Thanks!  Glad that you could be amicable in me pointing out incorrect statements (that you were unaware of). 

If I see any other mistakes, I will be sure to join your slack and let you know there.

Fair enough.  No qualms on that.



My apologies for stating that you said you were the first and not the only.  Only implies first, in a way.  Regardless, at least that portion of the matter is settled.

I agree that it would be impossible to research EVERY single coin out there; however, it is but a simple matter to search ring signatures on the altcoin announcements of bitcointalk and conduct your own due diligence.  There's only 4 pages of threads, less with actual coins, and you'll find it on there.

Anyway, your claim that Eclipse Crypto is not being actively developed is only based on the evidence that is made available to you.  That's not to say that your claim is true.  I hope you are as amicable in the future when an update appears, and you retract the not actively developed statement.

Also, EC is still actively traded on C-Cex.  That much you can still verify yourself, so, in the interest of fairness when it comes to your marketing materials, you should (as of now) only have the statement that it is "only actively developed (to the best of your knowledge)".

If you read his post, he says he lost BTC, not 1 BTC.  Please make accurate statements.

Anyway, you have no idea the EC devs left or didn't leave or what's happening.  Many legitimate developers have day jobs and families and develop cryptotokens on the side. Just because the devs haven't posted with the Eclipse Crypto account for a long time does not mean that the coin is dead or that there is no development or that the developers left.  To make such a claim is based on incomplete knowledge.  I'm not faulting you for not having all the information, but the manner in which you misrepresent other's words is not accurate.

The point was to stop any and all false claims that are made in regards to cryptotokens with ring signatures.  The most obvious incorrect statement being that XSPEC was not the first to integrate TOR with RS + Stealth Addresses, but rather that Eclipse Crypto did it quite a few months back.

XSPEC is misleading people into thinking that they were the first to implement all the anonymity features in their token with their marketing. 

I don't like people being misled by those making incorrect statements (even if those  making said statements don't know they are incorrect).

All I wanted to do is point out basic flaws in XSPEC's claims and provide historical background information on RS tokens based on bitcoin core regarding both the first usage of TOR and the first implementation of certain cryptographic schemes necessary for RS to work (with proof and links that anyone can follow).

I've done nothing more but speak the truth in as civil manner as is possible.

EC is also on CMC.  And since it's been pointed out previously that TOR was integrated into the codebase, we see yet another untrue statement.

How is making factual statements an attack, again?  Such an attempt is a diversion tactic to mislead people.

No reminiscing is happening; rather, what you observe is someone pointing out blatant lies (to anyone who bothers to do some research) and setting the record straight.

An empire built on lies can only last so long before the truth makes it rot from the inside.

Silence is not indicative of no development.  Yet another false claim is made with no substantive proof.  Kindly please stop making inaccurate statements.

You are incorrect in certain claims with respect to being the first token that integrates TOR and ring signatures.  Yes, indeed it is the most anonymous, but all these features were done by a different token first.  Don't believe me?

I invite you to read the thread proving this claim ... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1378922.0

Not to mention that their dev team managed to fix the Shadow devs flaw in their algorithm for generating a Key Image that is necessary in a ring signature scheme after it was proven to be de-anonymized by Shen Noether ...

The proposed fix by Shadow was even shown to the Shadow Team by one of the Eclipse Devs to be a singular point of weakness that could pose security flaws if / when ECDLP is breakable.

After the Eclipse Crypto team launched their coin and were polite enough to point out the weakness of Shadow's proposed method on their thread (the post and solution was subsequently deleted, but put up on the Eclipse thread for future posterity), a few days later, the Shadow Team incorporated the solution implemented by the Eclipse Crypto team.

In fact, XSPEC uses the same methodology of the Try-And-Increment method in their code, too (albeit, in a different way, as XSPEC's code uses EC_POINT_set_compressed_coordinates_GFp instead of testing if x^3 + 7 is a quadratic residue using secp256k1_ge_set_xquad_var as Eclipse Crypto does).  

But the idea remains the same. Some value 'x' is tested to see if the corresponding (x,y) is a point on the elliptic curve. In the case of secp256k1, that is to say, a test is done whether y^2 = x^3 + 7 modulo p, with p being the characteristic of the field, is satisified (meaning both sides are equal when you plug in). If it's not, increase x by 1 and try again.  Although, Eclipse Crypto currently does an increase by triangular numbers (that is, the increment on the j'th iteration is j instead of 1), although this doesn't affect the validity of their modified implementation of Try-And-Increment.

Silence from the Eclipse Crypto devs, but the token is coming up on their one year anniversary in one month.  Might be something coming up soon .  

Who am I to say?

The fact that $G$ = $aG^*$ is but a little lemma whose proof that I found in the margins of my notebook.

I will use the additive notation, since this is what is used for Elliptic Curves, but it's just a convention.  Multiplicative notation is just as fine.

Lemma *:  Let $K$ be a cyclic group of order $n$.  Let $G$ be a generator of $K$, i.e. $