Quote from: Wheatclove on February 13, 2016, 04:43:46 AM

Quote from: smooth on February 13, 2016, 04:38:23 AM

Quote from: erok on February 13, 2016, 04:36:08 AM

Quote from: smooth on February 13, 2016, 04:16:33 AM

You issued this:

No but I do suppose I was the one blowing the loudest "bullshit trollfud" horn.

Honestly I can't say I blame you. There is a lot of FUD and trolling and false claims that go on here, this just didn't happen to be one of them, as it turns out.

Anyway, the i information is out now, and it will be up to your team to decide how to address it. Ideally it gets fixed.

Signing off from the thread for now unless anyone has a question for me.

Still don't like to overall tone of this criticisms throughout the thread.

But I do have a question for you. I don't have time to sort through all the insults being thrown around by everyone as I'm doing homework.

What exactly does this exploit reveal in a single ring signature transaction?

A ring signature has multiple possible signers. The idea is that it is suppose to not be possible to tell which previous transaction's output is being spent.

Quote from: satoshi on August 13, 2010, 07:28:47 PM

As an example, say some unpopular military attack has to be ordered, but nobody wants to go down in history as the one who ordered it. If 10 leaders have private keys, one of them could sign the order and you wouldn't know who did it.

In the case of the broken ring signatures in Shadow, you can always tell which leader gave the order (which transaction's output is being spent).