Creating addresses are trival, but if the minuimum coin requirements is 10K coins, then a cheater can not make many fakes nodes. Transfer funds back and forth is not an option, as the validity of the service nodes can be checked periodically (and most likely when the receiving node process the message). Also it is likely just before the service request the fund balance can be checked.

What you said are non-issues and can be fully prevented by the algorithms. And supercoin did not state the concrete requirements for it, we can see when they publish them.

Here is the 2nd part of the whitepaper, which gives a high level in-depth view of the trustless algorithm we use. Please refer to the part 1 if you need to understand some terms. Part 1 is here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=618552.msg8272890#msg8272890

==
The following diagram shows a high level description of the trustless system algorithm. It shows the “normal” case where everything goes as expected.




The next diagram shows the case where, after step 6, the Sender is not satisfied with the Mixer’s txid. This could happen if the Sender cannot verify Mixer’s transaction, or Mixer did not send enough funds to the destination. In which case Sender asks Guarantor to do the arbitration. The new scenario are marked in brown lines and explained in the diagram.



There are other possible scenarios, that we will describe in the next parts, where we will show details of the algorithm and steps. But from the above two cases you see why multisig is tightly linked with trustless system and how it creates a bonding among all parties where they have to follow the anonymous transfer rules.

Here's our update from dev team.

I have good news to report. I have finished the basic implementation of the p2p decentralized trustless anonymous system, and it works fine. With all the multisig addresses and transactions, it is a pretty complex system. Now it works end-to-end. In the next few days, we will provide a detailed schedule for testing and releasing the system (a rough schedule is below).

As far as I know, this is the first real p2p decentralized trustless anonymous system in coinjoin category. I am not sure for the crypto-note technology, it seems it is a good one, although it is a different technology and mainly for CPU. But for coinjoin category claims, I don't see any truly trustless system, and this is the first one.

Following is a quick screenshot from my desktop showing test log and some code.



The following is a rough schedule for the next few weeks, we will provide more details soon:

- A detailed white paper will be published in a few days, I should finish it before August 14. The white paper will contain details on the technology and algorithms we are using.

- Now to August 14 is dev team testing on trustless system, and also we will add bells and whistles to the code (especially for some error handlings).

- Alpha testing on real network of MammothCoin: August 15 - August 19. We decided not to use testnet as we have high confidence on our code, also our testing so far has been on the real network. We choose MammothCoin for initial testing as it has less traffic, so it is easier to fix initial bugs etc.

- Best testing on real network of SuperCoin: August 20 - August 24. With more robust code we move to SuperCoin. Both alpha and beta testings we will invite limited members of the community to participate the testing. These testing phases including all bug fixes.

- August 25, we will release p2p decentralized trustless anonymous system for both SuperCoin and MammothCoin.

Also, we don't release immediate the source code as they are too many copycats, but we plan to release the full source code 2 months after the system is released. So people with skills (and curiosity) will be able to inspect and review the code.

Stay tuned, we will provide more info in the next few days.

Does anybody else still experience Supercoin withdrawal problem/error from Cryptsy?

Yes it seems to me that CryptoNote is a good anon algorithm, will learn more details.

Other anonymous Coinjoin solutions such as Darksend, supersend are good too. Though they are not p2p trustless systems, but they work fine and reliable.

Cloak's method is very doubtful, and from what I understand, it is not a trustless system at all. I am not even sure it is non-traceable. When I have more time, I'll look into the traceability of it.

Yes it does not seem to me Cloak has anything solid. The algo seems having many issues. The IF-block is very suspicoius and may have a lot problems in implementing. Especially there are no forceful way to make all parties behave according to the rules. Without this, no trustless system will work.

Hello, I want to give an update on our progress of phase-2 anonymous wallet. This work is a joint effort between
SuperCoin and MammothCoin dev teams.

Phase-2 of the anonymous wallet is to provide a trustless system, and a truely de-centralized p2p coinjoin system. Again the characteristics of the trustless system are:
-   Each party will do the best they can by gaining (e.g. coins).
-   Whenever possible, they will cheat to gain advantages.
-   They will not sacrifice their own benefits to do damages (e.g. cheat).
-   They will do damages even they don’t gain anything (make others lose, but they themselves will not lose, they may not gain either).

In phase-2, the sender of the coin will pick randomly any qualified peers as mixer and guarantor, to send the coins anonymously. This is a truely de-centralized p2p coinjoin system, which has no central authority at all in whatever format. Any qualified peers (eg holding enough coins in his wallet) can become the middle points of the transfer (of course if he wants, he can turn off the "service" from the config file).

This system is much more complex than the phase-1 mixer solution we already completed. It involves intensive usage of multisig addresses and transactions, with mini-escrows established so to constrian various parties involved and guarantee the smooth transfers of the fund.

I am glad to report that we've made significant progress on the phase-2 work.

First, we have defined a complex scheme that coordinate the anonymous send, and it guarantees that all different parties involved will behave correctly, because otherwise they will lose their own coins (mini-escrows in effect).

Second, we have fixed some significant bugs in the code that prevent some multisig features from working correctly. As some of you probably know, the Bitcoin codebase created the multisig system and it has some intensive testing there and many bugs fixed. Bitcoin uses protocol version of 700xx. All the PoW/PoS codebase, however, follows the NovaCoin codebase, which is currently at protocol codebase 60015. The multisig system is unfortunately not working in the 600xx codebase. And porting the whole 700xx to PoW/PoS is a siginicant of change, involves many complete code rewrites. We have successfully fixed the multisig address and transaction system in codebase 600xx without porting the whole new code over. This way it guaratees the smooth development/enhancement of SuperCoin and MammothCoin.

Now all basic building blocks especially the multisig addresses and transactions work great, we are in the process of implementing the whole phase-2 scheme. We can not reveal the details now, but we will publish whitepapers gradually on this and we will provide weekly updates to the community on our progress.

As you understand, devs all have their daily jobs and we are focusing on this whenever we have spare time. Our track record to deliver phase-1 is excellent. Our SuperSend mixer coinjoin solution is one of the best: intuitive, simple to use, fast and very reliable. This team knows exactly what it's doing and we are a very capable team, knowing all the details of the coin codebase, and is able to deliver as promised. So please understand that while we will do our best to communicate with community our progress, we can not be in the thread every day, and we need to focus to accomplish our implementation, there are a lot of work as you could imagine. Post your questions if any, we will try to answer as much as possible.

Supersend will be the best anonymous send, we have no doubt about it. SuperCoin and MammothCoin will become the best X11 and X13 coins. As we have the best devs, best technologies and best community here!

Nice try  

feedback welcome! Read & Comment please

I agree we should move forward, but this fiasco caused many people to lose their investment, and the above apology is not enough. They need to give a conclusion of their investigation: is Supercoin good or bad, do they find any issues, if at all? If no issues or no major issues, and since Supercoin was the first in voting list, they should add it to Poloniex, this way they cleared all their mistakes.

But now I don't see conclusions, they have kept the title of this thread, in a very misleading way. This title is translated to "We have rejected a bad coin", but what is bad? Theydid not or can not say anything.

Before this is done, I can't see Busoni's apology is sincere at all. We demand Poloniex give a clear explanation on it!

Although Busoni issued an apology (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652351.msg7319548#msg7319548), it is not enough. They need to give a conclusion of their investigation: is Supercoin good or bad, do they find any issues, if at all? If no issues or no major issues, and since Supercoin was the first in voting list, they should add it to Poloniex, this is the only way they can clear all their mistakes.

Their debacle caused many investors to lose money, we demand an explanation from them on the conclusion of their investigation of supercoin!

But now I don't see any conclusions, and they have kept the title of that thread ("Why Poloniex Has Rejected SuperCoin" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652351.0), in a very misleading way. This title is translated to "We have rejected a bad coin", but what is bad? They did not or can not say anything (because Supercoin is a great coin!).

Before this is done, I can't see Busoni's apology is sincere at all. We demand Poloniex give a clear explanation on it!

I have to applaud the POLO team for this. You losers just hate that you invested so big in SUPER and ignore that fact that Polo is actually reviewing the code. It's was sketchy code and better to be safe than sorry.

Look at Bittrex for what happens when you don't review code. Ninja coin is meant to have 19 million coins and there are now like 600 million on the exchange and people lost money. Not even worth 1 satoshi anymore. I am pulling all my coins from Bittrex and going all in Polo.

I have not got any answer from him, still.