Unmoderated XC thread

[benthach]

My intentions on Unmoderated XC thread:

The right of privacy.

Haha owned this thread in one sentence. Anyonymity. What anonymity. Privacy at best.

are you talking about scam DRK(darkcoin)?

[SushiChef]

I tought this thread was called Unmoderated XC.. could we change the name to DRK promo thread?

lets change it to "XC ridiculous anonymous claims"

could you elaborate a little more on your statement?

[From Above]

I tought this thread was called Unmoderated XC.. could we change the name to DRK promo thread?

lets change it to "XC ridiculous anonymous claims"

could you elaborate a little more on your statement?

lol

[SushiChef]

I tought this thread was called Unmoderated XC.. could we change the name to DRK promo thread?

lets change it to "XC ridiculous anonymous claims"

could you elaborate a little more on your statement?

lol

I see.. no brains in here

[From Above]

I tought this thread was called Unmoderated XC.. could we change the name to DRK promo thread?

lets change it to "XC ridiculous anonymous claims"

could you elaborate a little more on your statement?

lol

I see.. no brains in here

ur brains obviously lack sarcasm detection. ouch. grand fail!

[SushiChef]

Probably because of the 25+ beer and half a bottle of whiskey I drank last night during and after Spain-Netherlands

[roede94105]

Probably because of the 25+ beer and half a bottle of whiskey I drank last night during and after Spain-Netherlands

wow so badass

why don't you tell us about the 2 girls also waiting in your jacuzzi

2edgy4me

[jaft16]

In RC3, might be possible on changes, not on payment.
In RC4, My method will be useless on both changes and payment.

Excuse my ignoarnce but what is RC3 and RC4?
Thanks again...you are a great help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle

Why will you method be useless by then?
And thanks again

Currently, Payments are free from linking.
In RC4, changes will be free from linking.

The problems addressed in this were handled hundreds of pages ago.
Darksend isn't finished yet and was never promised to be 100% anonymous unless you use great care.
Plus RC4 will have great improvements to the anonymity offered.

Thanks you have helped us loads, you are only here to make us look bad but you actually made us better.
Please do test the last update because if you don't you will just prove that u can't do it ahhaha.
And now you are on defence mode saying that Drk will have amazing features but yet nothing has been released to fix your anon.

[chaeplin]

In RC3, might be possible on changes, not on payment.
In RC4, My method will be useless on both changes and payment.

Excuse my ignoarnce but what is RC3 and RC4?
Thanks again...you are a great help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle

Why will you method be useless by then?
And thanks again

Currently, Payments are free from linking.
In RC4, changes will be free from linking.

The problems addressed in this were handled hundreds of pages ago.
Darksend isn't finished yet and was never promised to be 100% anonymous unless you use great care.
Plus RC4 will have great improvements to the anonymity offered.

Thanks you have helped us loads, you are only here to make us look bad but you actually made us better.
Please do test the last update because if you don't you will just prove that u can't do it ahhaha.
And now you are on defence mode saying that Drk will have amazing features but yet nothing has been released to fix your anon.

We call it spiritual victory. 정신승리

[jaft16]

 

[mr_random]

So XC now offers greater anonymity protection than DRK, since Chaeplins pattern matching still works against DRK but no longer works against XC after the update to XC multipath.

Sweet  

[AlexGR]

Chaeplin can you try something with XC since you have a wallet installed - and if it's not much trouble..

Script 100 transfers of something like 0.1 XC each to a specific address of yours, to see

1) how many of these transfers made it to the destination to find the reliability % (if 95 go to the destination, it's 95%)

2) check the size caused to the blockchain for these transactions for these blocks

3) report the tx fees paid for these 100 transfers

[chaeplin]

Chaeplin can you try something with XC since you have a wallet installed - and if it's not much trouble..

Script 100 transfers of something like 0.1 XC each to a specific address of yours, to see

1) how many of these transfers made it to the destination to find the reliability % (if 95 go to the destination, it's 95%)

2) check the size caused to the blockchain for these transactions for these blocks

3) report the tx fees paid for these 100 transfers

If tx is missing or not confirmed, wallet will rebroadcast missing tx again.

[chaeplin]

FUD

Sweet  

Hey, I haven't looked at it.
Not interested.

Enjoy your spiritual victory. 정신승리  

[NewWorldCoiner]

In RC3, might be possible on changes, not on payment.
In RC4, My method will be useless on both changes and payment.

Excuse my ignoarnce but what is RC3 and RC4?
Thanks again...you are a great help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle

Why will you method be useless by then?
And thanks again

Currently, Payments are free from linking.
In RC4, changes will be free from linking.

The problems addressed in this were handled hundreds of pages ago.
Darksend isn't finished yet and was never promised to be 100% anonymous unless you use great care.
Plus RC4 will have great improvements to the anonymity offered.

Thanks you have helped us loads, you are only here to make us look bad but you actually made us better.
Please do test the last update because if you don't you will just prove that u can't do it ahhaha.
And now you are on defence mode saying that Drk will have amazing features but yet nothing has been released to fix your anon.

We call it spiritual victory. 정신승리

Oh dear.

With this last statement, you've just destroyed any credibility you may have had. I stupidly believed that you just wanted to see technology that worked properly, instead you were seeking some kind of spiritual victory? Well I hope you keep believing that you won your victory, and that it was worth it, because all you've really done is promote XC. The only person on these threads with the knowledge to perform this kind of analysis, and you couldn't do it. Instead of admitting that, you retreat, declaring victory as you do so. I'm afraid the only looser in this battle is you.

[minerjav]

Not sure if I understand, but he declare your spiritual victory.

Is sad when somebody try to help to find the truth about a specific topic and the community of this coin try to put him down.
When an entire troller community doesn't want the help (for whatever reason), the smartest and honorable decision is just do what Chaeplin did with the announcement.

Unfortunately, the good people of this community (I think they are the majority) is the only looser, because they will need to wait long time or find other "really expensive" guy to find the truth about this topic.

Oh dear.

With this last statement, you've just destroyed any credibility you may have had. I stupidly believed that you just wanted to see technology that worked properly, instead you were seeking some kind of spiritual victory? Well I hope you keep believing that you won your victory, and that it was worth it, because all you've really done is promote XC. The only person on these threads with the knowledge to perform this kind of analysis, and you couldn't do it. Instead of admitting that, you retreat, declaring victory as you do so. I'm afraid the only looser in this battle is you.

Hey, I haven't looked at it.
Not interested.

Enjoy your spiritual victory. 정신승리  

[benthach]

In RC3, might be possible on changes, not on payment.
In RC4, My method will be useless on both changes and payment.

Excuse my ignoarnce but what is RC3 and RC4?
Thanks again...you are a great help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle

Why will you method be useless by then?
And thanks again

Currently, Payments are free from linking.
In RC4, changes will be free from linking.

The problems addressed in this were handled hundreds of pages ago.
Darksend isn't finished yet and was never promised to be 100% anonymous unless you use great care.
Plus RC4 will have great improvements to the anonymity offered.

Thanks you have helped us loads, you are only here to make us look bad but you actually made us better.
Please do test the last update because if you don't you will just prove that u can't do it ahhaha.
And now you are on defence mode saying that Drk will have amazing features but yet nothing has been released to fix your anon.

We call it spiritual victory. 정신승리

Oh dear.

With this last statement, you've just destroyed any credibility you may have had. I stupidly believed that you just wanted to see technology that worked properly, instead you were seeking some kind of spiritual victory? Well I hope you keep believing that you won your victory, and that it was worth it, because all you've really done is promote XC. The only person on these threads with the knowledge to perform this kind of analysis, and you couldn't do it. Instead of admitting that, you retreat, declaring victory as you do so. I'm afraid the only looser in this battle is you.

yes, chaeplin have lose any credibility the moment he don't interested the challenge. rather of saying he can't no longer trace the transaction instead declaring himself spirital victory/victory or no interested. whatever the crap victory he's into, kim jung un victory or something. i do think he did help the dev a lot though.

[chaeplin]

8. However this is obviously false, because:
    - there's no record in the blockchain linking Wallet B's transaction with Wallet C's transaction fee.
    - there's no record in the blockchain that a single address received the money that Wallets B and C spent.

Therefore Chaeplin did not establish proof of a link between Wallets B and C.

Your statement is wrong.

You explain exactly, spamming and common ownership.
Xc hasn't implemented coinjoin yet(May be I am wrong)


So, if outputs of two tx are spent in a single tx, B and C is belong to single entity.

And I provided it.
 

Do you think it's fee ? Fee is not appeared in input

This is the single tx, I provided. check blcok no. 29113

http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?97299.htm

Check input index 14, 18

Code:

ndex	Previous output	Address	Amount
14	d191290208e3...:1	XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G	0.03 XC
18	c352aeeeaea9...:1	XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G	0.003 XC

This is previous output, I spammed.
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96523.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96699.htm

EDIT: original spamming
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96522.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96523.htm

Two linked address
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/address.dws?XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/address.dws?XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G.htm

Check block 29111, 29113



I have showed XC community what is input, what is output,
what is change address, what is listaddressgroupings, how to read block explorer.

I am ordinary people, not extra.

I learned how to read block explorer.

So many people in drk thread have taught me.

I have learned every day.



I have proved by spamming.
And there is possibility of linking by Xnode owner(unintentionally spend coins)

I have written these in uxc thread.


XC is yours. Do your job.

[chaeplin]

[snip]

great summary, given the fact that he backed out of the newest challange for the multipath beta i think his intentions are clear now. but that doesn'T metter after all, the whole process helped XC finally but since that wasn't his personal intention  (rather the opposite) there is no need for a thank you or any kind of forgiving gesture either.

the status quo is this: the only guy who could find the sender with a method that wasn 100% fair play anyway can no longer find it now with REV1.5 !!!

the test is still running so i don't celebrate before the final wistle

Chaeplin's stated reason for not testing the new release is that he believes ATCSECURE did not acknowledge the hard link Chaeplin provided.

I think that we are obliged to give Chaeplin the benefit of the doubt here regarding his beliefs, since we have no proof of the contrary. If I were in his position and genuinely believed that I'd been hard done by, I'd also be unwilling to continue.

It's just unfortunate that he's mistaken in his belief. That's all it comes down to, in my opinion.


As an aside, I think it's a good idea to be gracious to one's opponents. It makes one a good sport. We gain nothing by being victorious and mean.

Does Xnode use coinjoin or coinjoin variant ?

As far as I know, not yet.


If multiple inputs are spend in single tx as of input, I can assure address are belong to single entity.

Xnode will not reuse output from previous used address for mixing in normal circumstance.
Because Xnode issue a new address to xnode user, and spend it once later.

Anyway I have spammed all the suspicious address, 0.00001, 0.003, 0.03~~

When xnode send a real payee those inputs are used as multiple input.

Nomaly will not happen.

http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?97294.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?97299.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?99154.htm

Those 0.00* are my spam.

My addresses are here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7299828#msg7299828

[chaeplin]

SO Chaeplin couldn't prove any thing so he tries to stir up the debate with non-trivial information.



Lets ALL BE CLEAR - PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL SENDERS ADDRESS or STFU!!!!!

Can you deny this ?
Is not single entity ?

This is your a Xnode address.