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, 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. +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. 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. |
|
|
|
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... |
|
|
|
No PoS is trustless guys get real. Just their bagholders pumping coins
Do you understand what is a trustless system at all?? |
|
|
|
lmao, you try to confuse people?? where in this diagram it shows that it is a trustless system? NONE! |
|
|
|
That girl is stronger, lol  |
|
|
|
Where is multipool payment? Only 12 people mining? Come on guys I can't believe we only know 12 miners everyone combined! BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY  Who is this girl? Just to report back, on the trustless system discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=713836.0You can judge by yourself if it is a trustless system Cloakcoin has... Megan Fox  Nice girl |
|
|
|
Where is multipool payment? Only 12 people mining? Come on guys I can't believe we only know 12 miners everyone combined! BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY Who is this girl? Just to report back, on the trustless system discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=713836.0You can judge by yourself if it is a trustless system Cloakcoin has... |
|
|
|
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. +1 The reason there is no answer however, is likely that they are currently trying to think how to solve the problem. Likely this is what happened... |
|
|
|
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. 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. Thanks fisheater  |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
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.
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 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. 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. |
|
|
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
(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.
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. |
|
|
|
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 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. |
|
|
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
Really? Supercoin is trying to attack Cloakcoin? Get your shitcoin in order before you attempt to slander a real coin with 7 full time developers. Shameless attempt at promoting your shitcoin. You should be ashamed of yourself for being that stupid. Don't try to attach the Supercoin name to Cloakcoin.
Feel free to download the new PoSA wallet and demonstrate your tinfoil hat conspiracy.
I'm not sure there is any attack and I don't see why you are worried by a coin with $195 000 of market cap when Cloak is running over $4 million. Because I'm tired of below average intelligence investors who try to latch their investments onto someone's work. PoSA is in public testing, there's a Cloak IRC with direct contact to the developers for anyone with questions like this. Instead of directing questions to the dev team, this moron decides to take it upon himself and open a thread up to plant Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in the minds of potential Cloak investors; Furthermore, he offers Supercoin up as the solution.. This is what you call shameless coin promotion and it's piss poor. If he can attack the network then let him show us the attack - otherwise find a new way to promote your coin. Because you just lost any future potential investment from me and my fellow traders. To answer you question: I'm definitely not worried about anything coming out of this camp.. We've been attacked by Darkcoin and Supercoin today I wonder who else is next.. Lulz I seriously doubt who is moron here. There's something called truth, it's not done by promo. Go to this thread and answer questions: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=713836.0if you convinces me, I will change the title and tell everyone the great solution you had. But from what I read, it is not at all what it claimed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
