|
Coin-Moron
|
 |
July 31, 2014, 02:03:36 AM |
|
But in the final edit section it says otherwise.
Then the original poster should be more clear in his/her edits: This program returns address that was used by your wallet to send coins to mixer. This indicates that it already knows the starting point as it originated from his/her wallet. It is therefore not starting from the end with zero knowledge of the starting point in the first instance. Yes, this is indeed not clear. But from the context I think that the meaning of this sentence is: this is the address that was used by sender's qt client to send coins to the mixer. This part scares me. " Program has two inputs: block height of transaction which sent coins to recipient's address (this is the transaction that was sent by mixer and it is the only transaction seen by recipient) and exact amount that was received by recipient. Output of this program will be one address. This is the same address that is usually written in sender's qt client in the field "Address" on tab "Transactions" when you send anonymous transaction. " |
|
|
|
|
|
Coin-Moron
|
|
July 31, 2014, 02:07:12 AM |
|
Am trying to run the program now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffern
|
|
July 31, 2014, 02:08:49 AM |
|
Am trying to run the program now.
Keep us updated  Cheers! |
|
|
|
|
|
Petr1fied
|
|
July 31, 2014, 02:12:43 AM |
|
Am trying to run the program now.
ok feed it these values: Block Height: 11237 Exact Amount: 1.9998 What wallet address did these coins originally come from? |
|
|
|
|
|
pr0m3theus2013
|
|
July 31, 2014, 02:24:17 AM |
|
hey guys we already tried running it. It's worthless because it requires access to the sending wallet, and it only gets the address of the first mixer.. which anyone can get by looking at their transaction, it however cannot get any of the remaining ones, and they are totally randomized as well. It just doesn't work guys. This is such a blatant attempt by a competing community to get their volume back. It belongs in key and it will stay here We appreciate you guys doing your homework though. Great community |
|
|
|
|
pbremen01
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
July 31, 2014, 02:44:03 AM |
|
hey guys we already tried running it. It's worthless because it requires access to the sending wallet, and it only gets the address of the first mixer.. which anyone can get by looking at their transaction, it however cannot get any of the remaining ones, and they are totally randomized as well. It just doesn't work guys. This is such a blatant attempt by a competing community to get their volume back. It belongs in key and it will stay here We appreciate you guys doing your homework though. Great community It probably doesn't require access to sending wallet. There seem to be nothing specific in the source code that would somehow differentiate between the sending and non-sending wallet (qt client). Unless there is some hidden (undocumented) feature in qt client that this source code is using. But this is just my educated guess. Can you explain which part of the program requires access to sending wallet? The author clearly stated in the edit that it doesn't need access to sending wallet: http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/2c6pax/program_that_deanonymizes_anonymous_keycoin/Address of the first mixer is enough for deanonymization. Who sent coins to the first mixer? Some random internet troll? Somebody sent me an example. He tested it on non-sending wallet (freshly installed) and it seems to work (not 100% sure). |
|
|
|
|
|
Petr1fied
|
|
July 31, 2014, 02:55:16 AM |
|
hey guys we already tried running it. It's worthless because it requires access to the sending wallet, and it only gets the address of the first mixer.. which anyone can get by looking at their transaction, it however cannot get any of the remaining ones, and they are totally randomized as well. It just doesn't work guys. This is such a blatant attempt by a competing community to get their volume back. It belongs in key and it will stay here We appreciate you guys doing your homework though. Great community It probably doesn't require access to sending wallet. There seem to be nothing specific in the source code that would somehow differentiate between the sending and non-sending wallet (qt client). Unless there is some hidden (undocumented) feature in qt client that this source code is using. But this is just my educated guess. Can you explain which part of the program requires access to sending wallet? The author clearly stated in the edit that it doesn't need access to sending wallet: http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/2c6pax/program_that_deanonymizes_anonymous_keycoin/Address of the first mixer is enough for deanonymization. Who sent coins to the first mixer? Some random internet troll? Somebody sent me an example. He tested it on non-sending wallet (freshly installed) and it seems to work (not 100% sure). Until someone gives me the correct answer to this I call FUD: Am trying to run the program now.
ok feed it these values: Block Height: 11237 Exact Amount: 1.9998 What wallet address did these coins originally come from? |
|
|
|
|
|
raffern
|
|
July 31, 2014, 02:56:23 AM |
|
hey guys we already tried running it. It's worthless because it requires access to the sending wallet, and it only gets the address of the first mixer.. which anyone can get by looking at their transaction, it however cannot get any of the remaining ones, and they are totally randomized as well. It just doesn't work guys. This is such a blatant attempt by a competing community to get their volume back. It belongs in key and it will stay here We appreciate you guys doing your homework though. Great community It probably doesn't require access to sending wallet. There seem to be nothing specific in the source code that would somehow differentiate between the sending and non-sending wallet (qt client). Unless there is some hidden (undocumented) feature in qt client that this source code is using. But this is just my educated guess. Can you explain which part of the program requires access to sending wallet? The author clearly stated in the edit that it doesn't need access to sending wallet: http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/2c6pax/program_that_deanonymizes_anonymous_keycoin/Address of the first mixer is enough for deanonymization. Who sent coins to the first mixer? Some random internet troll? Somebody sent me an example. He tested it on non-sending wallet (freshly installed) and it seems to work (not 100% sure). Until someone gives me the correct answer to this I call FUD: Am trying to run the program now.
ok feed it these values: Block Height: 11237 Exact Amount: 1.9998 What wallet address did these coins originally come from? +1 |
|
|
|
|
cyberhacker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 31, 2014, 02:57:13 AM |
|
this FUD is very successful  and FUD spreader is so dedicated. |
|
|
|
|
Pmalek
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2772
Merit: 7160
|
|
July 31, 2014, 02:57:42 AM |
|
This FUD is creating cheap coins  |
.
.BLACKJACK ♠ FUN. | | | ███▄██████
██████████████▀
████████████
█████████████████
████████████████▄▄
░█████████████▀░▀▀
██████████████████
░██████████████
█████████████████▄
░██████████████▀
████████████
███████████████░██
██████████ | | CRYPTO CASINO &
SPORTS BETTING | | │ | | │ | ▄▄███████▄▄
▄███████████████▄
███████████████████
█████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████████
███████████████████
▀███████████████▀
███████████████████ | | .
|
|
|
|
magaura
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1029
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 31, 2014, 02:59:22 AM |
|
organised.. shake out...
|
|
|
|
cyberhacker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 31, 2014, 03:04:13 AM |
|
i see this is professional fudster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
pr0m3theus2013
|
|
July 31, 2014, 03:06:25 AM |
|
no one has been able to truly verify this. What would you like us to do to show to you guys that it is fud? We have tested this extensively and it's not even close at any time.
|
|
|
|
|
pbremen01
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
July 31, 2014, 03:09:39 AM |
|
no one has been able to truly verify this. What would you like us to do to show to you guys that it is fud? We have tested this extensively and it's not even close at any time.
Publish rigorous mathematical proof that your anonymity actually works? I will post some examples tomorrow if I will have enough time. I haven't verified them yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
pr0m3theus2013
|
|
July 31, 2014, 03:11:28 AM |
|
Were running our own tests as we speak, we will be documenting them. no one has been able to truly verify this. What would you like us to do to show to you guys that it is fud? We have tested this extensively and it's not even close at any time.
Publish rigorous mathematical proof that your anonymity actually works? I will post some examples tomorrow if I will have enough time. I haven't verified them yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
pr0m3theus2013
|
|
July 31, 2014, 03:15:24 AM |
|
It doesn't work guys, documentation being drafted now. I hate fudders  |
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin Machine
|
|
July 31, 2014, 03:16:00 AM |
|
Did I hear someone say cheap coins? Gobble, Gobble... |
|
|
|
|
magaura
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1029
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 31, 2014, 03:17:41 AM |
|
shake out over...
|
|
|
|
AzureColors
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
|
|
July 31, 2014, 03:17:56 AM |
|
This FUD is creating cheap coins I bought it at 74,000 then sold at 108,000 thinking it would drop as usual. It went back up before I could buy back in and missed the boat. Now I see it is hovering around 150,000. I bought back in because it is during a dip and cheaper than its latest high. It could go lower, even as low at 74,000 on this bad news. One thing is for sure. This coin is solid and will go back up. |
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin Machine
|
|
July 31, 2014, 03:19:35 AM |
|
This FUD is creating cheap coins I bought it at 74,000 then sold at 108,000 thinking it would drop as usual. It went back up before I could buy back in and missed the boat. Now I see it is hovering around 150,000. I bought back in because it is during a dip and cheaper than its latest high. It could go lower, even as low at 74,000 on this bad news. One thing is for sure. This coin is solid and will go back up. What bad news? I hear good news. |
|
|
|
|
|
