Bitcoin Forum

OK due to many fuds I re-open this thread as self-mod thread and closed the old thread. All fuds and unreasonable posts (such as personal attacks) will be removed.

My purpose is not to attack any coins. My purpose is to seek the truth, as I myself am interested in the trustless anonymous transaction system. So please, state your facts, let's discuss, and let's understand the truth.


Well Cloakcoin claimed that their PoSA is a trustless system, but I read their whitepaper in the thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.0

It seems to me that this is not at all a trustless system. The reason is that the "elected" nodes have no restrictions at all to follow the rules (i.e. send coins to destination etc), he can change at will the transaction or even steal the coins. So the PoSA is a poorly designed trust system, which trust the "elected" node. Only until they cheated, they may be banned.

Creating addresses is easy, so a cheater can simply create a new address, cheat once, then move to another address and cheat again. PoSA is not a trustless system.

On the contrary, Supercoin is creating a trustless system by using multisig addresses and transactions. To be a trustless system, you must give restrictions to the middle nodes, so they must follow the rules. From what I read, the SuperCoin achieves this by creating multisig address, as an escrow, each party including middle nodes, have assets in the escrow, so they can't cheat, or they may lose the assets in escrow, which may be bigger than what they cheat.

I am not associate with Supercoin or Cloakcoin, the reason I do not post these in Cloakcoin's thread is because their thread is self-mod, so they can delete anything at will.

I welcome Cloakcoin dev to discuss here and prove me wrong, as although I am pretty experienced and understand most altcoin details, I could be wrong. But from what I read, I am pretty sure that Cloakcoin PoSA is not a trustless system, but a poorly designed trust system.

Actually for those who do not agree with me, please try to answer this question:

What is the logics how to prevent a middle node from cheating? If he uses Cloak released client, he can never cheat. The problem is that he can create his own client, with same interfaces, and does not do the transaction as described. Does the system have anyway to prevent it?

You dont get it. This question has been answered. If you think it's possible to do then please demo it for all of us.

Well the thread title seems abit misleading, are you saying PoSA is not a trustless system or claiming its not? From what I understand just by reading the title is that CLoaks PoSA is not trustless. Might want to take a look at that.

demo you can not see anything. The cheating will not be done with cloakcoin released client, the question is what measures used to prevent it.

From what I read it is not. The title reflects what I found out. But if you can prove me wrong, and I will correct the title.

Nono, go ahead and make your own client and try to steal coins.

Trust me, as an investor I would like to see this happen. If you find a bug and it truly is a bug I'll be more then happy to throw some btc your way.

Please demo this for us.

Oh I see what you say. Yes I can try it, but from the algorithm we will know if it can be cheated or not. If you take no measures, it will be cheated easily. That's why the anonymous system most implemented the centralized mixer system, for the coinjoin (DRK, SUPER phase-1 etc). Because this way you don't need to take any measures against the cheating, these mixers nodes are trusted.

The Cloakcoin claims any nodes can be elected. There you need forceful way to prevent this node from cheating. If you use mutlisig address/transactions (like supercoin claimed), you use an escrow that prevents any nodes from cheating, or they will lose their parts in escrow. In Cloak's whitepaper, there's nothing like this. The raw tx is transferred, and this raw tx can be changed and post to network any time. If you don't have any measures, cheating is very easy.

Are you refusing to provide a demo?

Your the one claiming that cloaks PoSA  is not a trustless system. We would like to see you do it instead of asking Cloak devs to show how its trustless and unexploited, your the one making the claim so your the one who should show us that i can be done.

Forget the algo, the code...etc

Cheat the system and steal Cloakcoins if you can, if you show a demo of this like Bob said I'll also send you a nice bounty for doing so. .

Edit: As I mentioned in the last thread that was locked and sadly no one bothered to see my post. I spoken to the devs a hour ago and I was told a new well detailed whitepaper on PoSA is being written.

This is going to turnout just as bad as when Busoni spread FUD about Supercoin.

The title of this thread might lead people to believe that what you are stating is FACT and not a guess. You do not have concrete proof that CLOAK isn't 100% trustless. I would advise that you change the title of this thread  at least until your claims can be proven to be 100% correct.

It seems suspect that a thread like this pops up just as PoSA goes into public beta and CLOAK experiences an increase in price.

(I don't agree with the title of this thread, but...)

We investors have to assume that it is *not* trustless, until proven otherwise.

I think CINNI's anon was not to be trustless at first, as that was too difficult to do.

Trust-based is the default for anon.  If CLOAK's is trustless, how is it trustless?  Why can't we be told?

smokim87, we're not talking about identifying a bug, like you seem to be implying.  We're talking about the design itself.  Is it trustless by design?  How?  Don't tell us to built a client.  Not everyone has the time or skill to do that.

As I said I can do it in some time, but this is not the point. You can create a standard mixer system and claim it trustless, it is simply base-less. You need to have measures to prevent cheats. From what is published in whitepaper, there is none.

So you can say ok my system is secret and show me how you can break it. I can do it, later. It needs time. If your purpose is to buy time, it's fine. But if you really have measures against cheating, show it. You don't need to show all details. In Supercoin they did not show all details, but from what they said I know it works. From what you said, I know it is NOT working, it can be easily cheated.

I don't need to have 100% proof, that proof would be I do a prototype to grab some coins. But that will take me weeks to do. The problem is that it can be easily shown that it is not cheatable, if you know how the trustless system works. It is not s difficult task at all. So far I see nothing that can support PoSA can be a trustless system transaction.

Yes exactly. It is not difficult to tell how it is done to be a trustless system. You don't need to tell the detailed algorithm, you just need to tell the methodology, at a pretty high level. All experts understand what you talk about. From what I see in the whitepaper and discussions in the thread, there's nothing about a true trustless system, it simply does not exist in PoSA.

1. How do you create a posa address?

2. How do you cheat?

3. How do you move to another address to cheat again?

Your theory is conceptual so please elaborate on these concepts.

You can ask these, and ask me to show you how I break it. But I am asking you the other way around: what did you do to prevent a potential cheat in the middle nodes? Is there any reason to prevent him from cheating? Very simple question, as I posted in the OP (and 2nd post), not difficult to answer.

From the pdf: Decentralized P2P Crypto Currency Transaction Anonymity via Proof of Stake Protocol Extensions


This suggests that the system is *not* in fact trustless.

It's trustless because the protocol makes it so, but it's possible for nodes to fail to meet protocol?

From what I saw in PoSA testing on Sunday, the level of programming far exceeds the expectation you'd usually find in an altcoin. PoSA far exceeds the realm of simple attacks. There are measures in place to stop man in the middle attacks, there aren't any node changes possible, and the transactions follow a myriad of paths to complete a transaction(Which are unpredictable). So, let's suss out a more specific scenario and we'll delve into this further.

AnonyMint has a good overview of why Cloakcoin is snake oil:


Also, a cryptographic whitepaper without a single piece of algebra to prove a claim indicates it is written by people who do not understand cryptography. I wouldn't trust such a whitepaper.

Again, you can do any demo you want. I can use a centralized mixer and claim it to be trustless. Can you prove me wrong? Not easily. As long as I hide all detailed messages, calls, even I use simple un-verified message, which everyone can easily fake if the interfaces are published. A demo does not constitute any proof that the claimed system works, especially a trustless system. To show your method is working, simply publish the method you are using, and in theory it can be proven if your stuff work or not, easily.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I can't give you my eyes or my experiences; you'll just have to use it and find out for yourself.
You can be fair or not.
You're posting a special thread claiming a theory as fact. Calling people out. That's a lot of effort.
Now please tell us more about supercoin again.

As far as I can see, the method by which Supercoin moves to a trustless system is unclear. I have rewritten some of the OP explanation in a general way but the dev has not confided in me regarding exact detail..Unproven, but not disproven.

Cloakcoin's system is far more advanced  in it's development, and therefore obviously has more market value. However, anonymous systems are all very much experimental atm. No doubt there are many more on the drawing board.

I don't see the case for denigrating any coin at this stage.

A+

Anonymous systems are experimental, but the cryptography behind the ones that work is widely understood by computer scientists and cryptographers.

The following is a short list (off the top of my head) of coins with "anonymous systems" that are invented by a software developer and have no basis in cryptography: DarkCoin, SummerCoin, CloakCoin, StealthCoin, SuperCoin, KoreCoin, VootCoin, Pesa, BitStar, PinkCoin, DarkCash, Navajo, Razor, ESportsCoin, DoomCoin, GuerillaCoin, XanonCoin.

Any of these coins can redeem themselves by, quite simply, putting out a whitepaper that has the mathematics for their proposed cryptographically firm anonymous transaction system. There doesn't have to be a lot of maths, but at the very least it needs to use algebra to express the anonymity set and prove mathematically that this set is both intractable and resistant to a reduction of the set by observation over time or Sybil attacks or similar. In fact, the vast majority, if not all, of the "anonymous systems" employed by coins mentioned above are open to Sybil attacks by an attacker that is not particularly well equipped or even particularly clever.

If any of them do put out such a whitepaper I'm sure there are cryptographers and mathematics majors here that will peer review it.

Failing that, don't buy into a coin just because it has a "whitepaper" with walls of text designed to impress. Most of them are just outrightly full of shit.

If you said the implementation stage, yes. But if you implement with a wrong tech, then it does not mean anything the implementation stage is more advanced, because it did not achieve what it claimed and it is useless. The Cloakcoin whitepaper did not have anything to make people believe that it can be a trustless system, and from all the requests here the dev can not provide such theoretical method, so I'd say it is simply did not implement the trustless system, or the dev does not understand what is a trustless system.

Anybody can postulate all day long about PoSA and try to advance theories that it's likely flawed.  I assure you strasboug you're not the first person to bring this up. Personally, I'm not sure how this doesn't apply to Darkcoin as well. You send coins to the mixer. You "trust" the mixer is following the rules and handles your coins properly. The difference with PoSA is that since all staking nodes are involved the ability to attack the network is only as strong as your staking power in the network.

I know for a fact that Cloakcoin's PoSA developers are in fact aware of the concept of "bad actors".  It'll be addressed fully and the developers are actively looking for experts in the field to audit their code. It's not easy to get the time of people who are well known in the field.  But, all this is part of the development process.

But, this thread really amounts to a whole lot of nothing as far as I can see.  It's a theory that Cloakcoin development has somehow missed a fatal flaw in their system.  I doubt that.

It's pretty simple. There are a lot of smart people on these forums, way smarter then myself. I can promise you with all the tough competition out there someone will try to break PoSA. And That's why I love this place. If it's flawed, which I doubt, I'm sure on of the supercoin or darkcoin community members will try to point it out.

Gotta love a free open market.

Talking at surface level blah blah does not help. The question is very simple: show us what has been used to prevent cheating, what methodology, what technique. I feel like I am talking to a bunch of kids, who have no idea on what I am talking about, who have no idea what is a trustless system and what people need to do there to make such system. I read and re-read the "whitepaper", there's virtually nothing there. Come on guys, if you are serious about making a trustless system, at least you know what I am talking about, and show us any related information. It is not difficult at all if you actually did such system. ;D

I think that's the whole point.  No one has enough information to pass judgement.  Well, except you... it's not trustless, case closed.  But, by your own definition of trustless, Darksend+ would also not be trustless, no?

You are one clever cookie aren't you.

You have been faggoting in the Darkcoin thread for more than a month. Now you and some of the CloakTrolls are playing or want to play victim.


Just the first occurrence amongst a continuous barrage of FUD posts on the unmoderated Darkcoin thread, because, well it is unmoderated and you can.

Now after riling up Darkcoin for more than month and pumping Cloakshit on every Anon wannabe coin that came up after Darkcoin success, you are consistently having them all fight with each other by trolling their thread while the Cloackshit scamcoin is an unmoderated thread to delete all posts not conforming to their standards.

When all said and done, you, MoosaNYC, toolio, all LTC bagholders pump and dump anon wannabe coins, split up the market by sowing pipedreams in scamcoin threads you are pumping, are safe for a bit longer right?

Why the fuck does anyone want this scamcoin when Anonymity is working already in CryptoNote coins. This scamcoin is valued higher than Boolberry? What a fucking joke.

Strasboug, you are wasting your time there. Clearly they have no idea on what is a trustless system and how to do it, otherwise they'd proudly tell you all the information. ;D Your conclusion is correct on PoSA.

Many altcoins claimed buzz word without understanding what it means. I'd suggest you go to "development and tech discussions" section of this forum if you want to clarify any details. There are many more qualified people there.

What a hype, Cloak, stupid amateurs. They don't know even meaning of trustless.

I'm pretty sure I understand the meaning of the word trustless when used in relation to distributed system.

So far the only argument that it's not trustless is based on the scenario of tainting the network with bad actors.  This is a pretty generic problem in distributed systems.  It's nothing mind blowing or original.  The same applies to almost all the current proposed anonymous transactions systems.

Yes the bitcoin actually solves the trustless system. But we talk here the anonymous transaction trustless system. Again in order to do it, you need to put forceful measures so no middle nodes (or even sender node) can cheat. The algorithm of these forceful measures and tech used are the key. This is the key consideration when building a trustless system. When nothing is mentioned about this, you can assume that it is probably not even thought about, and in consequence you can not believe what is claimed there.

Except that with Bitcoin you can trust a mined transaction after a few confirmations, despite not trusting anyone on the network. Bitcoin solved the BGP (Byzantine General's Problem) using the blockchain. Doing it anonymously requires ingenuity and extreme cleverness in the fields of software development, mathematics, and cryptography.

Yes, I agree with all this. I think PoSA solves part of this puzzle by incorporating the use of staking nodes as part of the system. This is a pretty neat idea.  No,  that's not a solution to the problem in of itself... which is why I'm saying let's cool our jets a bit. The full design of the system is unknown. In time if it's to be taken seriously more details will become known and analyzed. But, I think the thread implies that the system is inherently flawed.

Yes this is a fair statement. The anonymous transaction trustless system can be solved, in my opinion, by using multisig technologies, that's why I watch closely the supercoin's phase 2 implementation. As for Cloakcoin, yes I agree it is a nice feature to incorporate staking nodes, it certainly advances our understanding of the system, but  it does not solve the anon tx trustless system as it claimed.

Thanks fisheater :)

Well that's because you are.  :D



+1


The reason there is no answer however, is likely that they are currently trying to think how to solve the problem.

interesting discussions

Likely this is what happened...

lol... a butt hurt Supercoin holder... whatever :)

Instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks, why don't you try and answer his question.

Replies like yours are one of the reasons people get fed up and start straight up trolling.

No PoS is trustless guys get real. Just their bagholders pumping coins

Now someone (I'm not sure he is a dev but it appears so) is giving some information:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.msg8115799#msg8115799
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.msg8115919#msg8115919
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.msg8115986#msg8115986

Seems like there will be more details in the future, as it's still being designed:

This

Many newcomers don't seem to understand this

As promised a more technical whitepaper has been posted a few minute ago. Its a diagram explaining how POSA works:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.msg8128502#msg8128502

https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Foi57.tinypic.com%2Frqveqr.jpg&t=542&c=h5BgpLnK4JJweQ

Another update from one of the devs and little clarification on the diagram:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.msg8128786#msg8128786

lmao, you try to confuse people?? where in this diagram it shows that it is a trustless system? NONE!

Do you understand what is a trustless system at all??

Here's that explanation: 



I asked in the thread, but was completely ignored.... 

1.  I asked....  How can the #1 rich list address send out anon coins?   For that matter... How can the top 10 easily send out anon coins?   If it's one transaction, I don't think it's that hard to trace who sent to who especially if you are the large address?

2.  Another question is are all the coins sent out as one transaction?   So, if I send out some really unique coins amount, isn't it easy to trace?  Say 50.12345678...  You will see someone send out that exact amount and someone else receiving that exact amount within 10 blocks (# of escrow blocks).

#2 is a fair question. I too would like to know. I imagine it's something maybe like bitcoin fog but faster in the way it sends out coins. Cloakdevs have an answer, and I'd like to hear it but if they don't for whatever reason cant they just use many addressees and send many transactions to different anon addresses. I mean if you break up 50.12345678 into 15 or 20 transactions it would be much harder to trace, and then add to that all the other transactions going on at the same time...
Anyway.. I'd like to hear what they gotta say about this.

#1 I;m sure they will be a rule or something in place to turn mega wallets into many little ones and allowing them to take part.

Yes, I understand that would make sense to break it down.  I am just asking because according to the diagram they posted today, that's definitely was not in there.  It's just Node #1, Node #2.   

Oh, also.   Wouldn't Node #2 bear the brunt of the responsibility if the receiver does anything illegal with it and authority trace it to Node #2?

I know. I guess we need to wait and see what the new diagram will look like. In the mean time I have full faith in the cloakcamp and I all ready have real world vendors ready to sell good for cloak once the market is live.

Interesting diagram. However, the so called "block escrow" does not exist. Does cloak implemented such block? I can see potentially there are problems to make network confirm the block.

Also the second top left white box "10 Blocks..." it mentioned Node#1, then Node#2, does not make sense to me. Is it a typo? The Node#2 should be Node#1? ::)

The "IF" block does not exist today. Did Cloakcoin implement that? This may be troublesome, as you need to write a temporary block into the formal chain and at some point (say 10 blocks later) rewrite it in permanent form.

Moreover, if the "IF" block exist, how to do you the sender (or whoever created it) write it in good condition? If the sender is a cheater, he can write a false condition that will fail, and Node#1 will stupidly send the coins to Joe, and sender will get his coins back. How can you prevent that? Remember this is an automatic process, no one is going to inspect the blockchain by hand.

Same for Joe, since the 1st coin already in his hand (#1 _POSA address is his, so basically he already got the coin, he can write a fraudulent IF block and get double amount easily).

Conclusion: this will not work as there's nothing force the sender/receiver to behave correctly.

Yes I agree, these are the issues. There's nothing forcing they write good "IF" in the block they post to the network. So this can easily be fraud.

Since sender is the one who write IF. So his IF can be to check an address he created, instead of the receiver created address. He is the one who post the "IF" tx to the network, he can do anything he wants.

Good observations. As I said before, a trustless system needs to have mechanism that forces all parties behave correctly, otherwise it will not work...

This is all speculation.  You don't know if there are measures in place.  Once PoSA is released, the facts and flaws(if any) will make themselves known.

Attack vectors, threat models, and their mitigations, are all things you design and put in place before you write a line of code. It would be in the whitepaper, and then expressed in the code. Look at sections 7 and 8 in the Bitmessage whitepaper (https://bitmessage.org/bitmessage.pdf), for instance, that deal purely with threat mitigation.

Bad cryptography says "the proof is in the code". Bad cryptography says "we'll solve that later". Bad cryptography says "there is no mathematical model to show how this will work". Don't fall prey to bad cryptography.

No it's not speculations. There need to have forceful ways for all nodes to behave correctly, as I've been saying all along. We don't see these in the info released.

+1

Taken from another thread "What happens if Alty wants to send Cloakcoin to Joe but Joe is offline?"

Lol I think that breaks the matrix.

I would like to know as well:

how this design handles bad actors with the escrow block even though some have said the network doesnt even have escrow blocks and "if statements" are flawed and can be bypassed,
if one of the nodes is a bad actor and steals coins or deny's transactions
against taint analysis, sybil attacks, collusion, DDoS etc.

we should call the dev's into this thread to see if they are willing to respond.

Is Monero more secure than CLOAK?

I'm clearly biased, and I am unfamiliar with how Cloakcoin plans on achieving their stated goals. There are concerns raised in the post above your one that remain to be answered. Cloakcoin also does not appear to have their proposed anonymous system operational and open-source at this stage.

Monero is cryptographically untraceable and unlinkable, as confirmed by the peer-review our mathematicians and cryptographers did of the CryptoNote whitepaper, and confirmed on this board by people with a strong grounding in cryptography (eg. AnonyMint). It has been so from the genesis block onwards. The code that enables these untraceable transactions has been open-source and reviewed by many from the moment Monero launched. The anonymity works, and works now. We are improving the cryptography and code so that attacks that attempt to reduce the anonymity set are limited to the point of impossibility.

Yes it does not seem to me Cloak has anything solid. The algo seems having many issues. The IF-block is very suspicoius and may have a lot problems in implementing. Especially there are no forceful way to make all parties behave according to the rules. Without this, no trustless system will work.

This is what makes me think the alt world is truly mad as a hatter. We have a proven WORKING anon that is untraceable and people still keep acting like we are still searching for the holy grail elsewhere.

So far I see only multisig possibly accomplish the task of trustless system. I'd like to see if there are other systems working, but unfortunately the scheme designed by Cloakcoin is not likely working, due to the many issues raised above.

There so many sheeps believing cloak to have somewhat anonymous technology.  ;D
It's fun to see. Losers are so many, Cloak dump will be huge!
 
 

It is clearly that Cloakcoin does not have the true trustless system. I doubt its dev understand what is a true trustless system at all.

Otherwise, please answer the questions people asked above.

Yes it seems to me that CryptoNote is a good anon algorithm, will learn more details.

Other anonymous Coinjoin solutions such as Darksend, supersend are good too. Though they are not p2p trustless systems, but they work fine and reliable.

Cloak's method is very doubtful, and from what I understand, it is not a trustless system at all. I am not even sure it is non-traceable. When I have more time, I'll look into the traceability of it.

Trust but verify.

Closed source = can't verify.

Therefore, DON'T TRUST.

The only 100% open-source coin with cryptographically provable security and privacy is Monero. 

The rest are wanna-be anon at best, fakes at worst.

Agree, this is a fair statement.

What you guys don't understand is their block escrow. They are trusting the block chain, not the nodes. If nodes don't send, original gets his cloak back and tries to find new node. No way to cheat the system. End this stupid FUD haha.

I have been around programming before, not the blockchain though, but even this makes sense to me.

Read the posts above carefully. Many flaws for block escrow and the overall design is stated.

Yea and all of them seem like no one actually read the block escrow part on the whitepaper. every node has to confirm that every transaction occurred for any coins to be lost. If it didn't happen, coins are returned.

None of you know for certain what cloakcoin is capable of.

The devs have made promises of anonymity, not specifying the exact method in their whitepaper. I see nothing wrong with this. Maybe they are testing various methods and have not made a concrete decision. Who cares?

What's the point of this thread other than to spread your own fear, uncertainty, and doubt? Everyone in the game should know the risks of this game. But if cloak is able to deliver, then these risks are worth it. If not, the world keeps spinning. If you dont believe in cloak and youre not invested in it, you have nothing to lose so why bother making this thread?  Are you afraid of this coin destroying the coins you're invested in?

That's the problem.



OP just wanted to know how it works so if it's good he can invest.

IMO, devs should say that they are still researching a way to do it if they don't know how they are going to do it yet.

Why did he plug Supercoin then?

I highly doubt he innocently made this thread to inquire details of the anon protocol in order to make an investment decision. Even the title is malicious.

I have no issue with skepticism, especially given the history of altcoins. But I do not feel as though this thread is simply that.

All that is described is very clear, don't dream some fictitious stuff that cloakcoin "is capable of", this does not mean anything.

The key here is there is no forceful way to keep the middle nodes to behave correctly, they can do whatever they want basically, thus easy to cheat. The system will work only if the middle nodes will corporate, but there are no reasons for them to do so, in a trustless system.

Again, the dev of cloak does not understand what is a true trustless system.

They will get it right eventually. Have faith.

Yes I hope so, actually I am helping them to understand here, what are the issues they need to consider ;D

Exactly. Have trust in them. lol. ;)

Only promise does not mean much, many coins have promises...

Way too many promises, and too little being done

That's exactly the problem

is this a speculative topic or factual?

They did get it right.. check out the threads latest update from dagger.

Nope it is not a trustless system they did, it is a "co-operative"  one, if a node in the middle is a cheater, the whole system fails.

Supercoin posted some info on their trustless system, I am still looking for their detailed algorithm (which they will publish in a few days). But they clearly explained multisig and why need it. This looks promising. I think multisig is the only tech can be used to support trustless system, without it the trustless system would be impossible.

Read through the supercoin update and I have a few questions for you. What prevents the middle nodes from being bad actors?
The sender randomly selects service nodes based on a list of 30 nodes he can control in his configuration file. What prevents the sender from controlling 2 of the 3 nodes?

As far as I understand(I am not a developer, but this is an attempt to paraphrase the devs when they give us updates in IRC) In cloak, the entire blockchain is the escrow service to prevent bad actors. If coins dont make it to the reciever, the transaction doesnt occur.

Please read their whitepaper 2nd part published on the supercoin thread.

I think the logic is very clear: they set up an escrow, where sender will deposit his coins to send to the destination plus any fee required, then each party will deposit a fund for escrow. Then the parties will have to behave otherwise they may lose the fund in escrow.

Very nice system.

Happy to see you guys discussing here.  I am fine with discussing but I am not fine with seeing only one site here. Cloak has to prove that Escrow and POSA works in V2 which is expected this week. After this they want to review everything by trustful Auditors. Thats the most they can do isn't it? After that comes the Open Source, but which is at this moment dangerous because of copying, I am right there too? Correct me if I am not please happy to discuss.

Next thing I read here is not fast enough. Therefore please everyone check out my thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=714803.msg8296447#msg8296447
I tried to show the development of Cloak over the last 2 weeks. Only facts and community stuff. I didn't quote any rumor or fud.

Cheers!

People asked bunch of questions above, and never seen the reply. For Cloakcoin, there is no forceful way to keep the middle nodes to behave correctly, they can do whatever they want basically, thus easy to cheat. The system will work only if the middle nodes will corporate, but there are no reasons for them to do so, in a trustless system.

Ok I am not a Developer to say in the begining.

But now you say it is not possible, but how can you say that without seeing the code and everything because it is not Open Source?
What if your knowledge (no offense please but critical thinking please! ) is not enough to understand what these guys (Developers) are doing.

As I said I am happy to discuss. But how can anyone not beeing the developer saying at the moment that the system don't work?

I just want people to see both sites, people who think its not working and people who think it is working.


When I understand you right you say we will never know what they doing with the middle nodes created to create the annon feature right?
Question here: Do we need to know? I mean if my money comes from a to b and no one can trace it isnt that enough?

I read all the info published. Without multisig, I don't see a way of forceful situation in a p2p system. There's no restrictions to the middle nodes, you can't simply "expect" it to behave correctly ;D

It is not the problem if we need to know how middle nodes work, it is the problem that if I put a fake node with same APIs but doing different things (e.g. steal coins or send coins to different places), how the system can prevent that? You can't simply expect people use the software you provide, otherwise that's too easy, there will be no cheaters, period.

You haven't read all of it. X11Joe explained somewhere that each sender and receiver have to give more than the transaction amount to the block escrow. In cloak, the entire network is the escrow. In supercoin, 1 node is the escrow?

Cloak is in the middle of implementing a "block escrow" system that may share some similarities to a multi sig solution but is infact unique.

Once in place there will be nothing that a "bad/fake/evil" node can do to act malicious during a send from A to B. This is because of the order of the posa tx, combined with the blockchain, will not allow corruption.

PoSA will soon be entirely anon + trustless as we set out to achieve from day 1.

Having any kind of risk that a corrupt node could interfere with a transaction was a genuine concern (of the Cloak team and others) and as such it's been dealt with accordingly.

Good to know, and btw thanks to come to this thread and explain. Looking forward to see your "block escrow" system. But the multisig tech is there, of course you don't have to use it, but implementing some thing similar from scratch sounds stupid to me. This is like to say I don't want to use C++'s class, but I want to implement some structs to mimic the classes ;D

Node corruption or any kind of error handling in the middle of the transaction is a complex problem, I am looking forward to Supercoin's dev to publish their detailed algo, with their trustless system. But usually this has to be handled depending on the stage of the transaction. Again I see the power of 2-of-3 transactions (or in general m-of-n transaction), as this can be handled easily.