Quote from: atcsecure on June 02, 2014, 09:53:14 PM

Quote from: studio1one on June 02, 2014, 09:48:26 PM

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on June 02, 2014, 09:27:50 PM

Quote from: studio1one on June 02, 2014, 09:25:09 PM

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on June 02, 2014, 09:22:18 PM

Quote from: Kai Proctor on June 02, 2014, 09:15:32 PM

Quote from: megges on June 02, 2014, 08:23:02 PM

Quote from: lazylocaluser on June 02, 2014, 02:32:57 PM

ok people listen...

I will pay 0.1 BTC to ONE person who FIRSTLY identify sender address called "1" until tomorrow 10:00 AM NY TIME (EDT)

tomorrow 10:00 AM NY TIME (EDT) or a bit later I post some screenshots of my wallet and transactions...

see what happens
time went... tic tic tic

and btw sorry for my bad English if my English is bad =)

Quote from: lazylocaluser on June 02, 2014, 05:25:18 AM

it's working people wooohooo! Grin

I send 1 real XC to address XSQYYwgVVYoGyc23NCTcCvQRCNiidarU71 using:

Code:

walletpassphrase 60
sendfrommixer "1" XSQYYwgVVYoGyc23NCTcCvQRCNiidarU71 1.0

now try to find my fucking sender address Grin

dev...
you are a saint Cool

IMPORTANT:
post your answers on topic (NOT PM)

just a quick guess:
http://cryptexplorer.com/address/XLXKRnecfvnN6RRtLqM9isygJWWUPTdeSF

I find XLXKRnecfvnN6RRtLqM9isygJWWUPTdeSF too :
XLXKRnecfvnN6RRtLqM9isygJWWUPTdeSF
sent 0.99999
http://cryptexplorer.com/tx/c9b6414f9b6cc03a97df485e74bee1fef063f2c66e7ec76839931e522846e8f8#i0
going thru
XVjyeCBgZWfLTjGJxZoa8UE9DYNfRSMCgV
http://cryptexplorer.com/tx/30e6bbf5df8cb9f36a149cfecac959dd7028fd0897b39af2f916b4a20be178d7#i2
To go to
XSQYYwgVVYoGyc23NCTcCvQRCNiidarU71

I don't know if you guys really want to play this game just yet.

ATCSecure has always said that this is just a coinmixer and not "NSA" level type anonymity. His rev 3 will get to that level.

If somehow, the answer is correct, you guys will just create a lot of FUD that ATCSecure never said rev 1 will deliver....

you mean. No one should test the anonymity in case they can break it?

bit of an odd way to approach a feature set. In my line of work we have always tested code as hard as we possibly can until it broke. Then we knew how to make it better.

I hold DRK and I hold XC

I evangelise for neither. I just want the tech behind my coins to be as good as possible, if people break it all the better. Then the dev knows what needs to be fixed.

Sure you should test it, but don't take it like it's an official representation of what XC will ultimately deliver at the end. The test is on the sending of it arriving at the destination, not on how "secure" or "anonymous" the final XC will deliver.

Everyone knows that coin mixing isn't 100% anonymous and ATCSecure have already said that for rev 1, it's just a generic mixer that won't deliver 100% anonymity. DRK trolls will run with this and FUD this to death. There is no need to create FUD for them. Now, if REV3 anonymity fails, then that's a different story.

This is good data and actually a very simple fix, which will be included in v1.36....

Thank you!

Yeah..the transaction went through only one node. I guess this could be set to 5 minimum for example.

Also aren't the timestamps and blocks numbers a concern? Could the amount transferred between 2 nodes be higher than the original amount not just lower? This would be major but not sure how it could be done without using nodes balances.