[ANN][XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthText, World's first anonymous SMS Tx! - page 62.

EmilioMann

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1028

#mitandopelomundo

@Pookie, are you a girl? Your name seems like a little pony name. Worry about buy wall of your shadowcoin that is pathetic. No volume. No blockchain. No friends

@Longandshort
What kind of dev are you?
Besides getting the threads of other coins spreading fud and trolling, you also send pm to investors of these other coins asking for them to buy sdc, as a desperate beggar.
You are part of dev team from a scamcoin that take the ideas of others and simply rushes to launch before and say it was the first without giving any credit to other and then begin with fud on another thread to try destroy another coin.
You guys did it with the mobile wallet with stake from librexcoin and now with a html 5 wallet from i/o coin and also are here just to try to discover how implement chandran signatures to launch it before stealthcoin too.

"Shadow knowing of the release of the wallet, ninja released the night before a QT5 based wallet running html5. IO COin was built from the ground up on RPC-only daemon. Meaning innovation something that had not been done before"

"I/OCoin is the first 100% HTML5 desktop wallet. John, click the about tab on that wallet and post here what it says. You will find it says QT. I rest my case
. See post #979 here – https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=745352.960 The person in the shadowcon “self moderated thread” (the easiest way to know if the coin is ‘shady and scamy’ is to simply check if it is a Self Moderated thread, so they can hide the truth) Quote” it is a QT based desktop wallet with a front HTML5 UI” Clearly saying it is not a a html5 wallet."

http://www.coinssource.com/io-coin-design-meets-function-html5-wallet-pos-3-0/

THE HTML5 WALLET FROM SHADOWCOIN IS FAKE! JUST MAKE UP!
[/b]

LongAndShort

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1050

Quote from: EmilioMann on October 09, 2014, 08:57:39 PM

@Pookie, are you a girl? Your name seems like a little pony name

@Longandshort
What kind of dev are you? You are part of dev team from a scamcoin that take the ideas of others and simply rushes to launch before and say it was the first without giving any credit to other and then begin with fud on another thread to try destroy another coin.
You guys did it with the mobile wallet with stake from librexcoin and now with a html 5 wallet from i/o coin and also are here just to try to discover how implement chandran signatures to launch it before stealthcoin too.

"Shadow knowing of the release of the wallet, ninja released the night before a QT5 based wallet running html5. IO COin was built from the ground up on RPC-only daemon. Meaning innovation something that had not been done before"

"I/OCoin is the first 100% HTML5 desktop wallet. John, click the about tab on that wallet and post here what it says. You will find it says QT. I rest my case
. See post #979 here – https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=745352.960 The person in the shadowcon “self moderated thread” (the easiest way to know if the coin is ‘shady and scamy’ is to simply check if it is a Self Moderated thread, so they can hide the truth) Quote” it is a QT based desktop wallet with a front HTML5 UI” Clearly saying it is not a a html5 wallet."

http://www.coinssource.com/io-coin-design-meets-function-html5-wallet-pos-3-0/

THE HTML5 WALLET FROM SHADOWCOIN IS FAKE! JUST MAKE UP!
[/b]

That has nothing to do with xst and thus is completely offtopic! do you know what that means? you don't realise how stupid you come off to people who have half a clue what it is you are talking about.

EmilioMann

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1028

#mitandopelomundo

Quote from: EmilioMann on October 08, 2014, 07:42:31 PM

Quote from: Koontas on October 08, 2014, 07:27:16 PM

As we have stated many times, this team does not respond to trolling or misleading accusations.

If anyone from the community has any valid questions that are not framed in an accusatory tone, please feel free to post them and someone from the team will respond to them as we have every reasonable question in the past.

+1
they are trying to force Hondo to explain how to implement Chandran signatures, so they can do the same in shitco ... sorry, shadowcoin.

EmilioMann

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1028

#mitandopelomundo

@Pookie, are you a girl? Your name seems like a little pony name

@Longandshort
What kind of dev are you? You are part of dev team from a scamcoin that take the ideas of others and simply rushes to launch before and say it was the first without giving any credit to other and then begin with fud on another thread to try destroy another coin.
You guys did it with the mobile wallet with stake from librexcoin and now with a html 5 wallet from i/o coin and also are here just to try to discover how implement chandran signatures to launch it before stealthcoin too.

"Shadow knowing of the release of the wallet, ninja released the night before a QT5 based wallet running html5. IO COin was built from the ground up on RPC-only daemon. Meaning innovation something that had not been done before"

"I/OCoin is the first 100% HTML5 desktop wallet. John, click the about tab on that wallet and post here what it says. You will find it says QT. I rest my case
. See post #979 here – https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=745352.960 The person in the shadowcon “self moderated thread” (the easiest way to know if the coin is ‘shady and scamy’ is to simply check if it is a Self Moderated thread, so they can hide the truth) Quote” it is a QT based desktop wallet with a front HTML5 UI” Clearly saying it is not a a html5 wallet."

http://www.coinssource.com/io-coin-design-meets-function-html5-wallet-pos-3-0/

THE HTML5 WALLET FROM SHADOWCOIN IS FAKE! JUST MAKE UP!
[/b]

LongAndShort

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1050

Quote from: EmilioMann on October 09, 2014, 08:42:57 PM

Quote from: EmilioMann on October 08, 2014, 07:42:31 PM

Quote from: Koontas on October 08, 2014, 07:27:16 PM

As we have stated many times, this team does not respond to trolling or misleading accusations.

If anyone from the community has any valid questions that are not framed in an accusatory tone, please feel free to post them and someone from the team will respond to them as we have every reasonable question in the past.

+1
they are trying to force Hondo to explain how to implement Chandran signatures, so they can do the same in shitco ... sorry, shadowcoin.

Did you just quote your own post again!?

LongAndShort

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1050

Quote from: Viper1 on October 09, 2014, 08:31:31 PM

Quote from: RadDragon on October 09, 2014, 08:16:43 PM

The devs not responding to these comments (and they do know this is going on) just further demonstrates how little credibility this guy has.

I'll be blunt. The devs not responding is not a good thing. Look at how many pages have been filled with this stuff. There are many of us that want to hear real technical answers to things and don't get them. For example, I want to know what the size of the transactions will be with low mixes compared to CN coins as opposed to those given in the whitepaper as a selling point for chandran sigs. When I brought it up before, I was labeled a troll/fuder etc and got no answers.

When I asked real question about BTCD, jl777 answered me. When I asked questions about SDC, the dev answered me. Fact is, I could list a few more coins where the dev actually answered my questions but in here, all you get is posts about how this is the second coming and posts get buried with images.

Granted, unlike this guy, I didn't go into those other threads and come out saying it was crap and vaporware, but still, some of us would like some real technical discussions and when we don't see any, it does not reflect well on the coin and the devs.

It seems like only logical people think the same thing i have come to conclusion it is vaporwaer because of the bashing and the way ive been treated you saw what i asked to begin with and what followed your points are bang on correct now with regards to my claims its simple. Regular ring signatures cannot be used because double spending is untraceable as they are unlinkable. no one is able to find out wether any two signatures (with two spends) are generated by the same entity or not. Linkable ring signatures provide the remedy to this problem by allowing the public to detect any signer who has produced two or more signatures. Hondo does not know how to pick the right paper the tracability is needed to to prevent double spending and chandran are unlinkable/tracable The way its implied is vaporware!

DFJ

newbie

Activity: 41

Merit: 0

Quote from: Viper1 on October 09, 2014, 08:31:31 PM

Quote from: RadDragon on October 09, 2014, 08:16:43 PM

The devs not responding to these comments (and they do know this is going on) just further demonstrates how little credibility this guy has.

I'll be blunt. The devs not responding is not a good thing. Look at how many pages have been filled with this stuff. There are many of us that want to hear real technical answers to things and don't get them. For example, I want to know what the size of the transactions will be with low mixes compared to CN coins as opposed to those given in the whitepaper as a selling point for chandran sigs. When I brought it up before, I was labeled a troll/fuder etc and got no answers.

When I asked real question about BTCD, jl777 answered me. When I asked questions about SDC, the dev answered me. Fact is, I could list a few more coins where the dev actually answered my questions but in here, all you get is posts about how this is the second coming and posts get buried with images.

Granted, unlike this guy, I didn't go into those other threads and come out saying it was crap and vaporware, but still, some of us would like some real technical discussions and when we don't see any, it does not reflect well on the coin and the devs.

Not an unreasonable request, but you should similarly see that it's not unreasonable to ignore the request. For example, in the early days of XC, which despite its other failings has seen many technical successes, Dan answered technical questions in the thread all the time. Then he clearly realized that was a massive drain on his time and not worth it as for every intelligent and well meaning technical question he had to wade through a pile of worthless troll questions. Parallel here is that while your question is reasonable, does the dev really need to take his time to deal with longandshort, who doesn't have an argument and just shouts that he doesn't think the project will work? So maybe dev decides he'd rather just focus on coding rather than putting himself at the beck and call of Random People On The Internet and answers neither question.

EmilioMann

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1028

#mitandopelomundo

Quote from: EmilioMann on October 08, 2014, 07:42:31 PM

Quote from: Koontas on October 08, 2014, 07:27:16 PM

As we have stated many times, this team does not respond to trolling or misleading accusations.

If anyone from the community has any valid questions that are not framed in an accusatory tone, please feel free to post them and someone from the team will respond to them as we have every reasonable question in the past.

+1
they are trying to force Hondo to explain how to implement Chandran signatures, so they can do the same in shitco ... sorry, shadowcoin.

defier

full member

Activity: 197

Merit: 100

Quote from: risefromtheashes74 on October 09, 2014, 08:04:29 PM

About to hit the hay now, how long has LongAndShort been going non-stop? It doesn't seem like he's slept in a couple days.
That ain't good for ya, bro!

Takes lots of motivation and it seems like some very good drugs.

Viper1

sr. member

Activity: 686

Merit: 320

Quote from: RadDragon on October 09, 2014, 08:16:43 PM

The devs not responding to these comments (and they do know this is going on) just further demonstrates how little credibility this guy has.

I'll be blunt. The devs not responding is not a good thing. Look at how many pages have been filled with this stuff. There are many of us that want to hear real technical answers to things and don't get them. For example, I want to know what the size of the transactions will be with low mixes compared to CN coins as opposed to those given in the whitepaper as a selling point for chandran sigs. When I brought it up before, I was labeled a troll/fuder etc and got no answers.

When I asked real question about BTCD, jl777 answered me. When I asked questions about SDC, the dev answered me. Fact is, I could list a few more coins where the dev actually answered my questions but in here, all you get is posts about how this is the second coming and posts get buried with images.

Granted, unlike this guy, I didn't go into those other threads and come out saying it was crap and vaporware, but still, some of us would like some real technical discussions and when we don't see any, it does not reflect well on the coin and the devs.

je_sus

sr. member

Activity: 616

Merit: 250

Ya'll need some poopylax.

RadDragon

full member

Activity: 188

Merit: 100

Sound science

Quote from: Viper1 on October 09, 2014, 08:07:37 PM

Quote from: LongAndShort on October 09, 2014, 07:55:18 PM

Quote from: Viper1 on October 09, 2014, 07:49:26 PM

Quote from: LongAndShort on October 09, 2014, 06:12:10 PM

I would like to know what happens when you all find out hondo cannot implement chandran sigs tin the way he is implying

So I've been watching the drama of you saying this over and over again. Can you share with me who those crypto people are that are saying it can't be done? Where's a technical thread discussing it? Cause a few weeks back I had an exchange with a Monero dev about chandran sigs and he said they were looking into it for Monero. Basically, he said that, although the reduced size for chandran sigs is true for large mixes, it's not true for small ones (the white paper was written in a misleading way to present things in a better light). Thus, they were looking at potentially using them for large mix transactions and continuing to use the ring signatures for small ones. Sooooo. If they're looking at chandran sigs and, at least at that point, they believed they were viable, I'd like to know who these other people are that say they're not.

Note: I'm not one of the XST cult members and have been labeled a troll and FUDer by this community. But I like to know the facts of things regardless of what thread I can get them from.

Sure you're not a fudder and whatever other stupid words people use to categorize things under but you are asking the right questions i just feel they are somewhat loaded but the answer is simple you can't do it with plain ring signatures... it has to be linkable / traceable signatures making it undoable in the way that hondo is implying

Sooo.. You're saying that CN does not use "plain ring signatures" and they are linkable/traceable in CN? I'm confused as to what exactly you're saying.

As for what the dev of XST is implementing, I don't remember seeing any specific details in the white paper and so from where are you getting your details. You said "implying" so I would take that to mean you're just assuming he's doing it in a way that could not be implemented or is there something that points it out clearly?

As I said, I like facts. When I read about chandran signatures in XST, I went out and asked some that would know the facts since that sort of information is lacking in this thread. So I'd like to know where you're getting your information from that clarifies things as fact as opposed to supposition.

This dude has been using circular logic and vague pseudo-technobabble just to spread vitriol and cause strife. I encourage you to grill him because I guarantee that you will not get a concrete answer, and if you read his post history in this thread it is patently evident that he is a shill.

And he's been up for days. That is friggin' intense, man.

Unless he gives a concrete explanation I'm of the belief that it's not so complicated to implement, nor is it out of reach. The devs not responding to these comments (and they do know this is going on) just further demonstrates how little credibility this guy has.

Viper1

sr. member

Activity: 686

Merit: 320

Quote from: LongAndShort on October 09, 2014, 07:55:18 PM

Quote from: Viper1 on October 09, 2014, 07:49:26 PM

Quote from: LongAndShort on October 09, 2014, 06:12:10 PM

I would like to know what happens when you all find out hondo cannot implement chandran sigs tin the way he is implying

So I've been watching the drama of you saying this over and over again. Can you share with me who those crypto people are that are saying it can't be done? Where's a technical thread discussing it? Cause a few weeks back I had an exchange with a Monero dev about chandran sigs and he said they were looking into it for Monero. Basically, he said that, although the reduced size for chandran sigs is true for large mixes, it's not true for small ones (the white paper was written in a misleading way to present things in a better light). Thus, they were looking at potentially using them for large mix transactions and continuing to use the ring signatures for small ones. Sooooo. If they're looking at chandran sigs and, at least at that point, they believed they were viable, I'd like to know who these other people are that say they're not.

Note: I'm not one of the XST cult members and have been labeled a troll and FUDer by this community. But I like to know the facts of things regardless of what thread I can get them from.

Sure you're not a fudder and whatever other stupid words people use to categorize things under but you are asking the right questions i just feel they are somewhat loaded but the answer is simple you can't do it with plain ring signatures... it has to be linkable / traceable signatures making it undoable in the way that hondo is implying

Sooo.. You're saying that CN does not use "plain ring signatures" and they are linkable/traceable in CN? I'm confused as to what exactly you're saying.

As for what the dev of XST is implementing, I don't remember seeing any specific details in the white paper and so from where are you getting your details. You said "implying" so I would take that to mean you're just assuming he's doing it in a way that could not be implemented or is there something that points it out clearly?

As I said, I like facts. When I read about chandran signatures in XST, I went out and asked some that would know the facts since that sort of information is lacking in this thread. So I'd like to know where you're getting your information from that clarifies things as fact as opposed to supposition.

gustopaz

sr. member

Activity: 417

Merit: 250

187 Rx42oxZ8jYNJZ7NSkwbQKFEUbdHVifZsHz 7093.828157 0.53792499 BTC $ 197.10 0.03% 2014-08-12 03:23 -153 /// LOL

Jordan23

sr. member

Activity: 382

Merit: 311

Quote from: LongAndShort on October 09, 2014, 07:59:53 PM

Quote from: CryptoPiero on October 09, 2014, 07:58:23 PM

Quote from: LongAndShort on October 09, 2014, 07:57:20 PM

Quote from: CryptoPiero on October 09, 2014, 07:55:26 PM

Quote from: LongAndShort on October 09, 2014, 07:50:14 PM

Quote from: CryptoPiero on October 09, 2014, 07:46:44 PM

Quote from: LongAndShort on October 09, 2014, 07:34:28 PM

sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable/traceable

This is the CryptoNote whitepaper:
https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

Quote

By combining both methods (unlinkable public keys and untraceable ring signature) Bob achieves
new level of privacy in comparison with the original Bitcoin scheme.

Please read section 4.4 and 4.5. A ring signature doesn't have to be 'traceable' for anonymizing transactions. I'm not even talking on a vaporware, this is CryptoNote. Jamming technical words you don't understand together doesn't make you look smart.

But you sure as hell are going to give it a go right!?

it has to be traceable, so you have like a public tag, otherwise the same ringsignature could just be created again, and they could double spend. Linkable: (in the context of ring sigs) seems to mean that the same tag can't be used twice in the same ring traceable means the tag can't be used twice regardless of the keys in the ring.

Read that whitepaper !!

In section 4.4 in the LNK scheme you can find how CryptoNote is doing this without a tag.

Sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable / traceable

You are sad.

You refuse to accept the facts what is not sad about that!

You refuse to explain in detail how they are not linkable. Your answer was someone told you.

risefromtheashes74

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

About to hit the hay now, how long has LongAndShort been going non-stop? It doesn't seem like he's slept in a couple days.
That ain't good for ya, bro!

LongAndShort

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1050

Quote from: CryptoPiero on October 09, 2014, 07:58:23 PM

Quote from: LongAndShort on October 09, 2014, 07:57:20 PM

Quote from: CryptoPiero on October 09, 2014, 07:55:26 PM

Quote from: LongAndShort on October 09, 2014, 07:50:14 PM

Quote from: CryptoPiero on October 09, 2014, 07:46:44 PM

Quote from: LongAndShort on October 09, 2014, 07:34:28 PM

sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable/traceable

This is the CryptoNote whitepaper:
https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

Quote

By combining both methods (unlinkable public keys and untraceable ring signature) Bob achieves
new level of privacy in comparison with the original Bitcoin scheme.

Please read section 4.4 and 4.5. A ring signature doesn't have to be 'traceable' for anonymizing transactions. I'm not even talking on a vaporware, this is CryptoNote. Jamming technical words you don't understand together doesn't make you look smart.

But you sure as hell are going to give it a go right!?

it has to be traceable, so you have like a public tag, otherwise the same ringsignature could just be created again, and they could double spend. Linkable: (in the context of ring sigs) seems to mean that the same tag can't be used twice in the same ring traceable means the tag can't be used twice regardless of the keys in the ring.

Read that whitepaper !!

In section 4.4 in the LNK scheme you can find how CryptoNote is doing this without a tag.

Sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable / traceable

You are sad.

You refuse to accept the facts what is not sad about that!

CryptoPiero

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: LongAndShort on October 09, 2014, 07:57:20 PM

Quote from: CryptoPiero on October 09, 2014, 07:55:26 PM

Quote from: LongAndShort on October 09, 2014, 07:50:14 PM

Quote from: CryptoPiero on October 09, 2014, 07:46:44 PM

Quote from: LongAndShort on October 09, 2014, 07:34:28 PM

sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable/traceable

This is the CryptoNote whitepaper:
https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

Quote

By combining both methods (unlinkable public keys and untraceable ring signature) Bob achieves
new level of privacy in comparison with the original Bitcoin scheme.

Please read section 4.4 and 4.5. A ring signature doesn't have to be 'traceable' for anonymizing transactions. I'm not even talking on a vaporware, this is CryptoNote. Jamming technical words you don't understand together doesn't make you look smart.

But you sure as hell are going to give it a go right!?

it has to be traceable, so you have like a public tag, otherwise the same ringsignature could just be created again, and they could double spend. Linkable: (in the context of ring sigs) seems to mean that the same tag can't be used twice in the same ring traceable means the tag can't be used twice regardless of the keys in the ring.

Read that whitepaper !!

In section 4.4 in the LNK scheme you can find how CryptoNote is doing this without a tag.

Sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable / traceable

You are sad.

LongAndShort

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1050

Quote from: CryptoPiero on October 09, 2014, 07:55:26 PM

Quote from: LongAndShort on October 09, 2014, 07:50:14 PM

Quote from: CryptoPiero on October 09, 2014, 07:46:44 PM

Quote from: LongAndShort on October 09, 2014, 07:34:28 PM

sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable/traceable

This is the CryptoNote whitepaper:
https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

Quote

By combining both methods (unlinkable public keys and untraceable ring signature) Bob achieves
new level of privacy in comparison with the original Bitcoin scheme.

Please read section 4.4 and 4.5. A ring signature doesn't have to be 'traceable' for anonymizing transactions. I'm not even talking on a vaporware, this is CryptoNote. Jamming technical words you don't understand together doesn't make you look smart.

But you sure as hell are going to give it a go right!?

it has to be traceable, so you have like a public tag, otherwise the same ringsignature could just be created again, and they could double spend. Linkable: (in the context of ring sigs) seems to mean that the same tag can't be used twice in the same ring traceable means the tag can't be used twice regardless of the keys in the ring.

Read that whitepaper !!

In section 4.4 in the LNK scheme you can find how CryptoNote is doing this without a tag.

Sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable / traceable

CryptoPiero

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: LongAndShort on October 09, 2014, 07:50:14 PM

Quote from: CryptoPiero on October 09, 2014, 07:46:44 PM

Quote from: LongAndShort on October 09, 2014, 07:34:28 PM

sub-linear traceable ring signatures could operate on the same principle as what they are implying, but chandran signatures aren't linkable/traceable

This is the CryptoNote whitepaper:
https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

Quote

By combining both methods (unlinkable public keys and untraceable ring signature) Bob achieves
new level of privacy in comparison with the original Bitcoin scheme.

Please read section 4.4 and 4.5. A ring signature doesn't have to be 'traceable' for anonymizing transactions. I'm not even talking on a vaporware, this is CryptoNote. Jamming technical words you don't understand together doesn't make you look smart.

But you sure as hell are going to give it a go right!?

it has to be traceable, so you have like a public tag, otherwise the same ringsignature could just be created again, and they could double spend. Linkable: (in the context of ring sigs) seems to mean that the same tag can't be used twice in the same ring traceable means the tag can't be used twice regardless of the keys in the ring.

Read that whitepaper !!

In section 4.4 in the LNK scheme you can find how CryptoNote is doing this without a tag.

Topic: [ANN][XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthText, World's first anonymous SMS Tx! - page 62. (Read 748616 times)