Unmoderated XC thread

[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.

[illodin]

Loving the counter-arguement. Speaks volumes.

It was exactly what your arguments were worth. Would you've been happier if I responded with a slur of zero-substance buzz words?

[Mwalshe89]

Loving the counter-arguement. Speaks volumes.

It was exactly what your arguments were worth. Would you've been happier if I responded with a slur of zero-substance buzz words?

Zero substance buzzwords? These arn't buzzwords, they are substantiated facts. I'm sorry you don't understand what is the basis for an argument here.

The fact is, DRK offers a poorly designed option for a centralised anonymous currency, while XC in a matter of days will be considerably more anonymous and much more secure, and it will lay the foundations for a decentralised platform. What took DRK nearly six months to achieve has been significantly bettered in less than two. We're now in a situation where we are comparing a semi centralised coinjoin clone to a decentralised P2P anonymous platform.

The only thing DRK has got going for it was its initial media attention as a first mover, if it started now as brand new coin its technology would be laughed out of the room as another shity P&D.

You can keep deviating from the arguement but please, tell me where I'm wrong.

[illodin]

XC in a matter of days will be considerably more anonymous and much more secure
...
please, tell me where I'm wrong.

XC nodes can steal the coins from the transaction. Very secure indeed.

P2P anonymous platform.

What is this amazing buzz word "platform" you keep referring to btw?

[Mwalshe89]

XC in a matter of days will be considerably more anonymous and much more secure
...
please, tell me where I'm wrong.

XC nodes can steal the coins from the transaction. Very secure indeed.

P2P anonymous platform.

What is this amazing buzz word "platform" you keep referring to btw?

XC nodes won't be able to steal the coins once Rev 2 is released. Multisig implementation will prevent this. From there it is a complete solution. This will be released in the next couple of weeks. Unlike the DRK Dev the XC Dev actually sticks to, and beats deadlines.

Platform, in the next few days the first features will be introduced, first I believe will be anonymous P2P IM. From there the xnode architecture can be built on to provide hundreds of different types of applications in a P2P decentralised structure, the possibilities are endless and only limited by the developers. XNode system is setup to be built upon, not as just mixers

You can check all this for yourself if you just did your research instead of asking stupid questions.

Anything else? Or is that actually it? Because I can create a list ten times larger than that for DRKs issues.

[illodin]

XC in a matter of days will be considerably more anonymous and much more secure
...
please, tell me where I'm wrong.

XC nodes can steal the coins from the transaction. Very secure indeed.

P2P anonymous platform.

What is this amazing buzz word "platform" you keep referring to btw?

XC nodes won't be able to steal the coins once Rev 2 is released. Multisig implementation will prevent this. From there it is a complete solution. This will be released in the next couple of weeks.

I thought you were saying in a matter of days. Ok, it's weeks then. You mean multisig like darkcoin?   What happened to the dynamic trust model? I can see what the next step is.. *cough* collateral *cough*. It would be probably easier to wait until drk is open sourced and fork from that.

Platform, in the next few days the first features will be introduced, first I believe will be anonymous P2P IM. From there the xnode architecture can be built on to provide hundreds of different types of applications in a P2P decentralised structure, the possibilities are endless and only limited by the developers. XNode system is setup to be built upon, not as just mixers

And this differs from the bitcoin "platform" or any other coin's "platform" how exactly? You could say that about every coin, because every coin has nodes that can be programmed to do anything.

[chaeplin]

I've just completed a test on the multi-path system

Receivers Address --->>>>> XXcJEFKxziaH8trY6DruHx9ap39rnDJbK7 - 0.03 XC's


I am going to put a password zip file online with the details


ATSECURE

it's only fair if you already upload detail somewhere with timestamp before anyone post their answer then release the detail next day. if you don't release the detail then chance the answer is correct but if no answer then chaplin can't find the way to track it.

The file has been uploaded.. And after 24 hours I will release the location and by Sunday the password if nobody has submitted the address

Where is the file and password and address btw ?

[CoinsDude]

Not interested anymore.

I thought that you were not interested anymore?

[stealth923]

XC in a matter of days will be considerably more anonymous and much more secure
...
please, tell me where I'm wrong.

XC nodes can steal the coins from the transaction. Very secure indeed.

P2P anonymous platform.

What is this amazing buzz word "platform" you keep referring to btw?

XC nodes won't be able to steal the coins once Rev 2 is released. Multisig implementation will prevent this. From there it is a complete solution. This will be released in the next couple of weeks. Unlike the DRK Dev the XC Dev actually sticks to, and beats deadlines.

Platform, in the next few days the first features will be introduced, first I believe will be anonymous P2P IM. From there the xnode architecture can be built on to provide hundreds of different types of applications in a P2P decentralised structure, the possibilities are endless and only limited by the developers. XNode system is setup to be built upon, not as just mixers

You can check all this for yourself if you just did your research instead of asking stupid questions.

Anything else? Or is that actually it? Because I can create a list ten times larger than that for DRKs issues.

Are you that stupid....you keep saying "Just wait until XC Rev 2 and multi-sigs".

You do realise DRK already has multi-sigs in Darksend and is currently functional. XC dev switched to multi-sigs when he realised he couldn't get around the bad actor problem and is now following Darksend.

At this current time XC 1.5 transfers the ACTUAL coins to the mixer. How fucking stupid is that.

Edit: And also what did happen to the buzz word filled "dynamic trust learning system" just wait when XC Dev announces "XC Collateral" again following Darkcoin.