[ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/9 Status Update

[pr0m3theus2013]

You remind me a lot of John Galt. You haunted the irc with constant negativity not because you are interested, but because you have a personal vendetta against me and my team. We're here to deliver on our promises and constantly improve our tech we have delivered on many things you said we would not bring thus far. I'm not avoiding the questions you ask. It's the fact that they have already been answered and you simply ask them to bring up the same conversations over and over again.

[TheNewsHasCome]

remember holders and developers, attacking the poster does not invalidate his ideas and or concerns brought to the table,

To those that may think Erastos is attempting to be reasonable, please go read his post history. He has attacked the devs, spread FUD and outright lied since launch day one. This is a post he had July 19th where he predicted they would likely never have a working anon solution and that the price would likely not rise above where it was (high was 40k that day).

Exactly, luckily for you, you have historical data from CRYPT to get an idea of how KEY will play out. Although since they already played their 'anon coming' card, it's about as high as it's going to go without an actual working anon which they likely don't have, or ever will.

Caveat emptor, investors.

The devs are actually willing to answer questions and be reasonable to those who are reasonable to them. They have delivered on every promise.

[Megalodon]

also this market is pure speculation, sentiment is made on opinion. opinions made that i do not hold alone.

Aren't all cryptocurrency markets pure speculation? Why are you hating on this coin so much? Enough to care to buy back lower after scaring some investors away?

[pr0m3theus2013]

I have reached out to the XC dev to review our code and share his findings with the community, I feel he is a trusted pair of eyes for the project code and will both serve to prove that it's not a stolen copy of XC, and also as a knowledgeable individual to comment on the quality of our anon system.

I do desire to answer all of the questions you guys have, but we also need to keep our code secure and free from being copied at this time.

[keycoin]

I have reached out to the XC dev to review our code and share his findings with the community, I feel he is a trusted pair of eyes for the project code and will both serve to prove that it's not a stolen copy of XC, and also as a knowledgeable individual to comment on the quality of our anon system.

Keycoin team has emailed our anon source code to prometheus' reviewer as requested.

[KryptoFoo]

Assuming keycoin uses masternodes and that they are centrally operated - how many masternodes are being operated on the network, and who are they owned by?

Why isn't a description and diagram of the keycoin anon solution prominent in the original post nor on the website???

[Djinou94]

Hopefully none of you fell to that reddit fud, they left out one key thing, it's the fact that the nodes communicate with eachother through encryption AFTER mixing and then have a node that was not used to receive the coins from the sending address to process the transaction using fresh coins. This is the reason why our anonymous system works so incredibly well. This fact was left out in it's entirety from the reddit fud, which was just a bold attempt from competitors to get their volume and value back. There is no direct link between any of the nodes as the transaction is being processed. Really, to sum it up the reddit article was just technical jargon used to make them seem knowledgeable when fud attacking our coin, the reality is to anyone one the dev team including myself it's just pure BS.

 These swings however have been prevalent over the last few days and are often a great re entry point for the run up back to 100k.


Oh, and were working on a decentralized market and exchange platform.

Cannot wait to see that
Bravo dev team

[pbremen01]

Hopefully none of you fell to that reddit fud, they left out one key thing, it's the fact that the nodes communicate with eachother through encryption AFTER mixing and then have a node that was not used to receive the coins from the sending address to process the transaction using fresh coins. This is the reason why our anonymous system works so incredibly well. This fact was left out in it's entirety from the reddit fud, which was just a bold attempt from competitors to get their volume and value back. There is no direct link between any of the nodes as the transaction is being processed. Really, to sum it up the reddit article was just technical jargon used to make them seem knowledgeable when fud attacking our coin, the reality is to anyone one the dev team including myself it's just pure BS.

 These swings however have been prevalent over the last few days and are often a great re entry point for the run up back to 100k.


Oh, and were working on a decentralized market and exchange platform.

Cannot wait to see that
Bravo dev team

Well, decentralized system by itself won't affect the first point (labelled "1)") in this FUD post:

http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/2btj6m/reasons_why_keycoin_anonymity_doesnt_work/

This argument takes into account only blockchain and doesn't depend on the way the mixers are implemented (centralized/decentralized system, the way the mixers communicate etc.).

If someone anonymously sends you Y KEY, then you can find two transactions in the blockchain:
a) the first that has one output with X KEYs,
b) the second one that has one output with R KEYs

which satisfy the following equation:

X = Y + R

(a little bit generalized version of this equation holds for every mixer that is not stealing coins, but in the case of KeyCoin it seems that this simple equation holds).

Then the inputs of the first transaction (one that has one output with X KEYs) are from the address(es) that sent coins to the mixer. This is the original sender.

As you can see, even if the mixer implementation is changed from centralized to decentralized, ceteris paribus, you can still find two transactions that satisfy equation X=Y+R.

[pr0m3theus2013]

Developer of XC's anonymous system has agreed to review our code and provide feedback to the community. This is great news for us!

[WheresMyWallet]

Hopefully none of you fell to that reddit fud, they left out one key thing, it's the fact that the nodes communicate with eachother through encryption AFTER mixing and then have a node that was not used to receive the coins from the sending address to process the transaction using fresh coins. This is the reason why our anonymous system works so incredibly well. This fact was left out in it's entirety from the reddit fud, which was just a bold attempt from competitors to get their volume and value back. There is no direct link between any of the nodes as the transaction is being processed. Really, to sum it up the reddit article was just technical jargon used to make them seem knowledgeable when fud attacking our coin, the reality is to anyone one the dev team including myself it's just pure BS.

 These swings however have been prevalent over the last few days and are often a great re entry point for the run up back to 100k.


Oh, and were working on a decentralized market and exchange platform.

Cannot wait to see that
Bravo dev team

Well, decentralized system by itself won't affect the first point (labelled "1)") in this FUD post:

http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/2btj6m/reasons_why_keycoin_anonymity_doesnt_work/

This argument takes into account only blockchain and doesn't depend on the way the mixers are implemented (centralized/decentralized system, the way the mixers communicate etc.).

If someone anonymously sends you Y KEY, then you can find two transactions in the blockchain:
a) the first that has one output with X KEYs,
b) the second one that has one output with R KEYs

which satisfy the following equation:

X = Y + R

(a little bit generalized version of this equation holds for every mixer that is not stealing coins, but in the case of KeyCoin it seems that this simple equation holds).

Then the inputs of the first transaction (one that has one output with X KEYs) are from the address(es) that sent coins to the mixer. This is the original sender.

As you can see, even if the mixer implementation is changed from centralized to decentralized, ceteris paribus, you can still find two transactions that satisfy equation X=Y+R.

I hope once the XC dev comes back to talk about the anon system in use you will finally stop trying to push your mixers stealing coins FUD.
You seem hell bent on pursuing your point without any sort of proof or even time to do your own analysis, as I mentioned before in a previous response.
Take the 1-2hr you spend writing your "technically based post and rigorous mathematical equations" and actually do something about it.

First though, follow the guide again and get your anon working like everyone else has.
If you want to take your first baby steps and need a bit of hand holding, I'm sure someone technical in here can talk in laymens terms for you to grasp.

[CrazyLeoW]

Developer of XC's anonymous system has agreed to review our code and provide feedback to the community. This is great news for us!

KEYCOIN is SCAM entirely. Just a joke.

[pbremen01]

Developer of XC's anonymous system has agreed to review our code and provide feedback to the community. This is great news for us!

Are you sure that this developer can give impartial review?

The source code code of KeyCoin is based on XC's code. If there is flaw is in KeyCoin, then the similar flaw may exist in XC's code also. Do you think that he/she's will admit that XC code is also flawed?

[WheresMyWallet]

Developer of XC's anonymous system has agreed to review our code and provide feedback to the community. This is great news for us!

Are you sure that this developer can give impartial review?

The source code code of KeyCoin is based on XC's code. If there is flaw is in KeyCoin, then the similar flaw may exist in XC's code also. Do you think that he/she's will admit that XC code is also flawed?

Are you sure that you can give impartial review, because I'm not really seeing it so far?
I didn't realise you were now also questioning the trustworthiness of the XC devs, (sorry XC devs).
Are there any developers at all in the crypto currency world that you do trust?
If there are, maybe you should stick to only investing in their coin instead of doing a little hedging.
Or are you just trying to be the "voice of reason" in this fickle world of crypto?

[Paladin69]

Developer of XC's anonymous system has agreed to review our code and provide feedback to the community. This is great news for us!

Are you sure that this developer can give impartial review?

The source code code of KeyCoin is based on XC's code. If there is flaw is in KeyCoin, then the similar flaw may exist in XC's code also. Do you think that he/she's will admit that XC code is also flawed?

Won't you look stupid when everyone finds out that KEY did not "steal" XC's code?

You FUD'ers aren't getting cheaper coins.  You can stop trying now lol

[pbremen01]

I hope once the XC dev comes back to talk about the anon system in use you will finally stop trying to push your mixers stealing coins FUD.
You seem hell bent on pursuing your point without any sort of proof or even time to do your own analysis, as I mentioned before in a previous response.
Take the 1-2hr you spend writing your "technically based post and rigorous mathematical equations" and actually do something about it.

First though, follow the guide again and get your anon working like everyone else has.
If you want to take your first baby steps and need a bit of hand holding, I'm sure someone technical in here can talk in laymens terms for you to grasp.

I did manage to send one anonymous transaction (and only one because the things stopped working after this one).

And I can confirm that that I could find transactions that satisfy equation X=Y+R (plus minus transaction fees). The first transaction (that sent X coins) is my original transaction. The second transaction is transaction that sent coins to my change address. You can easily determine both transactions from qt client. I didn't check thoroughly if there are also other transactions that satisfy this equation (but there are probably not).

I won't post details of my transaction here because I don't trust the operators of mixer nodes and they could probably use this information to track me.

But you can do the same thing with your qt client. If the anonymous sending feature is working, then it is about 1-2 minutes of your work.

There is nothing to be "proved" about equation X=Y+R. If you send X coins and the other party receives Y coins, then the mixer must send you back R coins (to change address). If you don't get R coins back, then the mixer is stealing your coins. What is so hard to understand here?

Btw, some bitcoin mixers actually do this. But they hide it in a "fee".

[pbremen01]

Are you sure that you can give impartial review, because I'm not really seeing it so far?

No, I cannot give you impartial review. How did you come to this conclusion?

[WheresMyWallet]

Are you sure that you can give impartial review, because I'm not really seeing it so far?

No, I cannot give you impartial review. How did you come to this conclusion?

Being impartial and objective would require you discussing both sides of an argument fully, which you clearly haven't
Biased is your standpoint, "prove me wrong or my words must be gospel"

[pbremen01]

Are you sure that you can give impartial review, because I'm not really seeing it so far?

No, I cannot give you impartial review. How did you come to this conclusion?

Being impartial and objective would require you discussing both sides of an argument fully, which you clearly haven't
Biased is your standpoint, "prove me wrong or my words must be gospel"

You cannot expect objectivity from some random internet person. You never know what kind of (nefarious?) motives he has.

And I don't expect anyone to take anything I say for granted. People can always check things for themselves if they want. The only question is if they want to invest enough time and mental energy into this.

"Prove me wrong or my words must be gospel" does not hold in the context of computer security. The assumption in computer security is that systems are not secure unless proven otherwise. If somebody cannot rigorously prove that his security method (anonymity method) is really secure (anonymous), then you MUST assume that it is not secure (anonymous).

"Being secure" means "resistant to all known (or feasible) attacks".

[Hel]

Are you sure that you can give impartial review, because I'm not really seeing it so far?

No, I cannot give you impartial review. How did you come to this conclusion?

Being impartial and objective would require you discussing both sides of an argument fully, which you clearly haven't
Biased is your standpoint, "prove me wrong or my words must be gospel"

You cannot expect objectivity from some random internet person. You never know what kind of (nefarious?) motives he has.

And I don't expect anyone to take anything I say for granted. People can always check things for themselves if they want. The only question is if they want to invest enough time and mental energy into this.

"Prove me wrong or my words must be gospel" does not hold in the context of computer security. The assumption in computer security is that systems are not secure unless proven otherwise. If somebody cannot rigorously prove that his security method (anonymity method) is really secure (anonymous), then you MUST assume that it is not secure (anonymous).

"Being secure" means "resistant to all known (or feasible) attacks".

I think the basic point trying to be put across to you is "give it some time". you want answers now while things are being done to provide those answers. Your motivation is suspect simply because you are constantly asking the same question and only seemingly in accordance with market price. asking questions is nothing that should be considered nefarious, but it is on record that you have asked this question... several times. Maybe wait for an answer, and if you don't receive one after the next statement from the dev, then ask it again. But repeating the same thing ad nauseam is, and should be considered, trolling. You've asked it, now kindly wait.

p.s. "I don't expect anyone to take anything I say for granted", I don't think this phrase means what you think it means.

[WheresMyWallet]

Are you sure that you can give impartial review, because I'm not really seeing it so far?

No, I cannot give you impartial review. How did you come to this conclusion?

Being impartial and objective would require you discussing both sides of an argument fully, which you clearly haven't
Biased is your standpoint, "prove me wrong or my words must be gospel"

You cannot expect objectivity from some random internet person. You never know what kind of (nefarious?) motives he has.

And I don't expect anyone to take anything I say for granted. People can always check things for themselves if they want. The only question is if they want to invest enough time and mental energy into this.

"Prove me wrong or my words must be gospel" does not hold in the context of computer security. The assumption in computer security is that systems are not secure unless proven otherwise. If somebody cannot rigorously prove that his security method (anonymity method) is really secure (anonymous), then you MUST assume that it is not secure (anonymous).

"Being secure" means "resistant to all known (or feasible) attacks".

I think the basic point trying to be put across to you is "give it some time". you want answers now while things are being done to provide those answers. Your motivation is suspect simply because you are constantly asking the same question and only seemingly in accordance with market price. asking questions is nothing that should be considered nefarious, but it is on record that you have asked this question... several times. Maybe wait for an answer, and if you don't receive one after the next statement from the dev, then ask it again. But repeating the same thing ad nauseam is, and should be considered, trolling. You've asked it, now kindly wait.

p.s. "I don't expect anyone to take anything I say for granted", I don't think this phrase means what you think it means.

This is precisely my point, and to add a quote from the previous poster to back this up

You cannot expect objectivity from some random internet person. You never know what kind of (nefarious?) motives he has.

You are asking us to believe that you posting the same thing over and over again doesn't matter
You are also the "random internet person", and we don't know what "kind of motives he has"

By your own admission though, even if Stephen Hawking himself sent you a synthesized voice message letting you know ANY and ALL crypto anon systems was secure, you wouldn't believe him.
You don't know him personally, you only know of him, but you don't know if he is trustworthy.