Topic: [ANN][XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthText, World's first anonymous SMS Tx! - page 54. (Read 748616 times)
October 10, 2014, 04:46:06 AM
Stealthcoin is on top with 110BTC volume!
October 10, 2014, 04:42:37 AM
October 10, 2014, 04:41:49 AM
Price drop to 5800k 
October 10, 2014, 04:39:33 AM
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006330 1000.00000000 0.06330000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006320 1000.00000000 0.06320000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006310 1000.00000000 0.06310000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006300 1000.00000000 0.06300000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006290 1000.00000000 0.06290000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006285 743.40000000 0.04672269
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006280 1000.00000000 0.06280000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006270 1000.00000000 0.06270000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006260 1000.00000000 0.06260000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006250 1000.00000000 0.06250000
...................................................
LOL
Sell more 'weakhanders'
BUY
0.00006330 1000.00000000 0.06330000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006320 1000.00000000 0.06320000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006310 1000.00000000 0.06310000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006300 1000.00000000 0.06300000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006290 1000.00000000 0.06290000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006285 743.40000000 0.04672269
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006280 1000.00000000 0.06280000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006270 1000.00000000 0.06270000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006260 1000.00000000 0.06260000
10/10/2014 04:37:21 PM
BUY
0.00006250 1000.00000000 0.06250000
...................................................
LOL
Sell more 'weakhanders'
October 10, 2014, 04:36:44 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
October 10, 2014, 04:36:34 AM
3 StealthSend Specifications
"Although stealthcoin is a proof-of-stake (PoS) coin, stealthsend can not be PoS because PoS requires proof of
ownership for the stake, which compromises anonymity unless memory expensive proofs are included with
every staking transaction.
Although such proofs are theoretically possible, they are unnecessarily impractical for a crypto-currency.
Therefore, stealthsend will be a proof-of-work coin, which will most likely use the low energy scrypt hashing
algorithm.
Holders of stealthcoin will be able to convert to stealthsend at a ratio of 1:1 using a proof-of-burn conversion.
This conversion will account for 85% of the StealthSend money supply. The other 15% of the stealthsend
money supply will be emitted using a smooth emission algorithm, such that 1/2 of the remaining money
supply is emitted every 2 years. The total money supply will depend on how much StealthCoin is converted to
stealthsend.
Finally, stealthsend will have a six minute block time."
"Although stealthcoin is a proof-of-stake (PoS) coin, stealthsend can not be PoS because PoS requires proof of
ownership for the stake, which compromises anonymity unless memory expensive proofs are included with
every staking transaction.
Although such proofs are theoretically possible, they are unnecessarily impractical for a crypto-currency.
Therefore, stealthsend will be a proof-of-work coin, which will most likely use the low energy scrypt hashing
algorithm.
Holders of stealthcoin will be able to convert to stealthsend at a ratio of 1:1 using a proof-of-burn conversion.
This conversion will account for 85% of the StealthSend money supply. The other 15% of the stealthsend
money supply will be emitted using a smooth emission algorithm, such that 1/2 of the remaining money
supply is emitted every 2 years. The total money supply will depend on how much StealthCoin is converted to
stealthsend.
Finally, stealthsend will have a six minute block time."
October 10, 2014, 04:35:00 AM
results of what its its not really their problem i mean they looked at the paper they gave an opinion and they are already not thinking about it.
I presume you are talking about GMaxwell etc...? I'm just not sure that aquick look even from experts necessarily means much. Some of the comments showed them admitting they didn't look too hard. And who's expect them to?Quote
to sum it up its just not really somethign that is viable but it is doable but comes with conditions..loads of them
Doable but not viable. That doesn't appear to make a lot of sense. Can you elaborate?Quote
its better to go back to the drawing board and start again they are looking at the wrong paper end of story
Can you explain this, it's too obscure for me to understand your point. ThanksQuote
how many people do you want to look it over before you realise its not gonna happen!
Well the appropriate course of action would be to have it seriously reviewed by someone competent.Quote
you are talking about a dev team that have ported most of their coin and even removed copyright and put their own
Can you elaborate please?Quote
gmaxwell: it's not clear to me that its 'doable',
Hardly a condemnation. Quote
there may be related schemes in that family which are applicable (I haven't researched further)
Ok,,,?Quote
, but the particular paper cited is of a technique which is not usable as is.
Interesting but...what exactly GMaxwell means we'd have to guess.Quote
And looks like it would not be advantagious if it were possible to modify it to make it usable.
Pretty unclear.Quote
its not doable the way they are implying its unlinkable/tracable
But why? 
October 10, 2014, 04:34:50 AM
All righty. Since longandshort was posting the IRC chat including some of the stuff I was asking, I figure I'll post my perspective for anyone that might actually care.
The conversation in the bitcoin channel was somewhat misleading and really didn't answer me satisfactory. Frankly, it's not their job and, as longandshort posted, they don't really know if it can be implemented or not given the limited information presented. They're also looking at it from the perspective of bitcoin.
Since I was mentioning Monero in there, one of their devs invited me into one of their channels where I was able to ask a few more questions.
Regarding the paper I posted that outlines how Chandran signatures can be traceable etc. Apparently it has not even been peer reviewed. So I'm left with the assumption that while it could be implemented, it would be questionable as to whether or not it would be sound.
So I was thinking about the whitepaper and what it actually said. Two things stood out to me, the first that it was talking about CN and then about burning Stealthcoins to Stealthsend coins. One of the key issues is the blockchain. For example, CN and bitcoin blockchains are completely incompatible. In addition, trying to implement something like Chandran sigs into a bitcoin core would be a massive undertaking. I mention the bitcoin core since it appears the source for Stealthcoin is based on that given the copyright notice although there's probably been some mods to it as well. Either way, I simply don't see how Stealthsend could be added into the blockchain after the fact especially given the time frame.
Given all that, the only way I can see potentially having Stealthsend in the time frame outlined is if it was based on CN with its own blockchain or perhaps some sort of dual blockchain scheme. That would sort of fit with the whitepaper talking about burning one for the other. In addition, changing CN to use Chandran sigs would be a much easier task but as I said, whether or not it would be cryptographically sound would still be up for debate.
And with that, I'm done with this Chandran sigs/Stealthsend topic as I spent far too much time looking into something that the devs should have been more clear about. Good luck to everyone.
The conversation in the bitcoin channel was somewhat misleading and really didn't answer me satisfactory. Frankly, it's not their job and, as longandshort posted, they don't really know if it can be implemented or not given the limited information presented. They're also looking at it from the perspective of bitcoin.
Since I was mentioning Monero in there, one of their devs invited me into one of their channels where I was able to ask a few more questions.
Regarding the paper I posted that outlines how Chandran signatures can be traceable etc. Apparently it has not even been peer reviewed. So I'm left with the assumption that while it could be implemented, it would be questionable as to whether or not it would be sound.
So I was thinking about the whitepaper and what it actually said. Two things stood out to me, the first that it was talking about CN and then about burning Stealthcoins to Stealthsend coins. One of the key issues is the blockchain. For example, CN and bitcoin blockchains are completely incompatible. In addition, trying to implement something like Chandran sigs into a bitcoin core would be a massive undertaking. I mention the bitcoin core since it appears the source for Stealthcoin is based on that given the copyright notice although there's probably been some mods to it as well. Either way, I simply don't see how Stealthsend could be added into the blockchain after the fact especially given the time frame.
Given all that, the only way I can see potentially having Stealthsend in the time frame outlined is if it was based on CN with its own blockchain or perhaps some sort of dual blockchain scheme. That would sort of fit with the whitepaper talking about burning one for the other. In addition, changing CN to use Chandran sigs would be a much easier task but as I said, whether or not it would be cryptographically sound would still be up for debate.
And with that, I'm done with this Chandran sigs/Stealthsend topic as I spent far too much time looking into something that the devs should have been more clear about. Good luck to everyone.
Stealthsend will be a new coin. It's stated clearly on some of the Stealthcoin papers...
Wow, just wow.
When I came here 2 weeks ago while Bob was still involved I told you guys it's a pump and dump. You called me a Fudder. All I wanted was to warn any new people not to fall for the hype..
Dear XST community: I hope you're happy that you made a lot of innocent people bagholders. It's gonna take a very long time before this coin sees any new highs, if ever.
Wishing the best of luck to Hondo, hope you succeed! Thanks for all you are doing!
October 10, 2014, 04:30:35 AM
All righty. Since longandshort was posting the IRC chat including some of the stuff I was asking, I figure I'll post my perspective for anyone that might actually care.
The conversation in the bitcoin channel was somewhat misleading and really didn't answer me satisfactory. Frankly, it's not their job and, as longandshort posted, they don't really know if it can be implemented or not given the limited information presented. They're also looking at it from the perspective of bitcoin.
Since I was mentioning Monero in there, one of their devs invited me into one of their channels where I was able to ask a few more questions.
Regarding the paper I posted that outlines how Chandran signatures can be traceable etc. Apparently it has not even been peer reviewed. So I'm left with the assumption that while it could be implemented, it would be questionable as to whether or not it would be sound.
So I was thinking about the whitepaper and what it actually said. Two things stood out to me, the first that it was talking about CN and then about burning Stealthcoins to Stealthsend coins. One of the key issues is the blockchain. For example, CN and bitcoin blockchains are completely incompatible. In addition, trying to implement something like Chandran sigs into a bitcoin core would be a massive undertaking. I mention the bitcoin core since it appears the source for Stealthcoin is based on that given the copyright notice although there's probably been some mods to it as well. Either way, I simply don't see how Stealthsend could be added into the blockchain after the fact especially given the time frame.
Given all that, the only way I can see potentially having Stealthsend in the time frame outlined is if it was based on CN with its own blockchain or perhaps some sort of dual blockchain scheme. That would sort of fit with the whitepaper talking about burning one for the other. In addition, changing CN to use Chandran sigs would be a much easier task but as I said, whether or not it would be cryptographically sound would still be up for debate.
And with that, I'm done with this Chandran sigs/Stealthsend topic as I spent far too much time looking into something that the devs should have been more clear about. Good luck to everyone.
The conversation in the bitcoin channel was somewhat misleading and really didn't answer me satisfactory. Frankly, it's not their job and, as longandshort posted, they don't really know if it can be implemented or not given the limited information presented. They're also looking at it from the perspective of bitcoin.
Since I was mentioning Monero in there, one of their devs invited me into one of their channels where I was able to ask a few more questions.
Regarding the paper I posted that outlines how Chandran signatures can be traceable etc. Apparently it has not even been peer reviewed. So I'm left with the assumption that while it could be implemented, it would be questionable as to whether or not it would be sound.
So I was thinking about the whitepaper and what it actually said. Two things stood out to me, the first that it was talking about CN and then about burning Stealthcoins to Stealthsend coins. One of the key issues is the blockchain. For example, CN and bitcoin blockchains are completely incompatible. In addition, trying to implement something like Chandran sigs into a bitcoin core would be a massive undertaking. I mention the bitcoin core since it appears the source for Stealthcoin is based on that given the copyright notice although there's probably been some mods to it as well. Either way, I simply don't see how Stealthsend could be added into the blockchain after the fact especially given the time frame.
Given all that, the only way I can see potentially having Stealthsend in the time frame outlined is if it was based on CN with its own blockchain or perhaps some sort of dual blockchain scheme. That would sort of fit with the whitepaper talking about burning one for the other. In addition, changing CN to use Chandran sigs would be a much easier task but as I said, whether or not it would be cryptographically sound would still be up for debate.
And with that, I'm done with this Chandran sigs/Stealthsend topic as I spent far too much time looking into something that the devs should have been more clear about. Good luck to everyone.
Stealthsend will be a new coin. It's stated clearly on some of the Stealthcoin papers...
Here it is: https://www.stealth-coin.com/wp-content/uploads/Stealthsend_Whitepaper_brief0914.pdf
October 10, 2014, 04:28:09 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 in 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 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 in 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 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
+1000
October 10, 2014, 04:27:47 AM
All righty. Since longandshort was posting the IRC chat including some of the stuff I was asking, I figure I'll post my perspective for anyone that might actually care.
The conversation in the bitcoin channel was somewhat misleading and really didn't answer me satisfactory. Frankly, it's not their job and, as longandshort posted, they don't really know if it can be implemented or not given the limited information presented. They're also looking at it from the perspective of bitcoin.
Since I was mentioning Monero in there, one of their devs invited me into one of their channels where I was able to ask a few more questions.
Regarding the paper I posted that outlines how Chandran signatures can be traceable etc. Apparently it has not even been peer reviewed. So I'm left with the assumption that while it could be implemented, it would be questionable as to whether or not it would be sound.
So I was thinking about the whitepaper and what it actually said. Two things stood out to me, the first that it was talking about CN and then about burning Stealthcoins to Stealthsend coins. One of the key issues is the blockchain. For example, CN and bitcoin blockchains are completely incompatible. In addition, trying to implement something like Chandran sigs into a bitcoin core would be a massive undertaking. I mention the bitcoin core since it appears the source for Stealthcoin is based on that given the copyright notice although there's probably been some mods to it as well. Either way, I simply don't see how Stealthsend could be added into the blockchain after the fact especially given the time frame.
Given all that, the only way I can see potentially having Stealthsend in the time frame outlined is if it was based on CN with its own blockchain or perhaps some sort of dual blockchain scheme. That would sort of fit with the whitepaper talking about burning one for the other. In addition, changing CN to use Chandran sigs would be a much easier task but as I said, whether or not it would be cryptographically sound would still be up for debate.
And with that, I'm done with this Chandran sigs/Stealthsend topic as I spent far too much time looking into something that the devs should have been more clear about. Good luck to everyone.
The conversation in the bitcoin channel was somewhat misleading and really didn't answer me satisfactory. Frankly, it's not their job and, as longandshort posted, they don't really know if it can be implemented or not given the limited information presented. They're also looking at it from the perspective of bitcoin.
Since I was mentioning Monero in there, one of their devs invited me into one of their channels where I was able to ask a few more questions.
Regarding the paper I posted that outlines how Chandran signatures can be traceable etc. Apparently it has not even been peer reviewed. So I'm left with the assumption that while it could be implemented, it would be questionable as to whether or not it would be sound.
So I was thinking about the whitepaper and what it actually said. Two things stood out to me, the first that it was talking about CN and then about burning Stealthcoins to Stealthsend coins. One of the key issues is the blockchain. For example, CN and bitcoin blockchains are completely incompatible. In addition, trying to implement something like Chandran sigs into a bitcoin core would be a massive undertaking. I mention the bitcoin core since it appears the source for Stealthcoin is based on that given the copyright notice although there's probably been some mods to it as well. Either way, I simply don't see how Stealthsend could be added into the blockchain after the fact especially given the time frame.
Given all that, the only way I can see potentially having Stealthsend in the time frame outlined is if it was based on CN with its own blockchain or perhaps some sort of dual blockchain scheme. That would sort of fit with the whitepaper talking about burning one for the other. In addition, changing CN to use Chandran sigs would be a much easier task but as I said, whether or not it would be cryptographically sound would still be up for debate.
And with that, I'm done with this Chandran sigs/Stealthsend topic as I spent far too much time looking into something that the devs should have been more clear about. Good luck to everyone.
October 10, 2014, 04:25:41 AM
Let me play devils advocate here and say you are right. Which let me just say I highly doubt. Why do you care? Why are you here? What's the point? I see scam coins all the time and I don't bother spending a good few days trying to convince people on anything. Give it up mate we all see through it.
thats a good point mate i hadn`t thought of it like that
October 10, 2014, 04:24:43 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, 04:21:47 AM
The thing I hate about you LongAndShort is the way you give Coca-Cola to your scum and your best teddy bear to Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the rest of your frigid life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqoGcC4S5jk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqoGcC4S5jk
October 10, 2014, 04:16:28 AM
damn you guys are as stuborn as me..this guy being told its fraud and still trying hard to say "hondo a good guy yo!" in a technical chan cmon how pathetic..deal with it its done its finished its vaporware
when will you all acceptp
when will you all acceptp
Hey moron!!! Your shitdow coin is dead, go and save it..you know why its called shitdowcash right??? Cuz its all shit like you..so just stfu and fuck off, OK?? Otherwise you will see..
October 10, 2014, 04:08:27 AM
Lolwut you just trolled yourself? Hahaha
games over devs a fraud community is putrid pack up and learn your lesson!
stealthsend is proven vaporware by at least 6 professionals now!
You realize how lame you are ?
Let's suppose you are perfectly and totally wright. OK ?
What's the whole point of your spent energy to stay day and night on this forum trying to bring more and more evidence?
Can you please explain me that ? What drives you to have so much involvement in this ?
I fail to understand.
Probably he is looking for a new investors for "ShadowCash"
...fail 
October 10, 2014, 04:07:49 AM
Only idiots selling at this point
Sell me idiots, sell me hahahahaha...
I'll grab your cheap XSTs
Sell me idiots, sell me hahahahaha...
I'll grab your cheap XSTs
October 10, 2014, 04:05:47 AM
Lolwut you just trolled yourself? Hahaha
games over devs a fraud community is putrid pack up and learn your lesson!
stealthsend is proven vaporware by at least 6 professionals now!
You realize how lame you are ?
Let's suppose you are perfectly and totally wright. OK ?
What's the whole point of your spent energy to stay day and night on this forum trying to bring more and more evidence?
Can you please explain me that ? What drives you to have so much involvement in this ?
I fail to understand.
October 10, 2014, 03:58:30 AM
Oh shit! what the fuck r u doing with the price?
stealthsend is vaporware!Only vaporware around here is your dick.
deny it all you want the facts are overwelming
your spelling is overwhelming
stealthsend is proven to be vaporware yet you're still here supporting it..hmm and i'm the crazy one..stop while you still have a chance and become a better person and do the right thing and just not support such filth or you are just as bad! Attacking me is futile i have all the facts laid out and you will just keep seeing them from me as long as you keep attacking me. you are not getting away with this rotten scam this industry needs more people like me and less like you!
October 10, 2014, 03:57:08 AM
Let me play devils advocate here and say you are right. Which let me just say I highly doubt. Why do you care? Why are you here? What's the point? I see scam coins all the time and I don't bother spending a good few days trying to convince people on anything. Give it up mate we all see through it.
Jump to: