Bitcoin Forum

OK, since there are too many fuds on the old thread, I decided to close it and open a self-mod one.
===
XC, a hot alt coin, claims that it is a trustless system and uses multisig technology to do it. See below

http://s27.postimg.org/3kzdq8no3/Capture.png

But I am puzzled by the fact that despite they talk like this, I don't see a single multisig address in XC nor do I see any multisig tx. As we all know, these are the central parts, if we do use this technology, we will see a lot talk about it, like in whitepaper, in thread discussions, the multisig addresses and tx are shown in the blockchain explorer etc (look at Superoicn/MammothCoin's threads, there are plenty talk on that. I can find quickly 10 multisig addresses and associated with transactions, they are currently doing alpha tests in mammothcoin network, so all the multisig addresses are for Mammothcoin, soon I expect to see for supercoinsm which is scheduled for beta tests). Can anyone show me XC's multisig addresses and their associated transactions?

This should be an easy thing to do. But since I don't see any, I doubt if the multisig is really implemented in XC. It looks more like a scam to me. Also, when I search the XC thread, I see this from someone (likely a dev of XC):

http://s28.postimg.org/lqf8b7ngd/Capture.png

m-of-m multisig? Are you drunk? What fun will you have to have m-of-m multisig?? If one guy is bad then you want the wallet is locked forever? Do you guys understand what is a multisig address and how to use it?

It looks like this is a scam. Otherwise please show me some good examples you use in XC.

BTW, for Mammothcoin, they are testing for multisig trustless systems now, you see plenty multisig addresses and transactions there, you can even join the tests I think. There are some recordings in Mammothcoin/Supercoin's thread, for example:
http://screencast-o-matic.com/watch/c2j2IinsMO

and this is one of many multisig address with some transactions associated with it (there are plenty similar ones):
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/mamm/address.dws?bTz39geL1BR5UUdAciB8oh1F33eW1FXFcW.htm

Also they explained very clearly the concept and detailed workflow they use for the multisig trustless system:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=736705.msg8324932#msg8324932

Can you show me similar details in XC? If it is really there ;D

EDIT: The answer seems no, the XC dev provided two links with only regular XC addresses. People in the forum created examples of the XC multisig addresses for them  ;D See below:


I will re-post some key posts from last thread here.

Also let me post the simple question here (will take 30 sec if you go to Mammothcoin or Supercoin for the same question):

provide us an XC multisig address that has tx associated with it, in the blockchain, so we can inspect and see what is there. This can prove you actually have the capability of multisig.

EDIT: now XC acknowledged that they don't use multisig, this has been our doubts all the way along, now confirmed by them.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=742025.msg8386164#msg8386164
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=742025.msg8386069#msg8386069

For those who are still "confused", let me repeat again:

XC claimed to have implemented multisig. If this is true, then it is trivial to provide some multisig addresses with multisig tx associated with them, that we can see and inspect in the blockchain.

Saying implemented multisig but unable to provide even one multisig address? That dev provided some links deemed to be multisig transactions, but we don't even see one single multisig address there. He keep talking m-of-m (a joke for those who know what is multisig for), and provided regular addresses as multisig addresses, do you think he knows anything about multisig?

A community member just showed what a true XC multisig address look like. Now if you continue claim XC has it, show everyone a multisig address and tx in the blockchain. Nothing is simpler, and let's not waste our (and everyone's) time by arguing. There's nothing to argue here, just show the facts! Experts know what you are talking about.

OK so far for the quote from previous topic, at least we see the facts there. What I ask (and many others from forum) is very simple: provide us a multisig address that has tx associated with it, in the blockchain, so we can inspect and see what is there. This can prove you actually have the capability of multisig.

Very simple question, and please don't post fuds and waste everyone time there.

You made me laugh again, where is the multisig address in this link?

The following are quoted from greenclover:

Thanks for creating a self-mod one. So let's see the facts here. No fuds ;D

I will post it in BIG letters... no fud so no reason to delete

Yes that's good.

BTW, XC supporters, the 2 multisig addresses I created (I suppose most of you if not all first time to see real multisig address for XC), they are not on the blockchain explorer yet. Because no tx associated with them.

Hint: do some deposits to the two addresses, then you will see them in the blockchain explorer. The only problem is that you will not be able to spend the fund there, as I am the only one to have the private keys that can sign and spend.

If needed, I can provide a tutorial on how the multisig tx can be used and how they are signed etc. Actually you find most already in the SuperSend's whitepaper. ;D

No need to be big letters, it seems that you are so desperate. My reply was just above your post. Here let me post it again:

WOW!! you can read code and understand stuff better then some of us, your so superior aren't you, XC will release a white paper for you to jack off too latter today so do your wrist stretches and get your aloe and lanolin ready wanker.

SO!! is it settled XC does use Multisig, your two threads have been proven to be a waste of time and made you look not only stupid but desperate, next time try harder..bye

Yes yes, whitepaper, resume, etc, stop talking these nonsense.

People here are asking you for a simple multisig address, so they can verify what you have claimed implemented multisig. So many posts are done, no single multisig address can be provided, what does that meaning? anyone can see it!

Its not using MULTI_SIG N OF M Address's.

I have the real proof atcsecure xc dev posted on mammothcoin thread and he said this is as multisig address!

http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229177.htm (This is atcsecure's (XC dev) multisig wallet   ;D ;D  lol see how he tries to cheat without fear)

see how he tries

http://puu.sh/aV86b/72ca09e759.png

He as big dev saying first he does not need whitepaper at all, second advising poor mammoth dev to check multisig...

This the amazing technology how to cheat people.

But he is stupid enough to post non multisig address at the same time. http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229177.htm
This is not possible without using multisig to build decentralization unless alliens (or hype) builds new technology. See video speaks about.

XC facts
FACT 1 XC dev is proven to be lier!
FACT 2 XC dev cheated people on website about XC technology.
FACT 3 XC dev tried to fud with army of fudster on mammothcoin.
FACT 4 XC dev selling something else with different package.

To learn more about REAL multisig technology Watch the video

OpenBazaar's Sam Patterson Talks Ecommerce, Decentralization, Multisig & More | Coin Brief Interview
http://puu.sh/aVdL7/2585a9cd99.jpg
 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK85PCee3pU)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK85PCee3pU

Where is it the multisig addres you used??? simple question can't answer?

Stop cheating people!

Is that not the POINT of being hidden? What good would it do it you can trace it though the block chain to find out the receivers address?

what language do you speak so I can arrange a translation for you...
I'm not native english but still I can understand what atc is saying...

what don't you understand that it does not use multisig adresses

so no use of adresses starting with 4

lmao, so it is using 1-of-1 "multisig" address? ;D ;D Do you understand what it means the multisig??

you completely misunderstand what is anonymous system. A tutorial here: anonymous system simply makes sender-receiver not traceable, it does not mean the transaction not recorded in the block chain? sounds simple enough? ;D

People, if you have zero knowledge about multisig, please don't waste time here.

I won't have time all day here to do tutorials for you. All fuds will be deleted in this thread. Please provides FACTS.

Do you understand anything at all at multisig address and tx??

Yes but whatever address you might start with would not show up on the chain, instead it would show up as something else.
I know how it works

Like I said your not up for any debate. Go ahead and delete this too.

Well there still that month old bounty for 2 BTC to anyone who can link sender to receiver should be easy for you ohh great one. let me guess you don't have the time to make 1k even though if XC is as shit as you claim it to be would only take a few minutes, oh lets see you got better stuff to do..lol..like i said 2 BTC up for grabs all you gotta do is accept the challenge...I DARE YOU!!

some transactions not in blockchain??? lmao, you can say bitcoin is a paper money? go dream at home please.

Again, please don't waste time here. I can use a simple mixer and you don't be able to trace my transaction. But here we talk about multisig, and let me repeat this simple question for the last time:

provide us a multisig address that has tx associated with it, in the blockchain, so we can inspect and see what is there. This can prove you actually have the capability of multisig.

Didn't Dan the XC dev just say that multisig addresses aren't used? And that it relies on the transactions being signed by all parties instead?

So why do you keep asking for a multisig address, can you explain? I am not a programmer.

So you leave this BULLSHIT in place but delete other posts?

Maybe you received your answer already, perhaps you just didn't like the way it sounded and deleted it. You might wanna check for that.

And attack XC? Are you mad? DRK tried that, didn't quite go to plan...

Hmm this is more interesting... so you said multisig is not used in XC at all? this may be the truth after all these trouble ;D

I keep asking it because XC claimed that it has multisig implemented, so I want to find out if this is true and how it is used. Very simple.

You want to learn truth? See how XC dev try to cheat mammothdev

I have the real proof atcsecure xc dev posted on mammothcoin thread and he said this is as multisig address!

http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229177.htm (This is atcsecure's (XC dev) multisig wallet   ;D ;D  lol see how he tries to cheat without fear)

see how he tries

http://puu.sh/aV86b/72ca09e759.png

He as big dev saying first he does not need whitepaper at all, second advising poor mammoth dev to check multisig...

This the amazing technology how to cheat people.

But he is stupid enough to post non multisig address at the same time. http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229177.htm
This is not possible without using multisig to build decentralization unless alliens (or hype) builds new technology. See video speaks about.

XC facts
FACT 1 XC dev is proven to be lier!
FACT 2 XC dev cheated people on website about XC technology.
FACT 3 XC dev tried to fud with army of fudster on mammothcoin.
FACT 4 XC dev selling something else with different package.

To learn more about REAL multisig technology Watch the video

OpenBazaar's Sam Patterson Talks Ecommerce, Decentralization, Multisig & More | Coin Brief Interview
http://puu.sh/aVdL7/2585a9cd99.jpg
 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK85PCee3pU)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK85PCee3pU

Man, I head out to enjoy my weekend and come back to this mess?

Again, you guys need to work on your civility.

Now, let's play join-the-dots:

1) I posted the following a little earlier:



2) ATCSECURE, XC's core dev, posted the following not too long ago:


3) Supplementary information:

- XC's multipath technology, used for obfuscating the amount sent in a transaction and the identity of sender and receiver, makes use of m-of-m transactions in order to achieve trustless mixing.

- Trustless mixing is a world-first. Nobody's ever done it before. Hence my prior request that you ask questions before coming to conclusions.

- m-of-m requires that all parties sign or else the transaction is invalidated.

- As such, m-of-m prevents bad nodes stealing coins instead of forwarding them.

- if a transaction is invalidated, the participating nodes resync the session-based network they form for the transaction in question, and proceed.


4) Conclusion:

- You might've guessed this before - though your intentions evidently have barricaded you from this surprisingly obvious conclusion - but XC DOES NOT USE MULTI_SIG M-OF-N.

- So you're looking for the wrong thing. It's something that I've already stated (see above post) that XC does not use. All this talk of addresses beginning with a 4, condescending offers to explain multisig, etc. refer to the wrong thing. Come on.

- I refer you to the latter half of my previous post: timerland needs to ask questions before coming to conclusions about a technology he doesn't understand.

- If you don't get the point of m-of-m transactions, then stop talking and listen. Idiots.

- You can start listening this weekend. ATCSECURE releases a whitepaper explaining how all this works.


And if you speak again, kindly be civil, for heaven's sake.

Timerland, in your original post you show the screenshots that mention multisig transactions, not multisig addresses. I guess these are two different things and it's incorrect to ask for multisig addresses which are not used in XC as what is there is some proprietary technology with resembling name but different by content.

people already showed you what you posted do not have a single multisig address. What your links for??

we ask some simple info and you provided something complete different. Please answer the simple question, and don't post ton of unrelated info to confuse people.

moreover, now I see you changed m-of-m multisig to n-of-m multisig, lol, learned something new? can you show me how you plan to use m-of-m multisig? You apparently have no knowledge on what is a multisig at all!

Let me state it more briefly then: you're asking for the wrong thing.

MULTI_SIG M-OF-N is not used in XC.


Can we move on now?

No I didn't. Even in my prior post - which you quoted above - I use the term "m-of-m".

Where are you getting this from?

lol, m-of-m? check the screenshot at OP? is it not clear enough?

OK I think XC people agreed finally they did not use the multisig, so please do not claim it, thanks.

Also I downloaded your client, I see the privacy mode, it uses tor network, this is completely different from multisig, it is apple to orange, lol.

The evidence in this thread suggests that you do not have the understanding to comprehend m-of-m multisig transactions.

And again, can I request that you be civil?

OK fair enough. I got what I was looking for.

m-of-m again? lmao, let's not continue please  ;D ;D

If you like, we can  rehash how n-of-m multisig can have bad actors/nodes and steal coins.  XC solves this issue.  I believe you started a whole new thread after 500 pages because of the talk of this issue.   Do you want to play... are you sure?

I have the real proof atcsecure xc dev posted on mammothcoin thread and he said this is as multisig address!

http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229177.htm (This is atcsecure's (XC dev) multisig wallet   ;D ;D  lol see how he tries to cheat without fear)

see how he tries

http://puu.sh/aV86b/72ca09e759.png

He as big dev saying first he does not need whitepaper at all, second advising poor mammoth dev to check multisig...

This the amazing technology how to cheat people.

But he is stupid enough to post non multisig address at the same time. http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229177.htm
This is not possible without using multisig to build decentralization unless alliens (or hype) builds new technology. See video speaks about.

XC facts
FACT 1 XC dev is proven to be lier!
FACT 2 XC dev cheated people on website about XC technology.
FACT 3 XC dev tried to fud with army of fudster on mammothcoin.
FACT 4 XC dev selling something else with different package.

To learn more about REAL multisig technology Watch the video

OpenBazaar's Sam Patterson Talks Ecommerce, Decentralization, Multisig & More | Coin Brief Interview
http://puu.sh/aVdL7/2585a9cd99.jpg
 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK85PCee3pU)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK85PCee3pU

Umm... what? I have consistently stated that XC uses m-of-m multisig. Even in the OP of this thread your screenshots display the phrase "m-of-m".

I have ONLY used this phrase from the beginning.

- except where I assert that XC does not use m-of-n.

And no, TOR is optional. XC's Privacy Mode uses m-of-m to mix transactions trustlessly.

btcup, I don't see where the XC dev says it's a multisig address. Try to be calm and provide real evidence rather than screaming big letters. Thanks.

No we did not.

See my previous post.

You dirty fudder.

Yes, m-of-m.

You're really not willing to enquire about what it's useful for are you?

I'll tell you anyway: trustless mixing.

Openbaazar is not anonymous, you know who the seller and buyer are, as well as the other parties, this will help in bad actors.  You  add anonymity into the equation and bad nodes will steal coins.  Good luck with you old tech...

If you say A you gotta say B

delete this fud...

The revelation is just massively epic.

huh? show me a m-of-m multisig address and tx then, and explain what's the use of m-of-m?

m-of-m and m-of-n is the same multisig tech, show us then the address + tx?

please, don't use big letter unless absolutely needed. All fuds will be deleted.

And please focus on multisig discussion.

Mammoth or supercoin devs can help you with this explanation just visit their OP.

delete the fud of btcsup then

There is more than one kind of "multi sig" transaction.
The Tor aspect of XC has nothing to do with the multi sig aspect. XC gives the option to use Tor as an additional feature.

A Multi Sig transaction is one that requires multiple signatures.
XC therefore uses multi sig.

oh What really was quick :)))  ;D ;D ;D ;D You accepted the fact finally.


YEAH like you just said "MULTI_SIG M-OF-N is not used in XC"

i thought big letters get deleted, stand by your word at least.

If you think in a million years I would put a single satoshi into mammoth or supercoin after all the FUD they have tried to spread you are deluded.

You guys have made a lot of enemies.

hahaha, m-of-m multisig, this is the first time I see this, very entertaining... used in mix transactions trustlessly?? This is even more a joke, by trustless you mean the m members doing mixing are not trusted, so if there is one bad guy, you all screwed, because m-of-m address in order to spend, you need everyone to sign, if one bad guy not sign, your fund is locked forever.

This seems written by a guy who has zero knowledge about multisig, except the word "multisig".

That's why the altcoin there are so many scam coins. ;D

And yet I also state that m-of-m multisig transactions are used in XC.

Did you somehow miss that part?

Did you miss it intentionally?

No:

Actually if one person doesn't sign, the transaction is simply rejected, the same as DRK.

Then why you need m-of-m at all, you can just process with the assumption m-of-m will fail. The m-of-m there is absolutely of no use.

BTW, I read other posts, why not you show people an example of m-of-m address in the block explorer.

This is a complete joke.

The part where I invited you to play join-the-dots: here's a relevant excerpt:



Can we proceed from here?

You're actually quite close to the truth here.

The assumption that m-of-m will fail is exactly what is needed for a bad node to fail at stealing coins.

If a node doesn't sign, if gets kicked out of the ad-hoc network formed for the transaction in question, and then the network resyncs and signs again.

what about show people one m-of-m multisig address in the block explorer? we'll go from there. Very very simple question, 30 sec.

Please no waste of time. I have other work to do. This is extremely simple here.

By being disposed against XC you're making it hard for you to come to understand.

The block explorer links I posted above are transactions in which

- multiple addresses sign

- all participating addresses sign or else the transaction fails.


Multiple addresses signing = "multisig".


Or perhaps you're mistaking XC's protocol for Bitcoin's and thereby expecting the address to start with a "4"?

no in this case m-of-m transaction is no use, and if you remove it the system should just function as before. That's why no one is using m-of-m multisig in this kind of trustless system. m-of-m is virtually of no use.

See my previous post.

"Multisig" refers to multiple parties being required to sign a transaction for it to go through.

It does not require an address beginning with a "4".

Why presume to understand XC's code when you don't yet understand what the code is intended to do?

m-of-m prevents a node stealing the funds.

n-of-m sounds weaker to me. Why wouldn't you want all the relevant parties to sign? What if one of the parties who doesn't sign steals funds?

Why do you think it is of no use?

If you don't have m-of-m then you'd have to trust the node forwarding your coins.

If you retain it then unless the node signs the transaction it cannot participate.

And if it cannot participate then it cannot steal coins.

But - if it does participate then it also cannot steal coins, because it's just signed them on to a further recipient.

Nice.

This shows you have no knowledge on the multisig. In order to create multisig tx, like m-of-m you mentioned, you need to create a multisig address first. Then you can create multisig tx there.

If you did this in XC, then it is extremely easy to point to people this address in the block explorer, then people can see this.

I am not mistaken at all. Some138 already showed you how to create a multisig address. You seem at complete lost on the multisig address. Maybe some138 did not tell you the details. Let me show you here:

- open XC client
- find some pairs of public-private keys (you can use those posted by Some138)
- open console window
- type help addmultisigaddress
- follow the format, and use the public keys above, you will create a multisig address

now tell me, what's the starting letter of this address? A 'X'? You never saw a XC multisig address before, not to say you understand anything about it!

Xc people, you guys talked a lot, and it seems to me that you did not even see a m-of-m multisig address in XC. Some138 created 2, you can create yourself. Oh man, please learn how to create multisig address and how to spend the tx. Bitcoin has detailed posts on them, learn it.

There is no such thing as the multisig.
There are different  ways to have a transaction that require multiple signatures.

XC is using a form that does not require multi sig addresses.
Mammoth is using a kind that does require adresses.

XC can do way more things than that.  :)

I am amazed by the braveness of these XC people. From what they posted, they never saw a true XC multisig address before, and they keep argue and argue with all the people knowing multisig, what is the point??

Please, create some XC multisig address on your own, and learn how the sign and everything work. Gavin Andersen posted some examples how to create multisig address and sign and spend there, please follow his example and try on your own.

If you never see an address starts with '4' in XC, you never did multisig at all, period.

No, XC just does things differently. If "knowledge of multisig" pertains to how it's done in Bitcoin, well, that would be irrelevant.




For private transactions, why would we want to do a thing like that?

(You're playing into my hands on that one.)

No, there's only one technology for multisig, there's nothing "different", or it is not multisig. Try to use some other names.

XC's multisig address starts with '4'. Clearly you never saw this before, lol ;D

I don't think you're in a position to state what technology XC has and doesn't have.

We're still based on bitcoin-QT, hence the ability to generate bitcoin-like multisig addresses (which we don't implement).

There's insufficient warrant to conclude from this that XC's m-of-m is not multisig.

I am really getting tired with all the fuds, if you have no knowledge about multisig, don't waste time here. I am sure I spend a lot less time deleting your fud than you type it. So let's all have a better life ;D

lol, they used their own "private" technology, which they just used the multisig name without understanding it. Very brave indeed.

BTW, this is Gavin Andersen's example on the multisig in Bitcoin. Supercoin/mammothcoin implemented exactly the multisig technology, same is done at OpenBazaar.

https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071

XC devs please learn and hope you will have a real multisig system implemented, not just a name. 8)

Yes this is the truth from all the above messages.

FUDs do not help, truth will prevail. I am glad I created a thread to show people the truth.

I will repeat a previous remark that you ignored:

Multisig transactions and multisig addresses are two different things.

A multisig address is just an address that requires y of x signatures.

A multisig transaction is just a transaction that requires more than one signature.

The two concepts are separable; the former is not required for the latter.

I am tired to argue with you guys, please if you want to show facts:

provide us an XC multisig address that has tx associated with it, in the blockchain, so we can inspect and see what is there. This can prove you actually have the capability of multisig.

what you have provided so far are NOT XC multisig addresses, they are regular XC addresses. What I asked is extremely simple, and can be provided in 30 sec.

I hope you are joking, or you completely have no idea what is multisig. Multisig tx must be created on multisig address so it can be guaranteed the feature it has. Otherwise what you created is simply a regular tx, no restrictions at all.

I feel like teaching a tutorial on what is multisig here. Please ask this question at the development thread of bitcoin, you'll get the right answer.

I've told you this several times: XC DOES NOT USE WHAT YOU CALL "MULTISIG".

It uses multisig transactions, not multisig addresses.

Can we move on?

How often do I need to repeat myself? You are not in a position to tell what technology XC has.

We use multisig transactions. We don't use multisig addresses. End.

And in what sense can the following deleted posts possibly be taken as inappropriate?



What possible reason would you have for deleting these?

It uses regular tx in this case, where you can put software to do anything, but it does not require all party to sign in order to spend! mutisig transaction is the transaction created on multisig address (you understand why? well read what is multisig!).

because while you are arguing and you don't even know what is multisig address and what is multisig transaction!

marseille posted Gavin Andersen's example of multisig transaction, go read it and understand it please, before repeating the same thing here!

I again request you that please on the facts, no fuds, and understand multisig before posting please.

Again here Gavin Andersen showed what is a multisig tx and how to create, sign and spend!
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071


BTW, I thank all the fuds to pump the thread for me, appreciated ;D

Funny... do you still use AOL for your email as well.  You are using bitcoin technology and open bazaar's rationale, both without anon....  therefore nodes can be more trusted, but they have to be trusted.  XC offers trustless mixing where every node signs off and can't steal coins, if it doesn't sign, it resyncs and sends the transaction to another set.   Highly likely most transactions will be very quick, but if there is an attempt to be a bad actor they are inhibited from gaining access to the coins.   Your old technology multi sig allows bad actors/nodes to steal coins.  THis has been know for a long time, with coins before yours that you stole to write your code.   In fact you deleted a 500 post thread because it primarily discussed the inadequacies of this design.

ok since you attempted so many times, let me answer you: multisig tech is not anon, it can be used for anon system like what Supercoin/Mammothcoin did. There's no "old" multisig, there's only one, implemnted by Bitcoin and used by many.

You try to use regular tx and with some software side controls, this is completely different things. It is not multisig, it is whatever your private tech. Don't call it multisig because it is not. No wonder why Xc people never saw a XC multisig address starting with "4".

Please don't post garbage here. I think everything is very clear. If you have other facts as I asked, please post, otherwise don't waste our time.

If EVERY node has to sign(meaning multiple signers)  it is multi-sig.  It is a trustless version, unlike supers where coins can be stolen.

No, please do a google on multisig transactions, you see what it is. For example:
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3718/what-are-multi-signature-transactions
http://bitcoinmagazine.com/11108/multisig-future-bitcoin/

what you have is reg tx, anyone can post it in the network.

someone also posted a youtube on multisig with open bazaar implementation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK85PCee3pU

multisig addresses can be created with RPC command such as addmultisigaddress in almost any client of the coin, including the XC client (that's how some138 created 2 multisig addresses for XC). multisig tx are those tx created on multisig address, where you have to have the required signature with private key in order to spend it (i.e. being accepted by the network). For normal raw tx, any one can post it in the network, no additional sigs required.

lol - every node on the network? You understand that multi-sig is just an extension of pay-to-script-hash, right? When you understand P2SH we can talk.

Every node the transaction is using to process, not every node on the entire network. 

This is a little unclear. You made a very clear and concise explanation of why you thought Supercoin had problems.
Now, however, it seems that you were not aware of how XC's trustless system works, and may have dismissed it prematurely.. Though I am happy to be corrected, but I can't see how you could have if you thought the previous poster meant "every node on the network".

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on XC as you  have a good understanding of these issues, and are fairly measured, and if Cloak and Super do indeed have problems then it may be that XC is the coin which could provide a better solution than Crypto Note coins.
Thanks in advance

they clearly don't know what is a multisig. They think something else is multisig, lol

Well I will admit I did not know that the term multi-sig could not be applied to any transaction that requires multiple signatures.
I'm not convinced it is wrong to use the term for more than just the older type of transaction, but I can see where the confusion came from.

No, not every node on the network.

For a transaction, an ad-hoc "network" is set up between participating nodes.

Most nodes participating will receive fragments of the transaction and sent them on.

Some nodes are redundant.

If a node fails to sign, then it gets booted out of the transaction, the ad-hoc network resyncs, and another node takes its place.

If all participating nodes sign, this sends the fragments onwards to other nodes.

As such, m-of-m signatures are required for each fragment to be sent, hence the term "multisig".

You're all welcome to dispute the applicability of the term, since multisig addresses aren't used. However regardless of what you call it, multiple signatures are required for each transaction.

Contextually the conversation was around trustless systems - my comment was meant to demonstrate that you can't have a trustless system unless "everyone" is or could be involved. If you require an N-sized subset of the network to validate, then it means you are trusting that nobody in the subset group are malicious. It was quite late and was an unclear comment, unfortunately.

Incidentally, I keep coming back to a simple premise: we need to see valid mathematics behind things in order to understand them. These discussions wouldn't happen if whitepapers had more algebra and fewer "diagrams" (such as they are). The knee-jerk reaction here seems to be "just look at the blockchain!" or similar, when looking at the blockchain created by a closed-source application won't reveal the size of the anonymity set. Bitcoin assumes that all (bar 1) connected peers are malicious (it can do nothing about complete isolation), and that should be the basis from which all good cryptography starts. A lot of the "solutions" I see lately start from the assumption that "every peer is basically ok/trustworthy and has no incentive to be malicious", which is patently wrong.

Thanks for your reply. I'm sure other will have a better grasp but IIUC all nodes could be involved under Xc's system (though I stand to be corrected). Ok...but what can a malicious actor do in XC's system? I don't think they can do much as they are just signing transactions without the possibility of them stealing coins. Again I stand to be corrected.

Yes, although Satoshi's white paper didn't have too much algebra...or did it? But I think you're right but I don't really have a grasp of the maths...so...hard for me to say much :)
ok that  seems a fair call...but maybe more will be apparent if and when XC is open?

Thanks again for your reply, its appreciated  :)

The day I see something comparable to this (excerpt from the Bitcoin whitepaper) in an altcoin whitepaper is the day I will do a little dance around the room;)

https://i.imgur.com/Y8M0MYu.png


Absolutely - once things are fully open and there's a whitepaper then there can be a discussion around the validity and correctness of the mathematics and cryptography presented in the whitepaper, as well as a discussion as to whether the code correctly adheres to the principles in the whitepaper.

I appreciate some good discussions there. However, let us focus on our original questions. That is, does XC uses multisig technology? The answer is a clear no. They clearly took something else as the multisig, and they did not even see an XC multisig address before (which some138 first created 2 of them).

This said, I don't conclude that they don't have an anonymous system. XC may have a good anonymous system but this is not the investigation here. As I said before, multisig and anonymous system are two different things. Although multisig can be used to create an anonymous system like what Supercoin/mammothcoin did. Multisig can also be used for other things like open p2p marketplace created by Open Bazaar, in this case there's nothing to do with anonymous system. So let's be clear what is the problem we are investigating here, and don't boil the ocean by citing unrelated things. I am not here to judge the whole technologies used by XC. I merely try to understand their claim on the multisig, for that me and many others have got a clear answer and conclusion.

So investigation closed. No more fuds please, especially no need from people who understands nothing about the subject and multisig. Thank you all.

Thank you for the investigation, that clarified which coin in the alt coin world actually implemented multisig.

**Timerland wins an argument about a terminological nicety by deleting comments that disagree with his terminological preference.

You don't win an argument (or even establish a point) by deciding that any views contrary to your own are off-topic. I've made a clear case for my view, only to have had it repeated to me that Timerland's terminological preference rules and thus that (a) I do not understand multisig and (b) my comments are irrelevant and worthy of deletion.

Secondly you don't establish a point by removing other parties from the debate. Timerland's having a party all on his own.

Timerland you silly totalitarian. Better delete this quick before anyone sees.

Respect for Timerland's ethics: zero.

synechist, I am surprised at your low moral and ethics. You and your fud partners fud this thread and many others, only to show other people how stupid you are, it is disgusting the way you desperately argue and try to deny the facts.

Again, here are the facts:

XC does not have multisig tech implemented. XC dev and its supporters did not even see an XC multisig address until some138 created 2 true XC multisig addresses for them.

They clearly mixed something else as the multig while they did not even realize it.

Again, this investigation is not on how good or bad XC is, or whether XC supported anonymous transfer. These subjects are not part of this investigation. The purpose of this investigation is simple and clear, it is stated clearly in the OP. And now the investigation is concluded with clear facts.

The fuds will never ever change the facts!

To repeat myself once again, you don't have a monopoly on terminology. Who do you think you are? God?

It's incredibly arrogant to call your terminological preference a "fact". Our preference differs. Deal with it. (In fact, terms are never "facts". They only describe facts. So you're on very shaky ground there.)

XC uses the term "multisig" to refer to transactions that require multiple parties to sign in order to be valid. This is a common scenario with any new technology: what to call it? It's new, and so there are no words for it. In this case we decided that our tech is best termed a multisig transaction that is distinct from a multisig address.

If you don't like our usage, well you'll just have to accept it anyway.

You don't get to decide. Because you're not God.



P.S. You don't know what FUD is do you? It stands for "fear, uncertainty and doubt". To have a differing opinion to yours is not to spread FUD. Perhaps it's you who needs to use terms correctly.

There are common terms used, which means something. Like multisig technology means what bitcoin implemented in the coin code and its many usage.
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3718/what-are-multi-signature-transactions
http://bitcoinmagazine.com/11108/multisig-future-bitcoin/

By using this common terms for something else, people will think either you are completely ignorance, or want to use it for your benefits in a cheating way. Either way it is not good. If you don't know it, it's probably ok. Now you are told the facts and you continue to depend it desperately, I don't see the points.

now that supercoin released their code, XC you can copy it over and claim real multisig  ;D

*Sigh* - I love this guy.

Somehow I see him trying to tell a judge this during a rape case.  "Rape?  It wasn't rape.  Pfffft ... you think you have a monopoly on terminology"

It can be concluded that timerland is clearly in love with multisig.

Some questions that arise after reading all this though is that does XC have multisig? And what is multisig? Is it fud?

Some very interesting discussions are going within the Supercoin thread since the source code release.
So Supercoin does actually have a very advanced p2p anon using multisig for its anti-cheat system.
Source code is now public so everyone can check it out for themselves. No need for assumptions.

Dev notes & code release:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=736705.msg9588332#msg9588332