Lauda, if you believe that my comments on the differences between encryption and sha256 could be considered an attack of any sort that you were trying to fence off, then I wonder why you weren't the first one to jump in and correct nemgun's reference to sha256 as being an encryption algorithm.
Due diligence is not an attack, and if it's immediately labelled as one then the very spirit of protecting the proverbial "sacred cow" causes more concerns than the technical inaccuracies themselves. 

hahaha... yeah, I wish I could be a competitor. Seriously! - I have my own projects to run, which have nothing whatsoever to do with cryptocurrency.
As for the bullshit thing, I'd really love to know - what exact rule was violated by my response to nemgun.

In fact, the post doesn't even say that this ICO is not worth investing in, - it just says what I personally have decided to do based on my failed attempts to get clarity.
And I honestly tried as best as I could to get myself convinced that there was a solid foundation, and do so through a civilized yet very specific technical discussion.

Reposting:


I've tried my best to stay objective and unbiased, as all I ever wanted was to get clarity on the claimed security of the validator's private key signing the smart contract, and I very well appreciate the language barrier (btw, English isn't my first language either).
Why was I trying to get that clarity? - Because I wanted to be sure that I'd be making a sound investment.
But throughout these almost two weeks, I kept seeing a lot of smoke and mirrors. You know, it's totally understood when a given mechanism is just a trade secret and the author doesn't want to disclose that information so early.
But then it would make perfect sense to just state it as-is, instead of going in circles but never actually delivering a consistent and clear picture of the intended implementation.
The direct undeserved personal attacks and baseless name-calling is very inappropriate, especially when the respondent themselves is well aware of the problems with the language barrier and Google Translate.
I don't feel like I need to embark on a defense line here, because what I've been told speaks more about the person saying that than it does about me.
But anyone interested in verifying my professional experience which is only 25 years too late to be "limited" is more than welcome to PM me and obtain a link to my LinkedIn profile.
So, I pass on this one.
Good day all! And good luck!

Ok, I see that my post got deleted by the moderator, as apparently it didn't conform with the overall "shut up you sheep" attitude of the team.
I'm just speechless to see this censorship at work.
And btw, who's the moderator here? - If it's nemgun, then I'm not surprised at all.
Just really hope it wasn't Lauda. 

I'm sorry, but I'm really baffled as I keep reading about this mysterious "double sha256" encryption. - Never heard of it in the context of asymmetric encryption.
To my knowledge, sha256 is a hashing algorithm, - not an encryption algorithm.
(For those not in-the-know, hashing algorithms are one-way computations by definition and purpose, and one cannot reverse the operation to get the original data from a hash.)
Yes, it does transform information and produce a hash value of that information. But in practice, there's no routine mechanism to reverse that computation, - only some very elaborate hacking may be able to do that.
So, yeah - it's kinda secure, if all you need is to compare it with another such hash to determine if the original data for the two hash values was the same (with a 99.9999% probability, as in very rare cases two very different pieces of data may actually produce the same hash).
But there are no keys ever involved in calculating sha256, therefore no private key would ever be able to reverse the operation (one can only use a salt value to obfuscate input data and prevent dictionary attacks on the hash).
And then, double-sha256 merely adds another round of computations where the first computed hash itself is hashed again using sha256.

I'd really like to get an explanation for the "double sha256 encryption" term, as that would constitute an incredible mathematical breakthrough.

Does this mean the private key(s) of the validator would be generated locally on Bob's or Alice's system?
But if that's the case, one could easily attach a debugger and see those private key values before they could even be encrypted and stored on safenetwork.
Perhaps I misunderstood something.

Gmail actually worked for me yesterday, but not Hotmail.
However, I think this may have nothing to do with email domain, but rather with whether the user does or does not enter a name/nick (optional).
I tried twice with no luck, but once I did enter a nickname, the email came through immediately.
This may have been a coincidence, but I would check this on your side guys.

Re-posting @nemgun's response from https://safenetforum.org/t/nvo-decentralized-exchange-crowdsale/13608/630

In our typical scenario, user A has BTC and wants to buy ETH, and user B has an ETH and wants to sell them for BTC.

1. At any given time User A shall submit an order expressing its intention to purchase 100 ETH @ 0.1 BTC / ETH prices
The order will be the procedure of creating address 2of2
* The validator part in the wallet named safe browser will create a 2of2 address with the amount, price, ETH reception address, it will call the smart contract encrypted in double sha 256.
* The private key of the address will be stored in the safenet
* The decryption key for the private key that is stored in the safenetwork will be stored on a blocked encrypted blockchain this blockchain is the inverse of a standard blockchain it encrypts the information.
* The mini blockchain will place the order in the order book
* The mini block chain has the role of syncronizing the wallets and it allows communication between them.

2. At another time, User B will issue an order to sell 50 ETH Awards @ 0.1 BTC / ETH

The validator part in the wallet named safe browser will create a 2of2 address with the amount, price, ETH reception address, it will call the smart contract encrypted in double sha 256.
3.Calculation Exchange Procedure
* The mini block chain will detect the deal by logical price
* She will call the two smart contracts that will be compared
* At the end of this verification, the active wallet will engage the safebrowser
* The safebrowser vas creates the ultimate smart contract that will be named the smarcontract swap
* The smartcontract swap will compare the amounts to deduct the excess with the exchange addresses.
* The excess will remain on the smart contract which will be returned on the safenetwork waiting for another deal the ride will be 0.04994 btc all from hangs from sending fee.
* The smartcontract swap will be copied into 4 online wallets in case of disconnection, the blockchain will specify the wallets online in a way aleatoir.
* It will take 4 copies of the smart contract for the deal to be realized, once synchronised the smartcontract swap realises the swap en then is deleted.
* Arrive at this stage the smart contract will be deleted.

This is where my logic model stops because for the following I am in test phase for the 0conf.

The PIN email doesn't seem to be coming through. - 15 minutes and still waiting, junk folder checked. 

What I find concerning is that the system requires the most recent PIN if you've made multiple retries trying to overcome this issue.
The problem is, when a user does eventually receive an email, they would not know whether it pertains to the last attempt or one of their previous ones.
So, there's a chance an incorrect PIN would be submitted with the registration form.
What would happen then? - Would the user have lost their funds forever, because the PIN that was meant to be entered never got delivered?
Or does the form validate the PIN before finalizing registration?

AFAIK, they will be burned

This is a great idea and project.
Being a software professional myself, I have to compliment the team for making the whitepaper so concise yet thorough in describing the implementation aspects.
There are some other relatively similar projects out there, but being unable to see or hear how exactly a given team is going to solve the inter-blockchain challenges doesn't instill a lot of confidence. - This one is totally different, and it looks like the guys have already given it a great amount of thought and brainstorming.
I only regret not having come across this ICO sooner and getting more HYBRID-s per $$, but am still going to go ahead and contribute.
Good luck guys with your development! - I'm sure everyone contributing has a lot of trust in your ability to succeed and make us all proud!