Deal with it!
Please stop copy my deal with it line, it make you so un-original
But then I can't do much as I already know you already broke every rules
I don't know if I can classified you as human with logic
Topic: [ANN][XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthText, World's first anonymous SMS Tx! - page 53. (Read 748429 times)
October 10, 2014, 05:31:41 AM
Please stop copy my deal with it line, it make you so un-original
But then I can't do much as I already know you already broke every rules
I don't know if I can classified you as human with logic
October 10, 2014, 05:30:55 AM
i think is problem with XST
Yes stealthsend proposed is fundamental flawed the dev just released a statement that no body in here understood except like 2 people and the rest think its happy days..they are wrong you only need to go back through the tread to see its doomed to fail in its current state with all these foolish children protecting their investment.!
You are just wasting your time and life.
Because of you some will drop the coin and some of them will come back to buy it again.
You are just interfering with people choices and free will.
You learned nothing from your miserable pathetic life
blablabla keep peddling your lemoncoin. animal
I bet you are like this in the real life too ..harassing people and interfering with their free will. Fucking idiot, you belong behind bars.
You are the crim here trying to prop up your investment even though its rubbish and vaporware in its current state you're selling junk
October 10, 2014, 05:30:16 AM
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
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
This would make the so call longshort professionals look like some homo buying their position into Bitcoin team.
These guys hated altcoins!
October 10, 2014, 05:30:00 AM
They're probably loving this right now. They will insult you then when you insult them back they cry about it.
October 10, 2014, 05:29:49 AM
Deal with it!
OK OK WE DEAL WITH IT:) HAPPY?
October 10, 2014, 05:29:13 AM
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
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
October 10, 2014, 05:28:03 AM
i think is problem with XST
Yes stealthsend proposed is fundamental flawed the dev just released a statement that no body in here understood except like 2 people and the rest think its happy days..they are wrong you only need to go back through the tread to see its doomed to fail in its current state with all these foolish children protecting their investment.!
You are just wasting your time and life.
Because of you some will drop the coin and some of them will come back to buy it again.
You are just interfering with people choices and free will.
You learned nothing from your miserable pathetic life
blablabla keep peddling your lemoncoin. animal
October 10, 2014, 05:27:55 AM
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
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
October 10, 2014, 05:25:47 AM
Deal with it!
October 10, 2014, 05:23:29 AM
He was fudding shadowcoin before being for it.
Longandshort, can you give a coherent, respectful and calm rebuttal to Hondo's post without being a rude and petty megalomaniac? I'd actually like to hear your take on it if you can drop the tough guy act for 5 seconds. Please try to do it without saying "I've BEEN ABUSED!!!" 60 times. Thanks.
Longandshort, can you give a coherent, respectful and calm rebuttal to Hondo's post without being a rude and petty megalomaniac? I'd actually like to hear your take on it if you can drop the tough guy act for 5 seconds. Please try to do it without saying "I've BEEN ABUSED!!!" 60 times. Thanks.
Don't insult me you don't deserve the dirt form my shoes let alone respect form me you have abused me many times here you don't deserve jack!
lmao. Classic.
October 10, 2014, 05:23:09 AM
i think is problem with XST
Yes stealthsend proposed is fundamental flawed the dev just released a statement that no body in here understood except like 2 people and the rest think its happy days..they are wrong you only need to go back through the tread to see its doomed to fail in its current state with all these foolish children protecting their investment.!
You are just wasting your time and life.
Because of you some will drop the coin and some of them will come back to buy it again.
You are just interfering with people choices and free will.
You learned nothing from your miserable pathetic life
blablabla keep peddling your lemoncoin. animal
October 10, 2014, 05:22:14 AM
He was fudding shadowcoin before being for it.
Longandshort, can you give a coherent, respectful and calm rebuttal to Hondo's post without being a rude and petty megalomaniac? I'd actually like to hear your take on it if you can drop the tough guy act for 5 seconds. Please try to do it without saying "I've BEEN ABUSED!!!" 60 times. Thanks.
Longandshort, can you give a coherent, respectful and calm rebuttal to Hondo's post without being a rude and petty megalomaniac? I'd actually like to hear your take on it if you can drop the tough guy act for 5 seconds. Please try to do it without saying "I've BEEN ABUSED!!!" 60 times. Thanks.
Don't insult me you don't deserve the dirt from my shoes let alone respect form me you have abused me many times here you don't deserve jack!
October 10, 2014, 05:21:57 AM
i think is problem with XST
Yes stealthsend proposed is fundamental flawed the dev just released a statement that no body in here understood except like 2 people and the rest think its happy days..they are wrong you only need to go back through the tread to see its doomed to fail in its current state with all these foolish children protecting their investment.!
You are just wasting your time and life.
Because of you some will drop the coin and some of them will come back to buy it again.
You are just interfering with people choices and free will.
You learned nothing from your miserable pathetic life
October 10, 2014, 05:21:00 AM
Yes i have helped hondo see the flaws in his proposal and yes it may help him and the industry whcih is really my goal but the elephant in the room is still there its not going to be good at all nor is it going to be done soon. Stealthsend is flawed and will be difficult to do it will have many tradeoffs that will not be appealing!
And it most certainly is not going to be fast efficient and relevant the way you guys are betting on it!
You are in for a real bit of pain in the future..personally id like to see hondo work on it and play around but i don't want to see you flood abuse more people and i dont want to see you rope more people into this project based on a promise that is not achievable and every person who bashes me is clearly stuck in it! but will drop the rest of you like flies if it comes to it!
You have all had enough proof be you believe it or not its all opinion from professionals deal with it be responsible and be modest about the expectations you put on this because people are saying its not looking good so juts be ever so careful!! and whatever you do don't let these fools abuse you! They are filthy swine with no respect!!
And it most certainly is not going to be fast efficient and relevant the way you guys are betting on it!
You are in for a real bit of pain in the future..personally id like to see hondo work on it and play around but i don't want to see you flood abuse more people and i dont want to see you rope more people into this project based on a promise that is not achievable and every person who bashes me is clearly stuck in it! but will drop the rest of you like flies if it comes to it!
You have all had enough proof be you believe it or not its all opinion from professionals deal with it be responsible and be modest about the expectations you put on this because people are saying its not looking good so juts be ever so careful!! and whatever you do don't let these fools abuse you! They are filthy swine with no respect!!
October 10, 2014, 05:19:26 AM
He was fudding shadowcoin before being for it.
Longandshort, can you give a coherent, respectful and calm rebuttal to Hondo's post without being a rude and petty megalomaniac? I'd actually like to hear your take on it if you can drop the tough guy act for 5 seconds. Please try to do it without saying "I've BEEN ABUSED!!!" 60 times. Thanks.
Longandshort, can you give a coherent, respectful and calm rebuttal to Hondo's post without being a rude and petty megalomaniac? I'd actually like to hear your take on it if you can drop the tough guy act for 5 seconds. Please try to do it without saying "I've BEEN ABUSED!!!" 60 times. Thanks.
October 10, 2014, 05:17:55 AM
I still wait Hondo reply. Thanks
Hondo doesnt know how to reply hahah after months he gives u copy and paste and promises a task he wont be able to accomplish... LULZ at you tards.. its no figure this thread is over run by newbies... and the full members like Emilio are retards from butthurt scam coins
They also taught in computer science courses that copying, or "double spending" was impossible to prevent without a 3rd party trust. Then, Satoshi Nakamoto created the blockchain, and look were we are all now.
Just because you and LongAndShort say that what Hondo is trying to do is impossible...doesn't make it so.
satoshi didn't repackage everybody elses code and remove copyright then state he was going to soon make bitcoin...
He just did it! Big difference and again clutching at straws here avoiding the fact you know its all truth. It all dosn't add up, how can he achieve it when all he has done is repackage other peoples code!
You might say it is pointless to make your own completely from scratch and i agree with you but that is not what this is about. He has shown no ability to achieve this, yet he is making something that is not yet done in this industry or anywhere when his history shows all he has ever done is repackage and cleverly place working code in series to create something convenient. Ingenuous means he pieced together a puzzle to make a working product. sms relay was that, used from many other things but he wants to do so much more and he has no trust..
but somehow from you, he does, when there just is no trust he can even do it! please tell me i'm wrong again this is just getting so sickening. he has no history of making a crypto first of this magnitude and thus by telling everyone a fair amount of time before its release that its dooable=vaporware and really is a hype gimmik like the rest of this coin!
HI FUCKER YOU EVER LEARN PHONETICS? OK SOUND IT OUT "OPEN SOURCE" NOW DEFINE IT AND SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
so i'm here basically telling you all that there is something wrong here and over and over i've stated the same thing just 100 different ways for all y'all to grasp its failed but you see the smart people got it.
and the experts are saying things like
"surprised to hear that the thing whitepapered before is somehow being traded already; I should really someday stop being surprised by these things."
and " it's the normal course of things in the altcoin world - you first launch so that you can mine a bucketload at low diff, then you make vague hand-wavey promises, then you sell a bit on the back of the claims, wait for it to tank, buy back in, push out a whitepaper with little technical merit, and offload"
with regards to most the altcoin space and specifically this coin! who do you trust more? Some fools in a thread constantly avoiding the fact this coin is vapoware and is pretty much as of right now a straight up scam or some professionals saying its vaporware! cmon get head in it and see whats happeneing here! its projects like this that are killing this wholeindustry because we allow it to go on and on like this without any rebuttal. you are either for it or against it!
"You can't really honest effort yourself through something that is just not applicable, and probably not through not knowing what you're doing. ... and you speak of integrity, but launching some speculative asset when you've not done the work? I don't think that is something that speaks of integrity."
That's it this fucker is going to go on my ignore list I suggest the rest of you do the same This sick mother fucker has done enough damage on this forum!
October 10, 2014, 05:16:43 AM
i think is problem with XST
Yes stealthsend proposed is fundamental flawed the dev just released a statement that no body in here understood except like 2 people and the rest think its happy days..they are wrong you only need to go back through the tread to see its doomed to fail in its current state with all these foolish children protecting their investment.!
October 10, 2014, 05:15:43 AM
you fools are betting on a lemon end of story its aweful
And there he goes again....No matter what you say and do...who wants to support the coin will support it.
You are just wasting your time and life.
Because of you some will drop the coin and some of them will come back to buy it again.
You are just interfering with people choices and free will.
You learned nothing from your miserable pathetic life.
October 10, 2014, 05:14:06 AM
you fools are betting on a lemon end of story its aweful
Thank you for your posts, now Stealthcoin become stronger than ever before October 10, 2014, 05:11:12 AM
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
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
+
Jump to: