You are totally wright. This is one of their main purposes. They are just low life suckers, trying to manipulate people..and boy ! they try their best hour after hour relentlessly.

Welcome to crypto currencies...but Im not sure why you attack XST yet promote shadowcoin.

Before addressing the criticisms raised in this thread, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for these criticisms. Although some believe the manner in which they have been introduced may not be optimal to promote civil discourse, they are valuable criticisms nevertheless, and help to strengthen crypto-currencies in general. It is far better to address weaknesses in crypto systems during implementation than it is to address attacks after deployment.

Chandran signatures [1] make use of a common reference string. The common reference string generator (CRSGen) is a necessity for a model that does not require a random oracle, as described in [1]. CRSGen produces a string that is used as an input to a key generation function. The key generation function produces the user's public-private key pair. This key pair has specific properties in that it is a member of a particular mathematical group. In principle, key generation can be replaced by a cryptographic one-way function if the random oracle assumption is introduced.

Admittedly a more difficult issue to address is one of "unlinkability/untraceability", which boils down to the potential for a double spend. In short, Chandran signatures require the generation of a secret random parameter, g, that serves as an input to a "commitment" to a specific key in the key ring. This commitment basically identifies the public key from which the money is spent. The problem is that any number of g can be produced, creating the potential for any number of commitments to the specific public key.

In reality, this same issue exists with CryptoNote ring signatures except that the CryptoNote system incorporates a key image, I, into signing and verification, such that I can only ever be used once. A similar approach can be taken with Chandran signatures. As presented in [1], a key image I can be incorporated into Step 3 of signing and appended to the final signature. In addition to other parameters, Step 3 commits to the public keys of a subset of the ring. Just as with CryptoNote ring signatures, such a modification would commit to the key image and prevent its use for double-spends.

[1] Chandran N., et al. Ring Signatures of Sub-linear Size Without Random Oracles. ICALP 2007, LNCS 4596, pp. 423–434, 2007.


-- Hondo

Before addressing the criticisms raised in this thread, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for these criticisms. Although some believe the manner in which they have been introduced may not be optimal to promote civil discourse, they are valuable criticisms nevertheless, and help to strengthen crypto-currencies in general. It is far better to address weaknesses in crypto systems during implementation than it is to address attacks after deployment.

Chandran signatures [1] make use of a common reference string. The common reference string generator (CRSGen) is a necessity for a model that does not require a random oracle, as described in [1]. CRSGen produces a string that is used as an input to a key generation function. The key generation function produces the user's public-private key pair. This key pair has specific properties in that it is a member of a particular mathematical group. In principle, key generation can be replaced by a cryptographic one-way function if the random oracle assumption is introduced.

Admittedly a more difficult issue to address is one of "unlinkability/untraceability", which boils down to the potential for a double spend. In short, Chandran signatures require the generation of a secret random parameter, g, that serves as an input to a "commitment" to a specific key in the key ring. This commitment basically identifies the public key from which the money is spent. The problem is that any number of g can be produced, creating the potential for any number of commitments to the specific public key.

In reality, this same issue exists with CryptoNote ring signatures except that the CryptoNote system incorporates a key image, I, into signing and verification, such that I can only ever be used once. A similar approach can be taken with Chandran signatures. As presented in [1], a key image I can be incorporated into Step 3 of signing and appended to the final signature. In addition to other parameters, Step 3 commits to the public keys of a subset of the ring. Just as with CryptoNote ring signatures, such a modification would commit to the key image and prevent its use for double-spends.

[1] Chandran N., et al. Ring Signatures of Sub-linear Size Without Random Oracles. ICALP 2007, LNCS 4596, pp. 423–434, 2007.


-- Hondo

Don't insult me you don't deserve the dirt form my shoes let alone respect form me you have abused me many times here you don't deserve jack!

I don't use slackchat should i..this is a community question i really wasn't asking the devs but encouraging your community to look at the glaring facts..something you are all still well incapable of doing bar a few that don't seem to be holding it! funny that isn't it! if i was invested both time and money i would be asking a lot more then this maybe you should be too! and don't start on me twisting it up to suit you i don't have to do anything other then what i'm doing right now you are all making a perfect example for everyone to see of how not to handle things!