[XC][XCurrency] Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat / Pos - page 1265.

Quote from: synechist on June 12, 2014, 10:34:35 AM

Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 12, 2014, 08:17:45 AM

Here, I am done - I think this makes sense.

Read this while reviewing the flow chaeplin posted:
The transactions sent from the mixer (C) to the end address is of a set size (his example was 10). This is D.

He can then search the blockchain for possible candidates (value 10) via a script. Which gets us to block 28531 - this matches the 10.00 XC value. This can be linked at blocked 28533 with the mixer C - we already know C (output 9.99999).
This allows him to trace back to 28531 in the blockchain - to find the values that == 10.00 and match to a specific address - in this case: XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa which is B.

You can then take all the transactions for this address B - review them and find two matching amounts that == 10 which belong to one single address. This address is A. Since this address B has never been used before this transaction - this is easy to do - and - even if it had multiple transactions - they would not all related back to one single point with one single value (10).

Just for the record, - I think this is right.
Again - I'm participating to participate - nothing else.
If my logic is flawed, let me know please, this is vexing me - because this looks right and all I get is nothing constructive back.

Thanks, this is a helpful description of what Chaeplin did.

However it does not adequately express what ATCsecure wanted tested. He wanted *proof* of a direct link, not just interestingly coincidental amounts sent and received. This is because he's testing the mixer and xnode functionality, not the multi-path feature which is yet to be implemented.

For more information, read page 356 of this thread, and also the following quotation:

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:44:11 PM

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:42:17 PM

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:13:28 PM

I'd like to see somebody match input/outputs on the last transaction I posted...

http://cryptexplorer.com/block/1f986c7643436e328456252db9d0def76a97f9c2bae10e3ee73a9d427f8f149f

somebody is trying to make a link AFTER the fact LOL

sending 0.03 to both address's doesn't count as a LINK

but thanks for the XC's

So read page 356 and you will see that XC's implementation is successful and that Chaeplin was trying to test for the wrong thing. He returned later when ATCSECURE was gone and make his case again - yet concealed the fact that what he presents is not what's at stake here.

You have missed one thing.
I have spammed two address to create multiple input which should not occur.
Have you heard satoshi spamming ?

Anyway Xnode owner should not send any coins from Xnode.
It will create multiple input.

Yes, those are two relevant contributions you've made. The community is (or should be) grateful for your work. Thanks very much.

However while your contributions are relevant for future work on XC, they don't have an impact on what ATCSECURE was testing yesterday. So all's well for now. And I hope you will remain involved in the XC community for future testing. As you know, there's a lot at stake.

Dev denied everything.

That makes me sick.

He denied that you provided the proof he was looking for. And he was correct to do this.

I don't think he denied that you have made helpful contributions.

Profetu

full member

Activity: 204

Merit: 100

Quote from: synechist on June 12, 2014, 10:34:35 AM

Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 12, 2014, 08:17:45 AM

Here, I am done - I think this makes sense.

Read this while reviewing the flow chaeplin posted:
The transactions sent from the mixer (C) to the end address is of a set size (his example was 10). This is D.

He can then search the blockchain for possible candidates (value 10) via a script. Which gets us to block 28531 - this matches the 10.00 XC value. This can be linked at blocked 28533 with the mixer C - we already know C (output 9.99999).
This allows him to trace back to 28531 in the blockchain - to find the values that == 10.00 and match to a specific address - in this case: XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa which is B.

You can then take all the transactions for this address B - review them and find two matching amounts that == 10 which belong to one single address. This address is A. Since this address B has never been used before this transaction - this is easy to do - and - even if it had multiple transactions - they would not all related back to one single point with one single value (10).

Just for the record, - I think this is right.
Again - I'm participating to participate - nothing else.
If my logic is flawed, let me know please, this is vexing me - because this looks right and all I get is nothing constructive back.

Thanks, this is a helpful description of what Chaeplin did.

However it does not adequately express what ATCsecure wanted tested. He wanted *proof* of a direct link, not just interestingly coincidental amounts sent and received. This is because he's testing the mixer and xnode functionality, not the multi-path feature which is yet to be implemented.

For more information, read page 356 of this thread, and also the following quotation:

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:44:11 PM

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:42:17 PM

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:13:28 PM

I'd like to see somebody match input/outputs on the last transaction I posted...

http://cryptexplorer.com/block/1f986c7643436e328456252db9d0def76a97f9c2bae10e3ee73a9d427f8f149f

somebody is trying to make a link AFTER the fact LOL

sending 0.03 to both address's doesn't count as a LINK

but thanks for the XC's

So read page 356 and you will see that XC's implementation is successful and that Chaeplin was trying to test for the wrong thing. He returned later when ATCSECURE was gone and make his case again - yet concealed the fact that what he presents is not what's at stake here.

You have missed one thing.
I have spammed two address to create multiple input which should not occur.
Have you heard satoshi spamming ?

Anyway Xnode owner should not send any coins from Xnode.
It will create multiple input.

So:

Original address-->Mixer

Fresh Mixer address--Payee

If the Mixer owner moves coins Mixer and Fresh Mixer address can be used as inputs tying them together.

But then why earn coins if you can't use them?

Also can the Mixer = Fresh Mixer address link be made without spamming or owner moving coins? By looking at amounts?

chaeplin

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: synechist on June 12, 2014, 10:52:35 AM

Quote from: synechist on June 12, 2014, 10:34:35 AM

Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 12, 2014, 08:17:45 AM

Here, I am done - I think this makes sense.

Read this while reviewing the flow chaeplin posted:
The transactions sent from the mixer (C) to the end address is of a set size (his example was 10). This is D.

He can then search the blockchain for possible candidates (value 10) via a script. Which gets us to block 28531 - this matches the 10.00 XC value. This can be linked at blocked 28533 with the mixer C - we already know C (output 9.99999).
This allows him to trace back to 28531 in the blockchain - to find the values that == 10.00 and match to a specific address - in this case: XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa which is B.

You can then take all the transactions for this address B - review them and find two matching amounts that == 10 which belong to one single address. This address is A. Since this address B has never been used before this transaction - this is easy to do - and - even if it had multiple transactions - they would not all related back to one single point with one single value (10).

Just for the record, - I think this is right.
Again - I'm participating to participate - nothing else.
If my logic is flawed, let me know please, this is vexing me - because this looks right and all I get is nothing constructive back.

Thanks, this is a helpful description of what Chaeplin did.

However it does not adequately express what ATCsecure wanted tested. He wanted *proof* of a direct link, not just interestingly coincidental amounts sent and received. This is because he's testing the mixer and xnode functionality, not the multi-path feature which is yet to be implemented.

For more information, read page 356 of this thread, and also the following quotation:

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:44:11 PM

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:42:17 PM

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:13:28 PM

I'd like to see somebody match input/outputs on the last transaction I posted...

http://cryptexplorer.com/block/1f986c7643436e328456252db9d0def76a97f9c2bae10e3ee73a9d427f8f149f

somebody is trying to make a link AFTER the fact LOL

sending 0.03 to both address's doesn't count as a LINK

but thanks for the XC's

So read page 356 and you will see that XC's implementation is successful and that Chaeplin was trying to test for the wrong thing. He returned later when ATCSECURE was gone and make his case again - yet concealed the fact that what he presents is not what's at stake here.

You have missed one thing.
I have spammed two address to create multiple input which should not occur.
Have you heard satoshi spamming ?

Anyway Xnode owner should not send any coins from Xnode.
It will create multiple input.

Yes, those are two relevant contributions you've made. The community is (or should be) grateful for your work. Thanks very much.

However while your contributions are relevant for future work on XC, they don't have an impact on what ATCSECURE was testing yesterday. So all's well for now. And I hope you will remain involved in the XC community for future testing. As you know, there's a lot at stake.

Dev denied everything.

That makes me sick.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: synechist on June 12, 2014, 10:34:35 AM

Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 12, 2014, 08:17:45 AM

Here, I am done - I think this makes sense.

Read this while reviewing the flow chaeplin posted:
The transactions sent from the mixer (C) to the end address is of a set size (his example was 10). This is D.

He can then search the blockchain for possible candidates (value 10) via a script. Which gets us to block 28531 - this matches the 10.00 XC value. This can be linked at blocked 28533 with the mixer C - we already know C (output 9.99999).
This allows him to trace back to 28531 in the blockchain - to find the values that == 10.00 and match to a specific address - in this case: XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa which is B.

You can then take all the transactions for this address B - review them and find two matching amounts that == 10 which belong to one single address. This address is A. Since this address B has never been used before this transaction - this is easy to do - and - even if it had multiple transactions - they would not all related back to one single point with one single value (10).

Just for the record, - I think this is right.
Again - I'm participating to participate - nothing else.
If my logic is flawed, let me know please, this is vexing me - because this looks right and all I get is nothing constructive back.

Thanks, this is a helpful description of what Chaeplin did.

However it does not adequately express what ATCsecure wanted tested. He wanted *proof* of a direct link, not just interestingly coincidental amounts sent and received. This is because he's testing the mixer and xnode functionality, not the multi-path feature which is yet to be implemented.

For more information, read page 356 of this thread, and also the following quotation:

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:44:11 PM

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:42:17 PM

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:13:28 PM

I'd like to see somebody match input/outputs on the last transaction I posted...

http://cryptexplorer.com/block/1f986c7643436e328456252db9d0def76a97f9c2bae10e3ee73a9d427f8f149f

somebody is trying to make a link AFTER the fact LOL

sending 0.03 to both address's doesn't count as a LINK

but thanks for the XC's

So read page 356 and you will see that XC's implementation is successful and that Chaeplin was trying to test for the wrong thing. He returned later when ATCSECURE was gone and make his case again - yet concealed the fact that what he presents is not what's at stake here.

You have missed one thing.
I have spammed two address to create multiple input which should not occur.
Have you heard satoshi spamming ?

Anyway Xnode owner should not send any coins from Xnode.
It will create multiple input.

Yes, those are two relevant contributions you've made. The community is (or should be) grateful for your work. Thanks very much.

However while your contributions are relevant for future work on XC, they don't have an impact on what ATCSECURE was testing yesterday. So all's well for now. And I hope you will remain involved in the XC community for future testing. As you know, there's a lot at stake.

evtrmm

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

So much for "Community"

Quote from: synechist on June 12, 2014, 10:45:19 AM

Quote from: KimmyF on June 12, 2014, 10:42:02 AM

Quote from: hoertest on June 12, 2014, 10:11:02 AM

Quote from: synechist on June 12, 2014, 10:34:35 AM

As i understand it, both where right: ATC was right all along: after an anonymous transaction there is "No Hard Link" between address B & C.
What Cheaplin showed was that at a later time there was a possibility that the mixer spend some coins in a single transaction using both the funds from B & C as input, eg: linking them to the same wallet and so, creating the link. Think this can be fixed, so in my mind ATC won the challenge but Cheaplin did XC a favor by showing this possibility

That some (previous) DRK supporters are interested in anon tech seems normal to me. Can we please stop using words like Troll & FUD and remember we are all crypto enthousiasts & focus on the facts?

+1

+13

chaeplin

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 12, 2014, 08:17:45 AM

Here, I am done - I think this makes sense.

Read this while reviewing the flow chaeplin posted:
The transactions sent from the mixer (C) to the end address is of a set size (his example was 10). This is D.

He can then search the blockchain for possible candidates (value 10) via a script. Which gets us to block 28531 - this matches the 10.00 XC value. This can be linked at blocked 28533 with the mixer C - we already know C (output 9.99999).
This allows him to trace back to 28531 in the blockchain - to find the values that == 10.00 and match to a specific address - in this case: XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa which is B.

You can then take all the transactions for this address B - review them and find two matching amounts that == 10 which belong to one single address. This address is A. Since this address B has never been used before this transaction - this is easy to do - and - even if it had multiple transactions - they would not all related back to one single point with one single value (10).

Just for the record, - I think this is right.
Again - I'm participating to participate - nothing else.
If my logic is flawed, let me know please, this is vexing me - because this looks right and all I get is nothing constructive back.

Thanks, this is a helpful description of what Chaeplin did.

However it does not adequately express what ATCsecure wanted tested. He wanted *proof* of a direct link, not just interestingly coincidental amounts sent and received. This is because he's testing the mixer and xnode functionality, not the multi-path feature which is yet to be implemented.

For more information, read page 356 of this thread, and also the following quotation:

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:44:11 PM

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:42:17 PM

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:13:28 PM

I'd like to see somebody match input/outputs on the last transaction I posted...

http://cryptexplorer.com/block/1f986c7643436e328456252db9d0def76a97f9c2bae10e3ee73a9d427f8f149f

somebody is trying to make a link AFTER the fact LOL

sending 0.03 to both address's doesn't count as a LINK

but thanks for the XC's

So read page 356 and you will see that XC's implementation is successful and that Chaeplin was trying to test for the wrong thing. He returned later when ATCSECURE was gone and make his case again - yet concealed the fact that what he presents is not what's at stake here.

You have missed one thing.
I have spammed two address to create multiple input which should not occur.
Have you heard satoshi spamming ?

Anyway Xnode owner should not send any coins from Xnode.
It will create multiple input.

evtrmm

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

So much for "Community"

Quote from: synechist on June 12, 2014, 10:34:35 AM

Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 12, 2014, 08:17:45 AM

Here, I am done - I think this makes sense.

Read this while reviewing the flow chaeplin posted:
The transactions sent from the mixer (C) to the end address is of a set size (his example was 10). This is D.

He can then search the blockchain for possible candidates (value 10) via a script. Which gets us to block 28531 - this matches the 10.00 XC value. This can be linked at blocked 28533 with the mixer C - we already know C (output 9.99999).
This allows him to trace back to 28531 in the blockchain - to find the values that == 10.00 and match to a specific address - in this case: XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa which is B.

You can then take all the transactions for this address B - review them and find two matching amounts that == 10 which belong to one single address. This address is A. Since this address B has never been used before this transaction - this is easy to do - and - even if it had multiple transactions - they would not all related back to one single point with one single value (10).

Just for the record, - I think this is right.
Again - I'm participating to participate - nothing else.
If my logic is flawed, let me know please, this is vexing me - because this looks right and all I get is nothing constructive back.

Thanks, this is a helpful description of what Chaeplin did.

However it does not adequately express what ATCsecure wanted tested. He wanted *proof* of a direct link, not just interestingly coincidental amounts sent and received. This is because he's testing the mixer and xnode functionality, not the multi-path feature which is yet to be implemented.

For more information, read page 356 of this thread, and also the following quotation:

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:44:11 PM

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:42:17 PM

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:13:28 PM

I'd like to see somebody match input/outputs on the last transaction I posted...

http://cryptexplorer.com/block/1f986c7643436e328456252db9d0def76a97f9c2bae10e3ee73a9d427f8f149f

somebody is trying to make a link AFTER the fact LOL

sending 0.03 to both address's doesn't count as a LINK

but thanks for the XC's

So read page 356 and you will see that XC's implementation is successful and that Chaeplin was trying to test for the wrong thing. He returned later when ATCSECURE was gone and make his case again - yet concealed the fact that what he presents is not what's at stake here.

"somebody is trying to make a link AFTER the fact LOL"
Tells me that he knew exactly what Chapelin was doing. He was successful in making that link AFTER the fact, but as I have stated, I believe this methodology is severely diminished or nullified when numerous XCend transactions would be occurring instead of 1 every couple blocks.

By the way, I would like to get royalties from the following:
XCend
PrivXC
and...
The XC "DARK" wallet...... jk on the last one.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: KimmyF on June 12, 2014, 10:42:02 AM

Quote from: hoertest on June 12, 2014, 10:11:02 AM

Quote from: hoertest on June 12, 2014, 10:11:02 AM

Seems like indeed there is a blockchain connection. At least in this state. Yes REV2 or the next patch will fix this but the dev made a test because he was sure there is no link. I think he should swallow his ego, pay the bounty and fix the problem. I'm not sure how will he fix this before REV2 without locking the XNODE coins. An address can be deleted from the wallet but it will still be used as a reference for the next transaction.

Thanks to chaeplin and the rest for the work and expertise. He helped this coin more than the defensive speculators in this thread using "arguments" like "but DRK is not anon either..." or "this is only REV1".

@short term speculators in this thread: don't worry, this bug won't affect the price as the whales control the market. It will only make this coin stronger.

there may be a problem, and it's small, but you must be delusional if you think cheplin is trying to help us, he is doing his best to find flaws in XC not so we can improve it, but to hurt it, because he is invested in DRK, he may of identified important flaws, even though this is rev 1 and the Dev said from the get go rev 1 would not be 100% anon, but this is not because he has a kind heart and wants to help us, the suggestion of this makes me roll my eyes....rev 2 it will be fixed, and all the drk boys will have to actually work harder on there product more instead of slapping it together calling them selves king,and slandering any competition that comes along, i'm not concerned still only a month old and we are neck to neck with drk that is 6 months old, so cheplin and all your sad little friends, best think of a better attack plan, concentrate on improving your own product because frankly it's a piece of shit that doesn't work, and Evan just used to get rich off, and soon after rev 2 and you can't trace the transactions anymore, you will have nothing but slanderous tweets to save your sorry excuse for cryto innovation, i would just dump and buy XC because seriously nothing can save DRK.

So besides "but DARK..." and "this is only REV1" "arguments"(that you used again) you brought a 3rd great "argument" : "the guy has a DARK motive and hes not trying to help". Why the hell does that matter? Facts are facts. The guy spent his time proving a bug while you smucks were crying "FUD !". He didn't have to do this, or he could have waited to maybe damage the coin later, he didn't do it for the bounty and I thank him for his contribution. As suspected I didn't see any price drop. Yes there was FUD in the beginning but all I have seen on this thread lately are defensive speculators.

did he really? as i understand he send his own 0.003 tx to the mixer then linking them in the blockchain cause he knew the amounts. i'm not expert enough to explain but thats how it looks to me. thats not a bug by any means then . he is just nowing all variables . if i tell you how many coins i sent to whom their would be no need for an anonymous transaction anyway.

As i understand it, both where right: ATC was right all along: after an anonymous transaction there is "No Hard Link" between address B & C.
What Cheaplin showed was that at a later time there was a possibility that the mixer spend some coins in a single transaction using both the funds from B & C as input, eg: linking them to the same wallet and so, creating the link. Think this can be fixed, so in my mind ATC won the challenge but Cheaplin did XC a favor by showing this possibility

That some (previous) DRK supporters are interested in anon tech seems normal to me. Can we please stop using words like Troll & FUD and remember we are all crypto enthousiasts & focus on the facts?

+1

KimmyF

sr. member

Activity: 978

Merit: 250

Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 12, 2014, 08:17:45 AM

Seems like indeed there is a blockchain connection. At least in this state. Yes REV2 or the next patch will fix this but the dev made a test because he was sure there is no link. I think he should swallow his ego, pay the bounty and fix the problem. I'm not sure how will he fix this before REV2 without locking the XNODE coins. An address can be deleted from the wallet but it will still be used as a reference for the next transaction.

Thanks to chaeplin and the rest for the work and expertise. He helped this coin more than the defensive speculators in this thread using "arguments" like "but DRK is not anon either..." or "this is only REV1".

@short term speculators in this thread: don't worry, this bug won't affect the price as the whales control the market. It will only make this coin stronger.

there may be a problem, and it's small, but you must be delusional if you think cheplin is trying to help us, he is doing his best to find flaws in XC not so we can improve it, but to hurt it, because he is invested in DRK, he may of identified important flaws, even though this is rev 1 and the Dev said from the get go rev 1 would not be 100% anon, but this is not because he has a kind heart and wants to help us, the suggestion of this makes me roll my eyes....rev 2 it will be fixed, and all the drk boys will have to actually work harder on there product more instead of slapping it together calling them selves king,and slandering any competition that comes along, i'm not concerned still only a month old and we are neck to neck with drk that is 6 months old, so cheplin and all your sad little friends, best think of a better attack plan, concentrate on improving your own product because frankly it's a piece of shit that doesn't work, and Evan just used to get rich off, and soon after rev 2 and you can't trace the transactions anymore, you will have nothing but slanderous tweets to save your sorry excuse for cryto innovation, i would just dump and buy XC because seriously nothing can save DRK.

So besides "but DARK..." and "this is only REV1" "arguments"(that you used again) you brought a 3rd great "argument" : "the guy has a DARK motive and hes not trying to help". Why the hell does that matter? Facts are facts. The guy spent his time proving a bug while you smucks were crying "FUD !". He didn't have to do this, or he could have waited to maybe damage the coin later, he didn't do it for the bounty and I thank him for his contribution. As suspected I didn't see any price drop. Yes there was FUD in the beginning but all I have seen on this thread lately are defensive speculators.

did he really? as i understand he send his own 0.003 tx to the mixer then linking them in the blockchain cause he knew the amounts. i'm not expert enough to explain but thats how it looks to me. thats not a bug by any means then . he is just nowing all variables . if i tell you how many coins i sent to whom their would be no need for an anonymous transaction anyway.

As i understand it, both where right: ATC was right all along: after an anonymous transaction there is "No Hard Link" between address B & C.
What Cheaplin showed was that at a later time there was a possibility that the mixer spend some coins in a single transaction using both the funds from B & C as input, eg: linking them to the same wallet and so, creating the link. Think this can be fixed, so in my mind ATC won the challenge but Cheaplin did XC a favor by showing this possibility

That some (previous) DRK supporters are interested in anon tech seems normal to me. Can we please stop using words like Troll & FUD and remember we are all crypto enthousiasts & focus on the facts?

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Here, I am done - I think this makes sense.

Read this while reviewing the flow chaeplin posted:
The transactions sent from the mixer (C) to the end address is of a set size (his example was 10). This is D.

He can then search the blockchain for possible candidates (value 10) via a script. Which gets us to block 28531 - this matches the 10.00 XC value. This can be linked at blocked 28533 with the mixer C - we already know C (output 9.99999).
This allows him to trace back to 28531 in the blockchain - to find the values that == 10.00 and match to a specific address - in this case: XQdBjeQtH1JGrkd2MWcXbtsRVeKHWZbnqa which is B.

You can then take all the transactions for this address B - review them and find two matching amounts that == 10 which belong to one single address. This address is A. Since this address B has never been used before this transaction - this is easy to do - and - even if it had multiple transactions - they would not all related back to one single point with one single value (10).

Just for the record, - I think this is right.
Again - I'm participating to participate - nothing else.
If my logic is flawed, let me know please, this is vexing me - because this looks right and all I get is nothing constructive back.

Thanks, this is a helpful description of what Chaeplin did.

However it does not adequately express what ATCsecure wanted tested. He wanted *proof* of a direct link, not just interestingly coincidental amounts sent and received. This is because he's testing the mixer and xnode functionality, not the multi-path feature which is yet to be implemented.

For more information, read page 356 of this thread, and also the following quotation:

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:44:11 PM

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:42:17 PM

Quote from: atcsecure on June 11, 2014, 04:13:28 PM

I'd like to see somebody match input/outputs on the last transaction I posted...

http://cryptexplorer.com/block/1f986c7643436e328456252db9d0def76a97f9c2bae10e3ee73a9d427f8f149f

somebody is trying to make a link AFTER the fact LOL

sending 0.03 to both address's doesn't count as a LINK

but thanks for the XC's

So read page 356 and you will see that XC's implementation is successful and that Chaeplin was trying to test for the wrong thing. He returned later when ATCSECURE was gone and make his case again - yet concealed the fact that what he presents is not what's at stake here.

dadon

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1002

Pecvniate obedivnt omnia.

Quote from: 520Bit on June 12, 2014, 10:21:59 AM

Seems like indeed there is a blockchain connection. At least in this state. Yes REV2 or the next patch will fix this but the dev made a test because he was sure there is no link. I think he should swallow his ego, pay the bounty and fix the problem. I'm not sure how will he fix this before REV2 without locking the XNODE coins. An address can be deleted from the wallet but it will still be used as a reference for the next transaction.

Thanks to chaeplin and the rest for the work and expertise. He helped this coin more than the defensive speculators in this thread using "arguments" like "but DRK is not anon either..." or "this is only REV1".

@short term speculators in this thread: don't worry, this bug won't affect the price as the whales control the market. It will only make this coin stronger.

there may be a problem, and it's small, but you must be delusional if you think cheplin is trying to help us, he is doing his best to find flaws in XC not so we can improve it, but to hurt it, because he is invested in DRK, he may of identified important flaws, even though this is rev 1 and the Dev said from the get go rev 1 would not be 100% anon, but this is not because he has a kind heart and wants to help us, the suggestion of this makes me roll my eyes....rev 2 it will be fixed, and all the drk boys will have to actually work harder on there product more instead of slapping it together calling them selves king,and slandering any competition that comes along, i'm not concerned still only a month old and we are neck to neck with drk that is 6 months old, so cheplin and all your sad little friends, best think of a better attack plan, concentrate on improving your own product because frankly it's a piece of shit that doesn't work, and Evan just used to get rich off, and soon after rev 2 and you can't trace the transactions anymore, you will have nothing but slanderous tweets to save your sorry excuse for cryto innovation, i would just dump and buy XC because seriously nothing can save DRK.

So besides "but DARK..." and "this is only REV1" "arguments"(that you used again) you brought a 3rd great "argument" : "the guy has a DARK motive and hes not trying to help". Why the hell does that matter? Facts are facts. The guy spent his time proving a bug while you smucks were crying "FUD !". He didn't have to do this, or he could have waited to maybe damage the coin later, he didn't do it for the bounty and I thank him for his contribution. As suspected I didn't see any price drop. Yes there was FUD in the beginning but all I have seen on this thread lately are defensive speculators.

Also I never owned DRK and XC is my main investment. In which I truly believe.

he didn't prove shit, and he can't wait to damage the coin latter because in rev 2 it will no longer be an issue, and you can say i am repeating the argument over again, but there is nothing more to the argument, and your repeating the same stuff to, what he brought to light is not an issue, were not worried, if you are, dump, and i will buy them, but he should really be working on drk is all im saying he considers himself one of the drk dev team, and it doesn't even work? so why is he here trying to help us fix our nonexistent problem, when the coin he is supposed to be working on has been out 5x longer and works even less, if he can find the addresses in rev 2 we have a problem, until then he should fix his own teams mess.

NewWorldCoiner

sr. member

Activity: 490

Merit: 250

Saved you from a scam? Send me some BTC!

Quote from: NewWorldCoiner on June 12, 2014, 10:20:29 AM

Quote from: silverkinguk on June 12, 2014, 10:16:03 AM

Don't know of that fundraiser site it's new to me.

It's new to all of us. As far as I know no permission has been given for it by any member of the XC team. Looks like a scam.

It should be a SCAM, right?

I'm calling it a scam because the guy who posted it couldn't tell me who he had spoken to, or who had requested that he launch a website to get donations from the XC community. If he had permission, a contract, even a verbal agreement, he would have said so. Instead, he was just evasive, not a single straight answer.

520Bit

sr. member

Activity: 602

Merit: 252

Quote from: NewWorldCoiner on June 12, 2014, 10:20:29 AM

Quote from: silverkinguk on June 12, 2014, 10:16:03 AM

Don't know of that fundraiser site it's new to me.

It's new to all of us. As far as I know no permission has been given for it by any member of the XC team. Looks like a scam.

It should be a SCAM, right?

NewWorldCoiner

sr. member

Activity: 490

Merit: 250

Saved you from a scam? Send me some BTC!

Quote from: silverkinguk on June 12, 2014, 10:16:03 AM

Don't know of that fundraiser site it's new to me.

It's new to all of us. As far as I know no permission has been given for it by any member of the XC team. Looks like a scam.

FoldingTime

full member

Activity: 162

Merit: 100

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on June 12, 2014, 08:10:02 AM

Quote from: FoldingTime on June 12, 2014, 08:07:54 AM

I completely agree with you. Chaeplin has demonstrated a logical flow of the transaction and this needs to be addressed. Simply saying FUD is no counter argument. Either agree that the current system is flawed and will be fixed or prove that chaeplin is wrong.

chaeplin is the only one providing quality QA for this coin. You need these people to find the problems so they can be fixed.

Quote from: FoldingTime on June 05, 2014, 03:56:46 AM

Quote from: eduffield on June 04, 2014, 11:50:07 PM

Masternode payments are humming along now and the forking issue is fixed. Looks like we're good to launch masternode payments in 1 to 2 weeks. If all looks good tomorrow I'll push binaries and have everyone upgrade.

http://23.23.186.131:1234/block/00000000c425522d7eba77eeb68b0d3b4713626f10341499eee12395f9378a3a
http://23.23.186.131:1234/block/000000013a358ccbe40851660e650e7ecc9fe9b0b5bb95b893104e6732deeef8
http://23.23.186.131:1234/block/0000000057614c43354c6e4f879c7959d9e41e1e76263259f36b70ae556b5c5d
http://23.23.186.131:1234/block/000000019929d91dffec6c7636e816da5cd669b5e518c16facae7a8a841471a4
http://23.23.186.131:1234/block/000000015add6d1884ccef07093783ebd4cc196ed4b15353a215512fcf36aa2d
http://23.23.186.131:1234/block/0000000183cd7cf91eab1c644063550bb6bbfbcb433e55505afc054e31293025
http://23.23.186.131:1234/block/00000000b38bce68707b7c9cbbeffc2ccf767c7238074f18ecb13a10b9ccf075

We have about sixty masternodes on testnet and it looks like we're paying out about 98% of the new blocks. This is great news, everything is working perfectly Grin

.

Great work !!!!!!!!!!

My MasterNode on testnet is behaving well and giving me payouts so all looking good for the fork.

Oooh... ANOTHER DRK troll caring about XC. How nice of you...

How's that Masternode working out for you?

I'm running both Masternode and xnode and want both to succeed. I know this comes as a shock to most of you but, hey I don't believe in only just choosing one side. I am probably the most impartial here.

I'm waiting for the Linux xnode code so I can start it up on my VPS.

silverkinguk

sr. member

Activity: 404

Merit: 250

Don't know of that fundraiser site it's new to me.Must be site of the guy raising money for independent wallet on android.

jasemoney

legendary

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1008

Forget-about-it

I mentioned I'd repost if it was na issue after 12 hours, its been almost 24. I have been running an xnode since Friday or earlier, have kept up the updated wallets as theyre released, have many connections, proper conf file, use the batch etc etc.. I have not seen any transactions flow through my wallet as an xnode Sad

hoertest

hero member

Activity: 882

Merit: 1000

Quote from: silverkinguk on June 12, 2014, 09:50:14 AM

Seems like indeed there is a blockchain connection. At least in this state. Yes REV2 or the next patch will fix this but the dev made a test because he was sure there is no link. I think he should swallow his ego, pay the bounty and fix the problem. I'm not sure how will he fix this before REV2 without locking the XNODE coins. An address can be deleted from the wallet but it will still be used as a reference for the next transaction.

Thanks to chaeplin and the rest for the work and expertise. He helped this coin more than the defensive speculators in this thread using "arguments" like "but DRK is not anon either..." or "this is only REV1".

@short term speculators in this thread: don't worry, this bug won't affect the price as the whales control the market. It will only make this coin stronger.

there may be a problem, and it's small, but you must be delusional if you think cheplin is trying to help us, he is doing his best to find flaws in XC not so we can improve it, but to hurt it, because he is invested in DRK, he may of identified important flaws, even though this is rev 1 and the Dev said from the get go rev 1 would not be 100% anon, but this is not because he has a kind heart and wants to help us, the suggestion of this makes me roll my eyes....rev 2 it will be fixed, and all the drk boys will have to actually work harder on there product more instead of slapping it together calling them selves king,and slandering any competition that comes along, i'm not concerned still only a month old and we are neck to neck with drk that is 6 months old, so cheplin and all your sad little friends, best think of a better attack plan, concentrate on improving your own product because frankly it's a piece of shit that doesn't work, and Evan just used to get rich off, and soon after rev 2 and you can't trace the transactions anymore, you will have nothing but slanderous tweets to save your sorry excuse for cryto innovation, i would just dump and buy XC because seriously nothing can save DRK.

So besides "but DARK..." and "this is only REV1" "arguments"(that you used again) you brought a 3rd great "argument" : "the guy has a DARK motive and hes not trying to help". Why the hell does that matter? Facts are facts. The guy spent his time proving a bug while you smucks were crying "FUD !". He didn't have to do this, or he could have waited to maybe damage the coin later, he didn't do it for the bounty and I thank him for his contribution. As suspected I didn't see any price drop. Yes there was FUD in the beginning but all I have seen on this thread lately are defensive speculators.

did he really? as i understand he send his own 0.003 tx to the mixer then linking them in the blockchain cause he knew the amounts. i'm not expert enough to explain but thats how it looks to me. thats not a bug by any means then . he is just nowing all variables . if i tell you how many coins i sent to whom their would be no need for an anonymous transaction anyway.

NewWorldCoiner

sr. member

Activity: 490

Merit: 250

Saved you from a scam? Send me some BTC!

PR team is different but am in touch with PizPie who is helping with the social network aspects of XC.
My main company is a connected with Crowdfunding for various projects that accepts Bitcoins currently.

Hi,

This isn't anything to do with you is it? http://net-elite.org/xc/

Thanks

Profetu

full member

Activity: 204

Merit: 100