CryptoGretzky
|
|
July 21, 2014, 09:46:12 AM |
|
[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#.U8zgdvldVAITransaction 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
|
|
July 21, 2014, 09:47:25 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
|
|
July 21, 2014, 09:50:37 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
|
|
July 21, 2014, 09:56:35 AM |
|
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
Activity: 87
Merit: 10
|
|
July 21, 2014, 10:00:57 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
|
|
July 21, 2014, 10:05:10 AM |
|
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
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
XC
|
|
July 21, 2014, 10:26:41 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
|
|
July 21, 2014, 10:28:40 AM |
|
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
|
|
July 21, 2014, 10:29:09 AM |
|
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)
|
|
July 21, 2014, 10:33:25 AM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
|
|
July 21, 2014, 10:33:55 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
|
|
July 21, 2014, 10:36:59 AM |
|
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
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
XC
|
|
July 21, 2014, 10:37:37 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
|
|
July 21, 2014, 10:38:20 AM |
|
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
|
|
July 21, 2014, 10:42:32 AM |
|
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
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
XC
|
|
July 21, 2014, 10:44:52 AM |
|
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
Activity: 78
Merit: 10
|
|
July 21, 2014, 10:45:50 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
|
|
July 21, 2014, 10:53:06 AM |
|
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
|
|
July 21, 2014, 11:07:52 AM |
|
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
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
XC
|
|
July 21, 2014, 11:08:00 AM |
|
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
|
|
|
|