Hello Everyone !!!

Sorry for not posting for so long but I was in Italy on holidays for two weeks and needed a break from everything..

I was anyway following the thread time to time and saw the amazing pase of XC development. Anyone has a link to download the TOR STICK ISO? I did not find it in the website.

Thx

Thanks for quoting me:)

There was a lot of push-back in that thread, which surprised me as strasboug seemed quite logical in his thread denouncing Cloakcoin's PoSA as not being trustless. I couldn't understand how he could accurately describe Cloakcoin's system as not being trustless, and then think that a system that only requires 2 parties to collude is somehow "trustless".

Look, cryptography is VERY, VERY hard to get right. I've got a reasonable grasp of it and I would NOT attempt to invent new cryptography that didn't simply build on the foundations others have left. I notice a lot of hero worship in this part of the forum - "the dev said X" or "the dev promised Y" and everyone accepts that. Cryptographers (real ones) don't push out code until they've pushed out papers and completely opened their ideas up for discussion. More importantly, those cryptographers are also able to accept where they're wrong. There is NOTHING wrong with being flat out wrong about an idea...but when you stick with the idea in spite of it being bad, that's a dangerous road to drive.

Nothing is flawless, but this is YOUR MONEY. Expect and demand good and cryptographically sound solutions - fewer pictures, more maths in a "whitepaper"!

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.

I'm not sure what is less appealing about this post:

- the poor linguistic abilities it portrays

- its factual inaccuracy (because XC does use multisig transactions)

- its deceitfulness.


Poor showing sir.

You are incorrect about this.

I repeat: you are not in a position to tell what technology XC has or has not implemented.

XC has technology that you do not know about.

Therefore you are not in a position to make the above statement.

This is an irresponsibly one-sided remark.

I understand multisig quite well thank you, and I object to your patronising remarks on this topic.

Proceed as if I understand, and you'll come across less arrogantly.

Ah, deleting perfectly relevant posts again are you?

Nice ethics you have.

Go ahead, delete this one too. It'll make you look good.

I understand multisig quite well thank you, and I do not enjoy being patronised, so kindly stop.

You are not in a position to tell what I do not understand, so kindly refrain from making assertions you cannot substantiate.

You do not have sufficient grounds to assert that XC uses regular transactions.

You only have sufficient grounds to assert that XC uses addresses that conform to the regular format (but don't necessarily behave that way in XC by any means.

Again, you're making assumptions that go beyond the evidence you have.

You've deleted multiple relevant posts of mine.

I will post them here so that those who wish to pursue this discussion can participate.

I'm not sure what is less appealing about this post:

- the poor linguistic abilities it portrays

- its factual inaccuracy (because XC does use multisig transactions)

- its deceitfulness.


Poor showing sir.

You are incorrect about this.

I repeat: you are not in a position to tell what technology XC has or has not implemented.

XC has technology that you do not know about.

Therefore you are not in a position to make the above statement.

This is an irresponsibly one-sided remark.

I understand multisig quite well thank you, and I object to your patronising remarks on this topic.

Proceed as if I understand, and you'll come across less arrogantly.

Ah, deleting perfectly relevant posts again are you?

Nice ethics you have.

Go ahead, delete this one too. It'll make you look good.

I understand multisig quite well thank you, and I do not enjoy being patronised, so kindly stop.

You are not in a position to tell what I do not understand, so kindly refrain from making assertions you cannot substantiate.

You do not have sufficient grounds to assert that XC uses regular transactions.

You only have sufficient grounds to assert that XC uses addresses that conform to the regular format (but don't necessarily behave that way in XC by any means.

Again, you're making assumptions that go beyond the evidence you have.

You've deleted multiple relevant posts of mine.

I will post them here so that those who wish to pursue this discussion can participate.

You are incorrect about this.

I repeat: you are not in a position to tell what technology XC has or has not implemented.

XC has technology that you do not know about.

Therefore you are not in a position to make the above statement.

This is an irresponsibly one-sided remark.

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 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.

Read this comment on Supercoin by fluffypony, one of the Monero devs, who explains why n-of-m multisig is not safe:

"The "guarantor" is being trusted to do arbitration between the sender and the mixer. Therefore, given the nature of 2-of-3 multisig transactions, the guarantor and the mixer can sign the transaction, and then refuse to sign the cancellation transaction, leaving the sender out of luck and out of funds."

Also, read this, why using the txid to mixing is not safe:

"Even worse - the workflow is based on the txid and verifying the txid. Have we not learnt by now that the txid can change? How do you people not understand that this was the very thing that mtgox blamed for their destruction?

The issue here is relying on the txid, when malleability has shown that the txid can change. This so-called "trustless system" relies on txid's to confirm transactions in an automated fashion. That is bad, stupid, and fundamentally broken."

Be careful not to fall for new shady coins promising the earth and screaming FUD at more established coins.

People fed up with the XC FUD topic created by supercoin fudsters may or may not wish to read my topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=742246.0

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.


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

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.

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.

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


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