Topic: [XC][XCurrency] Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat / Pos - page 775. (Read 1484192 times)

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 06:36:59 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 06:33:55 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 06:53:06 AM

What I meant by some party owning 99% of nodes is not double-spend attacks or whatever of that nature, but the ability to de-anonymise transactions routed only through the nodes of this party. As far as I understand nodes are trustless while tx goes through the nodes owned by different people. If I manage to have transactions routing and mixing by my nodes only I can rewind all the operations as I have all the necessary information about those transactions, giving me source and destination addresses and likely some additional statistics. It won't need any additional resources from my side, just being able to run a lot of nodes with empty wallets. They don't consume much resources and it must be possible to run thousands of them on several powerful servers (or even one server) which is totally acceptable for the interested party.

Even then a node owner will have no way of identifying which fragments belong to who, or how much a given party was actually paid.

A node owner won't be able to tell which fragments comprise a given transaction and which fragments are part of a different transaction.

If every node is forwarding transactions trustlessly, the scenario is pretty sweet really.

I mean:

1) Node A forwards a fragment to node B. Does this mean that node B is the end-receipient of a transaction, or is node B just forwarding it on further? You can't tell.

2) Node A receives a payment from someone. Node A also forwards some fragments soon afterwards. How do you tell whether the fragments are related to the payment received or not? You can't. There's perfect privacy there.

So is it something like I2P forwards traffic?

It doesn't look like it. Not that I can claim to know much about I2P...

It's session-based m-of-m multisig with multiple redundant connections. If that's like I2P, let me know. :-)

redundant connection, is it similar to Link Aggregation Control Protocol(LACP)?
I think Dan is very familiar with LACP, as a network expert. LOL

Yes, at a basic level. Of course it's not physical connections that are established here though, and it's not about increasing throughput either.

Making a payment initiates a session whereby encrypted connections are set up between as many participating Xnodes as needed. Several of these connections are redundant so that if one node fails, others can take on the work.

milkyway

member

Activity: 103

Merit: 10

hi guys,

sorry for a noob question, since im not a technical guy and just an investor. I would like to stake my coins with MAC wallet. it seems that i was not able to locate the wallet.dat file since i want to copy that to a thumdrive to back it up. how would i locate it? thank you

and is the wallet version on the xc official website for MAC right? thanks again.

CrazyLeoW

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

XC

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 06:36:59 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 06:33:55 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 06:53:06 AM

What I meant by some party owning 99% of nodes is not double-spend attacks or whatever of that nature, but the ability to de-anonymise transactions routed only through the nodes of this party. As far as I understand nodes are trustless while tx goes through the nodes owned by different people. If I manage to have transactions routing and mixing by my nodes only I can rewind all the operations as I have all the necessary information about those transactions, giving me source and destination addresses and likely some additional statistics. It won't need any additional resources from my side, just being able to run a lot of nodes with empty wallets. They don't consume much resources and it must be possible to run thousands of them on several powerful servers (or even one server) which is totally acceptable for the interested party.

Even then a node owner will have no way of identifying which fragments belong to who, or how much a given party was actually paid.

A node owner won't be able to tell which fragments comprise a given transaction and which fragments are part of a different transaction.

If every node is forwarding transactions trustlessly, the scenario is pretty sweet really.

I mean:

1) Node A forwards a fragment to node B. Does this mean that node B is the end-receipient of a transaction, or is node B just forwarding it on further? You can't tell.

2) Node A receives a payment from someone. Node A also forwards some fragments soon afterwards. How do you tell whether the fragments are related to the payment received or not? You can't. There's perfect privacy there.

So is it something like I2P forwards traffic?

It doesn't look like it. Not that I can claim to know much about I2P...

It's session-based m-of-m multisig with multiple redundant connections. If that's like I2P, let me know. :-)

redundant connection, is it similar to Link Aggregation Control Protocol(LACP)?
I think Dan is very familiar with LACP, as a network expert. LOL

prospect

sr. member

Activity: 270

Merit: 250

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 06:36:59 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 06:33:55 AM

What I meant by some party owning 99% of nodes is not double-spend attacks or whatever of that nature, but the ability to de-anonymise transactions routed only through the nodes of this party. As far as I understand nodes are trustless while tx goes through the nodes owned by different people. If I manage to have transactions routing and mixing by my nodes only I can rewind all the operations as I have all the necessary information about those transactions, giving me source and destination addresses and likely some additional statistics. It won't need any additional resources from my side, just being able to run a lot of nodes with empty wallets. They don't consume much resources and it must be possible to run thousands of them on several powerful servers (or even one server) which is totally acceptable for the interested party.

Even then a node owner will have no way of identifying which fragments belong to who, or how much a given party was actually paid.

A node owner won't be able to tell which fragments comprise a given transaction and which fragments are part of a different transaction.

If every node is forwarding transactions trustlessly, the scenario is pretty sweet really.

I mean:

1) Node A forwards a fragment to node B. Does this mean that node B is the end-receipient of a transaction, or is node B just forwarding it on further? You can't tell.

2) Node A receives a payment from someone. Node A also forwards some fragments soon afterwards. How do you tell whether the fragments are related to the payment received or not? You can't. There's perfect privacy there.

So is it something like I2P forwards traffic?

It doesn't look like it. Not that I can claim to know much about I2P...

It's session-based m-of-m multisig with multiple redundant connections. If that's like I2P, let me know. :-)

Answering questions, like a boss.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 06:36:59 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 06:33:55 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 06:05:10 AM

What I meant by some party owning 99% of nodes is not double-spend attacks or whatever of that nature, but the ability to de-anonymise transactions routed only through the nodes of this party. As far as I understand nodes are trustless while tx goes through the nodes owned by different people. If I manage to have transactions routing and mixing by my nodes only I can rewind all the operations as I have all the necessary information about those transactions, giving me source and destination addresses and likely some additional statistics. It won't need any additional resources from my side, just being able to run a lot of nodes with empty wallets. They don't consume much resources and it must be possible to run thousands of them on several powerful servers (or even one server) which is totally acceptable for the interested party.

Even then a node owner will have no way of identifying which fragments belong to who, or how much a given party was actually paid.

A node owner won't be able to tell which fragments comprise a given transaction and which fragments are part of a different transaction.

If every node is forwarding transactions trustlessly, the scenario is pretty sweet really.

I mean:

1) Node A forwards a fragment to node B. Does this mean that node B is the end-receipient of a transaction, or is node B just forwarding it on further? You can't tell.

2) Node A receives a payment from someone. Node A also forwards some fragments soon afterwards. How do you tell whether the fragments are related to the payment received or not? You can't. There's perfect privacy there.

So is it something like I2P forwards traffic?

It doesn't look like it. Not that I can claim to know much about I2P...

It's session-based m-of-m multisig with multiple redundant connections. If that's like I2P, let me know. :-)

Boyer

member

Activity: 78

Merit: 10

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 06:38:20 AM

Those number doesn’t necessarily mean that there are more users, it only means there are more address holds coin now. Maybe I'm missing something here ? Can somebody explain what those addresses really mean ?

You're right, those addresses don't mean much. I don't take rich lists seriously.

If I held a very large amount of XC I'd definitely not keep it at one address, let alone have people know that address.

I couldn't agree more, the rich list is not to be trusted. People create a lot of addresses to be able to stake better etc. I think someone owns a lot of XC. Time will tell if we are going for another run. I believe that XC's value will increase in 1 month.

CrazyLeoW

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

XC

Quote from: CrazyLeoW on July 21, 2014, 06:37:37 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 06:36:59 AM

What I meant by some party owning 99% of nodes is not double-spend attacks or whatever of that nature, but the ability to de-anonymise transactions routed only through the nodes of this party. As far as I understand nodes are trustless while tx goes through the nodes owned by different people. If I manage to have transactions routing and mixing by my nodes only I can rewind all the operations as I have all the necessary information about those transactions, giving me source and destination addresses and likely some additional statistics. It won't need any additional resources from my side, just being able to run a lot of nodes with empty wallets. They don't consume much resources and it must be possible to run thousands of them on several powerful servers (or even one server) which is totally acceptable for the interested party.

But still no direct link on the block chain, right? the party could only guess it but no evidence to support the guessed result.
Just like chaeplin's conjecture. make nonsense.

Yes you'd have to trust the malicious actor's testimony. The blockchain would not lend any support to it.

In our society, we know that: He who has a mind to beat his dog will easily find his stick.
But in crypto world, only blockchain speaks.

Queeq

sr. member

Activity: 427

Merit: 250

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 06:33:55 AM

Quote from: CrazyLeoW on July 21, 2014, 06:37:37 AM

What I meant by some party owning 99% of nodes is not double-spend attacks or whatever of that nature, but the ability to de-anonymise transactions routed only through the nodes of this party. As far as I understand nodes are trustless while tx goes through the nodes owned by different people. If I manage to have transactions routing and mixing by my nodes only I can rewind all the operations as I have all the necessary information about those transactions, giving me source and destination addresses and likely some additional statistics. It won't need any additional resources from my side, just being able to run a lot of nodes with empty wallets. They don't consume much resources and it must be possible to run thousands of them on several powerful servers (or even one server) which is totally acceptable for the interested party.

Even then a node owner will have no way of identifying which fragments belong to who, or how much a given party was actually paid.

A node owner won't be able to tell which fragments comprise a given transaction and which fragments are part of a different transaction.

If every node is forwarding transactions trustlessly, the scenario is pretty sweet really.

I mean:

1) Node A forwards a fragment to node B. Does this mean that node B is the end-receipient of a transaction, or is node B just forwarding it on further? You can't tell.

2) Node A receives a payment from someone. Node A also forwards some fragments soon afterwards. How do you tell whether the fragments are related to the payment received or not? You can't. There's perfect privacy there.

So is it something like I2P forwards traffic?

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

What I meant by some party owning 99% of nodes is not double-spend attacks or whatever of that nature, but the ability to de-anonymise transactions routed only through the nodes of this party. As far as I understand nodes are trustless while tx goes through the nodes owned by different people. If I manage to have transactions routing and mixing by my nodes only I can rewind all the operations as I have all the necessary information about those transactions, giving me source and destination addresses and likely some additional statistics. It won't need any additional resources from my side, just being able to run a lot of nodes with empty wallets. They don't consume much resources and it must be possible to run thousands of them on several powerful servers (or even one server) which is totally acceptable for the interested party.

But still no direct link on the block chain, right? the party could only guess it but no evidence to support the guessed result.
Just like chaeplin's conjecture. make nonsense.

Yes you'd have to trust the malicious actor's testimony. The blockchain would not lend any support to it.

CrazyLeoW

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

XC

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 06:33:55 AM

What I meant by some party owning 99% of nodes is not double-spend attacks or whatever of that nature, but the ability to de-anonymise transactions routed only through the nodes of this party. As far as I understand nodes are trustless while tx goes through the nodes owned by different people. If I manage to have transactions routing and mixing by my nodes only I can rewind all the operations as I have all the necessary information about those transactions, giving me source and destination addresses and likely some additional statistics. It won't need any additional resources from my side, just being able to run a lot of nodes with empty wallets. They don't consume much resources and it must be possible to run thousands of them on several powerful servers (or even one server) which is totally acceptable for the interested party.

But still no direct link on the block chain, right? the party could only guess it but no evidence to support the guessed result.
Just like chaeplin's conjecture. make nonsense.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

What I meant by some party owning 99% of nodes is not double-spend attacks or whatever of that nature, but the ability to de-anonymise transactions routed only through the nodes of this party. As far as I understand nodes are trustless while tx goes through the nodes owned by different people. If I manage to have transactions routing and mixing by my nodes only I can rewind all the operations as I have all the necessary information about those transactions, giving me source and destination addresses and likely some additional statistics. It won't need any additional resources from my side, just being able to run a lot of nodes with empty wallets. They don't consume much resources and it must be possible to run thousands of them on several powerful servers (or even one server) which is totally acceptable for the interested party.

Even then a node owner will have no way of identifying which fragments belong to who, or how much a given party was actually paid.

A node owner won't be able to tell which fragments comprise a given transaction and which fragments are part of a different transaction.

If every node is forwarding transactions trustlessly, the scenario is pretty sweet really.

I mean:

1) Node A forwards a fragment to node B. Does this mean that node B is the end-receipient of a transaction, or is node B just forwarding it on further? You can't tell.

2) Node A receives a payment from someone. Node A also forwards some fragments soon afterwards. How do you tell whether the fragments are related to the payment received or not? You can't. There's perfect privacy there.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: CrazyLeoW on July 21, 2014, 04:43:24 AM

What I meant by some party owning 99% of nodes is not double-spend attacks or whatever of that nature, but the ability to de-anonymise transactions routed only through the nodes of this party. As far as I understand nodes are trustless while tx goes through the nodes owned by different people. If I manage to have transactions routing and mixing by my nodes only I can rewind all the operations as I have all the necessary information about those transactions, giving me source and destination addresses and likely some additional statistics. It won't need any additional resources from my side, just being able to run a lot of nodes with empty wallets. They don't consume much resources and it must be possible to run thousands of them on several powerful servers (or even one server) which is totally acceptable for the interested party.

Even then a node owner will have no way of identifying which fragments belong to who, or how much a given party was actually paid.

A node owner won't be able to tell which fragments comprise a given transaction and which fragments are part of a different transaction.

If every node is forwarding transactions trustlessly, the scenario is pretty sweet really.

Teka

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Why not set a bounty for GUI design??? think about what we did for XC LOGO.
I think wallet UI inheriting from BTC is really ugly!!!
Current GUI just like a win95 application!!!! FUCK!

Its on the way and planned Grin

Daniel
Community Manager
Drasticraven.deviantart.com Roll Eyes

Queeq

sr. member

Activity: 427

Merit: 250

What I meant by some party owning 99% of nodes is not double-spend attacks or whatever of that nature, but the ability to de-anonymise transactions routed only through the nodes of this party. As far as I understand nodes are trustless while tx goes through the nodes owned by different people. If I manage to have transactions routing and mixing by my nodes only I can rewind all the operations as I have all the necessary information about those transactions, giving me source and destination addresses and likely some additional statistics. It won't need any additional resources from my side, just being able to run a lot of nodes with empty wallets. They don't consume much resources and it must be possible to run thousands of them on several powerful servers (or even one server) which is totally acceptable for the interested party.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: CrazyLeoW on July 21, 2014, 06:26:41 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 06:05:10 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 06:05:10 AM

Those number doesn’t necessarily mean that there are more users, it only means there are more address holds coin now. Maybe I'm missing something here ? Can somebody explain what those addresses really mean ?

You're right, those addresses don't mean much. I don't take rich lists seriously.

If I held a very large amount of XC I'd definitely not keep it at one address, let alone have people know that address.

plz see the list dynamically. the addresses increased after a big dump on mintpal in 3 or 4 hours period, I think it means freshmen came in our family.
yes, the total number might be meaningless, but the delta value make sense.

Fair point. Definitely.

CrazyLeoW

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

XC

Those number doesn’t necessarily mean that there are more users, it only means there are more address holds coin now. Maybe I'm missing something here ? Can somebody explain what those addresses really mean ?

You're right, those addresses don't mean much. I don't take rich lists seriously.

If I held a very large amount of XC I'd definitely not keep it at one address, let alone have people know that address.

plz see the list dynamically. the addresses increased after a big dump on mintpal in 3 or 4 hours period, I think it means freshmen came in our family.
yes, the total number might be meaningless, but the delta value make sense.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market