[ANN][XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthText, World's first anonymous SMS Tx!

[LongAndShort]

Why in the hell would Chandran signatures be unlinkable ?
Thats the most ridiculous  FUD I've ever seen. He's just trying to FUD for non-technical guys here. He doesn't know shit what he's talking about.

They are unlinkable/traceable in the way hondo is implying. Saying they are not, is the most ridiculous thing anyone that knows has heard. Kinda like him saying that stealth addresses are a working representation of PoSA..ridiculous!! Something you would expect from a dev/s who has ported most of his work and has gone as far as removing the copyright of razorcoins work and replaced it with their own. if you imply such standard is capable of implementing something that is not doable the way they are implying you also can join the ranks of the majority in this thread.

Lets just assume these facts:

1. CryptoNote is a way to implement ring signatures into a blockchain
2. Chandran signature is a ring signature scheme with less space requirement

So, you are either saying:

1. CryptoNote is a scam, ring signatures could not be implemented !
2. Chandran signature paper is a lie, it doesn't provide a ring signature model !
3. Implementing Chandran signatures instead of normal ring signatures require more requisites.

If you are not completely retarded, your objection is number 3. Read this paper and tell me that requirement, as I haven't found any:
http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~sahai/work/web/2007%20Publications/ICALP_Chandran2007.pdf

If you can't, just fuck off

sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable/traceable

[risefromtheashes74]

https://i.imgur.com/DDMBW.jpg

Oh man, that a good laugh!

[erok]

Why in the hell would Chandran signatures be unlinkable ?
Thats the most ridiculous  FUD I've ever seen. He's just trying to FUD for non-technical guys here. He doesn't know shit what he's talking about.

They are unlinkable/traceable in the way hondo is implying. Saying they are not, is the most ridiculous thing anyone that knows has heard. Kinda like him saying that stealth addresses are a working representation of PoSA..ridiculous!! Something you would expect from a dev/s who has ported most of his work and has gone as far as removing the copyright of razorcoins work and replaced it with their own. if you imply such standard is capable of implementing something that is not doable the way they are implying you also can join the ranks of the majority in this thread.

You made yourself the majority in this thread... in as little as 3 days. Bravo, my friend!

seriously is that all you have to say...even now..you are getting more and more desperate..whats next going to question my sexuality!? ofc you are because it has nothing to do with the glaring issues in this thread!

stealthsend is vaporware deal with it and lets talk about it

lol

Where am I questioning your sexuality? I am openly bisexual & mainly date transwomen. Why would I question your sexuality?
The gay dog video has nothing to do with you, if that's what you're going off.
The thread was getting too serious & I wanted to get a laugh out of people.
If it makes you happy, I'll let you quote me on this... "I have probably sucked more cock than LongAndShort."
You are grasping at straws at this point & you grabbed the wrong straw.

At least you said "probably".

[risefromtheashes74]

Why in the hell would Chandran signatures be unlinkable ?
Thats the most ridiculous  FUD I've ever seen. He's just trying to FUD for non-technical guys here. He doesn't know shit what he's talking about.

They are unlinkable/traceable in the way hondo is implying. Saying they are not, is the most ridiculous thing anyone that knows has heard. Kinda like him saying that stealth addresses are a working representation of PoSA..ridiculous!! Something you would expect from a dev/s who has ported most of his work and has gone as far as removing the copyright of razorcoins work and replaced it with their own. if you imply such standard is capable of implementing something that is not doable the way they are implying you also can join the ranks of the majority in this thread.

You made yourself the majority in this thread... in as little as 3 days. Bravo, my friend!

seriously is that all you have to say...even now..you are getting more and more desperate..whats next going to question my sexuality!? ofc you are because it has nothing to do with the glaring issues in this thread!

stealthsend is vaporware deal with it and lets talk about it

lol

Where am I questioning your sexuality? I am openly bisexual & mainly date transwomen. Why would I question your sexuality?
The gay dog video has nothing to do with you, if that's what you're going off.
The thread was getting too serious & I wanted to get a laugh out of people.
If it makes you happy, I'll let you quote me on this... "I have probably sucked more cock than LongAndShort."
You are grasping at straws at this point & you grabbed the wrong straw.

I guess at least you said "probably".

I don't like to assume anything without facts, unlike LongAndShort.

[risefromtheashes74]

I love the "dead silence effect"

[CryptoPiero]

sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable/traceable

This is the CryptoNote whitepaper:
https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

By combining both methods (unlinkable public keys and untraceable ring signature) Bob achieves
new level of privacy in comparison with the original Bitcoin scheme.

Please read section 4.4 and 4.5. A ring signature doesn't have to be 'traceable' for anonymizing transactions. I'm not even talking on a vaporware, this is CryptoNote. Jamming technical words you don't understand together doesn't make you look smart.

[Viper1]

I would like to know what happens when you all find out hondo cannot implement chandran sigs tin the way he is implying

So I've been watching the drama of you saying this over and over again.  Can you share with me who those crypto people are that are saying it can't be done?  Where's a technical thread discussing it?  Cause a few weeks back I had an exchange with a Monero dev about chandran sigs and he said they were looking into it for Monero.  Basically, he said that, although the reduced size for chandran sigs is true for large mixes, it's not true for small ones (the white paper was written in a misleading way to present things in a better light).  Thus, they were looking at potentially using them for large mix transactions and continuing to use the ring signatures for small ones.  Sooooo.  If they're looking at chandran sigs and, at least at that point, they believed they were viable, I'd like to know who these other people are that say they're not.

Note: I'm not one of the XST cult members and have been labeled a troll and FUDer by this community.  But I like to know the facts of things regardless of what thread I can get them from.

[LongAndShort]

sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable/traceable

This is the CryptoNote whitepaper:
https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

By combining both methods (unlinkable public keys and untraceable ring signature) Bob achieves
new level of privacy in comparison with the original Bitcoin scheme.

Please read section 4.4 and 4.5. A ring signature doesn't have to be 'traceable' for anonymizing transactions. I'm not even talking on a vaporware, this is CryptoNote. Jamming technical words you don't understand together doesn't make you look smart.

But you sure as hell are going to give it a go right!?

it has to be traceable, so you have like a public tag, otherwise the same ringsignature could just be created again, and they could double spend. Linkable: (in the context of ring sigs) seems to mean that the same tag can't be used twice in the same ring traceable means the tag can't be used twice regardless of the keys in the ring.

[LongAndShort]

I would like to know what happens when you all find out hondo cannot implement chandran sigs tin the way he is implying

So I've been watching the drama of you saying this over and over again.  Can you share with me who those crypto people are that are saying it can't be done?  Where's a technical thread discussing it?  Cause a few weeks back I had an exchange with a Monero dev about chandran sigs and he said they were looking into it for Monero.  Basically, he said that, although the reduced size for chandran sigs is true for large mixes, it's not true for small ones (the white paper was written in a misleading way to present things in a better light).  Thus, they were looking at potentially using them for large mix transactions and continuing to use the ring signatures for small ones.  Sooooo.  If they're looking at chandran sigs and, at least at that point, they believed they were viable, I'd like to know who these other people are that say they're not.

Note: I'm not one of the XST cult members and have been labeled a troll and FUDer by this community.  But I like to know the facts of things regardless of what thread I can get them from.

Sure you're not a fudder and whatever other stupid words people use to categorize things under but you are asking the right questions i just feel they are somewhat loaded but the answer is simple you can't do it with plain ring signatures... it has to be linkable / traceable signatures making it undoable in the way that hondo is implying

[CryptoPiero]

sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable/traceable

This is the CryptoNote whitepaper:
https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

By combining both methods (unlinkable public keys and untraceable ring signature) Bob achieves
new level of privacy in comparison with the original Bitcoin scheme.

Please read section 4.4 and 4.5. A ring signature doesn't have to be 'traceable' for anonymizing transactions. I'm not even talking on a vaporware, this is CryptoNote. Jamming technical words you don't understand together doesn't make you look smart.

But you sure as hell are going to give it a go right!?

it has to be traceable, so you have like a public tag, otherwise the same ringsignature could just be created again, and they could double spend. Linkable: (in the context of ring sigs) seems to mean that the same tag can't be used twice in the same ring traceable means the tag can't be used twice regardless of the keys in the ring.

Read that whitepaper !!

In section 4.4 in the LNK scheme you can find how CryptoNote is doing this without a tag.

[LongAndShort]

sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable/traceable

This is the CryptoNote whitepaper:
https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

By combining both methods (unlinkable public keys and untraceable ring signature) Bob achieves
new level of privacy in comparison with the original Bitcoin scheme.

Please read section 4.4 and 4.5. A ring signature doesn't have to be 'traceable' for anonymizing transactions. I'm not even talking on a vaporware, this is CryptoNote. Jamming technical words you don't understand together doesn't make you look smart.

But you sure as hell are going to give it a go right!?

it has to be traceable, so you have like a public tag, otherwise the same ringsignature could just be created again, and they could double spend. Linkable: (in the context of ring sigs) seems to mean that the same tag can't be used twice in the same ring traceable means the tag can't be used twice regardless of the keys in the ring.

Read that whitepaper !!

In section 4.4 in the LNK scheme you can find how CryptoNote is doing this without a tag.

Sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable / traceable

[CryptoPiero]

sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable/traceable

This is the CryptoNote whitepaper:
https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

By combining both methods (unlinkable public keys and untraceable ring signature) Bob achieves
new level of privacy in comparison with the original Bitcoin scheme.

Please read section 4.4 and 4.5. A ring signature doesn't have to be 'traceable' for anonymizing transactions. I'm not even talking on a vaporware, this is CryptoNote. Jamming technical words you don't understand together doesn't make you look smart.

But you sure as hell are going to give it a go right!?

it has to be traceable, so you have like a public tag, otherwise the same ringsignature could just be created again, and they could double spend. Linkable: (in the context of ring sigs) seems to mean that the same tag can't be used twice in the same ring traceable means the tag can't be used twice regardless of the keys in the ring.

Read that whitepaper !!

In section 4.4 in the LNK scheme you can find how CryptoNote is doing this without a tag.

Sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable / traceable

You are sad.

[LongAndShort]

sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable/traceable

This is the CryptoNote whitepaper:
https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

By combining both methods (unlinkable public keys and untraceable ring signature) Bob achieves
new level of privacy in comparison with the original Bitcoin scheme.

Please read section 4.4 and 4.5. A ring signature doesn't have to be 'traceable' for anonymizing transactions. I'm not even talking on a vaporware, this is CryptoNote. Jamming technical words you don't understand together doesn't make you look smart.

But you sure as hell are going to give it a go right!?

it has to be traceable, so you have like a public tag, otherwise the same ringsignature could just be created again, and they could double spend. Linkable: (in the context of ring sigs) seems to mean that the same tag can't be used twice in the same ring traceable means the tag can't be used twice regardless of the keys in the ring.

Read that whitepaper !!

In section 4.4 in the LNK scheme you can find how CryptoNote is doing this without a tag.

Sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable / traceable

You are sad.

You refuse to accept the facts what is not sad about that!

[risefromtheashes74]

About to hit the hay now, how long has LongAndShort been going non-stop? It doesn't seem like he's slept in a couple days.
That ain't good for ya, bro!

[Jordan23]

sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable/traceable

This is the CryptoNote whitepaper:
https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

By combining both methods (unlinkable public keys and untraceable ring signature) Bob achieves
new level of privacy in comparison with the original Bitcoin scheme.

Please read section 4.4 and 4.5. A ring signature doesn't have to be 'traceable' for anonymizing transactions. I'm not even talking on a vaporware, this is CryptoNote. Jamming technical words you don't understand together doesn't make you look smart.

But you sure as hell are going to give it a go right!?

it has to be traceable, so you have like a public tag, otherwise the same ringsignature could just be created again, and they could double spend. Linkable: (in the context of ring sigs) seems to mean that the same tag can't be used twice in the same ring traceable means the tag can't be used twice regardless of the keys in the ring.

Read that whitepaper !!

In section 4.4 in the LNK scheme you can find how CryptoNote is doing this without a tag.

Sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable / traceable

You are sad.

You refuse to accept the facts what is not sad about that!

You refuse to explain in detail how they are not linkable. Your answer was someone told you.

[gustopaz]

187       Rx42oxZ8jYNJZ7NSkwbQKFEUbdHVifZsHz    7093.828157    0.53792499 BTC    $ 197.10    0.03%    2014-08-12 03:23    -153    ///  LOL

[Viper1]

I would like to know what happens when you all find out hondo cannot implement chandran sigs tin the way he is implying

So I've been watching the drama of you saying this over and over again.  Can you share with me who those crypto people are that are saying it can't be done?  Where's a technical thread discussing it?  Cause a few weeks back I had an exchange with a Monero dev about chandran sigs and he said they were looking into it for Monero.  Basically, he said that, although the reduced size for chandran sigs is true for large mixes, it's not true for small ones (the white paper was written in a misleading way to present things in a better light).  Thus, they were looking at potentially using them for large mix transactions and continuing to use the ring signatures for small ones.  Sooooo.  If they're looking at chandran sigs and, at least at that point, they believed they were viable, I'd like to know who these other people are that say they're not.

Note: I'm not one of the XST cult members and have been labeled a troll and FUDer by this community.  But I like to know the facts of things regardless of what thread I can get them from.

Sure you're not a fudder and whatever other stupid words people use to categorize things under but you are asking the right questions i just feel they are somewhat loaded but the answer is simple you can't do it with plain ring signatures... it has to be linkable / traceable signatures making it undoable in the way that hondo is implying

Sooo.. You're saying that CN does not use "plain ring signatures" and they are linkable/traceable in CN?  I'm confused as to what exactly you're saying.

As for what the dev of XST is implementing, I don't remember seeing any specific details in the white paper and so from where are you getting your details.  You said "implying" so I would take that to mean you're just assuming he's doing it in a way that could not be implemented or is there something that points it out clearly?

As I said, I like facts.  When I read about chandran signatures in XST, I went out and asked some that would know the facts since that sort of information is lacking in this thread.   So I'd like to know where you're getting your information from that clarifies things as fact as opposed to supposition.

[RadDragon]

I would like to know what happens when you all find out hondo cannot implement chandran sigs tin the way he is implying

So I've been watching the drama of you saying this over and over again.  Can you share with me who those crypto people are that are saying it can't be done?  Where's a technical thread discussing it?  Cause a few weeks back I had an exchange with a Monero dev about chandran sigs and he said they were looking into it for Monero.  Basically, he said that, although the reduced size for chandran sigs is true for large mixes, it's not true for small ones (the white paper was written in a misleading way to present things in a better light).  Thus, they were looking at potentially using them for large mix transactions and continuing to use the ring signatures for small ones.  Sooooo.  If they're looking at chandran sigs and, at least at that point, they believed they were viable, I'd like to know who these other people are that say they're not.

Note: I'm not one of the XST cult members and have been labeled a troll and FUDer by this community.  But I like to know the facts of things regardless of what thread I can get them from.

Sure you're not a fudder and whatever other stupid words people use to categorize things under but you are asking the right questions i just feel they are somewhat loaded but the answer is simple you can't do it with plain ring signatures... it has to be linkable / traceable signatures making it undoable in the way that hondo is implying

Sooo.. You're saying that CN does not use "plain ring signatures" and they are linkable/traceable in CN?  I'm confused as to what exactly you're saying.

As for what the dev of XST is implementing, I don't remember seeing any specific details in the white paper and so from where are you getting your details.  You said "implying" so I would take that to mean you're just assuming he's doing it in a way that could not be implemented or is there something that points it out clearly?

As I said, I like facts.  When I read about chandran signatures in XST, I went out and asked some that would know the facts since that sort of information is lacking in this thread.   So I'd like to know where you're getting your information from that clarifies things as fact as opposed to supposition.

This dude has been using circular logic and vague pseudo-technobabble just to spread vitriol and cause strife.  I encourage you to grill him because I guarantee that you will not get a concrete answer, and if you read his post history in this thread it is patently evident that he is a shill.

And he's been up for days.  That is friggin' intense, man.

Unless he gives a concrete explanation I'm of the belief that it's not so complicated to implement, nor is it out of reach.  The devs not responding to these comments (and they do know this is going on) just further demonstrates how little credibility this guy has.

[je_sus]

Ya'll need some poopylax.

[Viper1]

The devs not responding to these comments (and they do know this is going on) just further demonstrates how little credibility this guy has.

I'll be blunt.  The devs not responding is not a good thing.  Look at how many pages have been filled with this stuff.  There are many of us that want to hear real technical answers to things and don't get them.  For example, I want to know what the size of the transactions will be with low mixes compared to CN coins as opposed to those given in the whitepaper as a selling point for chandran sigs.  When I brought it up before, I was labeled a troll/fuder etc and got no answers.

When I asked real question about BTCD, jl777 answered me.  When I asked questions about SDC, the dev answered me.  Fact is, I could list a few more coins where the dev actually answered my questions but in here, all you get is posts about how this is the second coming and posts get buried with images.

Granted, unlike this guy, I didn't go into those other threads and come out saying it was crap and vaporware, but still, some of us would like some real technical discussions and when we don't see any, it does not reflect well on the coin and the devs.