where is d&p group
Who this d&p thou speaketh of?
Topic: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/9 Status Update - page 84. (Read 188824 times)
July 28, 2014, 11:00:32 PM
July 28, 2014, 10:33:16 PM
where is d&p group
July 28, 2014, 08:05:35 PM
Yeahhh
Thanks Busoni team
Let's trade on Poloniex now
July 28, 2014, 07:16:08 PM
July 28, 2014, 04:49:52 PM
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.
July 28, 2014, 04:24:27 PM
Small dip! Time to buy more!
July 28, 2014, 03:29:20 PM
Developer of XC's anonymous system has agreed to review our code and provide feedback to the community. This is great news for us!
That's awesome news. Should shut up some FUD'ers. Then again, they haven't shut up after being proven wrong again and again.
Everyone wants cheap keys.
July 28, 2014, 01:02:13 PM
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, .......
This is such a great idea. Stephen! We need you!
I know! Maybe all currencies should be approved by him
July 28, 2014, 12:59:14 PM
keycoin is awesome!!!!! just received a fee for mixing!
July 28, 2014, 12:55:45 PM
Fucking fudder
I get cheap Key now shut up
I get cheap Key now shut up
Spoken like a distinguished connoisseur
July 28, 2014, 12:32:25 PM
Can someone please show me an example of anon transaction in blockchain?
I'm trying to figure out anon. Does the anonymity work yet?
I'm trying to figure out anon. Does the anonymity work yet?
Here you go, I just sent an anonymous transaction to test it:
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/key/address.dws?KM7DfEPN53VimonjQv3yHpsijBRNqrayxq.htm
See if you can figure out where the coins in that wallet address actually came from.
Thank you, will check tomorrow. Did you use sendanoncoins RPC command?
@pbremen01: I'm quoting this post from you a few days ago. Did you ever figure out the wallet address? You've had several days. I'm sure you've been able to find some time in your busy life to figure this out, especially since you're so motivated to prove that the anon tech does not work.
July 28, 2014, 12:25:13 PM
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, .......
This is such a great idea. Stephen! We need you!
July 28, 2014, 12:24:35 PM
Fucking fudder
I get cheap Key now shut up
I get cheap Key now shut up
July 28, 2014, 11:56:58 AM
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
Quote
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.
July 28, 2014, 11:46:03 AM
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.
July 28, 2014, 11:35:05 AM
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".
July 28, 2014, 11:23:58 AM
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"
July 28, 2014, 11:11:56 AM
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?
July 28, 2014, 11:10:53 AM
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".
July 28, 2014, 11:05:52 AM
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
Jump to: