Bitcoin Forum
August 17, 2024, 10:33:21 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 [852] 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 ... 1627 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [XC][XCurrency] Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat / Pos  (Read 1483669 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.
CryptoGretzky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 21, 2014, 09:46:12 AM
 #17021

[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
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 21, 2014, 09:47:25 AM
 #17022


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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000


To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market


View Profile WWW
July 21, 2014, 09:50:37 AM
 #17023


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?


Co-Founder, the Blocknet
synechist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000


To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market


View Profile WWW
July 21, 2014, 09:56:35 AM
 #17024


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!




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

Activity: 87
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 21, 2014, 10:00:57 AM
 #17025

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000


To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market


View Profile WWW
July 21, 2014, 10:05:10 AM
 #17026


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.


Co-Founder, the Blocknet
CrazyLeoW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100

XC


View Profile
July 21, 2014, 10:26:41 AM
 #17027


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.

xchat: XNvUSCdvZgZcXsYd3Gs91w8tKQmeMKHS9G
Pubkey: 2Ax9bYXwifbqyxsmC9pbhfGyPoLJNf3wdtQ7dFdzKK1ZX
synechist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000


To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market


View Profile WWW
July 21, 2014, 10:28:40 AM
 #17028


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.


Co-Founder, the Blocknet
Queeq
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 427
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 21, 2014, 10:29:09 AM
 #17029

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 (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 21, 2014, 10:33:25 AM
 #17030

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 Grin

Daniel
Community Manager
Drasticraven.deviantart.com  Roll Eyes

synechist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000


To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market


View Profile WWW
July 21, 2014, 10:33:55 AM
 #17031

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.



Co-Founder, the Blocknet
synechist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000


To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market


View Profile WWW
July 21, 2014, 10:36:59 AM
 #17032

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.

Co-Founder, the Blocknet
CrazyLeoW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100

XC


View Profile
July 21, 2014, 10:37:37 AM
 #17033

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.

xchat: XNvUSCdvZgZcXsYd3Gs91w8tKQmeMKHS9G
Pubkey: 2Ax9bYXwifbqyxsmC9pbhfGyPoLJNf3wdtQ7dFdzKK1ZX
synechist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000


To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market


View Profile WWW
July 21, 2014, 10:38:20 AM
 #17034

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.


Co-Founder, the Blocknet
Queeq
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 427
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 21, 2014, 10:42:32 AM
 #17035

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.

So is it something like I2P forwards traffic?
CrazyLeoW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100

XC


View Profile
July 21, 2014, 10:44:52 AM
 #17036

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.



In our society, we know that: He who has a mind to beat his dog will easily find his stick.
But in crypto world, only blockchain speaks.

xchat: XNvUSCdvZgZcXsYd3Gs91w8tKQmeMKHS9G
Pubkey: 2Ax9bYXwifbqyxsmC9pbhfGyPoLJNf3wdtQ7dFdzKK1ZX
Boyer
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 78
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 21, 2014, 10:45:50 AM
 #17037


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.



I couldn't agree more, the rich list is not to be trusted. People create a lot of addresses to be able to stake better etc. I think someone owns a lot of XC. Time will tell if we are going for another run. I believe that XC's value will increase in 1 month.
synechist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000


To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market


View Profile WWW
July 21, 2014, 10:53:06 AM
 #17038

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.

So is it something like I2P forwards traffic?

It doesn't look like it. Not that I can claim to know much about I2P...

It's session-based m-of-m multisig with multiple redundant connections. If that's like I2P, let me know. :-)


Co-Founder, the Blocknet
prospect
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 270
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 21, 2014, 11:07:52 AM
 #17039

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.

So is it something like I2P forwards traffic?

It doesn't look like it. Not that I can claim to know much about I2P...

It's session-based m-of-m multisig with multiple redundant connections. If that's like I2P, let me know. :-)



Answering questions, like a boss.
CrazyLeoW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100

XC


View Profile
July 21, 2014, 11:08:00 AM
 #17040

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.

So is it something like I2P forwards traffic?

It doesn't look like it. Not that I can claim to know much about I2P...

It's session-based m-of-m multisig with multiple redundant connections. If that's like I2P, let me know. :-)



redundant connection, is it similar to Link Aggregation Control Protocol(LACP)?
I think Dan is very familiar with LACP, as a network expert. LOL

xchat: XNvUSCdvZgZcXsYd3Gs91w8tKQmeMKHS9G
Pubkey: 2Ax9bYXwifbqyxsmC9pbhfGyPoLJNf3wdtQ7dFdzKK1ZX
Pages: « 1 ... 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 [852] 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 ... 1627 »
  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!