

The UI for Rev 3 is going to be incredible.

Work on this is already underway.

You should get a preview of it sometime around Rev 2.5 as per the roadmap. ;-)

[synechist]

Could you please remind, what prevents malicious party from creating so many Xnodes that it would allow them to see the majority of private transactions? As far as I understand, there are no specific requirements (like 550 XCs before) so it's fairly easy for one party to have like 99% of the network nodes.

If doesn't matter how many Xnodes one person owns: trustless mixing makes it impossible to steal coins.

[CrazyLeoW]

Could you please remind, what prevents malicious party from creating so many Xnodes that it would allow them to see the majority of private transactions? As far as I understand, there are no specific requirements (like 550 XCs before) so it's fairly easy for one party to have like 99% of the network nodes.

It's depending on algorithm of rounting. If there's no coins in this wallet, it might not be selected into the sending path.
Just could avoid this issue in algorithm, I think.

[CryptoGretzky]

Could you please remind, what prevents malicious party from creating so many Xnodes that it would allow them to see the majority of private transactions? As far as I understand, there are no specific requirements (like 550 XCs before) so it's fairly easy for one party to have like 99% of the network nodes.

If that person has 99% of the network nodes, then the price would be bitcoin level cause just trying to buy up that much coins would push it to astronomical level....  he can steal all the coins he wants because then it's his value to lose....  

ps.  he still can't steal cause the Xnodes are trustless, but it would be nice if he tries to get 99% of the coins due to the above price pushing skyward effect though  

[synechist]

Could you please remind, what prevents malicious party from creating so many Xnodes that it would allow them to see the majority of private transactions? As far as I understand, there are no specific requirements (like 550 XCs before) so it's fairly easy for one party to have like 99% of the network nodes.

If doesn't matter how many Xnodes one person owns: trustless mixing makes it impossible to steal coins.

This is the whole point about the word "trustless": you don't have to trust other nodes.

Their owners could have whatever intentions they like and it'll make no difference. Trustless mixing ensures coins get to where they're intended to go.

[synechist]

Could you please remind, what prevents malicious party from creating so many Xnodes that it would allow them to see the majority of private transactions? As far as I understand, there are no specific requirements (like 550 XCs before) so it's fairly easy for one party to have like 99% of the network nodes.

If that person has 99% of the network nodes, then the price would be bitcoin level cause just trying to buy up that much coins would push it to astronomical level....  he can steal all the coins he wants because then it's his value to lose.... 

No you guys are mistaken. There's currently no 550 XC requirement, and it's not necessary to have one because mixing is trustless.

This means that you don't have to trust other nodes. It makes no difference what their intentions are; your payments will reach the intended destination.

(Note though that we may add a minimum XC requirement for other purposes. But it won't be to improve the security of the network.)

[synechist]

Here's our latest roadmap to Rev 3 and beyond!

- the Rev 2 "UI update" is a progress bar for private transactions and send fail/success confirmation. It's not the major Rev 3 UI update.

- private transactions and EM will be merged into a single app at Rev 2.5.









So this is what's new:

- UI update at Rev 2

- Rev 3 UI preview at Rev 2.5

- Rev 2.5 is the point at which trustless mixing is merged with secure private messaging

- Additional tech update to xnodes in the Rev 2 phase (just to whet your appetites :-).

[KimmyF]

Could you please remind, what prevents malicious party from creating so many Xnodes that it would allow them to see the majority of private transactions? As far as I understand, there are no specific requirements (like 550 XCs before) so it's fairly easy for one party to have like 99% of the network nodes.

Every XC-app with some coins in it is an xnode, there are almost 6000 xnodes out there, lets say 5% is online at any time. thats 300 == your remaining 1%. So you wish to put up 30K endpoints, run 30K XC-apps and while you at it break the same encryption thats protecting the BTC chains for years & then find & combine al those tiny parts to a single transaction. thats what i call ambition

[CryptoGretzky]

Could you please remind, what prevents malicious party from creating so many Xnodes that it would allow them to see the majority of private transactions? As far as I understand, there are no specific requirements (like 550 XCs before) so it's fairly easy for one party to have like 99% of the network nodes.

If that person has 99% of the network nodes, then the price would be bitcoin level cause just trying to buy up that much coins would push it to astronomical level....  he can steal all the coins he wants because then it's his value to lose....  

No you guys are mistaken. There's currently no 550 XC requirement, and it's not necessary to have one because mixing is trustless.

This means that you don't have to trust other nodes. It makes no difference what their intentions are; your payments will reach the intended destination.

(Note though that we may add a minimum XC requirement for other purposes. But it won't be to improve the security of the network.)

I was just answering his imaginary scenarios with a imaginary effects.    

[CrazyLeoW]

Need  to explain what does trustless mean.
Xnode system assumes all xnodes are not deserving of trust, so the sending algorithm must assume the transaction would fail by default. The transaction will not be comfirmed until the system get accomplishment from destination.
I guess a single xnode could not move the incoming coin from sending path into its own Local wallet By itself.

[synechist]

Could you please remind, what prevents malicious party from creating so many Xnodes that it would allow them to see the majority of private transactions? As far as I understand, there are no specific requirements (like 550 XCs before) so it's fairly easy for one party to have like 99% of the network nodes.

If that person has 99% of the network nodes, then the price would be bitcoin level cause just trying to buy up that much coins would push it to astronomical level....  he can steal all the coins he wants because then it's his value to lose....  

No you guys are mistaken. There's currently no 550 XC requirement, and it's not necessary to have one because mixing is trustless.

This means that you don't have to trust other nodes. It makes no difference what their intentions are; your payments will reach the intended destination.

(Note though that we may add a minimum XC requirement for other purposes. But it won't be to improve the security of the network.)

I was just answering his imaginary scenarios with a imaginary effects.    

Heh. Fair enough ;-)

[synechist]

Need  to explain what does trustless mean.
Xnode system assumes all xnodes are not deserving of trust, so the sending algorithm must assume the transaction would fail by default. The transaction will not be comfirmed until the system get accomplishment from destination.
I guess a single xnode could not move the incoming coin from sending path into its own Local wallet By itself.

No that's not how trustless mixing works.


1) transaction is initiated 

2) wallet requests to send fragments to other nodes

3) multisig between each participating node is set up and passed around for signing

4) multisig enables trust-less transactions as any changes to the signed transaction (ie: a node trying to steal coins) - makes the multi-signature invalid

    - it's not coinjoin, because it’s not centralised

    - it's not a ring signature because it's multidirectional

5) if a bad node fails to forward a transaction, then several other paths exist and the tx is sent along one of them instead

6) fragments sent to nodes

7) nodes mix and forward fragments from different addresses to the ones they receive fragments on

recipient receives transaction

[CrazyLeoW]

Need  to explain what does trustless mean.
Xnode system assumes all xnodes are not deserving of trust, so the sending algorithm must assume the transaction would fail by default. The transaction will not be comfirmed until the system get accomplishment from destination.
I guess a single xnode could not move the incoming coin from sending path into its own Local wallet By itself.

No that's not how trustless mixing works.


1) transaction is initiated 

2) wallet requests to send fragments to other nodes
(
3) multisig between each participating node is set up and passed around for signing

4) multisig enables trust-less transactions as any changes to the signed transaction (ie: a node trying to steal coins) - makes the multi-signature invalid

    - it's not coinjoin, because it’s not centralised

    - it's not a ring signature because it's multidirectional

5) if a bad node fails to forward a transaction, then several other paths exist and the tx is sent along one of them instead

6) fragments sent to nodes

7) nodes mix and forward fragments from different addresses to the ones they receive fragments on

recipient receives transaction

Got it! Great!
But why didn't you explain this a few days ago to avoid so many fuds?

[dida]

Hate to say it but cloak might pass us in price even though we had that PoSA in place a long while ago.

Pseudo coin also..it have unique technology of mixing, less coins and right now it is waaay to cheapo.

[synechist]

[Relative prices of competitors]

Without a good explanation of what PoSA is - when/if they release it - they're likely to be subject to FUD. For example, if they're anonymising via mining, what happens if there's an orphaned block? Does your tx just disappear?

Plus the name doesn't have the mainstream in mind IMO. They'll have as much trouble with that as DRK's name. It looks like the sort of thing "bad guys on the internet" use.

Lastly the mainstream isn't hooked on privacy, they're hooked on fancy smartphone apps, ease of use, and friendly, approachable tech. I'm really not worried.