Please excuse my ignorance here............
So the batch file that runs the Xnode "run-xc-xnode-mainnet.bat" runs this command line "x11coin-qt.exe -xmixer -listen -server". Isn't "-xmixer -listen -server" already being set via the config file? Can it stop Xnode from working if being told these commands twice?
Topic: [XC][XCurrency] Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat / Pos - page 1282. (Read 1484248 times)
June 11, 2014, 03:37:42 PM
June 11, 2014, 03:33:48 PM
Anyone love the new option on Mintpal? 
Nice topic change.
June 11, 2014, 03:31:10 PM
Anyone love the new option on Mintpal?
Which one is that?
June 11, 2014, 03:29:29 PM
Anyone love the new option on Mintpal?
June 11, 2014, 03:28:47 PM
Sweet a MIXER?!?!!?!!! Now we're talking anonymity at its finest.
June 11, 2014, 03:28:38 PM
So when you send from original address A to the receiving address D , it goes to the mixer B, the mixer makes a new address C to send the amount to the receiver D? And Chaeplin doesn't get only A?
And chaeplin is adding that the mixer only uses one address for you, so once you know A, you can trace it. Which is what I said before. You have to assume A is known.
I see, thanks. So there is no direct link but if you are forced to show your address then they can prove that you made a specific transaction.
There are two conversations going on here at once. I want to deal with this side issue.
You have to assume the user's address is known.
Why? Bitcoin can change your address right now and use the same wallet...so some people think it's anonymous. It's not because you can tie all the transactions one person does back to an address. Once the address is known, you know all the transactions...bitcoin has always had that level of anonymity. This already exists in every implementation of every crypto-coin.
That means nothing to this conversation.
ATCSecure, I would appreciate if you could confirm this fact...since so many people jumping into this conversation - mistakenly do not understand this fact and its clouding the discussion which could be constructive.
This is the fundamental principle on which your solution is built. The problem it is trying to solve, correct? Anonymizing a transaction even if the sender or receiver is known.
June 11, 2014, 03:27:44 PM
Do you guys think we are missing a third leg up in this small uptrend? If feels to me like it was abruptly cut...
Stop looking for reasons the price hasn't gone higher. 3 touch points on a trend line is common. It went up 40% or so since yesterday. That's a lot and has nothing to do with what's going on here.
So your saying that its over priced because it has nothing to do with anything on in here? Am I understanding this correctly?
I'm just asking from a pure trading perspective: usualy there are 3 legs up and 2 down, but this one only has 2 up...so if feels to me that a third one is missing. I don't care about all this FUD.
Trading 101: Nothing usually happens. If it did we would be at home trading in our underwear and never have to go to work again. I guarantee you if I search through thousands of charts I can show you instances of any number of legs in a move. 1, 2, 3 , 4, 5,etc. Also, a 3rd leg fail is called what? A double top.
June 11, 2014, 03:26:17 PM
So when you send from original address A to the receiving address D , it goes to the mixer B, the mixer makes a new address C to send the amount to the receiver D? And Chaeplin doesn't get only A?
And chaeplin is adding that the mixer only uses one address for you, so once you know A, you can trace it. Which is what I said before. You have to assume A is known.
that is not how the mixer work's
The highlevel summary is this
The mixer tells the client to send coins to wallet b, however wallet C is used to send coins to the final user, there is NO link from wallet B to wallet C unless somebody manually moves the coins from C to B
is it also true that a mixer will forget (after x new addresses or so) the private keys for a temp address?
June 11, 2014, 03:23:45 PM
http://cryptexplorer.com/address/XVrqrpe2ZDmykAnjcAHN6McbuDEjBZSvRZ
There is the wallet that received a mix transaction...
There is the wallet that received a mix transaction...
June 11, 2014, 03:23:25 PM
So when you send from original address A to the receiving address D , it goes to the mixer B, the mixer makes a new address C to send the amount to the receiver D? And Chaeplin doesn't get only A?
And chaeplin is adding that the mixer only uses one address for you, so once you know A, you can trace it. Which is what I said before. You have to assume A is known.
I see, thanks. So there is no direct link but if you are forced to show your address then they can prove that you made a specific transaction.
There are two conversations going on here at once. I want to deal with this side issue.
You have to assume the user's address is known.
Why? Bitcoin can change your address right now and use the same wallet...so some people think it's anonymous. It's not because you can tie all the transactions one person does back to an address. Once the address is known, you know all the transactions...bitcoin has always had that level of anonymity. This already exists in every implementation of every crypto-coin.
That means nothing to this conversation.
June 11, 2014, 03:22:31 PM
Do you guys think we are missing a third leg up in this small uptrend? If feels to me like it was abruptly cut...
Stop looking for reasons the price hasn't gone higher. 3 touch points on a trend line is common. It went up 40% or so since yesterday. That's a lot and has nothing to do with what's going on here.
So your saying that its over priced because it has nothing to do with anything on in here? Am I understanding this correctly?
I'm just asking from a pure trading perspective: usualy there are 3 legs up and 2 down, but this one only has 2 up...so if feels to me that a third one is missing. I don't care about all this FUD.
June 11, 2014, 03:21:45 PM
yes and the summary is wrong, the mixer has "recieve" wallets and it also has "send" wallets
June 11, 2014, 03:20:46 PM
June 11, 2014, 03:20:32 PM
So when you send from original address A to the receiving address D , it goes to the mixer B, the mixer makes a new address C to send the amount to the receiver D? And Chaeplin doesn't get only A?
And chaeplin is adding that the mixer only uses one address for you, so once you know A, you can trace it. Which is what I said before. You have to assume A is known.
that is not how the mixer work's
The highlevel summary is this
The mixer tells the client to send coins to wallet b, however wallet C is used to send coins to the final user, there is NO link from wallet B to wallet C unless somebody manually moves the coins from C to B
June 11, 2014, 03:19:28 PM
So when you send from original address A to the receiving address D , it goes to the mixer B, the mixer makes a new address C to send the amount to the receiver D? And Chaeplin doesn't get only A?
And chaeplin is adding that the mixer only uses one address for you, so once you know A, you can trace it. Which is what I said before. You have to assume A is known.
I see, thanks. So there is no direct link but if you are forced to show your address then they can prove that you made a specific transaction.
June 11, 2014, 03:18:36 PM
"Sendfrommixer" MAIN
MAIN = XM4f4GbzaCnMphTKitAYMSX8vdkUPrwYuQ not XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb
That is the whole argument here. Even though Main was empty, it still sent from MAIN, but from an imposter address.
You can only envision where it goes from here.
Steps in the right direction.
Being that Main only had 1 transaction sent to it, it does stand out pretty substantially once you pin it down. but once numerous transactions are sent to that address, it will be highly undetectable.
MAIN = XM4f4GbzaCnMphTKitAYMSX8vdkUPrwYuQ has zero balance. already changed.MAIN = XM4f4GbzaCnMphTKitAYMSX8vdkUPrwYuQ not XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb
That is the whole argument here. Even though Main was empty, it still sent from MAIN, but from an imposter address.
You can only envision where it goes from here.
Steps in the right direction.
Being that Main only had 1 transaction sent to it, it does stand out pretty substantially once you pin it down. but once numerous transactions are sent to that address, it will be highly undetectable.
When you send coins, a new address issued for change.
XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw is used for your transaction.
TX is here : http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?96074.htm
And XQaYnWevqYVfg7j75qr2YR38R3xbb5xjyw is matched to XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb.
XPpRHV6hWFDnQvNhu7WaRy6h6KfGkmx9Hb is used for olny your trabnsaction.
Yes
Code:
but once numerous transactions are sent to that address, it will be highly undetectable.
Because of that, it's detectable.
June 11, 2014, 03:15:39 PM
So when you send from original address A to the receiving address D , it goes to the mixer B, the mixer makes a new address C to send the amount to the receiver D? And Chaeplin doesn't get only A?
And chaeplin is adding that the mixer only uses one address for you, so once you know A, you can trace it. Which is what I said before. You have to assume A is known.
Which is why I don't understand what is wrong with his analysis.
June 11, 2014, 03:13:13 PM
Do you guys think we are missing a third leg up in this small uptrend? If feels to me like it was abruptly cut...
Stop looking for reasons the price hasn't gone higher. 3 touch points on a trend line is common. It went up 40% or so since yesterday. That's a lot and has nothing to do with what's going on here.
So your saying that its over priced because it has nothing to do with anything on in here? Am I understanding this correctly?
June 11, 2014, 03:12:58 PM
Since I don't have all the details from evtrmm's earlier test
I've created a new transaction
XVrqrpe2ZDmykAnjcAHN6McbuDEjBZSvRZ
I will put the details in a password protect zip file
June 11, 2014, 03:11:14 PM
So when you send from original address A to the receiving address D , it goes to the mixer B, the mixer makes a new address C to send the amount to the receiver D? And Chaeplin doesn't get only A?
Jump to: