Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2019, 10:45:11 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 [450] 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 ... 504 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN][XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthText, World's first anonymous SMS Tx!  (Read 748158 times)
StealthSend
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 85
Merit: 10

Because privacy is a basic human right.


View Profile WWW
October 10, 2014, 09:24:43 AM
 #8981

Before addressing the criticisms raised in this thread, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for these criticisms. Although some believe the manner in which they have been introduced may not be optimal to promote civil discourse, they are valuable criticisms nevertheless, and help to strengthen crypto-currencies in general. It is far better to address weaknesses in crypto systems during implementation than it is to address attacks after deployment.

Chandran signatures [1] make use of a common reference string. The common reference string generator (CRSGen) is a necessity for a model that does not require a random oracle, as described in [1]. CRSGen produces a string that is used as an input to a key generation function. The key generation function produces the user's public-private key pair. This key pair has specific properties in that it is a member of a particular mathematical group. In principle, key generation can be replaced by a cryptographic one-way function if the random oracle assumption is introduced.

Admittedly a more difficult issue to address is one of "unlinkability/untraceability", which boils down to the potential for a double spend. In short, Chandran signatures require the generation of a secret random parameter, g, that serves as an input to a "commitment" to a specific key in the key ring. This commitment basically identifies the public key from which the money is spent. The problem is that any number of g can be produced, creating the potential for any number of commitments to the specific public key.

In reality, this same issue exists with CryptoNote ring signatures except that the CryptoNote system incorporates a key image, I, into signing and verification, such that I can only ever be used once. A similar approach can be taken with Chandran signatures. As presented in [1], a key image I can be incorporated into Step 3 of signing and appended to the final signature. In addition to other parameters, Step 3 commits to the public keys of a subset of the ring. Just as with CryptoNote ring signatures, such a modification would commit to the key image and prevent its use for double-spends.

[1] Chandran N., et al. Ring Signatures of Sub-linear Size Without Random Oracles. ICALP 2007, LNCS 4596, pp. 423–434, 2007.


-- Hondo
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1576493111
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1576493111

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1576493111
Reply with quote  #2

1576493111
Report to moderator
1576493111
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1576493111

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1576493111
Reply with quote  #2

1576493111
Report to moderator
CryptoMoFo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:25:41 AM
 #8982

Let me play devils advocate here and say you are right.  Which let me just say I highly doubt. Why do you care?  Why are you here?  What's the point? I see scam coins all the time and I don't bother spending a good few days trying to convince people on anything. Give it up mate we all see through it.

thats a good point mate i hadn`t thought of it like that
Viper1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 287


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:27:47 AM
 #8983

All righty. Since longandshort was posting the IRC chat including some of the stuff I was asking, I figure I'll post my perspective for anyone that might actually care.

The conversation in the bitcoin channel was somewhat misleading and really didn't answer me satisfactory.  Frankly, it's not their job and, as longandshort posted, they don't really know if it can be implemented or not given the limited information presented.  They're also looking at it from the perspective of bitcoin.

Since I was mentioning Monero in there, one of their devs invited me into one of their channels where I was able to ask a few more questions.

Regarding the paper I posted that outlines how Chandran signatures can be traceable etc. Apparently it has not even been peer reviewed. So I'm left with the assumption that while it could be implemented, it would be questionable as to whether or not it would be sound.

So I was thinking about the whitepaper and what it actually said.  Two things stood out to me, the first that it was talking about CN and then about burning Stealthcoins to Stealthsend coins.  One of the key issues is the blockchain.  For example, CN and bitcoin blockchains are completely incompatible. In addition, trying to implement something like Chandran sigs into a bitcoin core would be a massive undertaking.  I mention the bitcoin core since it appears the source for Stealthcoin is based on that given the copyright notice although there's probably been some mods to it as well.  Either way, I simply don't see how Stealthsend could be added into the blockchain after the fact especially given the time frame.

Given all that, the only way I can see potentially having Stealthsend in the time frame outlined is if it was based on CN with its own blockchain or perhaps some sort of dual blockchain scheme.  That would sort of fit with the whitepaper talking about burning one for the other.  In addition, changing CN to use Chandran sigs would be a much easier task but as I said, whether or not it would be cryptographically sound would still be up for debate.

And with that, I'm done with this Chandran sigs/Stealthsend topic as I spent far too much time looking into something that the devs should have been more clear about.  Good luck to everyone.

BTC: 1F8yJqgjeFyX1SX6KJmqYtHiHXJA89ENNT
LTC: LYAEPQeDDM7Y4jbUH2AwhBmkzThAGecNBV
DOGE: DSUsCCdt98PcNgUkFHLDFdQXmPrQBEqXu9
deadliftbrah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 282
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:28:09 AM
 #8984

Before addressing the criticisms raised in this thread, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for these criticisms. Although some believe the manner in which they have been introduced may not be optimal to promote civil discourse, they are valuable criticisms nevertheless, and help to strengthen crypto-currencies in general. It is far better to address weaknesses in crypto systems during implementation than it is to address attacks after deployment.

Chandran signatures [1] make use of a common reference string. The common reference string generator (CRSGen) is a necessity for a model in that does not require a random oracle, as described in [1]. CRSGen produces a string that is used as an input to a key generation function. The key generation function produces the the user's public-private key pair. This key pair has specific properties in that it is a member of a particular mathematical group. In principle, key generation can be replaced by a cryptographic one-way function if the random oracle assumption is introduced.

Admittedly a more difficult issue to address is one of "unlinkability/untraceability", which boils down to the potential for a double spend. In short, Chandran signatures require the generation of a secret random parameter, g, that serves as an input to a "commitment" to a specific key in the key ring. This commitment basically identifies the public key from which the money is spent. The problem is that any number of g can be produced, creating the potential for any number of commitments to the specific public key.

In reality, this same issue exists with CryptoNote ring signatures except that the CryptoNote system incorporates a key image, I, into signing and verification, such that I can only ever be used once. A similar approach can be taken with Chandran signatures. As presented in [1], a key image I can be incorporated into Step 3 of signing and appended to the final signature. In addition to other parameters, Step 3 commits to the public keys of a subset of the ring. Just as with CryptoNote ring signatures, such a modification would commit to the key image and prevent its use for double-spends.

[1] Chandran N., et al. Ring Signatures of Sub-linear Size Without Random Oracles. ICALP 2007, LNCS 4596, pp. 423–434, 2007.


-- Hondo

+1000
Cloakko
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:30:35 AM
 #8985

All righty. Since longandshort was posting the IRC chat including some of the stuff I was asking, I figure I'll post my perspective for anyone that might actually care.

The conversation in the bitcoin channel was somewhat misleading and really didn't answer me satisfactory.  Frankly, it's not their job and, as longandshort posted, they don't really know if it can be implemented or not given the limited information presented.  They're also looking at it from the perspective of bitcoin.

Since I was mentioning Monero in there, one of their devs invited me into one of their channels where I was able to ask a few more questions.

Regarding the paper I posted that outlines how Chandran signatures can be traceable etc. Apparently it has not even been peer reviewed. So I'm left with the assumption that while it could be implemented, it would be questionable as to whether or not it would be sound.

So I was thinking about the whitepaper and what it actually said.  Two things stood out to me, the first that it was talking about CN and then about burning Stealthcoins to Stealthsend coins.  One of the key issues is the blockchain.  For example, CN and bitcoin blockchains are completely incompatible. In addition, trying to implement something like Chandran sigs into a bitcoin core would be a massive undertaking.  I mention the bitcoin core since it appears the source for Stealthcoin is based on that given the copyright notice although there's probably been some mods to it as well.  Either way, I simply don't see how Stealthsend could be added into the blockchain after the fact especially given the time frame.

Given all that, the only way I can see potentially having Stealthsend in the time frame outlined is if it was based on CN with its own blockchain or perhaps some sort of dual blockchain scheme.  That would sort of fit with the whitepaper talking about burning one for the other.  In addition, changing CN to use Chandran sigs would be a much easier task but as I said, whether or not it would be cryptographically sound would still be up for debate.

And with that, I'm done with this Chandran sigs/Stealthsend topic as I spent far too much time looking into something that the devs should have been more clear about.  Good luck to everyone.



Stealthsend will be a new coin. It's stated clearly on some of the Stealthcoin papers...

Here it is: https://www.stealth-coin.com/wp-content/uploads/Stealthsend_Whitepaper_brief0914.pdf

XC | XST
DLow
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 615
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:34:50 AM
 #8986

All righty. Since longandshort was posting the IRC chat including some of the stuff I was asking, I figure I'll post my perspective for anyone that might actually care.

The conversation in the bitcoin channel was somewhat misleading and really didn't answer me satisfactory.  Frankly, it's not their job and, as longandshort posted, they don't really know if it can be implemented or not given the limited information presented.  They're also looking at it from the perspective of bitcoin.

Since I was mentioning Monero in there, one of their devs invited me into one of their channels where I was able to ask a few more questions.

Regarding the paper I posted that outlines how Chandran signatures can be traceable etc. Apparently it has not even been peer reviewed. So I'm left with the assumption that while it could be implemented, it would be questionable as to whether or not it would be sound.

So I was thinking about the whitepaper and what it actually said.  Two things stood out to me, the first that it was talking about CN and then about burning Stealthcoins to Stealthsend coins.  One of the key issues is the blockchain.  For example, CN and bitcoin blockchains are completely incompatible. In addition, trying to implement something like Chandran sigs into a bitcoin core would be a massive undertaking.  I mention the bitcoin core since it appears the source for Stealthcoin is based on that given the copyright notice although there's probably been some mods to it as well.  Either way, I simply don't see how Stealthsend could be added into the blockchain after the fact especially given the time frame.

Given all that, the only way I can see potentially having Stealthsend in the time frame outlined is if it was based on CN with its own blockchain or perhaps some sort of dual blockchain scheme.  That would sort of fit with the whitepaper talking about burning one for the other.  In addition, changing CN to use Chandran sigs would be a much easier task but as I said, whether or not it would be cryptographically sound would still be up for debate.

And with that, I'm done with this Chandran sigs/Stealthsend topic as I spent far too much time looking into something that the devs should have been more clear about.  Good luck to everyone.



Stealthsend will be a new coin. It's stated clearly on some of the Stealthcoin papers...

Wow, just wow.

When I came here 2 weeks ago while Bob was still involved I told you guys it's a pump and dump. You called me a Fudder. All I wanted was to warn any new people not to fall for the hype..

Dear XST community: I hope you're happy that you made a lot of innocent people bagholders. It's gonna take a very long time before this coin sees any new highs, if ever.

Wishing the best of luck to Hondo, hope you succeed! Thanks for all you are doing!
adhitthana
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:35:00 AM
 #8987

results of what its its not really their problem i mean they looked at the paper they gave an opinion and they are already not thinking about it.
I presume you are talking about GMaxwell etc...? I'm just not sure that aquick look even from experts necessarily means much. Some of the comments showed them admitting they didn't look too hard. And who's expect them to?
Quote
to sum it up its just not really somethign that is viable but it is doable but comes with conditions..loads of them
Doable but not viable. That doesn't appear to make a lot of sense. Can you elaborate?
Quote
its better to go back to the drawing board and start again they are looking at the wrong paper end of story
Can you explain this, it's too obscure for me to understand your point. Thanks

Quote
how many people do you want to look it over before you realise its not gonna happen!
Well the appropriate course of action would be to have it seriously reviewed by someone competent.
Quote
you are talking about a dev team that have ported most of their coin and even removed copyright and put their own
Can you elaborate please?



Quote
gmaxwell: it's not clear to me that its 'doable',
Hardly a condemnation.
Quote
there may be related schemes in that family which are applicable (I haven't researched further)
Ok,,,?
Quote
, but the particular paper cited is of a technique which is not usable as is.
Interesting but...what exactly GMaxwell means we'd have to guess.
Quote
And looks like it would not be advantagious if it were possible to modify it to make it usable.
Pretty unclear.
Quote
its not doable the way they are implying its unlinkable/tracable
But why?
ElTomeko27
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 371
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:36:34 AM
 #8988

3 StealthSend Specifications

"Although stealthcoin is a proof-of-stake (PoS) coin, stealthsend can not be PoS because PoS requires proof of
ownership for the stake, which compromises anonymity unless memory expensive proofs are included with
every staking transaction.

Although such proofs are theoretically possible, they are unnecessarily impractical for a crypto-currency.
Therefore, stealthsend will be a proof-of-work coin, which will most likely use the low energy scrypt hashing
algorithm.

Holders of stealthcoin will be able to convert to stealthsend at a ratio of 1:1 using a proof-of-burn conversion.
This conversion will account for 85% of the StealthSend money supply. The other 15% of the stealthsend
money supply will be emitted using a smooth emission algorithm, such that 1/2 of the remaining money
supply is emitted every 2 years. The total money supply will depend on how much StealthCoin is converted to
stealthsend.

Finally, stealthsend will have a six minute block time."
StealthCoin1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 442
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:36:44 AM
 #8989

Before addressing the criticisms raised in this thread, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for these criticisms. Although some believe the manner in which they have been introduced may not be optimal to promote civil discourse, they are valuable criticisms nevertheless, and help to strengthen crypto-currencies in general. It is far better to address weaknesses in crypto systems during implementation than it is to address attacks after deployment.

Chandran signatures [1] make use of a common reference string. The common reference string generator (CRSGen) is a necessity for a model that does not require a random oracle, as described in [1]. CRSGen produces a string that is used as an input to a key generation function. The key generation function produces the user's public-private key pair. This key pair has specific properties in that it is a member of a particular mathematical group. In principle, key generation can be replaced by a cryptographic one-way function if the random oracle assumption is introduced.

Admittedly a more difficult issue to address is one of "unlinkability/untraceability", which boils down to the potential for a double spend. In short, Chandran signatures require the generation of a secret random parameter, g, that serves as an input to a "commitment" to a specific key in the key ring. This commitment basically identifies the public key from which the money is spent. The problem is that any number of g can be produced, creating the potential for any number of commitments to the specific public key.

In reality, this same issue exists with CryptoNote ring signatures except that the CryptoNote system incorporates a key image, I, into signing and verification, such that I can only ever be used once. A similar approach can be taken with Chandran signatures. As presented in [1], a key image I can be incorporated into Step 3 of signing and appended to the final signature. In addition to other parameters, Step 3 commits to the public keys of a subset of the ring. Just as with CryptoNote ring signatures, such a modification would commit to the key image and prevent its use for double-spends.

[1] Chandran N., et al. Ring Signatures of Sub-linear Size Without Random Oracles. ICALP 2007, LNCS 4596, pp. 423–434, 2007.


-- Hondo

++1

thank you sir
sibcurrency
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 91
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:39:33 AM
 #8990

10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM    
BUY
   0.00006330    1000.00000000    0.06330000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM    
BUY
   0.00006320    1000.00000000    0.06320000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM    
BUY
   0.00006310    1000.00000000    0.06310000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM    
BUY
   0.00006300    1000.00000000    0.06300000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM    
BUY
   0.00006290    1000.00000000    0.06290000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM    
BUY
   0.00006285    743.40000000    0.04672269
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM    
BUY
   0.00006280    1000.00000000    0.06280000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM    
BUY
   0.00006270    1000.00000000    0.06270000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM    
BUY
   0.00006260    1000.00000000    0.06260000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM    
BUY
   0.00006250    1000.00000000    0.06250000
...................................................
LOL
Sell more 'weakhanders' Grin

[XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthSend, World's first anonymous SMS
racer2012
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:41:49 AM
 #8991

Price drop to 5800k  Huh Huh
Cloakko
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:42:37 AM
 #8992

Price drop to 5800k  Huh Huh




XC | XST
sibcurrency
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 91
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:46:06 AM
 #8993

Stealthcoin is on top with 110BTC volume! Smiley

[XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthSend, World's first anonymous SMS
Cloakko
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:47:11 AM
 #8994

Stealthcoin is on top with 110BTC volume! Smiley


XC | XST
Artoodeetoo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:50:42 AM
 #8995

Flight to DRK and XC...

DASH #DashDC #DashIntoDigitalCash
gustopaz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 417
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:50:58 AM
 #8996

Price drop to 5800k  Huh Huh



Maybe last chance to buy cheap,i mean less then 10k.Soon will be released need wallet and then 2 weeks later price 5k it become only in our dreams. Dont listen to fuders just keep on mind that Hondo is real look POD5+
youngmike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:54:44 AM
 #8997


No Bob's fake walls, no pump  Smiley R.I.P. XST
sibcurrency
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 91
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:55:11 AM
 #8998

10/10/2014 04:52:48 PM    
BUY
   0.00006220    264.76452473    0.01646835
10/10/2014 04:52:48 PM    
BUY
   0.00006214    205.64199622    0.01277859
10/10/2014 04:52:48 PM    
BUY
   0.00006200    339.22338827    0.02103185
10/10/2014 04:52:48 PM    
BUY
   0.00006190    4000.00000000    0.24760000
10/10/2014 04:52:48 PM    
BUY
   0.00006185    235.69543245    0.01457776
10/10/2014 04:52:48 PM    
BUY
   0.00006180    322.58967615    0.01993604
10/10/2014 04:52:48 PM    
BUY
   0.00006170    201.34779815    0.01242315

Keep going!  Cool

[XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthSend, World's first anonymous SMS
kaloryczny
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 48
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:56:12 AM
 #8999

i think is problem with XST
sibcurrency
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 91
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:57:00 AM
 #9000


No Bob's fake walls, no pump  Smiley R.I.P. XST

LOL
Do you see market history?  Grin

[XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthSend, World's first anonymous SMS
Pages: « 1 ... 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 [450] 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 ... 504 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!