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

[CrazyLeoW]

it's not a ring signature because it's multidirectional.
An advantage over XMR. LoL

[BrewCrewFan]

.

Hey, chinaman, plz stop posting your offtopic comment. Lol

Go pound sand. I got more XC than you would know what to do with. Plus I find your remark kinda racist.

[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

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

Because it's only recently that the tech was explained to me in enough detail for me to post that.

[BrewCrewFan]

[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.

You know I went on about that some time ago about naming and stuff like that. You be on later on? I have to go to work lol. I do agree naming is a good portion when thinking about mainstream. Right now people think cryptos = drugs, all the bad stuff in life.... you name it....


Ninja edit
I love how some think I am a troll lutz!

[CrazyLeoW]

.

Hey, chinaman, plz stop posting your offtopic comment. Lol

Go pound sand. I got more XC than you would know what to do with. Plus I find your remark kinda racist.

Oh, sorry, I just heard that word chinaman from a tv talkshow, just funny, plz don't mind.

[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.

You know I went on about that some time ago about naming and stuff like that. You be on later on? I have to go to work lol. I do agree naming is a good portion when thinking about mainstream. Right now people think cryptos = drugs, all the bad stuff in life.... you name it....

Heh. Yeah, that's why "XCurrency" makes sense. We did our market research.

It's also why XC's branding is green and white. It's professional and approachable, not technical and dark.

[CryptoGretzky]

[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.

On page 6 of the white paper of Cloak makes me wonder... http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=73frc7&s=8#.U8zgdvldVAI

Transaction Finalization and Output Delivery

If the elected node is a Phase 2 node, it will solve a block containing the phase 2 transaction, redeem the
input and generate an output to the destination recipient address. At this point the only link from the
recipient would be from the Phase 2 node.


Would this link be something that can bite the phase 2 node that send this transaction out if the recipient does something illegal with it?

[SushiChef]

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.

Not worried either.. (my head hurts a lot.. sorry for missing the "party". Would have loved some of these FUD "snacks")

[synechist]

That's why "XCurrency" makes sense. We did our market research.

It's also why XC's branding is green and white. It's professional and approachable, not technical and dark.

For example, compare this:






With this:





They're both cool, but which one is more approachable?

[synechist]

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.

Not worried either.. (my head hurts a lot.. sorry for missing the "party". Would have loved some of these FUD "snacks")

Heh. No worries. The FUD just means a few more hours of cheap XC I'd say.

May the headache go away soon - and may last night have been worth it!

[ForReal]

Wealth Distribution

Top N addresses   Holdings   Percentage
Top 10   1,731,366 XC   31.38 %
Top 100   4,188,332 XC   75.91 %
Top 1000   5,363,999 XC   97.21 %
All 5782   5,517,852 XC   100 %

More and more people are getting on board.
Glad to see some TOP 10 people distributed their coins at low price.

I’m not trying to FUD. But one wallet can create more than one address. Some people may have many addresses. With each wallet updates, there supposed to have more addresses created. Those number doesn’t necessarily mean that there are more users, it only means there are more address holds coin now. Maybe I'm missing something here ? Can somebody explain what those addresses really mean ?

[synechist]

Those number doesn’t necessarily mean that there are more users, it only means there are more address holds coin now. Maybe I'm missing something here ? Can somebody explain what those addresses really mean ?

You're right, those addresses don't mean much. I don't take rich lists seriously.

If I held a very large amount of XC I'd definitely not keep it at one address, let alone have people know that address.

[CrazyLeoW]

Those number doesn’t necessarily mean that there are more users, it only means there are more address holds coin now. Maybe I'm missing something here ? Can somebody explain what those addresses really mean ?

You're right, those addresses don't mean much. I don't take rich lists seriously.

If I held a very large amount of XC I'd definitely not keep it at one address, let alone have people know that address.

plz see the list dynamically. the addresses increased after a big dump on mintpal in 3 or 4 hours period, I think it means freshmen came in our family.
yes, the total number might be meaningless, but the delta value make sense.

[synechist]

Those number doesn’t necessarily mean that there are more users, it only means there are more address holds coin now. Maybe I'm missing something here ? Can somebody explain what those addresses really mean ?

You're right, those addresses don't mean much. I don't take rich lists seriously.

If I held a very large amount of XC I'd definitely not keep it at one address, let alone have people know that address.

plz see the list dynamically. the addresses increased after a big dump on mintpal in 3 or 4 hours period, I think it means freshmen came in our family.
yes, the total number might be meaningless, but the delta value make sense.

Fair point. Definitely.

[Queeq]

What I meant by some party owning 99% of nodes is not double-spend attacks or whatever of that nature, but the ability to de-anonymise transactions routed only through the nodes of this party. As far as I understand nodes are trustless while tx goes through the nodes owned by different people. If I manage to have transactions routing and mixing by my nodes only I can rewind all the operations as I have all the necessary information about those transactions, giving me source and destination addresses and likely some additional statistics. It won't need any additional resources from my side, just being able to run a lot of nodes with empty wallets. They don't consume much resources and it must be possible to run thousands of them on several powerful servers (or even one server) which is totally acceptable for the interested party.

[Teka]

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!

Its on the way and planned

Daniel
Community Manager
Drasticraven.deviantart.com 

[synechist]

What I meant by some party owning 99% of nodes is not double-spend attacks or whatever of that nature, but the ability to de-anonymise transactions routed only through the nodes of this party. As far as I understand nodes are trustless while tx goes through the nodes owned by different people. If I manage to have transactions routing and mixing by my nodes only I can rewind all the operations as I have all the necessary information about those transactions, giving me source and destination addresses and likely some additional statistics. It won't need any additional resources from my side, just being able to run a lot of nodes with empty wallets. They don't consume much resources and it must be possible to run thousands of them on several powerful servers (or even one server) which is totally acceptable for the interested party.

Even then a node owner will have no way of identifying which fragments belong to who, or how much a given party was actually paid.

A node owner won't be able to tell which fragments comprise a given transaction and which fragments are part of a different transaction.

If every node is forwarding transactions trustlessly, the scenario is pretty sweet really.

[synechist]

What I meant by some party owning 99% of nodes is not double-spend attacks or whatever of that nature, but the ability to de-anonymise transactions routed only through the nodes of this party. As far as I understand nodes are trustless while tx goes through the nodes owned by different people. If I manage to have transactions routing and mixing by my nodes only I can rewind all the operations as I have all the necessary information about those transactions, giving me source and destination addresses and likely some additional statistics. It won't need any additional resources from my side, just being able to run a lot of nodes with empty wallets. They don't consume much resources and it must be possible to run thousands of them on several powerful servers (or even one server) which is totally acceptable for the interested party.

Even then a node owner will have no way of identifying which fragments belong to who, or how much a given party was actually paid.

A node owner won't be able to tell which fragments comprise a given transaction and which fragments are part of a different transaction.

If every node is forwarding transactions trustlessly, the scenario is pretty sweet really.

I mean:

1) Node A forwards a fragment to node B. Does this mean that node B is the end-receipient of a transaction, or is node B just forwarding it on further? You can't tell.

2) Node A receives a payment from someone. Node A also forwards some fragments soon afterwards. How do you tell whether the fragments are related to the payment received or not? You can't. There's perfect privacy there.

[CrazyLeoW]

What I meant by some party owning 99% of nodes is not double-spend attacks or whatever of that nature, but the ability to de-anonymise transactions routed only through the nodes of this party. As far as I understand nodes are trustless while tx goes through the nodes owned by different people. If I manage to have transactions routing and mixing by my nodes only I can rewind all the operations as I have all the necessary information about those transactions, giving me source and destination addresses and likely some additional statistics. It won't need any additional resources from my side, just being able to run a lot of nodes with empty wallets. They don't consume much resources and it must be possible to run thousands of them on several powerful servers (or even one server) which is totally acceptable for the interested party.

But still no direct link on the block chain, right? the party could only guess it but no evidence to support the guessed result.
Just like chaeplin's conjecture. make nonsense.

[synechist]

What I meant by some party owning 99% of nodes is not double-spend attacks or whatever of that nature, but the ability to de-anonymise transactions routed only through the nodes of this party. As far as I understand nodes are trustless while tx goes through the nodes owned by different people. If I manage to have transactions routing and mixing by my nodes only I can rewind all the operations as I have all the necessary information about those transactions, giving me source and destination addresses and likely some additional statistics. It won't need any additional resources from my side, just being able to run a lot of nodes with empty wallets. They don't consume much resources and it must be possible to run thousands of them on several powerful servers (or even one server) which is totally acceptable for the interested party.

But still no direct link on the block chain, right? the party could only guess it but no evidence to support the guessed result.
Just like chaeplin's conjecture. make nonsense.

Yes you'd have to trust the malicious actor's testimony. The blockchain would not lend any support to it.