|
Petr1fied
|
 |
August 10, 2014, 02:59:57 PM |
|
I can't run this program because I'm currently on linux box and I'm not going to mess with mono.
I don't understand what are you trying to prove. If you send same amount at the same time, then this program may find the wrong addresses. There's no need to prove this because it can be seen from source code.
However, it can (with modifications) find all these addresses that you control. This is enough for deanonymization.
It's pretty obvious what I'm trying to prove and that is it doesn't actually deanonymise anything. It merely looks for values of a similar amount (taking account of fees) and makes a logical assumption about which transactions (and therefore wallets) originated it, a fact that is made easier by very limited transactions on the blockchain at any one time. There is no real link between these transactions and if the blockchain was more congested it would be damn near impossible to figure out. With 5 completely separate wallets as I am proposing there would be absolutely no way to trace any transaction back to the originating wallet, this is proof enough that in a more congested blockchain with many people sending anonymous transactions at any one time it would be impossible to track them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Bitcoin: the cutting edge of begging technology." -- Giraffe.BTC
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pbremen01
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
August 10, 2014, 03:09:04 PM |
|
I can't run this program because I'm currently on linux box and I'm not going to mess with mono.
I don't understand what are you trying to prove. If you send same amount at the same time, then this program may find the wrong addresses. There's no need to prove this because it can be seen from source code.
However, it can (with modifications) find all these addresses that you control. This is enough for deanonymization.
It's pretty obvious what I'm trying to prove and that is it doesn't actually deanonymise anything. It merely looks for values of a similar amount (taking account of fees) and makes a logical assumption about which transactions (and therefore wallets) originated it, a fact that is made easier by very limited transactions on the blockchain at any one time. There is no real link between these transactions and if the blockchain was more congested it would be damn near impossible to figure out. With 5 completely separate wallets as I am proposing there would be absolutely no way to trace any transaction back to the originating wallet, this is proof enough that in a more congested blockchain with many people sending anonymous transactions at any one time it would be impossible to track them. You don't need "link" between transactions in the blockchain to deanonymize it. There is probably no link because mixers probably don't send the same coins to the final recipient. If you - for example - send 84.237482496 coins then looking in blockchain for amounts that are equal to this one (even if they are part of different transactions) usually yields only one result. Such method of deanonymization works even in larger networks with lots of transactions, for example in bitcoin. That's why mixers have employed much more advanced methods of hiding transactions. For example, they steal some coins (the recipient doesn't receive 84.237482496 - transaction fees but instead it receives 84.237482496 - transaction fees - amount of coins stolen ). And mixers also send coins to recipients to several addresses and over much longer period of time which may be very random (days or even weeks). |
|
|
|
|
|
Petr1fied
|
|
August 10, 2014, 03:21:33 PM |
|
pbremen01: It's amazing how full of crap you are and any time you are challenged to prove something you always have an excuse.
Don't worry I'm in the process of setting up a test for you now with several completely unconnected wallets. If you can't deanonymise it yourself due to [insert excuse here] then feel free to pass it on to one of your friends who claim that they can do so.
Hell I'll even provide all of the wallet.dat files upon the conclusion of the test so that it can be independently verified if the test has been a success or failure. (After they've been emptied of funds of course).
|
|
|
|
|
Megalodon
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 195
Merit: 100
Magic internet moneys ftw
|
|
August 10, 2014, 03:37:43 PM |
|
Seriously are you still on that? Tracking an anonymous transaction when there are practically no other transactions moving about isn't exactly difficult because it's not hard to make an educated guess as to the source transactions by looking back a few blocks and taking fees into account along the way. Anyone could do this by examining the block explorer. (You don't need a program to come to an educated guess). These transactions seem to be fairly old and are from the good old times when there were at least some transactions in the blockchain However, if I were to send several anonymous transactions of equal amounts, all from unique wallets, all within a short space of time there is no way in hell this program (or anyone trying to decipher it manually) would be able to come to an educated guess because there would be too much transaction congestion to figure out which transactions came from which wallet or end up at which destination.
That's true. If several wallets send the same amount at almost the same time, then this method won't work 100%. However, this method still gives you list of the addresses that sender exerts at least some control over them (it owns private keys or it has the power to use them to create "fake" transactions). The "working" anonymity implementation should not allow even such "guesses" - such guesses are more than enough for someone (law enforcement etc.) to track you. And this method could probably be modified to distinguish "fake" transactions from the "real" ones based on the the way how "real" transactions look in the blockchain (for example, "real" transactions use inputs that are outputs of the transactions in the same block, one could also "color" some coins and send them through the mixer etc.). But the devs will have to prove that such attacks don't and can't work (even in the case when - for example - someone decompiles precompiled binaries etc.). I'll tell you what I'll do. I'm going to set up a test for you with 6 brand new 100% isolated wallets, 5 of which will be the starting point for 5 anonymous transactions of equal value. The other will be a receiving wallet with 5 receiving addresses (one for each incoming transaction). You can then test the program on the 5 incoming txids/block heights and see if you can figure out which wallet initiated any of them. I guarantee neither you or the program will be able to figure it out which addresses sent coins to which addresses. If you do it will be pure luck.
I don't understand what are you trying to prove. If you send same amount at the same time, then this program may find the wrong addresses. There's no need to prove this because it can be seen from source code.
However, it can (with modifications) find all these addresses that you control. This is enough for deanonymization.I lol'd, you haven't even tested it yourself, now you're saying it needs modifications to work lmao. Thanks for showing everyone how full of shit you are. Now gtfo, key devs will deliver their promises soon enough. We need a moderated thread to ban this blabbering buffoon. |
|
|
|
pbremen01
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
August 10, 2014, 03:38:52 PM |
|
pbremen01: It's amazing how full of crap you are and any time you are challenged to prove something you always have an excuse.
Don't worry I'm in the process of setting up a test for you now with several completely unconnected wallets. If you can't deanonymise it yourself due to [insert excuse here] then feel free to pass it on to one of your friends who claim that they can do so.
Hell I'll even provide all of the wallet.dat files upon the conclusion of the test so that it can be independently verified if the test has been a success or failure. (After they've been emptied of funds of course).
If you send the same amount at the same time then of course this program could print the wrong addresses. What is here to prove? But by manually sending the same amount of coins you're actually manually replicating other technologies for anonymization that are not implemented in KeyCoin. In fact, you're actually claiming that there exists better methods for anonymization than these that are implemented in KeyCoin (for example, CoinJoin with "denomination"). And your method isn't practical at all. If you own 10 coins, then with your method you can't send 10 coins anonymously (because you need to have at least (for example) 50 coins to send 5 separate transactions of 10 coins). |
|
|
|
|
pbremen01
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
August 10, 2014, 03:41:39 PM |
|
Seriously are you still on that? Tracking an anonymous transaction when there are practically no other transactions moving about isn't exactly difficult because it's not hard to make an educated guess as to the source transactions by looking back a few blocks and taking fees into account along the way. Anyone could do this by examining the block explorer. (You don't need a program to come to an educated guess). These transactions seem to be fairly old and are from the good old times when there were at least some transactions in the blockchain However, if I were to send several anonymous transactions of equal amounts, all from unique wallets, all within a short space of time there is no way in hell this program (or anyone trying to decipher it manually) would be able to come to an educated guess because there would be too much transaction congestion to figure out which transactions came from which wallet or end up at which destination.
That's true. If several wallets send the same amount at almost the same time, then this method won't work 100%. However, this method still gives you list of the addresses that sender exerts at least some control over them (it owns private keys or it has the power to use them to create "fake" transactions). The "working" anonymity implementation should not allow even such "guesses" - such guesses are more than enough for someone (law enforcement etc.) to track you. And this method could probably be modified to distinguish "fake" transactions from the "real" ones based on the the way how "real" transactions look in the blockchain (for example, "real" transactions use inputs that are outputs of the transactions in the same block, one could also "color" some coins and send them through the mixer etc.). But the devs will have to prove that such attacks don't and can't work (even in the case when - for example - someone decompiles precompiled binaries etc.). I'll tell you what I'll do. I'm going to set up a test for you with 6 brand new 100% isolated wallets, 5 of which will be the starting point for 5 anonymous transactions of equal value. The other will be a receiving wallet with 5 receiving addresses (one for each incoming transaction). You can then test the program on the 5 incoming txids/block heights and see if you can figure out which wallet initiated any of them. I guarantee neither you or the program will be able to figure it out which addresses sent coins to which addresses. If you do it will be pure luck.
I don't understand what are you trying to prove. If you send same amount at the same time, then this program may find the wrong addresses. There's no need to prove this because it can be seen from source code.
However, it can (with modifications) find all these addresses that you control. This is enough for deanonymization.I lol'd, you haven't even tested it yourself, now you're saying it needs modifications to work lmao. Thanks for showing everyone how full of shit you are. Now gtfo, key devs will deliver their promises soon enough. How did you come to this conclusion? I compiled it and tested it. And I completely understand how it works. I just can't run this program on the linux laptop that I'm currently using. |
|
|
|
|
|
Petr1fied
|
|
August 10, 2014, 03:46:45 PM |
|
pbremen01: It's amazing how full of crap you are and any time you are challenged to prove something you always have an excuse.
Don't worry I'm in the process of setting up a test for you now with several completely unconnected wallets. If you can't deanonymise it yourself due to [insert excuse here] then feel free to pass it on to one of your friends who claim that they can do so.
Hell I'll even provide all of the wallet.dat files upon the conclusion of the test so that it can be independently verified if the test has been a success or failure. (After they've been emptied of funds of course).
If you send the same amount at the same time then of course this program could print the wrong addresses. What is here to prove? But by manually sending the same amount of coins you're actually manually replicating other technologies for anonymization that are not implemented in KeyCoin. In fact, you're actually claiming that there exists better methods for anonymization than these that are implemented in KeyCoin (for example, CoinJoin with "denomination"). And your method isn't practical at all. If you own 10 coins, then with your method you can't send 10 coins anonymously (because you need to have at least (for example) 50 coins to send 5 separate transactions of 10 coins). Of course my method isn't practical for the average user but it will prove that you can't really track from the destination to the source in this kind of scenario which would likely be replicated when there are many transactions moving at any one time. The only thing that makes it possible currently is a blockchain with very few transactions. The program merely makes an educated guess on the source transactions and therefore the wallet address(es) that sent it in the first place. It doesn't disprove the anonymity solution works, it is merely exploiting the lack of transactions to jump to that conclusion easier. |
|
|
|
|
pbremen01
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
August 10, 2014, 04:08:21 PM |
|
pbremen01: It's amazing how full of crap you are and any time you are challenged to prove something you always have an excuse.
Don't worry I'm in the process of setting up a test for you now with several completely unconnected wallets. If you can't deanonymise it yourself due to [insert excuse here] then feel free to pass it on to one of your friends who claim that they can do so.
Hell I'll even provide all of the wallet.dat files upon the conclusion of the test so that it can be independently verified if the test has been a success or failure. (After they've been emptied of funds of course).
If you send the same amount at the same time then of course this program could print the wrong addresses. What is here to prove? But by manually sending the same amount of coins you're actually manually replicating other technologies for anonymization that are not implemented in KeyCoin. In fact, you're actually claiming that there exists better methods for anonymization than these that are implemented in KeyCoin (for example, CoinJoin with "denomination"). And your method isn't practical at all. If you own 10 coins, then with your method you can't send 10 coins anonymously (because you need to have at least (for example) 50 coins to send 5 separate transactions of 10 coins). Of course my method isn't practical for the average user but it will prove that you can't really track from the destination to the source in this kind of scenario which would likely be replicated when there are many transactions moving at any one time. The only thing that makes it possible currently is a blockchain with very few transactions. The program merely makes an educated guess on the source transactions and therefore the wallet address(es) that sent it in the first place. It doesn't disprove the anonymity solution works, it is merely exploiting the lack of transactions to jump to that conclusion easier. Lack of transactions makes things easier for this program. However, similar methods can be employed in bitcoin and they work. Mixers have to be very sophisticated to hide transactions. But it seems that the mixer in keycoin is not. |
|
|
|
|
|
RichardT
|
|
August 10, 2014, 04:09:42 PM |
|
How did you come to this conclusion?
I compiled it and tested it. And I completely understand how it works. I just can't run this program on the linux laptop that I'm currently using.
He came to that conclusion because you've used that excuse and similar excuses for about the 10th time now. Also, just one simple question for you: you've previously claimed that you are genuinely concerned about anonymity tech and its issues, so why haven't you questioned or challenged the Cloak or XC people about their anon? You've been very obsessed with just Keycoin. Appears incredibly biased to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
mlord1010
|
|
August 10, 2014, 04:20:13 PM |
|
it looks to me that we are teetering on the edge. some good news from the devs is needed or we could slide right down.
we need some trust building announcements and soon. or the fudders win
I hate to break it to you... It's the dev's that manipulate the key market the most. Prom is buying as much of this coin as he can right now. This coin will be his black coin. 20k to 500k here we go. |
|
|
|
|
|
Irfansyed
|
|
August 10, 2014, 04:23:50 PM |
|
it looks to me that we are teetering on the edge. some good news from the devs is needed or we could slide right down.
we need some trust building announcements and soon. or the fudders win
I hate to break it to you... It's the dev's that manipulate the key market the most. Prom is buying as much of this coin as he can right now. This coin will be his black coin. 20k to 500k here we go. keycoin getting its new bottoms after every hour it ll go to .0002 or .0030 in next 24 hours |
|
|
|
|
|
cassius69
|
|
August 10, 2014, 04:26:38 PM |
|
it looks to me that we are teetering on the edge. some good news from the devs is needed or we could slide right down.
we need some trust building announcements and soon. or the fudders win
I hate to break it to you... It's the dev's that manipulate the key market the most. Prom is buying as much of this coin as he can right now. This coin will be his black coin. 20k to 500k here we go. keycoin getting its new bottoms after every hour it ll go to .0002 or .0030 in next 24 hours that prolly made more sense to you writing it than to me reading it.  |
|
|
|
|
Petr1fied
|
|
August 10, 2014, 04:30:14 PM
Last edit: August 10, 2014, 05:37:28 PM by Petr1fied |
|
pbremen01: | Height | Amount | | 32549 | 4.99979999 | | 32551 | 4.9998 | | 32553 | 4.99979999 | | 32553 | 4.9998 | | 32553 | 4.9998 |
Have at it. Lets see if you or any of your deanonymizer buddies can find out which wallet address(es) sent to which destination address. Five completely unique (and unconnected) wallets were created purely for this purpose. (Well technically 6, the receiving transactions all come to 1 wallet with 5 receiving addresses). All the originating transactions were sent within the space of 6 seconds so there should be a nice clusterf**k for you or any program to try and analyze. As I stated previously I'll happily provide the wallet.dat files for all 6 of these wallets (after emptying) so that the findings can be independently verified but I'll only do this once someone wishing to disprove the anonymization provides me with details of all 5 transactions from source(s) to destination. |
|
|
|
|
|
darkproton
|
|
August 10, 2014, 04:33:04 PM |
|
Amidst all the fud, I want to give a big shout out to prom and the key devs. It would have been easy to quit and walk away with all the slander and coinssource bullshit, but they havent. This spells big things for key. This coin is still just a baby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
mlord1010
|
|
August 10, 2014, 04:45:06 PM |
|
The key dev's don't even pretend to support the price from plummeting. 1-2 posts per day. Say you're busy with interviews... A 24 hour interview? Gotta love manipulation.
|
|
|
|
|
Djinou94
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 10, 2014, 04:49:29 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
sofu
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1085
Degenerate Crypto Gambler
|
|
August 10, 2014, 05:22:52 PM |
|
I think it will go much lower but I'm not sure if it will make a 2nd rally like crypt. Maybe I will bet on it if I get my buy in price  |
|
|
|
|
Irfansyed
|
|
August 10, 2014, 05:47:59 PM |
|
whats ur buyin price hope u indulged urself deeper than me lol |
|
|
|
|
damiano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000
103 days, 21 hours and 10 minutes.
|
|
August 10, 2014, 05:49:56 PM |
|
pbremen01: | Height | Amount | | 32549 | 4.99979999 | | 32551 | 4.9998 | | 32553 | 4.99979999 | | 32553 | 4.9998 | | 32553 | 4.9998 |
Have at it. Lets see if you or any of your deanonymizer buddies can find out which wallet address(es) sent to which destination address. Five completely unique (and unconnected) wallets were created purely for this purpose. (Well technically 6, the receiving transactions all come to 1 wallet with 5 receiving addresses). All the originating transactions were sent within the space of 6 seconds so there should be a nice clusterf**k for you or any program to try and analyze. As I stated previously I'll happily provide the wallet.dat files for all 6 of these wallets (after emptying) so that the findings can be independently verified but I'll only do this once someone wishing to disprove the anonymization provides me with details of all 5 transactions from source(s) to destination. Get ready for a good excuse |
|
|
|
|
|
Petr1fied
|
|
August 10, 2014, 06:08:47 PM |
|
pbremen01: | Height | Amount | | 32549 | 4.99979999 | | 32551 | 4.9998 | | 32553 | 4.99979999 | | 32553 | 4.9998 | | 32553 | 4.9998 |
Have at it. Lets see if you or any of your deanonymizer buddies can find out which wallet address(es) sent to which destination address. Five completely unique (and unconnected) wallets were created purely for this purpose. (Well technically 6, the receiving transactions all come to 1 wallet with 5 receiving addresses). All the originating transactions were sent within the space of 6 seconds so there should be a nice clusterf**k for you or any program to try and analyze. As I stated previously I'll happily provide the wallet.dat files for all 6 of these wallets (after emptying) so that the findings can be independently verified but I'll only do this once someone wishing to disprove the anonymization provides me with details of all 5 transactions from source(s) to destination. Get ready for a good excuse He already made excuses and has questioned the relevance.  To the devs: Although I used RPC commands for sending anonymous transactions in my tests I did notice that the GUI method always seems to use the "" account (default account). If the "" account doesn't have a sufficient balance then you invariably end up getting Code -6 (Account has insufficient funds) even if you may have a balance in other accounts. Perhaps it would be better to list accounts with a positive balance and allow them to tick the account they want to use when sending coins anonymously via the GUI, perhaps with an additional option to easily move coins between accounts as can be done manually with the move RPC command. |
|
|
|
|
|
