Unmoderated XC thread

[chaeplin]

Ref:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7335721#msg7335721

I don't see the whole "multipath" idea yet, but at least mixer outputs come from the 550XC masternode input rather than the senders inputs.


Can some further details or source code be provided for how the signatures for multipath/mixed transactions work for this release? It still doesn't look like there is any multisignature going on between the wallet and mixer wallet so in theory mixers can still steal coins in rev2?.

Not in rev2..  You cant steal coins

Can you address this with technical details or some proof.  I keep seeing people say that these coins will get stolen.  They are even talking about it in CINNI thread.  


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=573232.msg7335393#msg7335393

XC is in the near DUMP or a Pump-n-Dump right now. They released their new wallet. Anyone know if it is better than ours??My feeling it's a scam coin. Thoughts, comments? thnx.

~darylluke.

its a scam and not worth of mention in Cinni thread

would you want a hold a coin that can stolen/lost because of xnode?  its completely experimental, people should able to expect that when they send coins somewhere it ends up at their intended destination, not someplace else because of malfunction or a bad xnode stealing coins.

Its unacceptable for your coins to be at risk because of experimental features.  Imagine you sent anon 100k XC somewhere and a bad xnode hijacks and sends it to their own address.  

Lets set the record straight

#1.  XC is not a scam coin.

#2.  XC's XNode technology is still under development

#3.  You can't send more than 10 XC's through the XNODE system, plus you have to use the debug console, so clearly it is Beta feature that is being tested to demonstrate the progress[and provide PROOF] and provide testing for the code.

#4.  REV2 Will use multisig to prevent stolen coins

Wow multisig !!

I will return when REV2 is released.



By the way, Does XC user know that every splitted tx has been charged tx fee(0.00001000).



See you all later.

[CryptoGretzky]

Ref:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7335721#msg7335721

I don't see the whole "multipath" idea yet, but at least mixer outputs come from the 550XC masternode input rather than the senders inputs.


Can some further details or source code be provided for how the signatures for multipath/mixed transactions work for this release? It still doesn't look like there is any multisignature going on between the wallet and mixer wallet so in theory mixers can still steal coins in rev2?.

Not in rev2..  You cant steal coins

Can you address this with technical details or some proof.  I keep seeing people say that these coins will get stolen.  They are even talking about it in CINNI thread.  


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=573232.msg7335393#msg7335393

XC is in the near DUMP or a Pump-n-Dump right now. They released their new wallet. Anyone know if it is better than ours??My feeling it's a scam coin. Thoughts, comments? thnx.

~darylluke.

its a scam and not worth of mention in Cinni thread

would you want a hold a coin that can stolen/lost because of xnode?  its completely experimental, people should able to expect that when they send coins somewhere it ends up at their intended destination, not someplace else because of malfunction or a bad xnode stealing coins.

Its unacceptable for your coins to be at risk because of experimental features.  Imagine you sent anon 100k XC somewhere and a bad xnode hijacks and sends it to their own address.  

Lets set the record straight

#1.  XC is not a scam coin.

#2.  XC's XNode technology is still under development

#3.  You can't send more than 10 XC's through the XNODE system, plus you have to use the debug console, so clearly it is Beta feature that is being tested to demonstrate the progress[and provide PROOF] and provide testing for the code.

#4.  REV2 Will use multisig to prevent stolen coins

Wow multisig !!

I will return when REV2 is released.



By the way, Does XC user know that every splitted tx has been charged tx fee(0.00001000).



See you all later.

You can't even solve 1.5 multi-path regular coin mixing... you think you can solve 2.0?!?!? LOL

[chaeplin]

You can't even solve 1.5 multi-path regular coin mixing... you think you can solve 2.0?!?!? LOL

You have to learn more.

You don't know the meaning of multisig.

Code:

#4.  REV2 Will use multisig to prevent stolen coins

For you.


http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3718/what-are-multi-signature-transactions


What did he say before ?

ATCsecure can u plz explain how it is prevented from a mixer stealing coins during this beta wallet? 

a mixer on its own can't steal coins, but with out the REV2 trust system and multi-path there is a potential risk of loosing coins through a bad node.  I have setup "hardened" servers for testing, PM for details

"REV2 will have a solution to the bad actor problem.  Using a dynamic learning trust system"

Create Xnode - steal coins.

Shutdown Xnode - Move Coins to new Xnode

steal coins.

Shutdown Xnode - Move Coins to new Xnode

Rinse, repeat.


Cant wait to get started.

Lol, good luck with your uber hax skillz /facepalm

Can someone explain if that is a potential risk?

I know it's probably FUD, but it seems somewhat "logic", anyone to explain?

He wants people to sell XC and buy DRK, read his previous posts. XC and DRK are the two strongest anon Alts. XC appears to be developing tech very quickly however. Oh, someone already stole 1000 DRK, so people should not be throwing stones.

There is no risk, the trust system is designed to prevent this and other potential attack vectors

Is atcsecure still planning on giving an update tonight for future plans as well as more detailed report on xnodes?

Anyone know?

yes, dev posted this earlier.

Sorry but this is going to be fairly brief as I'm exhausted

- Future Plans
     - Finalize Business Plan
     - Identify key market potential opportunities
     - Market analysis for high growth opportunities
     - XC Foundation
     - Structured Corporate Entity
     - Android Wallet

     - Release REV2
  
     - REV2 is a major upgrade to the system, using the existing REV1 code.  It will support a decentralized learning trust system and be not only anonymous but have protection against various attack vectors

     - Post REV2 is Wallet improvements and Working today's the Retail Market Space and Point of Sales and ATM's.  A cost separate analysis will be done on this
         - Wallet Updates to include encrypted IM, encrypted IRC type communications
         - Wallet Updates to support new applications (will update)
          
     - Completing the Android wallet with the Mobile solution mentioned above -

That is the current high level plan, I will create a more formal way to present this and to keep it updated so that is available 24/7

- XNODE

  XNODE is in the wallet, the batch files run it either on mainnet or testnet.  Unfortunately I was not able to complete the testing tonight.  This will happen tomorrow with a basic user guide on how to set it up


ATCSECURE

Flawed !!

[evtrmm]

Sad sad individuals

[chaeplin]

Sad sad individuals

Yes, it's sad.

I have told you people.

I have told Dev.

Now he has changed his mind.


Really sad.

[chaeplin]

+ no more comments on this thread.
+ If anyone asks, I will reply.
+ If anyone annoys me, I will reply.

[evtrmm]

+ no more comments on this thread.
+ If anyone asks, I will reply.
+ If anyone annoys me, I will reply.

Close it? Stop the nonsense from both sides maybe?

[counter]

+ no more comments on this thread.
+ If anyone asks, I will reply.
+ If anyone annoys me, I will reply.

Close it? Stop the nonsense from both sides maybe?

Might not be a bad idea because it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere even remotely close to settled.  Can't imagine much good coming of the back and forth bickering instead I'd suggest letting the facts speak for themselves.  The hostility just makes the thread unreadable.

[adhitthana]

+ no more comments on this thread.
+ If anyone asks, I will reply.
+ If anyone annoys me, I will reply.

Thanks again for your input. It's good to have someone trying to find problems. This is fundamental to science.
Now presently, even Dan the dev admits that technically it would be possible (even if unlikely) to lose coins during a transaction. I think you did a good job of explaining why (though I may have misunderstood).

Are you now thinking that "multi sig" will solve this potential problem?

[chaeplin]

+ no more comments on this thread.
+ If anyone asks, I will reply.
+ If anyone annoys me, I will reply.

Thanks again for your input. It's good to have someone trying to find problems. This is fundamental to science.
Now presently, even Dan the dev admits that technically it would be possible (even if unlikely) to lose coins during a transaction. I think you did a good job of explaining why (though I may have misunderstood).

Are you now thinking that "multi sig" will solve this potential problem?

Current user of Xnode client sends coins to a address issued by Xnode.
Actually user sends coins to real payee. But Xnode client changes it to the address issued by Xnode.

This means Xnode has private key for the address.

Have you check tx out of Xnode user ?
Receiver is Xnode address.

One of worried, I had posted. People steal coins.

Here is brief explanation of multisig.
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3718/what-are-multi-signature-transactions

Code:

A multi-signature address is an address that is associated with more than one ECDSA private key. 
The simplest type is an m-of-n address - it is associated with n private keys, and sending bitcoins 
from this address requires signatures from at least m keys. A multi-signature transaction is one that sends funds from a multi-signature address.

The primary use case is to greatly increase the difficulty of stealing the coins. 
With a 2-of-2 address, you can keep the two keys on separate machines, and then theft will require compromising both, 
which is very difficult - especially if the machines are as different as possible 
(e.g., one pc and one dedicated device, or two hosted machines with a different host and OS).

[jaft16]

I'm still trying to work out what is Ur goal in this thread. If you don't hold any XC and refused to accept the challenge from ATC to crack the 1.5 version. You still banging on about something just to spread fear. Do one Cunt.


You just prove that you are worried on the progress with XC. Don't worry bro there's still time to buy some at this price. Join us or fuck off.

[chaeplin]

I'm still trying to work out what is Ur goal in this thread. If you don't hold any XC and refused to accept the challenge from ATC to crack the 1.5 version. You still banging on about something just to spread fear. Do one Cunt.

+ no more comments on this thread.
+ If anyone asks, I will reply.
+ If anyone annoys me, I will reply.

Do not annoy me.
He asked first.

[acseric]

I have been following this thread.  I think that the issue that Chaeplin is trying to tell you about is that XC id dependent on trusting the XNODE operator.  Because the XNODE is, in effect, scrubbing the link between sender and receiver, the XNODE has access to the senders private key, and therefore, can steal the coins.

This is a huge problem, and why people keep inquiring whether the anon is trusted (how XNODEs work) or trustless.

[cryptohunter]

I have been following this thread.  I think that the issue that Chaeplin is trying to tell you about is that XC id dependent on trusting the XNODE operator.  Because the XNODE is, in effect, scrubbing the link between sender and receiver, the XNODE has access to the senders private key, and therefore, can steal the coins.

This is a huge problem, and why people keep inquiring whether the anon is trusted (how XNODEs work) or trustless.

Yes i agree, but isn't this point nulled now?  i mean atcsecure has altered this so that it does not even work like that any longer? he is implementing something more similar to drks way of doing things?

I mean that's how i understand things. This 1.5 V is this still vulnerable to the same issues or not?

Will not the finished version of xc have a trustless method anyway?

I think though people are a little too hostile to this guy, seems a smart guy who pointed out xc needed some changes..... it's getting changed so no real problem.

The guy is probably invested deep in drk, so motivation for this is clear..... never the less he is actually helping or has helped xc so no need to call the guy names i guess.

If he states only the truth with evidence i see no problem.

[chaeplin]

I have been following this thread.  I think that the issue that Chaeplin is trying to tell you about is that XC id dependent on trusting the XNODE operator.  Because the XNODE is, in effect, scrubbing the link between sender and receiver, the XNODE has access to the senders private key, and therefore, can steal the coins.

This is a huge problem, and why people keep inquiring whether the anon is trusted (how XNODEs work) or trustless.

Nope.. Not like that.


the XNODE has access to the senders private key



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7341002#msg7341002

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7258072#msg7258072

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

What's wrong with this ? It's not wallet. It's address.
B and C are belong to same wallet.

[chaeplin]

Of course you don't want to go into it, because Chaeplin admitted DRK wasn't patching against his pattern matching technique until RC 4.

Whereas Chaeplin couldn't crack XC once it upgraded to the mulitpath protocol, just like the XC dev said. Of course, Chaeplin will give various excuses but the fact he FUDs XC persistently shows his true colours. We both know Chaeplin would have wet himself in excitement if he could quickly crack the challenge and spam his result all over the forum.

FUD.

This shit asshole annoys me.

Do not annoy me.


Not interested anymore.

[slapper]

Let it go mate. No need to attack other communities. XMR is not a scam coin like XC.

People are so doused in XC shit that they have forgotten it is a pile of do-do made up of hatred towards Evan by their leader. No where else have I seen such retardation being celebrated but XC. Fucking used X11coin as the name to mock the birth of Darkcoin. Kept deleting repositories, now no one can ascertain how many coins are actually there. No wonder 100 btc sell walls keep popping and the deluded deranged fanatics call it a sabotage by DRK holders. What the fuck is wrong with people.

Why does XC thread have x11 in their title? makes no sense? you can only buy it from shit selling/salesguys resellers now, so they should name it as such. When you prove it is linkable, they mock you. When you say you are done, they still mock you and call you names. It is like a bunch of people are now proud to be haters for missing out on DRK.

[Mwalshe89]

Let it go mate. No need to attack other communities. XMR is not a scam coin like XC.

People are so doused in XC shit that they have forgotten it is a pile of do-do made up of hatred towards Evan by their leader. No where else have I seen such retardation being celebrated but XC. Fucking used X11coin as the name to mock the birth of Darkcoin. Kept deleting repositories, now no one can ascertain how many coins are actually there. No wonder 100 btc sell walls keep popping and the deluded deranged fanatics call it a sabotage by DRK holders. What the fuck is wrong with people.

Why does XC thread have x11 in their title? makes no sense? you can only buy it from shit selling/salesguys resellers now, so they should name it as such. When you prove it is linkable, they mock you. When you say you are done, they still mock you and call you names. It is like a bunch of people are now proud to be haters for missing out on DRK.

Why would XC owners care about missing out on DRK? they are still early adopters of a technology that will be leaps and bounds ahead of DRK. As far as I can see, all of the issues posted in this thread will be fixed when Rev2 is released, this means XC will have a decentralised p2p anonymous platform while DRK will just be annother anonymous centralised currency.

And to put this in perspective, this has all been built from the ground up in just over a month. The same amount of time its taken DRK to fix one 'simple' bug. Imagine what its going to be like in three months when the XC platform is fully developed and DRK is only nearing somewhat anonymity. You guys are seriously going to lag behind. Your dev is an amateur compared to XC's, there is no doubt about it.

Its you guys who are on the wrong ship, not us. It just seems like you don't want to accept it.

But whatever, XC still has leaps and bounds to go while DRK has hit its peak. I know which one im invested in.

[illodin]

I know which one im invested in.

[Mwalshe89]

Why would XC owners care about missing out on DRK? they are still early adopters of a technology that will be leaps and bounds ahead of DRK. As far as I can see, all of the issues posted in this thread will be fixed when Rev2 is released, this means XC will have a decentralised p2p anonymous platform while DRK will just be annother anonymous centralised currency.

And to put this in perspective, this has all been built from the ground up in just over a month. The same amount of time its taken DRK to fix one 'simple' bug. Imagine what its going to be like in three months when the XC platform is fully developed and DRK is only nearing somewhat anonymity. You guys are seriously going to lag behind. Your dev is an amateur compared to XC's, there is no doubt about it.

Its you guys who are on the wrong ship, not us. It just seems like you don't want to accept it.

But whatever, XC still has leaps and bounds to go while DRK has hit its peak. I know which one im invested in.

I know which one im invested in.

Loving the counter-arguement. Speaks volumes.