Unmoderated XC thread

[chaeplin]

Analyzing XC mixer transaction by spamming.



Dev refused bounty.

http://cryptexplorer.com/address/XVrqrpe2ZDmykAnjcAHN6McbuDEjBZSvRZ


There is the wallet that received a mix transaction...

lets start with this wallet that received a payment from the mixer
and we can walk through it backwards

I'll make it easy

this is the received mix transaction


http://cryptexplorer.com/tx/9bc580ea9b7ec69d53dbc28e9cc42f1ea810925137d6cc8c1011e904f7c18bac#o0

and you have address XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV - which made the payment

Okay so we know 2 things, XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV  SENT a payment to XVrqrpe2ZDmykAnjcAHN6McbuDEjBZSvRZ


now - can that be tied back to the original transaction?

Hmm. I don't see any link back to the original transaction

maybe this will help


original transaction --->>>> which was sent TO this address "XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G"


http://cryptexplorer.com/address/XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G


so now I've revealed the transaction ^^^^^ with this data you should be able to find the original senders wallet ^^^^^^ then take that original senders wallet and search XVrqrpe2ZDmykAnjcAHN6McbuDEjBZSvRZ for the link

what is his point? the mixer address [output] used for this transaction is visible? well of course it yes, we aren't using quantum physics to send the coins, the issue is the mixers input address and original senders output address


since we provided the "last leg"of the TX, he can only back trace to the mixer itself, so far he has NOT Proven anything else

So when you send from original address A to the receiving address D , it goes to the mixer B, the mixer makes a new address C to send the amount to the receiver D? And Chaeplin doesn't get only A?

And chaeplin is adding that the mixer only uses one address for you, so once you know A, you can trace it. Which is what I said before. You have to assume A is known.

that is not how the mixer work's


The highlevel summary is this

The mixer tells the client to send coins to wallet b, however wallet C is used to send coins to the final user, there is NO link from wallet B to wallet C unless somebody manually moves the coins from C to B

seeing how the inputs at http://cryptexplorer.com/address/XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G are unspent, you can't - it is impossible

ah, somebody is spamming that address w/ transactions 0.003 and 0.03

It's me, sorry.

Now you get my point.

XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G is a NEW address aka wallet b.

Code:

this is the received mix transaction

http://cryptexplorer.com/tx/9bc580ea9b7ec69d53dbc28e9cc42f1ea810925137d6cc8c1011e904f7c18bac#o0

—> block 28768

Code:

Hash9bc580ea9b7ec69d53dbc28e9cc42f1ea810925137d6cc8c1011e904f7c18bac
Appeared inX11Coin 28768 (2014-06-11 20:21:51)
Number of inputs2 (Jump to inputs)
Total in2.2
Number of outputs1 (Jump to outputs)
Total out2.19999
Size344 bytes
Fee0.00001
Raw transaction

Inputs

Index   Previous output Amount  From address    ScriptSig
0       84da450271...:1 0.955069        XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV      71:3044...9b01 33:03eb...cd11
1       1c9523ca31...:1 1.244931        XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV      73:3046...9401 33:03eb...cd11
Outputs

Index   Redeemed at input       Amount  To address      ScriptPubKey
0       Not yet redeemed        2.19999 XVrqrpe2ZDmykAnjcAHN6McbuDEjBZSvRZ      DUP HASH160 20:cb0b...0bf4 EQUALVERIFY CHECKSIG

Code:

original transaction --->>>> which was sent TO this address "XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G"


http://cryptexplorer.com/address/XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G

—>

Code:

XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G

Transaction     Block   Approx. Time    Amount  Balance Currency
042451b856...   28764   2014-06-11 20:13:06     0.396016        0.396016        XC
c9e67b0f21...   28764   2014-06-11 20:13:06     1.803984        2.2     XC

block 28764 to block 28768

Code:

* ====> Working block height 28764 has 8 tx

* ====> Searchng XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G

tx: 2   percent 100      value 2.2

*===> block reached

*===> Searchng 28768 : diff : 4

*===> XVrqrpe2ZDmykAnjcAHN6McbuDEjBZSvRZ 2.19999 link is : XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G <----> XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV

Simple python scripts analyze the transaction.
Dev wants hard link.

Now where is link between
XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV and XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G


Easy part.

Mapping.

If there is many transactions, We don't need this.
Block explorer will show the link.

x11coind sendmany 123 '{"XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G": 0.003, "XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV":0.003}’
x11coind sendmany 123 '{"XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G": 0.03, "XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV":0.03}'

!

Watch out.

!


When coins is spent, hard link will appear.

Code:

    {
        "account" : "123",
        "address" : "XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV",
        "category" : "send",
        "amount" : -0.00300000,
        "fee" : -0.00001000,
        "confirmations" : 34,
        "blockhash" : "1f986c7643436e328456252db9d0def76a97f9c2bae10e3ee73a9d427f8f149f",
        "blockindex" : 2,
        "blocktime" : 1402520792,
        "txid" : "eaaa2b356d49c2b5953ecbe4ec112ba8a7fd94c73ee6181b7b837749eca5568e",
        "time" : 1402520581,
        "timereceived" : 1402520581
    },
    {
        "account" : "123",
        "address" : "XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G",
        "category" : "send",
        "amount" : -0.00300000,
        "fee" : -0.00001000,
        "confirmations" : 34,
        "blockhash" : "1f986c7643436e328456252db9d0def76a97f9c2bae10e3ee73a9d427f8f149f",
        "blockindex" : 2,
        "blocktime" : 1402520792,
        "txid" : "eaaa2b356d49c2b5953ecbe4ec112ba8a7fd94c73ee6181b7b837749eca5568e",
        "time" : 1402520581,
        "timereceived" : 1402520581
    },
    {
        "account" : "123",
        "address" : "XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV",
        "category" : "send",
        "amount" : -0.03000000,
        "fee" : -0.00001000,
        "confirmations" : 34,
        "blockhash" : "1f986c7643436e328456252db9d0def76a97f9c2bae10e3ee73a9d427f8f149f",
        "blockindex" : 3,
        "blocktime" : 1402520792,
        "txid" : "d191290208e31f6cf09c360b9f8bb671cea32dded456f00061a00496c8c60263",
        "time" : 1402520778,
        "timereceived" : 1402520778
    },
    {
        "account" : "123",
        "address" : "XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G",
        "category" : "send",
        "amount" : -0.03000000,
        "fee" : -0.00001000,
        "confirmations" : 34,
        "blockhash" : "1f986c7643436e328456252db9d0def76a97f9c2bae10e3ee73a9d427f8f149f",
        "blockindex" : 3,
        "blocktime" : 1402520792,
        "txid" : "d191290208e31f6cf09c360b9f8bb671cea32dded456f00061a00496c8c60263",
        "time" : 1402520778,
        "timereceived" : 1402520778
    }

Hard Link appeared.

http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/block.dws?29113.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/block.dws?29111.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/address.dws?XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G.htm







http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/address.dws?XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G.htm

[1715655374]

1715655374

[1715655374]

1715655374

[1715655374]

1715655374

[1715655374]

1715655374

[1715655374]

1715655374

[1715655374]

1715655374

[phosphorush]

Where is this official DRK twitter FUD? Or do you mean the fake DRK twitter going around? Just like the fake FB? Who is running those?

Actually it got removed after several more reasonable DRK "investors" expressed their contempt for that event.

[phosphorush]

In that regards, DRK seems to have the same problems as XC

Wake up. DRK is trustless. It does not forward coins. It simply asks parties to sign transactions. A transaction is either signed or it is not. If it is, the coins change ownership. The node can't steal.

That's not what BTC core dev seems to think of DRK

[cryptohunter]

In that regards, DRK seems to have the same problems as XC

Wake up. DRK is trustless. It does not forward coins. It simply asks parties to sign transactions. A transaction is either signed or it is not. If it is, the coins change ownership. The node can't steal.

 closed source is trustless  ?

However, yes i get your point.

[phosphorush]

In that regards, DRK seems to have the same problems as XC

Wake up. DRK is trustless. It does not forward coins. It simply asks parties to sign transactions. A transaction is either signed or it is not. If it is, the coins change ownership. The node can't steal.

That's not what BTC core dev seems to think of DRK

More amusingly, what DarkCoin does is highly centralized because the software is closed— you can't get more centralized than closed source. What the actual behavior is, is anyone's guess— it's impossible to review due to it being closed— though "masternodes" does not sound like something decenteralized, it sounds like something that creates a small chokepoint which could be used to deanonymize its users, like a server based CoinJoin but worse since you have to hold a huge pile of coins to run a server.

[illodin]

Are we? It is the DRK fan boys that keep coming to XC threads and spread FUD not the other way around (Official DRK twitter even spread FUD about XC, does that tell you something?). I want DRK to succeed, I just think that XC has much more potential and delivered more in weeks than DRK in months.

Can't tell for everyone else but for me the reason to "spread FUD" was that to me the dev looked very much like he was in over his head with this crypto and especially anon business and I thought it will end in tears sooner or later. And the sooner the better for everyone involved imo.

[slapper]

In that regards, DRK seems to have the same problems as XC

Wake up. DRK is trustless. It does not forward coins. It simply asks parties to sign transactions. A transaction is either signed or it is not. If it is, the coins change ownership. The node can't steal.

 closed source is trustless  ?

However, yes i get your point.

Says the prick with a known scam in his signature, not to mention promoting several scams because of his butthurt for a certain coin.

[phosphorush]

In that regards, DRK seems to have the same problems as XC

Wake up. DRK is trustless. It does not forward coins. It simply asks parties to sign transactions. A transaction is either signed or it is not. If it is, the coins change ownership. The node can't steal.

 closed source is trustless  ?

However, yes i get your point.

Says the prick with a known scam in his signature, not to mention promoting several scams because of his butthurt for a certain coin.

Oh ad hominems, that's a valid argument...

have any ad hominem against gmaxwell too? Should prove your "point".

[slapper]

In that regards, DRK seems to have the same problems as XC

Wake up. DRK is trustless. It does not forward coins. It simply asks parties to sign transactions. A transaction is either signed or it is not. If it is, the coins change ownership. The node can't steal.

 closed source is trustless  ?

However, yes i get your point.

Says the prick with a known scam in his signature, not to mention promoting several scams because of his butthurt for a certain coin.

Oh ad hominems, that's a valid argument...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=639043 another coin that is trying to ride the anon dick ...

[humanitee]

In that regards, DRK seems to have the same problems as XC

Wake up. DRK is trustless. It does not forward coins. It simply asks parties to sign transactions. A transaction is either signed or it is not. If it is, the coins change ownership. The node can't steal.

That's not what BTC core dev seems to think of DRK

More amusingly, what DarkCoin does is highly centralized because the software is closed— you can't get more centralized than closed source. What the actual behavior is, is anyone's guess— it's impossible to review due to it being closed— though "masternodes" does not sound like something decenteralized, it sounds like something that creates a small chokepoint which could be used to deanonymize its users, like a server based CoinJoin but worse since you have to hold a huge pile of coins to run a server.

True.

When DRK open sources then you'll only have to trust the current master node isn't logging the data. Evan is promising an improved anonymity after he fixes master nodes, although this is just a promise and is entirely vaporware at the moment. He hasn't indicated what the method would be. He was promising ring signatures before that, which would have annihilated master node spying, however it would have also annihilated the point of master nodes. Time will tell.

With XC you have to trust the mixer isn't logging the data and that the mixer won't steal your coins. Giving control of your coins to another entity is just asking for trouble.

[GhostPlayer]

More amusingly, what DarkCoin does is highly centralized because the software is closed— you can't get more centralized than closed source. What the actual behavior is, is anyone's guess— it's impossible to review due to it being closed— though "masternodes" does not sound like something decenteralized, it sounds like something that creates a small chokepoint which could be used to deanonymize its users, like a server based CoinJoin but worse since you have to hold a huge pile of coins to run a server.

 
Yet, interestingly, it is gmaxwell himself the first industry leader to be vetting the code. He clearly shows with this statement that he did not study DRK before commenting, because with DRK, the 1k deposit IS NOT to mix, but its PoS. A Masternode never knows who sends coins. Even if bad actor managed to get into a node. They wouldn't even be able to steal the 1k because they're in cold storage. It is impermeable to 51% attacks, the only way to "crack" the network is to own 100% of the Masternode network. Its ridiculously brilliant, the concept. And working ace in testnet. Only time can judge out opinions

 Lets see what he has to say AFTER he actually looks at the code.

 With the huge amount of shitcoins flying around, no wonder he rushed to that conclusion. At first sight, indeed DRK looks centralised. Kristov Atlas expressed interest in looking at the code, he's surely next.

 Anyone vetted XC yet, or at least showed interest?

[illodin]

He was promising ring signatures before that, which would have annihilated master node spying, however it would have also annihilated the point of master nodes. Time will tell.

Because of the scaling issues ring signatures would have annihilated any chance of going mainstream one day.

[phosphorush]

is that even a fair comparison when DRk has months and XC has weeks? For one thing i'm sure, DRK fan boys clearly show a lot of interest in XC

[sukottosan_d]

Again, you guys are confusing - it's like you don't want actual information.

This is one of the major issues with cryptocoins. The people will hold it back because no one wants to buy into a group with so many closed-minded people.

You attack people who showed you an issue and walked you through it.
DRK has testers - that have found bugs, that are being fixed. We said thank you - can you help us eliminate it from our product? And it's already been solved.

[illodin]

For one thing i'm sure, DRK fan boys clearly show a lot of interest in XC

That's probably because of all those ridiculous claims like "xc is only two weeks old and we have already surpassed darkcoin's tech", and "we are far superior to darkcoin", etc. The xc dev hasn't stated any of that (as far as I know), but it's the loud clueless minority that started and kept comparing xc to darkcoin. So when someone new comes to the scene and says I'm far better than you then obviously you become interested.

[illodin]

Again, you guys are confusing - it's like you don't want actual information.

This is one of the major issues with cryptocoins. The people will hold it back because no one wants to buy into a group with so many closed-minded people.

You attack people who showed you an issue and walked you through it.
DRK has testers - that have found bugs, that are being fixed. We said thank you - can you help us eliminate it from our product? And it's already been solved.

Most don't care about long term, only the speculative value. They are just hoping the price rises high enough so they can sell before the serious problems later on cause mass dumpage. If you think of it as a game played for real money, the fundamentals probably don't even matter. Get enough people who think the same way to participate and mix it with people who actually believe in it and you've got a game.

[phosphorush]

There is a difference between constructive criticism and destructiive. If FUD on official twitter is constructive.. well...

Anyway, i'm tired of all this biased bullshit, probably from both sides.

[humanitee]

There is a difference between constructive criticism and destructiive. If FUD on official twitter is constructive.. well...

Anyway, i'm tired of all this biased bullshit, probably from both sides.

Nobody really cares. The pump and dump trolls are the ones who started this whole thing by relentlessly plaguing DRK's thread for days and days and days. Then they came to your thread and tried to manipulate for days and days and days.

Now we all hate each other.

[chaeplin]

https://i.imgur.com/l653XP1.png

https://i.imgur.com/P4s9zCy.png

I do care.

[humanitee]

https://i.imgur.com/l653XP1.png

https://i.imgur.com/P4s9zCy.png

I do care.

I don't. It's clear that DRK is NOT based on anything Fedora related. Anybody with 2 brain cells and some programming experience could see that. I still think XC is a giant scam because of the dev's history and the way he grasps at straws. But if people want to throw money at it, whatever. So long as the DRK thread stays clear of them, I really don't care. I'm going to try and map their blockchain if I get some time, just for the lols. It looks like it wouldn't be too hard to do.

I don't blame you for caring though since they are such raging dicks to you over there. I thought the DRK thread was a vast echo chamber, but the XC thread is serious lols.