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.
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"? 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. No, XC just does things differently. If "knowledge of multisig" pertains to how it's done in Bitcoin, well, that would be irrelevant. 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.
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  |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
please, don't use big letter unless absolutely needed. All fuds will be deleted.
And please focus on multisig discussion.
|
|
|
|
moreover, now I see you changed m-of-m multisig to n-of-m multisig, lol, learned something new?
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. 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. 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? |
|
|
|
You apparently have no knowledge on what is a multisig at all!
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? m-of-m again? lmao, let's not continue please |
|
|
|
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.
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? OK fair enough. I got what I was looking for. |
|
|
|
moreover, now I see you changed m-of-m multisig to n-of-m multisig, lol, learned something new?
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. |
|
|
|
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: Can anyone show me XC's multisig addresses and their associated transactions? Would these satisfy your curiosity? - http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/block.dws?62014.htm- http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229177.htmYou're an arse for fudding instead of just downloading the wallet and trying out Privacy Mode. 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? So, your reasoning process: - timerland doesn't understand the point of m-of-m multisig. - timerland doesn't bother to ask people from XC what m-of-m is used for. - timerland simply concludes, with the foolhardiness of a drunk pullet, that the truth is not that he lacks understanding but that XC is a scam. You're not very civil are you? Just come and ask us questions next time instead of creating a fruitless and irritating FUD thread. If you have further questions, you're welcome to ask, nicely. 2) ATCSECURE, XC's core dev, posted the following not too long ago: They are mixing apples and oranges, XC is trustless based on the signatures of all parties during the private transaction. Its not using MULTI_SIG N OF M Address's. The transactions are SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES, if any of the outputs are missing, then it is not signed by all parties. Here is an example of a private decentralized distributed multi-path transaction consisting of 4 parties. >>> http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229236.htm3) 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 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. - 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. 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! |
|
|
|
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?
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? 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!! 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. 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. |
|
|
|
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?
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? 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!! 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. |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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?
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? |
|
|
|
Its not using MULTI_SIG N OF M Address's.
lmao, so it is using 1-of-1 "multisig" address? Do you understand what it means the multisig?? |
|
|
|
I will post it in BIG letters... no fud so no reason to delete They are mixing apples and oranges, XC is trustless based on the signatures of all parties during the private transaction. Its not using MULTI_SIG N OF M Address's.The transactions are SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES, if any of the outputs are missing, then it is not signed by all parties. Here is an example of a private decentralized distributed multi-path transaction consisting of 4 parties. >>> http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229236.htmNo 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: You made me laugh again, where is the multisig address in this link? The following are quoted from greenclover: Multisig addresses usually start with a different letter than their regular address. For example, Bitcoin's regular address starts with "1", its multisig address starts with "3". Supercoin's regular address starts with "S", its multisig address starts with "C". Mammothcoin's regular address starts with "M", its multisig address starts with "b". etc. For XC, its regular address starts with X and multisig address starts with "4". Everyone can create a multisig address using XC client and verify yourself. 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 Where is it the multisig addres you used??? simple question can't answer? Stop cheating people! |
|
|
|
I will post it in BIG letters... no fud so no reason to delete They are mixing apples and oranges, XC is trustless based on the signatures of all parties during the private transaction. Its not using MULTI_SIG N OF M Address's.The transactions are SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES, if any of the outputs are missing, then it is not signed by all parties. Here is an example of a private decentralized distributed multi-path transaction consisting of 4 parties. >>> http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229236.htmNo 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: You made me laugh again, where is the multisig address in this link? The following are quoted from greenclover: Multisig addresses usually start with a different letter than their regular address. For example, Bitcoin's regular address starts with "1", its multisig address starts with "3". Supercoin's regular address starts with "S", its multisig address starts with "C". Mammothcoin's regular address starts with "M", its multisig address starts with "b". etc. For XC, its regular address starts with X and multisig address starts with "4". Everyone can create a multisig address using XC client and verify yourself. |
|
|
|
They are mixing apples and oranges, XC is trustless based on the signatures of all parties during the private transaction. Its not using MULTI_SIG N OF M Address's. The transactions are SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES, if any of the outputs are missing, then it is not signed by all parties. Here is an example of a private decentralized distributed multi-path transaction consisting of 4 parties. >>> http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229236.htmYou made me laugh again, where is the multisig address in this link? The following are quoted from greenclover: Multisig addresses usually start with a different letter than their regular address. For example, Bitcoin's regular address starts with "1", its multisig address starts with "3". Supercoin's regular address starts with "S", its multisig address starts with "C". Mammothcoin's regular address starts with "M", its multisig address starts with "b". etc. For XC, its regular address starts with X and multisig address starts with "4". Everyone can create a multisig address using XC client and verify yourself. |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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?
Some community members just show what a true XC multisig address look like. Now if you continue claim XC has it, show everyone the 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.
And like stated before: Why do you want us to provide this information? You can do it all yourself it seems.. Instead of coming to our Community and build some trust to get us explaining you things you make a thread with stupid claims that don't hold any grounds. Is it worth arguing like this? If you have it, it will take you 30 sec to provide the info. Want a mammothcoin multisig address with transactions associated with it, and inspect from blockchain explorer? I can provide that to you in 30 sec. If you do not have it and can not provide it, don't waste time here. You don't fool people here.I see arguments over arguments, XC supporters, don't waste time please. As people said, it takes 30sec to provide a multisig address and tx. There are 100s in the Mammothcoin blockchain, I can give you one in 30 sec. Why not show yours? With so many posts and I don't see a single one? Anyone with IQ > 80 can conclude correctly what it means. DO NOT WASTE TIME |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
