Unmoderated XC thread

[chaeplin]

^^

For those who don't understand this.
You should read this http://tech.eu/features/808/bitcoin-part-one/




Why input is so important ?

Input
An input is a reference to an output in a different transaction. Multiple inputs are often listed in a transaction. The values of the referenced outputs are added up, and the total is usable in the outputs of this transaction. Previous tx is a hash of a previous transaction. Index is the specific output in the referenced transaction. ScriptSig is the first half of a script (discussed in more detail later).

The script contains two components, a signature and a public key. The public key belongs to the redeemer of the output transaction and proves the creator is allowed to redeem the outputs value. The other component is an ECDSA signature over a hash of a simplified version of the transaction. It, combined with the public key, proves the transaction was created by the real owner of the address in question. Various flags define how the transaction is simplified and can be used to create different types of payment.

from https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transactions


the transaction spend from multiple addresses == a common party controlled those addresses [xc mixer, single wallet]

the transaction spend from multiple addresses =/= a common party controlled those addresses [coinjoin and variant]









As stated here.

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

Owner of Xnode should know this, for privacy of xnode user.

* Do not spend coins.

[phosphorush]

My progress claims stil holds, even now they postponed the upgrade... maybe in 1 year DRK team can actually deliver what they promised lol

[roede94105]

My progress claims stil holds, even now they postponed the upgrade... maybe in 1 year DRK team can actually deliver what they promised lol

Yeah lol, not like darksend and Masternodes work and it's late just for the payment of MN.

Oh wait.

[chaeplin]

For those who don't understand this.
You should read this http://tech.eu/features/808/bitcoin-part-one/




As stated here.

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

It is clear that Dev has no idea on multiple input.

there is NO link from wallet B to wallet C unless somebody manually moves the coins from C to B

There is link from wallet B to wallet C when those are spent in single tx as of input.

[AlexGR]

My progress claims stil holds, even now they postponed the upgrade... maybe in 1 year DRK team can actually deliver what they promised lol

The specs were upgraded along the way hence the delivery takes more time.

Plain coinjoin evolved into DarkSend to solve issues that appeared while implementing coinjoin (like DOS).

Normal node mixing evolved into masternodes and introduction of proof-of-service with masternode payments that is a platform for various services across the network - something impossible with plain nodes. It also future-proofs the network in ways that haven't been solved up to now.

So there is actually over-delivery in the part of the dev compared to the initial plan. And the competing with the other top altcoins / bitcoin part is right on track (what a DRK buyer wants to see).

As for the rest of vapor-ware coins, why are they so anxious for Darkcoin to finish? Ah yes, because they have nothing to show for and want DarkSend opened.

[phosphorush]

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.

[AlexGR]

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.

One can deliver you a ton of rotten meat or a kilogram of fresh meat. What would you rather eat?

Coin forwarding = broken technique because it is based on trust to the node to not steal the coins.

Satoshi invented trustless transactions and now we are regressing back to trusted transactions.

You can argue this is "progress" or "innovation", but in reality it is not.

[phosphorush]

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.

One can deliver you a ton of rotten meat or a kilogram of fresh meat. What would you rather eat?

Coin forwarding = broken technique because it is based on trust to the node to not steal the coins.

Satoshi invented trustless transactions and now we are regressing back to trusted transactions.

You can argue this is "progress" or "innovation", but in reality it is not.

In that regards, DRK seems to have the same problems as XC -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=641178.0

But why you DRK fan boys (and devs too, it seems, from my point above) are so concerned about XC? And why did you twist it around when the facts (the same stated above) clearly show that?

[GhostPlayer]

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.

I tried restraining from posting here, as I am a DRK "fanboy" if you will... I cannot let this one pass. 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?

 We, DRK "fanboys" with our "masterbater" servers, were happily helping each other out with debate, mining, and node setup, when all of a sudden we got flooded with XC speard. We went nowhere except our little home in the BTCtalk thread.

 A huge and clearly coordinated FUD campaign attacked our thread. Many accusations flew.
 How can you say what you just said, when it is exactly the opposite? chaeplin blew XC wide open as flawed. XC invaded DRK space. DRK will deliver this month, and the next, and the one after that. It works here and now, and its not even finished with all its feature (MN payments, 10 DRK limit, new stuff Evan has not revealed, vetting by industry leaders, open source)

 How on earth can XC deliver if it is fundamentally flawed?
 Even when brought down to your knees, in pure technical analysis, you embarrass yourself in this way, as what, a last resort?

 Competition is good. Stupidity is not. XC cannot fix a fundamental flaw in its core design in months, while the next stage of DRK is mere weeks ahead.

Get your facts straight.

 You should be tipping chaeplin. He's only feeding you good stuff to fix that you didnt even know about about.
 

[AlexGR]

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.

[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.

Literally lol'd when I read his reply.

[GhostPlayer]

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.

 At this point, even if the main XC dev himself killed the coin, would make no difference to the discussion. And "we" are the "fanboys".
 Ok, sure, no prob.

[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

[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".