Topic: [XC][XCurrency] Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat / Pos - page 1241. (Read 1484248 times)

Chaeplin, stop repeatedly saying the same thing. You are wrong. Read the quoted website above.  Learn about chain of custody.

SO Chaeplin couldn't prove any thing so he tries to stir up the debate with non-trivial information.



Lets ALL BE CLEAR - PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL SENDERS ADDRESS or STFU!!!!!

You should read this https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/coinjoin-bitcoin-privacy-for-the-real-world-279249

Chaeplin, stop repeatedly saying the same thing. You are wrong. Read the quoted website above.  Learn about chain of custody.

Hi everyone. I thought I'd make some sense of the work that Chaeplin has done on XC. (Summary: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7270701.)

First, this is what ATCSECURE provided:

• Sender address: ?
• Wallet B: XYyMMG1VQHyRhAQWGdRQ9AEfdwSuG7w18G
• Wallet C: XZvkTGD9hMiRuMByqCkHgRTNAu5J5fWnJV
• Recipient address: XVrqrpe2ZDmykAnjcAHN6McbuDEjBZSvRZ
• Payment process: "The mixer tells the [sender address] to send coins to wallet b, however wallet C is used to send coins to the [recipient address], there is NO link from wallet B to wallet C unless somebody manually moves the coins from C to B."
• Aspect of payment being tested: the assertion that there is no link in the Blockchain from Wallet B to Wallet C. Testers are required to falsify this claim in order to receive a bounty.

This is what Chaeplin did:

1. He utilised a technique known as "Satoshi Spam," which is a matter of sending tiny amounts to addresses. One can use this to watch where the money flows in order to work out which addresses have common ownership.

2. Satoshi Spam is based on the pre-coinjoin principle that, given a transaction with multiple inputs and a single output, it follows that the inputs are owned by the same entity. For example, if 7 addresses were spammed with BTC 0.000001 and then all of these addresses were used to pay the resulting amount to another address, one can thereby conclude that the 7 addresses are owned by one person, and in all likelihood are in the same wallet.

3. However, coinjoin falsifies the assumption behind Satoshi Spam because coinjoin uses input addresses owned by several parties are to pay one or more recipient addresses. Thus if coinjoin is even partly implemented for a given coin, it becomes false to assume that one party owns the input addresses, since it's possible that there could be several owners.

4. Chaeplin implemented Satoshi Spam by sending small amounts to Wallet B and Wallet C.

5. His intention was to watch the blockchain to see where the amounts he sent to Wallets B and C would end up when the wallets spent the money.

6. His observation of the blockchain revealed the following information:
    - Wallets B and C sent payments somewhere, but the outputs are not given in the blockchain
    - Wallets B and C also paid transaction fees for the payments, but the addresses they're paid to are not given in the blockchain

7. With this information, Chaeplin constructs the following account:
    - Once Wallets B and C spend the money sent to them, the transaction is recorded in the blockchain, though the recipient address is not.
    - Nonetheless, he has a record that Wallets B and C spent the money.
    - On one occasion, Wallet B spends money, and at a similar time, Wallet C pays a transaction fee.
    - Therefore Wallets B and C are owned by the same entity.

8. However this is obviously false, because:
    - there's no record in the blockchain linking Wallet B's transaction with Wallet C's transaction fee.
    - there's no record in the blockchain that a single address received the money that Wallets B and C spent.

Therefore Chaeplin did not establish proof of a link between Wallets B and C.



Additional comments:

- This analysis is tentative. I might be incorrect about what Chaeplin did. He does not explain why he pastes code and blockchain records in his comments, so it's impossible to be certain about what is argument actually is. I've tried to reconstruct his thought process from what he posted.

- Chaeplin appears to have only a vague grasp of the strategy behind Satoshi Spam. Just as it is ineffective when coinjoin is implemented, it is ineffective when output addresses are not shown, as with XC.

- Chaeplin has clearly shown that a payment from Wallet B and another payment (probably a transaction fee) from Wallet C co-occurred.

- However Chaeplin conflates co-occurrence with a "hard link". Just because a payment from one address and a fee from another address appear in a blockchain at similar times, it does not entail that the two are associated in any way. Even if the blockchain was brand new and consisted of only these two payments, this implication would not be established. Co-occurrence is categorically distinct from a record that one address paid another.

- However in my opinion it would be wrong to conclude that Chaeplin is a fudder, since we do not have a "hard link" proving his intentions. There is evidence, sure, but let's not make Chaeplin's mistake of conflating possibility with certainty. We would act honourably by giving him the benefit of the doubt. And in acting honourably, we raise the ethic of this thread, which makes XC's community more attractive. Let's do XC proud.

Sorry to interrupt, just an interesting reading that could help in the near future related with "privacy/annon" technology . (somewhat related with the hard link request)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_testing.

Thanks for the reply Chaeplin. I have studied the blockchain and read your post several times and I still cannot see that you provided a direct link.

In which transaction were Wallets B and C used as inputs?
Which address is the output of this transaction?

Please do not only paste code. You need to also establish what the code implies, using normal English.

Alternatively, write in your first language and we will try to find someone to translate it for us.

The DNA parentage test that follows strict chain of custody can generate legally admissible results that are used for child support, inheritance, social welfare benefits, immigration, or adoption purposes. To satisfy the chain-of-custody legal requirements, all tested parties have to be properly identified and their specimens collected by a third-party professional who is not related to any of the tested parties and has no interest in the outcome of the test.

The quantum of evidence needed is clear and convincing evidence; that is, more evidence than an ordinary case in civil litigation, but much less than beyond a reasonable doubt required to convict a defendant in a criminal case.

Chaeplin's stated reason for not testing the new release is that he believes ATCSECURE did not acknowledge the hard link Chaeplin provided.

I think that we are obliged to give Chaeplin the benefit of the doubt here regarding his beliefs, since we have no proof of the contrary. If I were in his position and genuinely believed that I'd been hard done by, I'd also be unwilling to continue.

It's just unfortunate that he's mistaken in his belief. That's all it comes down to, in my opinion.


As an aside, I think it's a good idea to be gracious to one's opponents. It makes one a good sport. We gain nothing by being victorious and mean.

great summary, given the fact that he backed out of the newest challange for the multipath beta i think his intentions are clear now. but that doesn'T metter after all, the whole process helped XC finally but since that wasn't his personal intention  (rather the opposite) there is no need for a thank you or any kind of forgiving gesture either.

the status quo is this: the only guy who could find the sender with a method that wasn 100% fair play anyway can no longer find it now with REV1.5 !!!

the test is still running so i don't celebrate before the final wistle

it's only fair if you already upload detail somewhere with timestamp before anyone post their answer then release the detail next day. if you don't release the detail then chance the answer is correct but if no answer then chaplin can't find the way to track it.

On another note, I don't see a problem with comparison against different coins from time to time but it shouldn't be the focus. The comparison should also be simply technical.

It's similar to laptops you have apple and hp for example they both make a product that does the same thing but it's always good to benchmark and give the pros/cons of both.