[XC][XCurrency] Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat / Pos - page 1268.

chaeplin

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on June 12, 2014, 07:53:09 AM

Quote from: chaeplin on June 12, 2014, 07:51:41 AM

Quote from: phosphorush on June 12, 2014, 07:46:53 AM

Sender A, send X transaction to receiver D throught the mixer. Mixer created address C and tells A to send the transction through C to B. Chaeplin was pointing C but didn't know A

Then ATC provided A and B and asked for a direct link between the 2, but none was pointed. Then Chaeplin began to spam A and B with tiny amounts of XC with equal amounts in hope to prove something and there I lost it, but it didn't seem like he proved anything.

Is that right? What did I miss?

Incorrect.

A ----> B mixer :: C mixer ----> D

I have found B and C.
As transaction A and D is revealed.
Follow transaction

Dev question was 'Is there link between B and C'.

Your analysis is based on that the B mixer address has never been used and then you found a bunch of transaction with that matching amount... that is not really a "hard link"...

What is hard link ?

Tansaction from B to C or from C to B ?

There is another hard link.
If B and C is used in a transaction as input, I means B and C is single wallet, single entity.

I have provided single tx with multiple input.

cryptico

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 12, 2014, 07:47:39 AM

Quote from: phosphorush on June 12, 2014, 07:46:53 AM

Sender A, send X transaction to receiver D throught the mixer. Mixer created address C and tells A to send the transction through C to B. Chaeplin was pointing C but didn't know A

Then ATC provided A and B and asked for a direct link between the 2, but none was pointed. Then Chaeplin began to spam A and B with tiny amounts of XC with equal amounts in hope to prove something and there I lost it, but it didn't seem like he proved anything.

Is that right? What did I miss?

The full analysis that came later. It was recent.

Is not really nice to dispute the Dev analysis when he is not around to reply is it?

CryptoGretzky

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: chaeplin on June 12, 2014, 07:51:41 AM

Quote from: phosphorush on June 12, 2014, 07:46:53 AM

Sender A, send X transaction to receiver D throught the mixer. Mixer created address C and tells A to send the transction through C to B. Chaeplin was pointing C but didn't know A

Then ATC provided A and B and asked for a direct link between the 2, but none was pointed. Then Chaeplin began to spam A and B with tiny amounts of XC with equal amounts in hope to prove something and there I lost it, but it didn't seem like he proved anything.

Is that right? What did I miss?

Incorrect.

A ----> B mixer :: C mixer ----> D

I have found B and C.
As transaction A and D is revealed.
Follow transaction

Dev question was 'Is there link between B and C'.

Your analysis is based on that the B mixer address has never been used and then you found a bunch of transactions with matching amounts... that is not really a "hard link"...

sukottosan_d

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: phosphorush on June 12, 2014, 07:51:15 AM

Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 12, 2014, 07:47:39 AM

Quote from: phosphorush on June 12, 2014, 07:46:53 AM

Sender A, send X transaction to receiver D throught the mixer. Mixer created address C and tells A to send the transction through C to B. Chaeplin was pointing C but didn't know A

Then ATC provided A and B and asked for a direct link between the 2, but none was pointed. Then Chaeplin began to spam A and B with tiny amounts of XC with equal amounts in hope to prove something and there I lost it, but it didn't seem like he proved anything.

Is that right? What did I miss?

The full analysis that came later. It was recent.

Give me a clear high level description of the problem that Chaeplin is pointing then and what exactly needs to be fixed in the way that the mixer is working. I'm no tech expert, but I can surely understand the logic.

Okay, I'll give it a shot - give me a bit to write it out clearly if I can.

chaeplin

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: phosphorush on June 12, 2014, 07:46:53 AM

Sender A, send X transaction to receiver D throught the mixer. Mixer created address C and tells A to send the transction through C to B. Chaeplin was pointing C but didn't know A

Then ATC provided A and B and asked for a direct link between the 2, but none was pointed. Then Chaeplin began to spam A and B with tiny amounts of XC with equal amounts in hope to prove something and there I lost it, but it didn't seem like he proved anything.

Is that right? What did I miss?

Incorrect.

A ----> B mixer :: C mixer ----> D

I have found B and C.
As transaction A and D is revealed.
Follow transaction

Dev question was 'Is there link between B and C'.

sukottosan_d

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: Artoodeetoo on June 12, 2014, 07:47:13 AM

Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 12, 2014, 07:45:16 AM

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on June 12, 2014, 07:33:19 AM

Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 12, 2014, 07:26:41 AM

You guys should look at this seriously. I think it can be fixed relatively easily - but if it's ignored it could be a problem for you later.
Chaeplin spent a bunch of time working through every detail to get you a step by step description of the issue.
And no one is responding seriously, no one has given a counter analysis - that is not a good sign for investors.
Can someone show where chaeplin's analysis is flawed? No one has directly responded at any point. Quote a post - draw lines...whatever you need to do.

I came to the same conclusion as him after reviewing a series of transactions yesterday - but it was annoying and took me a long time. If this isn't an issue - can someone just point out where? Or create a counter-example? If you want to be taken seriously - I'm pretty sure it's important and shouldn't be brushed off like it's nothing.

I don't know how you can call it FUD and ignore it......he walked you through the problem.
If you don't understand it...fine - let someone who does argue a counter-analysis. Don't just call it FUD because you don't understand what is going on.

ATCSecure has responded NUMEROUS times that by rev 2 with multi-path, this is a non-issue. Why should he waste any more time on a pattern matcher when this exact problem won't be a problem any more?

You guys are confusing. He since posted a FULL walkthrough. Not the partial from yesterday that was responded to.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you guys has conceded the analysis was correct.
That's good, so, the solution is reliant on a second phase....which is awesome.
This is exactly why I was asking for information yesterday about the design. Can't find any real material on it except some not-so-good super high level stuff on the website.
Confusion could have easily been avoided with some information.

It does seem though that you guys want to keep genuine interest away and the dev nor the members of the community - that I'm sure are great - are jumping in a saying much and making anyone feel like there is substance here.

Shock horror, 99% of your posts are on the DRK thread, then you kindly come over here with your genuine "concern" we are so lucky.

Did you read my post about how I admitted to that and explained the situation. This is nuts. Clearly no genuine stuff here in the forum, I can't speak about the tech - cause there's no info.
I will continue to watch on the aside and leave you guys be. But if anyone actually has some links for some information - I was interested in the tech, for the record - just can't find anything, could you please send some my way if you have it and are reasonable?

phosphorush

hero member

Activity: 503

Merit: 500

Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 12, 2014, 07:47:39 AM

Quote from: phosphorush on June 12, 2014, 07:46:53 AM

Sender A, send X transaction to receiver D throught the mixer. Mixer created address C and tells A to send the transction through C to B. Chaeplin was pointing C but didn't know A

Then ATC provided A and B and asked for a direct link between the 2, but none was pointed. Then Chaeplin began to spam A and B with tiny amounts of XC with equal amounts in hope to prove something and there I lost it, but it didn't seem like he proved anything.

Is that right? What did I miss?

The full analysis that came later. It was recent.

Give me a clear high level description of the problem that Chaeplin is pointing then and what exactly needs to be fixed in the way that the mixer is working. I'm no tech expert, but I can surely understand the logic.

sukottosan_d

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: phosphorush on June 12, 2014, 07:46:53 AM

Sender A, send X transaction to receiver D throught the mixer. Mixer created address C and tells A to send the transction through C to B. Chaeplin was pointing C but didn't know A

Then ATC provided A and B and asked for a direct link between the 2, but none was pointed. Then Chaeplin began to spam A and B with tiny amounts of XC with equal amounts in hope to prove something and there I lost it, but it didn't seem like he proved anything.

Is that right? What did I miss?

The full analysis that came later. It was recent.

Artoodeetoo

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 12, 2014, 07:45:16 AM

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on June 12, 2014, 07:33:19 AM

Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 12, 2014, 07:26:41 AM

You guys should look at this seriously. I think it can be fixed relatively easily - but if it's ignored it could be a problem for you later.
Chaeplin spent a bunch of time working through every detail to get you a step by step description of the issue.
And no one is responding seriously, no one has given a counter analysis - that is not a good sign for investors.
Can someone show where chaeplin's analysis is flawed? No one has directly responded at any point. Quote a post - draw lines...whatever you need to do.

I came to the same conclusion as him after reviewing a series of transactions yesterday - but it was annoying and took me a long time. If this isn't an issue - can someone just point out where? Or create a counter-example? If you want to be taken seriously - I'm pretty sure it's important and shouldn't be brushed off like it's nothing.

I don't know how you can call it FUD and ignore it......he walked you through the problem.
If you don't understand it...fine - let someone who does argue a counter-analysis. Don't just call it FUD because you don't understand what is going on.

ATCSecure has responded NUMEROUS times that by rev 2 with multi-path, this is a non-issue. Why should he waste any more time on a pattern matcher when this exact problem won't be a problem any more?

You guys are confusing. He since posted a FULL walkthrough. Not the partial from yesterday that was responded to.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you guys has conceded the analysis was correct.
That's good, so, the solution is reliant on a second phase....which is awesome.
This is exactly why I was asking for information yesterday about the design. Can't find any real material on it except some not-so-good super high level stuff on the website.
Confusion could have easily been avoided with some information.

It does seem though that you guys want to keep genuine interest away and the dev nor the members of the community - that I'm sure are great - are jumping in a saying much and making anyone feel like there is substance here.

Shock horror, 99% of your posts are on the DRK thread, then you kindly come over here with your genuine "concern" we are so lucky.

phosphorush

hero member

Activity: 503

Merit: 500

Sender A, send X transaction to receiver D through the mixer. Mixer created address C and tells A to send the transction through C to B. Chaeplin was pointing C but didn't know A.

Then ATC provided A and D and asked for a direct link between the 2, but none was pointed. Then Chaeplin began to spam A and B with tiny amounts of XC with equal amounts in hope to prove something and there I lost it, but it didn't seem like he proved anything.

Is that right? What did I miss?

chaeplin

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: adhitthana on June 12, 2014, 07:40:57 AM

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on June 12, 2014, 07:33:19 AM

ATCSecure has responded NUMEROUS times that by rev 2 with multi-path, this is a non-issue. Why should he waste any more time on a pattern matcher when this exact problem won't be a problem any more?

So...Chaeplin is guessing and getting at least part of it right because there is a "single path" (and not too many variables) ...but when there is a "multi path" this will all be mixed up too much?

He never responded with hard link.
He has responded to my analysis that finding sender.

Read this

What is multiple input.
multiple input means single entity(mixer, single wallet)

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7269594

sukottosan_d

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on June 12, 2014, 07:33:19 AM

Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 12, 2014, 07:26:41 AM

You guys should look at this seriously. I think it can be fixed relatively easily - but if it's ignored it could be a problem for you later.
Chaeplin spent a bunch of time working through every detail to get you a step by step description of the issue.
And no one is responding seriously, no one has given a counter analysis - that is not a good sign for investors.
Can someone show where chaeplin's analysis is flawed? No one has directly responded at any point. Quote a post - draw lines...whatever you need to do.

I came to the same conclusion as him after reviewing a series of transactions yesterday - but it was annoying and took me a long time. If this isn't an issue - can someone just point out where? Or create a counter-example? If you want to be taken seriously - I'm pretty sure it's important and shouldn't be brushed off like it's nothing.

I don't know how you can call it FUD and ignore it......he walked you through the problem.
If you don't understand it...fine - let someone who does argue a counter-analysis. Don't just call it FUD because you don't understand what is going on.

ATCSecure has responded NUMEROUS times that by rev 2 with multi-path, this is a non-issue. Why should he waste any more time on a pattern matcher when this exact problem won't be a problem any more?

You guys are confusing. He since posted a FULL walkthrough. Not the partial from yesterday that was responded to.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you guys has conceded the analysis was correct.
That's good, so, the solution is reliant on a second phase....which is awesome.
This is exactly why I was asking for information yesterday about the design. Can't find any real material on it except some not-so-good super high level stuff on the website.
Confusion could have easily been avoided with some information.

It does seem though that you guys want to keep genuine interest away and the dev nor the members of the community - that I'm sure are great - are jumping in a saying much and making anyone feel like there is substance here.

Artoodeetoo

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on June 12, 2014, 07:44:17 AM

Quote from: Artoodeetoo on June 12, 2014, 07:43:38 AM

Quote from: hoertest on June 12, 2014, 07:42:16 AM

he is defenatly not getting ignored or called fud easily , go through the last pages here and you know what i mean. as i understand it he is matching amounts he send to the mixer himself. the dev and him have been going back and forth yesterday to the point where he didn't respond anymore.
Rev2 will make what he does impossible as i understand it. Rev1 never was intended to make this matching of amounts impossible. there are to little transactions for that atm
in about two or three weeks XC will be the first working decentralized anonymous coin and there will be panic to a point you haven't seen in a long time.

+1

Interesting how he chooses come back when dev is not around... Read through last nights posts where he was made to look stupid.

If ATCSecure is around, then how can he create FUD... that's how trolls operate.

By simply filling the thread with garbage....

He asks for a challenge, he got a challenge, he asked for a bounty he got a bounty, he then could not work it out so complains he wants BTC not XC... Sorry the guy is not credible...

CryptoGretzky

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: Artoodeetoo on June 12, 2014, 07:43:38 AM

Quote from: hoertest on June 12, 2014, 07:42:16 AM

he is defenatly not getting ignored or called fud easily , go through the last pages here and you know what i mean. as i understand it he is matching amounts he send to the mixer himself. the dev and him have been going back and forth yesterday to the point where he didn't respond anymore.
Rev2 will make what he does impossible as i understand it. Rev1 never was intended to make this matching of amounts impossible. there are to little transactions for that atm
in about two or three weeks XC will be the first working decentralized anonymous coin and there will be panic to a point you haven't seen in a long time.

+1

Interesting how he chooses come back when dev is not around... Read through last nights posts where he was made to look stupid.

If ATCSecure is around, then how can he create FUD... that's how trolls operate.

Artoodeetoo

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: hoertest on June 12, 2014, 07:42:16 AM

he is defenatly not getting ignored or called fud easily , go through the last pages here and you know what i mean. as i understand it he is matching amounts he send to the mixer himself. the dev and him have been going back and forth yesterday to the point where he didn't respond anymore.
Rev2 will make what he does impossible as i understand it. Rev1 never was intended to make this matching of amounts impossible. there are to little transactions for that atm
in about two or three weeks XC will be the first working decentralized anonymous coin and there will be panic to a point you haven't seen in a long time.

+1

Interesting how he chooses come back when dev is not around... Read through last nights posts where he was made to look stupid.

CryptoGretzky

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: chaeplin on June 12, 2014, 07:39:41 AM

Quote from: evtrmm on June 12, 2014, 07:36:48 AM

sukottosan_d ,
I am rather sure this is being looked at.
this is still under development, and is nowhere near a final product. The concerns that are raised ARE valid.

I do not believe ATC has been on since this was posted, and I am sure he will address it. BUT, I would rather him not sit and argue all day and just get back to the task.

Yesterday, hard link provided.
Dev refused it.

TLDR...

hoertest

hero member

Activity: 882

Merit: 1000

he is defenatly not getting ignored or called fud easily , go through the last pages here and you know what i mean. as i understand it he is matching amounts he send to the mixer himself. the dev and him have been going back and forth yesterday to the point where he didn't respond anymore.
Rev2 will make what he does impossible as i understand it. Rev1 never was intended to make this matching of amounts impossible. there are to little transactions for that atm
in about two or three weeks XC will be the first working decentralized anonymous coin and there will be panic to a point you haven't seen in a long time.

Artoodeetoo

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: adhitthana on June 12, 2014, 07:40:57 AM

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on June 12, 2014, 07:33:19 AM

ATCSecure has responded NUMEROUS times that by rev 2 with multi-path, this is a non-issue. Why should he waste any more time on a pattern matcher when this exact problem won't be a problem any more?

So...Chaeplin is guessing and getting at least part of it right because there is a "single path" (and not too many variables) ...but when there is a "multi path" this will all be mixed up too much?

All he could show was the mixer, not the source and destination, he could not link the transactions...

Artoodeetoo

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: chaeplin on June 12, 2014, 07:39:41 AM

Quote from: evtrmm on June 12, 2014, 07:36:48 AM

sukottosan_d ,
I am rather sure this is being looked at.
this is still under development, and is nowhere near a final product. The concerns that are raised ARE valid.

I do not believe ATC has been on since this was posted, and I am sure he will address it. BUT, I would rather him not sit and argue all day and just get back to the task.

Yesterday, hard link provided.
Dev refused it.

LOL you were made to look silly last night, DEV destroyed you..

https://twitter.com/chaeplin

Get back on the boat and do some more fishing....

adhitthana

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on June 12, 2014, 07:33:19 AM

ATCSecure has responded NUMEROUS times that by rev 2 with multi-path, this is a non-issue. Why should he waste any more time on a pattern matcher when this exact problem won't be a problem any more?

So...Chaeplin is guessing and getting at least part of it right because there is a "single path" (and not too many variables) ...but when there is a "multi path" this will all be mixed up too much?

Topic: [XC][XCurrency] Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat / Pos - page 1268. (Read 1484248 times)