Topic: [XC][XCurrency] Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat / Pos - page 1444. (Read 1484248 times)
June 03, 2014, 11:59:33 AM
after next version update, how about we set a public test on xc?
June 03, 2014, 11:58:49 AM
Guys, Chaeplin did in fact find the sender address. Whether he wants to share his process or not, that point cannot be refuted. It would be nice if he did, but that is neither here nor there. Resorting to personal attacks is not going to change anything besides making you look childish. He did it, now the dev knows it can be done, and he can find a solution. End of story. 
Do you even understand that he just waited in the block explorer for an address to receive that amount?
That's just stupid. There are too few transactions for the moment.
Of course I do...
BUT, the community asked for the test. Even the dev put him up to it. If everyone knows how he did it, why give two shits whether he explains it or not? I don't see how arguing, whining, or complaining about it is advancing the discussion in the slightest.
The idea is to test if it can be tracked, not guessed...lol
That's why he tested it in a stupid way
He guessed.... what's your point. If you guess on a test and get it correct. It is no less correct. At this point you are criticizing the process, not the outcome. Which again, does nothing to further the discussion since everyone appears to already know the means why which he came to his answer.
Omg, ofc you can get it by guessing or just looking out there for that X transaction when there are not enough transactions
Anyway...
June 03, 2014, 11:57:27 AM
No problems like this over here are there?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/darkcoin-has-been-penetrated-by-government-intelligence-for-months-637195
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/darkcoin-has-been-penetrated-by-government-intelligence-for-months-637195
June 03, 2014, 11:57:19 AM
Quote
So I'd vote for keeping the little dickhead around.
Many lols!
June 03, 2014, 11:56:57 AM
Guys, Chaeplin did in fact find the sender address. Whether he wants to share his process or not, that point cannot be refuted. It would be nice if he did, but that is neither here nor there. Resorting to personal attacks is not going to change anything besides making you look childish. He did it, now the dev knows it can be done, and he can find a solution. End of story.
Do you even understand that he just waited in the block explorer for an address to receive that amount?
That's just stupid. There are too few transactions for the moment.
Of course I do...
BUT, the community asked for the test. Even the dev put him up to it. If everyone knows how he did it, why give two shits whether he explains it or not? I don't see how arguing, whining, or complaining about it is advancing the discussion in the slightest.
The idea is to test if it can be tracked, not guessed...lol
That's why he tested it in a stupid way
He guessed.... what's your point. If you guess on a test and get it correct. It is no less correct. At this point you are criticizing the process, not the outcome. Which again, does nothing to further the discussion since everyone appears to already know the means why which he came to his answer.
June 03, 2014, 11:55:14 AM
Chaeplin may be a conceited gloater, but it remains an open question whether he does in fact have some clever trick to identify sending and receiving addresses. I'd say this is unlikely, but since it's imperative that this coin is bulletproof, it's necessary for us to see his method fail.
Let's just use his ego in future: come up with a new version and invite him to track transactions. It would, of course, be better if we got him to provide proof, but in the absence of that, he will still perform a useful function. Hell, he'll even do it for free.
So I'd vote for keeping the little dickhead around.
Let's just use his ego in future: come up with a new version and invite him to track transactions. It would, of course, be better if we got him to provide proof, but in the absence of that, he will still perform a useful function. Hell, he'll even do it for free.
So I'd vote for keeping the little dickhead around.
June 03, 2014, 11:54:55 AM
proof or no proof if chaeplin able to find the sender address then there is flaw with the coin and anon is not working
As atc said, if he posts real proof, he will take the time to look at it and analyse it.
of course if chaeplin able to find all the addresses during this test then there is flaw. the question is if developer able to fix this.
As atc said, if he posts real proof, he will take the time to look at it and analyse it.
tracking recent transaction on explorer. only few xnodes and few transactions, and he also know the amounts.
This is what I was thinking. There's not a whole lot going on in the blockchain, so it'd be much easier to deduce knowing how much and when it was sent.
Yes so this is true, thats why I asked about the actual link between A, B, and C... based on what I have reviewed, that link doesn't exist .. and that is the most critical piece at the moment, is finding a direct link from a to b to c, .. all these other issues are trivial in terms of coding a solution
Let's put out a bounty for proof.
That will only teach future testers to find problems, then wait until a bounty shows up to give the info. Kind of like kidnapping a dog and then "finding" it when the reward poster goes up.
So? In this case, the bounty is paying for important research and information. If someone holds it back for a bounty then so what. It's the information that's important.
June 03, 2014, 11:53:08 AM
Guys, Chaeplin did in fact find the sender address. Whether he wants to share his process or not, that point cannot be refuted. It would be nice if he did, but that is neither here nor there. Resorting to personal attacks is not going to change anything besides making you look childish. He did it, now the dev knows it can be done, and he can find a solution. End of story.
Do you even understand that he just waited in the block explorer for an address to receive that amount?
That's just stupid. There are too few transactions for the moment.
Of course I do...
BUT, the community asked for the test. Even the dev put him up to it. If everyone knows how he did it, why give two shits whether he explains it or not? I don't see how arguing, whining, or complaining about it is advancing the discussion in the slightest.
The idea is to test if it can be tracked, not guessed...lol
That's why he tested it in a stupid way
June 03, 2014, 11:52:11 AM
realy dumb short question, if it is so easy to just watch the amounts, then why the hell noone else claimed the bounty?
if its just a 30 sek look at the blockchain (from what i read here some people think so), why noone was taking the 0.2 btc??
if its just a 30 sek look at the blockchain (from what i read here some people think so), why noone was taking the 0.2 btc??
Was wondering the same myself. Bounty still stands as far as I know. Granted, the answer is already posted.
June 03, 2014, 11:52:01 AM
Guys, Chaeplin did in fact find the sender address. Whether he wants to share his process or not, that point cannot be refuted. It would be nice if he did, but that is neither here nor there. Resorting to personal attacks is not going to change anything besides making you look childish. He did it, now the dev knows it can be done, and he can find a solution. End of story.
Do you even understand that he just waited in the block explorer for an address to receive that amount?
That's just stupid. There are too few transactions for the moment.
we were looking for the sender address, not receiver address.
Its the same thing... not enough transactions....
June 03, 2014, 11:51:44 AM
proof or no proof if chaeplin able to find the sender address then there is flaw with the coin and anon is not working
As atc said, if he posts real proof, he will take the time to look at it and analyse it.
of course if chaeplin able to find all the addresses during this test then there is flaw. the question is if developer able to fix this.
As atc said, if he posts real proof, he will take the time to look at it and analyse it.
tracking recent transaction on explorer. only few xnodes and few transactions, and he also know the amounts.
This is what I was thinking. There's not a whole lot going on in the blockchain, so it'd be much easier to deduce knowing how much and when it was sent.
Yes so this is true, thats why I asked about the actual link between A, B, and C... based on what I have reviewed, that link doesn't exist .. and that is the most critical piece at the moment, is finding a direct link from a to b to c, .. all these other issues are trivial in terms of coding a solution
Let's put out a bounty for proof.
That will only teach future testers to find problems, then wait until a bounty shows up to give the info. Kind of like kidnapping a dog and then "finding" it when the reward poster goes up.
June 03, 2014, 11:50:47 AM
This is what I was thinking. There's not a whole lot going on in the blockchain, so it'd be much easier to deduce knowing how much and when it was sent.
Right and my suggestion fixes that (multiple sender addresses). I actually think atcsecure has already thought of this but since he has been working in a corporate environment for so long he has been holding back a lot of the methods behind `multi path paradigm` perhaps to stop competitors like DarkCoin from trying to copy.
If he can release it first without in depth explanation of how it works it prevents others from stealing the method, then as long as XC uses the method first it does not matter if other coins copy it in future because people trust in the original.
Take the Apple Iphone, I do not think it is as good as Samsung`s newer smartphones but because Apple released the first smartphone and have a luxury brand image many people will assume Apple are better by default.
Bitcoin is nowhere near as good as XC technology wise yet the price is way higher for the same reasons. Darkcoin is inferior to XC yet because they were the first coin to claim the anonymous brand that was enough to gain trust and reputation even though they did not even have anonymity.
If XC is a success I can guarantee that in 3-6 months there will be people trying to copy it on a new coin but it will not gain the reputation of XC.
My opinion：
When xc is released, dev can give a date (such as 2 months later) to open the source
So everyone see the confidence and xc would be cloned 2 months later is a pressure to improve xcself.
June 03, 2014, 11:49:55 AM
realy dumb short question, if it is so easy to just watch the amounts, then why the hell noone else claimed the bounty?
if its just a 30 sek look at the blockchain (from what i read here some people think so), why noone was taking the 0.2 btc??
if its just a 30 sek look at the blockchain (from what i read here some people think so), why noone was taking the 0.2 btc??
June 03, 2014, 11:49:33 AM
Guys, Chaeplin did in fact find the sender address. Whether he wants to share his process or not, that point cannot be refuted. It would be nice if he did, but that is neither here nor there. Resorting to personal attacks is not going to change anything besides making you look childish. He did it, now the dev knows it can be done, and he can find a solution. End of story.
Do you even understand that he just waited in the block explorer for an address to receive that amount?
That's just stupid. There are too few transactions for the moment.
Of course I do...
BUT, the community asked for the test. Even the dev put him up to it. If everyone knows how he did it, why give two shits whether he explains it or not? I don't see how arguing, whining, or complaining about it is advancing the discussion in the slightest.
June 03, 2014, 11:48:57 AM
I think if he had something real he would have gloated, but instead he packed his bags like a shrill when called out.
You decide, because I already have!
You decide, because I already have!
June 03, 2014, 11:48:43 AM
Guys, Chaeplin did in fact find the sender address. Whether he wants to share his process or not, that point cannot be refuted. It would be nice if he did, but that is neither here nor there. Resorting to personal attacks is not going to change anything besides making you look childish. He did it, now the dev knows it can be done, and he can find a solution. End of story.
Do you even understand that he just waited in the block explorer for an address to receive that amount?
That's just stupid. There are too few transactions for the moment.
we were looking for the sender address, not receiver address.
June 03, 2014, 11:46:08 AM
Guys, Chaeplin did in fact find the sender address. Whether he wants to share his process or not, that point cannot be refuted. It would be nice if he did, but that is neither here nor there. Resorting to personal attacks is not going to change anything besides making you look childish. He did it, now the dev knows it can be done, and he can find a solution. End of story.
Do you even understand that he just waited in the block explorer for an address to receive that amount?
That's just stupid. There are too few transactions for the moment.
June 03, 2014, 11:45:39 AM
proof or no proof if chaeplin able to find the sender address then there is flaw with the coin and anon is not working
As atc said, if he posts real proof, he will take the time to look at it and analyse it.
of course if chaeplin able to find all the addresses during this test then there is flaw. the question is if developer able to fix this.
As atc said, if he posts real proof, he will take the time to look at it and analyse it.
tracking recent transaction on explorer. only few xnodes and few transactions, and he also know the amounts.
This is what I was thinking. There's not a whole lot going on in the blockchain, so it'd be much easier to deduce knowing how much and when it was sent.
Yes so this is true, thats why I asked about the actual link between A, B, and C... based on what I have reviewed, that link doesn't exist .. and that is the most critical piece at the moment, is finding a direct link from a to b to c, .. all these other issues are trivial in terms of coding a solution
ANYONE can do the same trick now? maybe we can have another test to find out what chaeplin is doing. thanks
June 03, 2014, 11:44:13 AM
This is what I was thinking. There's not a whole lot going on in the blockchain, so it'd be much easier to deduce knowing how much and when it was sent.
Right and my suggestion fixes that (multiple sender addresses). I actually think atcsecure has already thought of this but since he has been working in a corporate environment for so long he has been holding back a lot of the methods behind `multi path paradigm` perhaps to stop competitors like DarkCoin from trying to copy.
If he can release it first without in depth explanation of how it works it prevents others from stealing the method, then as long as XC uses the method first it does not matter if other coins copy it in future because people trust in the original.
Take the Apple Iphone, I do not think it is as good as Samsung`s newer smartphones but because Apple released the first smartphone and have a luxury brand image many people will assume Apple are better by default.
Bitcoin is nowhere near as good as XC technology wise yet the price is way higher for the same reasons. Darkcoin is inferior to XC yet because they were the first coin to claim the anonymous brand that was enough to gain trust and reputation even though they did not even have anonymity.
If XC is a success I can guarantee that in 3-6 months there will be people trying to copy it on a new coin but it will not gain the reputation of XC.
The concepts and programming behind XC coin are not rocket science. Cryptocurrency is still in it`s infancy and very few people have heard of alt coins or know how Bitcoin works. In the real world atcsecure is one of thousands of highly skilled programmers but in the world of cryptocurrency since there are so few developers working in this arena it is possible he could the most skilled programmer working on cryptocoin development.
The smartest part of XC coin will be the encryption layer and having it work over Tor to prevent IP tracing yet no one is talking about either of those features although they have not yet been released.
Personally I think using Tor is a bad idea since it is incredibly slow and unreliable. A better solution would be a VPN relayed via Xnodes but in the beginning there may not be enough Xnodes so Tor might be required as a temporary measure.
June 03, 2014, 11:42:43 AM
Guys, Chaeplin did in fact find the sender address. Whether he wants to share his process or not, that point cannot be refuted. It would be nice if he did, but that is neither here nor there. Resorting to personal attacks is not going to change anything besides making you look childish. He did it, now the dev knows it can be done, and he can find a solution. End of story.
It was nothing remarkable and the guys arrogance about how he did it opens him up for the attacks.
Its liken to looking for a 108db siren in a haystack ATM.
As soon as there are enough xnodes, the transaction is mixed properly with hundreds of other transaction and also the additions coming in the next release - its fixed already.
Jump to: