Official Anoncoin chat thread (including history)

[BroTroxer]

Haha.. No wonder why I'm always offline from here. Listening to those trolls trying to increase their e-penis and save the last of the fallen coins they sit on.. Maybe angry for us not letting them easily copy us... well well, I wouldn't care, either should you.

This was not a reply to the trolls. They are on /ignore.

/Back to work

Liar, you come here everyday but you act like a child.
My last post below is clear but you are not able to provide a real support to your community because you have no arguments against mines. This is unfortunate to see the main dev acting like that.

If you are not able to understand, then ask Meeh or Gnosis (they were both online on bitcointalk today):
1) Who will setup the 13 accumulators of zerocoin?
2) If it will be possible to review this setup to be sure that Gnosis doesn't know the factors (P and Q) of the accumulators (to avoid the risk that he forge zerocoin proofs and generate infinite ANC)?

The reponses are:
1) Gnosis
2) No because the setup will be done OUTSIDE the open source wallet code.

EDIT: If 2) response from Meeh is YES, then I'm out. You will never see me again here.

@rsa_ufo_attack
I do not tend to respond to trolling, however I do _not_ consider these questions to be trolling. Your requests for information might seem a bit hostile though and thrown onto the trolling pile. Like you pointed out these are completely legitimate questions that should be answered. However we do not have the answers to these questions at this time.
Preferably we will have a way to ensure that anyone can verify that the generated UFO's are in fact the ones that are deployed, and at the same time deliver proof of destruction of the initial parameters. Worst case scenario, the users might actually have to trust the dev team to do this right. If it comes down to trusting the team, it will probably hurt the price quite a bit, but the technology itself will in no way be impacted.

@everyone
Some additional information for those that haven't caught on yet. We are primarily in this project to push the boundaries of anonymity technology, not to amuse the investors that buy loads of the coin. To avoid zerocoin implementation using the UFO's (the best tech to date) because there is a slight chance it might be abused is not an option. It was said that it will be attacked and eventually cracked, this is a given. The important factor here is time.

To crack the UFO's will most likely require several decades even with a wast constant, or even increasing, amounts of computing power. With previous statements in the thread some people are indirectly implying that all development will halt when zc with ufo launches. This is certainly not the case. With zc and the UFO in place we will have _at least_ 5 years to come up with a better solution without ever being at risk of the UFO's being cracked.

If any of these risks are not acceptable to you, I suggest you drop your coin, and shift your interest towards another coin.

[alincoln]

I do not tend to respond to trolling, however I do _not_ consider these questions to be trolling. Your requests for information might seem a bit hostile though and thrown onto the trolling pile. Like you pointed out these are completely legitimate questions that should be answered. However we do not have the answers to these questions at this time.
Preferably we will have a way to ensure that anyone can verify that the generated UFO's are in fact the ones that are deployed, and at the same time deliver proof of destruction of the initial parameters. Worst case scenario, the users might actually have to trust the dev team to do this right. If it comes down to trusting the team, it will probably hurt the price quite a bit, but the technology itself will in no way be impacted.

This is quite different from what has been repeteadly announced by Gnosis. The "trustless" Zerocoin setup had never been questioned, until now. To come now and say that "maybe" the community will have to trust the dev team in order to make it right is definitely a change in the official position, and one that puts ANC at risk.

[SmokingSkull]

I do not tend to respond to trolling, however I do _not_ consider these questions to be trolling. Your requests for information might seem a bit hostile though and thrown onto the trolling pile. Like you pointed out these are completely legitimate questions that should be answered. However we do not have the answers to these questions at this time.
Preferably we will have a way to ensure that anyone can verify that the generated UFO's are in fact the ones that are deployed, and at the same time deliver proof of destruction of the initial parameters. Worst case scenario, the users might actually have to trust the dev team to do this right. If it comes down to trusting the team, it will probably hurt the price quite a bit, but the technology itself will in no way be impacted.

This is quite different from what has been repeteadly announced by Gnosis. The "trustless" Zerocoin setup had never been questioned, until now. To come now and say that "maybe" the community will have to trust the dev team in order to make it right is definitely a change in the official position, and one that puts ANC at risk.

Isn't there a RSA_UFO folder in the Source for a reason? And hasn't been used "hashing" to generate the number for a reason?
The key lies in the source, but you won't acknowledge it, whatever I say. Imagine a connection between "the generators" "the RSA UFO client" and "ZC".
It is too easy for you to say "If Gnosis generates the key by himself"

Ah and RSA_UFO_Attack ... you insult the head developer of Anoncoin and expect answers to your questions?

[BroTroxer]

I do not tend to respond to trolling, however I do _not_ consider these questions to be trolling. Your requests for information might seem a bit hostile though and thrown onto the trolling pile. Like you pointed out these are completely legitimate questions that should be answered. However we do not have the answers to these questions at this time.
Preferably we will have a way to ensure that anyone can verify that the generated UFO's are in fact the ones that are deployed, and at the same time deliver proof of destruction of the initial parameters. Worst case scenario, the users might actually have to trust the dev team to do this right. If it comes down to trusting the team, it will probably hurt the price quite a bit, but the technology itself will in no way be impacted.

This is quite different from what has been repeteadly announced by Gnosis. The "trustless" Zerocoin setup had never been questioned, until now. To come now and say that "maybe" the community will have to trust the dev team in order to make it right is definitely a change in the official position, and one that puts ANC at risk.

The setup itself will be trustless once implemented. I do not have enough insight to contradict Gnosis's announcement, but I haven't heard of any way to provide good proof of destruction at this time. You should not weight my word heaver than his though as he might know how to do it. I'm just saying there is a chance that trusting the team for at least some part of the implementation might become necessary.

[alincoln]

I do not tend to respond to trolling, however I do _not_ consider these questions to be trolling. Your requests for information might seem a bit hostile though and thrown onto the trolling pile. Like you pointed out these are completely legitimate questions that should be answered. However we do not have the answers to these questions at this time.
Preferably we will have a way to ensure that anyone can verify that the generated UFO's are in fact the ones that are deployed, and at the same time deliver proof of destruction of the initial parameters. Worst case scenario, the users might actually have to trust the dev team to do this right. If it comes down to trusting the team, it will probably hurt the price quite a bit, but the technology itself will in no way be impacted.

This is quite different from what has been repeteadly announced by Gnosis. The "trustless" Zerocoin setup had never been questioned, until now. To come now and say that "maybe" the community will have to trust the dev team in order to make it right is definitely a change in the official position, and one that puts ANC at risk.

The setup itself will be trustless once implemented. I do not have enough insight to contradict Gnosis's announcement, but I haven't heard of any way to provide good proof of destruction at this time. You should not weight my word heaver than his though as he might know how to do it. I'm just saying there is a chance that trusting the team for at least some part of the implementation might become necessary.

You're part of the dev team, and your words may cause more impact than others. IMO Gnosis should clarify this point asap.

[lunokhod2]

Haha.. No wonder why I'm always offline from here. Listening to those trolls trying to increase their e-penis and save the last of the fallen coins they sit on.. Maybe angry for us not letting them easily copy us... well well, I wouldn't care, either should you.

This was not a reply to the trolls. They are on /ignore.

/Back to work

Liar, you come here everyday but you act like a child.
My last post below is clear but you are not able to provide a real support to your community because you have no arguments against mines. This is unfortunate to see the main dev acting like that.

If you are not able to understand, then ask Meeh or Gnosis (they were both online on bitcointalk today):
1) Who will setup the 13 accumulators of zerocoin?
2) If it will be possible to review this setup to be sure that Gnosis doesn't know the factors (P and Q) of the accumulators (to avoid the risk that he forge zerocoin proofs and generate infinite ANC)?

The reponses are:
1) Gnosis
2) No because the setup will be done OUTSIDE the open source wallet code.

EDIT: If 2) response from Meeh is YES, then I'm out. You will never see me again here.

@rsa_ufo_attack
I do not tend to respond to trolling, however I do _not_ consider these questions to be trolling. Your requests for information might seem a bit hostile though and thrown onto the trolling pile. Like you pointed out these are completely legitimate questions that should be answered. However we do not have the answers to these questions at this time.
Preferably we will have a way to ensure that anyone can verify that the generated UFO's are in fact the ones that are deployed, and at the same time deliver proof of destruction of the initial parameters. Worst case scenario, the users might actually have to trust the dev team to do this right. If it comes down to trusting the team, it will probably hurt the price quite a bit, but the technology itself will in no way be impacted.

@everyone
Some additional information for those that haven't caught on yet. We are primarily in this project to push the boundaries of anonymity technology, not to amuse the investors that buy loads of the coin. To avoid zerocoin implementation using the UFO's (the best tech to date) because there is a slight chance it might be abused is not an option. It was said that it will be attacked and eventually cracked, this is a given. The important factor here is time.

To crack the UFO's will most likely require several decades even with a wast constant, or even increasing, amounts of computing power. With previous statements in the thread some people are indirectly implying that all development will halt when zc with ufo launches. This is certainly not the case. With zc and the UFO in place we will have _at least_ 5 years to come up with a better solution without ever being at risk of the UFO's being cracked.

If any of these risks are not acceptable to you, I suggest you drop your coin, and shift your interest towards another coin.

rsa_ufo_attack:

I only saw your question because it was quoted in another post (you are on ignore).

1. The RSA UFOs were generated using the algorithm of Sanders. You can verify this in the code that Gnosis published on github. The fact that it was generated using Sanders algorithm proves that no one knows that factorization. Please read the wiki, inspect the code, and read the Sanders paper. If you don't do this, you will have to trust the developers.

2. Of course. You realize this is open source, right?

[BroTroxer]

I do not tend to respond to trolling, however I do _not_ consider these questions to be trolling. Your requests for information might seem a bit hostile though and thrown onto the trolling pile. Like you pointed out these are completely legitimate questions that should be answered. However we do not have the answers to these questions at this time.
Preferably we will have a way to ensure that anyone can verify that the generated UFO's are in fact the ones that are deployed, and at the same time deliver proof of destruction of the initial parameters. Worst case scenario, the users might actually have to trust the dev team to do this right. If it comes down to trusting the team, it will probably hurt the price quite a bit, but the technology itself will in no way be impacted.

This is quite different from what has been repeteadly announced by Gnosis. The "trustless" Zerocoin setup had never been questioned, until now. To come now and say that "maybe" the community will have to trust the dev team in order to make it right is definitely a change in the official position, and one that puts ANC at risk.

The setup itself will be trustless once implemented. I do not have enough insight to contradict Gnosis's announcement, but I haven't heard of any way to provide good proof of destruction at this time. You should not weight my word heaver than his though as he might know how to do it. I'm just saying there is a chance that trusting the team for at least some part of the implementation might become necessary.

You're part of the dev team, and your words may cause more impact than others. IMO Gnosis should clarify this point asap.

Yes, my bad. I shouldn't respond without having all the facts. I agreem and believe that Gnosis should clarify how the key that is used can be verified as the generated UFO, and provide some proof of destruction of the initial parameters to ensure that the setup is completely trustless.

[BroTroxer]

Haha.. No wonder why I'm always offline from here. Listening to those trolls trying to increase their e-penis and save the last of the fallen coins they sit on.. Maybe angry for us not letting them easily copy us... well well, I wouldn't care, either should you.

This was not a reply to the trolls. They are on /ignore.

/Back to work

Liar, you come here everyday but you act like a child.
My last post below is clear but you are not able to provide a real support to your community because you have no arguments against mines. This is unfortunate to see the main dev acting like that.

If you are not able to understand, then ask Meeh or Gnosis (they were both online on bitcointalk today):
1) Who will setup the 13 accumulators of zerocoin?
2) If it will be possible to review this setup to be sure that Gnosis doesn't know the factors (P and Q) of the accumulators (to avoid the risk that he forge zerocoin proofs and generate infinite ANC)?

The reponses are:
1) Gnosis
2) No because the setup will be done OUTSIDE the open source wallet code.

EDIT: If 2) response from Meeh is YES, then I'm out. You will never see me again here.

@rsa_ufo_attack
I do not tend to respond to trolling, however I do _not_ consider these questions to be trolling. Your requests for information might seem a bit hostile though and thrown onto the trolling pile. Like you pointed out these are completely legitimate questions that should be answered. However we do not have the answers to these questions at this time.
Preferably we will have a way to ensure that anyone can verify that the generated UFO's are in fact the ones that are deployed, and at the same time deliver proof of destruction of the initial parameters. Worst case scenario, the users might actually have to trust the dev team to do this right. If it comes down to trusting the team, it will probably hurt the price quite a bit, but the technology itself will in no way be impacted.

@everyone
Some additional information for those that haven't caught on yet. We are primarily in this project to push the boundaries of anonymity technology, not to amuse the investors that buy loads of the coin. To avoid zerocoin implementation using the UFO's (the best tech to date) because there is a slight chance it might be abused is not an option. It was said that it will be attacked and eventually cracked, this is a given. The important factor here is time.

To crack the UFO's will most likely require several decades even with a wast constant, or even increasing, amounts of computing power. With previous statements in the thread some people are indirectly implying that all development will halt when zc with ufo launches. This is certainly not the case. With zc and the UFO in place we will have _at least_ 5 years to come up with a better solution without ever being at risk of the UFO's being cracked.

If any of these risks are not acceptable to you, I suggest you drop your coin, and shift your interest towards another coin.

rsa_ufo_attack:

I only saw your question because it was quoted in another post (you are on ignore).

1. The RSA UFOs were generated using the algorithm of Sanders. You can verify this in the code that Gnosis published on github. The fact that it was generated using Sanders algorithm proves that no one knows that factorization. Please read the wiki, inspect the code, and read the Sanders paper. If you don't do this, you will have to trust the developers.

2. Of course. You realize this is open source, right?

Seems I should read up on the wiki as well. Thanks lunokhod

[gunzeon]

Haha.. No wonder why I'm always offline from here. Listening to those trolls trying to increase their e-penis and save the last of the fallen coins they sit on.. Maybe angry for us not letting them easily copy us... well well, I wouldn't care, either should you.

This was not a reply to the trolls. They are on /ignore.

/Back to work

Liar, you come here everyday but you act like a child.
My last post below is clear but you are not able to provide a real support to your community because you have no arguments against mines. This is unfortunate to see the main dev acting like that.

If you are not able to understand, then ask Meeh or Gnosis (they were both online on bitcointalk today):
1) Who will setup the 13 accumulators of zerocoin?
2) If it will be possible to review this setup to be sure that Gnosis doesn't know the factors (P and Q) of the accumulators (to avoid the risk that he forge zerocoin proofs and generate infinite ANC)?

The reponses are:
1) Gnosis
2) No because the setup will be done OUTSIDE the open source wallet code.

EDIT: If 2) response from Meeh is YES, then I'm out. You will never see me again here.

No offence, but nobody's explained it to your and your fellow trolls because you have all been so belligerent and insulting that nearly everybody has you on ignore; otherwise, you might have been directed to the answer to your main question by somebody in the know in a simple enough form that even you can wrap your tiny mind around ...

http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/12641/can-an-rsa-public-key-be-generated-without-ever-knowing-the-factors
( according to Michael Miers )

The crux of the rsa_ufo is just that; the prime factors are not needed once their product has been found. The products were found on all the contributing boxes over the past 2 months and were uploaded. Check the code for yourself here to find out what happened to the prime factors:

https://github.com/Anoncoin/ufo_client

[lunokhod2]

Haha.. No wonder why I'm always offline from here. Listening to those trolls trying to increase their e-penis and save the last of the fallen coins they sit on.. Maybe angry for us not letting them easily copy us... well well, I wouldn't care, either should you.

This was not a reply to the trolls. They are on /ignore.

/Back to work

Liar, you come here everyday but you act like a child.
My last post below is clear but you are not able to provide a real support to your community because you have no arguments against mines. This is unfortunate to see the main dev acting like that.

If you are not able to understand, then ask Meeh or Gnosis (they were both online on bitcointalk today):
1) Who will setup the 13 accumulators of zerocoin?
2) If it will be possible to review this setup to be sure that Gnosis doesn't know the factors (P and Q) of the accumulators (to avoid the risk that he forge zerocoin proofs and generate infinite ANC)?

The reponses are:
1) Gnosis
2) No because the setup will be done OUTSIDE the open source wallet code.

EDIT: If 2) response from Meeh is YES, then I'm out. You will never see me again here.

@rsa_ufo_attack
I do not tend to respond to trolling, however I do _not_ consider these questions to be trolling. Your requests for information might seem a bit hostile though and thrown onto the trolling pile. Like you pointed out these are completely legitimate questions that should be answered. However we do not have the answers to these questions at this time.
Preferably we will have a way to ensure that anyone can verify that the generated UFO's are in fact the ones that are deployed, and at the same time deliver proof of destruction of the initial parameters. Worst case scenario, the users might actually have to trust the dev team to do this right. If it comes down to trusting the team, it will probably hurt the price quite a bit, but the technology itself will in no way be impacted.

@everyone
Some additional information for those that haven't caught on yet. We are primarily in this project to push the boundaries of anonymity technology, not to amuse the investors that buy loads of the coin. To avoid zerocoin implementation using the UFO's (the best tech to date) because there is a slight chance it might be abused is not an option. It was said that it will be attacked and eventually cracked, this is a given. The important factor here is time.

To crack the UFO's will most likely require several decades even with a wast constant, or even increasing, amounts of computing power. With previous statements in the thread some people are indirectly implying that all development will halt when zc with ufo launches. This is certainly not the case. With zc and the UFO in place we will have _at least_ 5 years to come up with a better solution without ever being at risk of the UFO's being cracked.

If any of these risks are not acceptable to you, I suggest you drop your coin, and shift your interest towards another coin.

rsa_ufo_attack:

I only saw your question because it was quoted in another post (you are on ignore).

1. The RSA UFOs were generated using the algorithm of Sanders. You can verify this in the code that Gnosis published on github. The fact that it was generated using Sanders algorithm proves that no one knows that factorization. Please read the wiki, inspect the code, and read the Sanders paper. If you don't do this, you will have to trust the developers.

2. Of course. You realize this is open source, right?

Thanks BroxTroxer for your response. I'm sad to see that only BroxTroxer is smart and able to think by himself.

To lunokhod2:
Please understand that even if the code is open source, it would not prove that Gnosis have setup the 13 accumulators with RSA-UFO. You need to trust that Gnosis will setup the accumulators with the trustless RSA-UFO method. He can say what he want. If he setup them by himself to know the two factors (P and Q) of each accumulator, he will be able to forge zerocoin proofs and generate infinite ANC. Need to explain you the consequences of that?
Source: https://wiki.anoncoin.net/Zerocoin#Zerocoin_in_practice (Section: Criticisms, fourth paragraph)

The own Anoncoin wiki say that. We need to trust Gnosis. The implementation of zerocoin in Anoncoin is NOT trustless.
About the RSA-UFO project, it was just to remove the small factors (P and Q). Don't say bullshit please.

No, you don't need to trust anyone. You can verify how the accumulator works before compiling your code if you like. (ignore back on.)

[gunzeon]

No, you don't need to trust anyone. You can verify how the accumulator works before compiling your code if you like. (ignore back on.)

We will be able to verify how the accumulators works with the opensource code but the problem is no that.
The problem is that Gnosis will generate the keys (RSA) of these accumulators.
There is nothing trustless. You need to trust that Gnosis is honest and will not keep the factors to forge zerocoin proofs and then infinite ANC.
Source: https://wiki.anoncoin.net/Zerocoin#Zerocoin_in_practice (Section: Criticisms, fourth paragraph)

If gnosis has his own rsa ufos - with factors - then he had 8 core years squirrelled away in his basement ? get real !!! You cannot fake the numbers nor the work needed to work them out.

[SmokingSkull]

No, you don't need to trust anyone. You can verify how the accumulator works before compiling your code if you like. (ignore back on.)

We will be able to verify how the accumulators works with the opensource code but the problem is no that.
The problem is that Gnosis will generate the keys (RSA) of these accumulators. Even if he use RSA-UFO to generate them, he have the control of all the generation operation.
There is nothing trustless. You need to trust that Gnosis is honest and will not keep the factors to forge zerocoin proofs and then infinite ANC.
Source: https://wiki.anoncoin.net/Zerocoin#Zerocoin_in_practice (Section: Criticisms, fourth paragraph)

The fourth paragraph clearly states that the original Zerocoin approach has the flaw you thinking of. However in the last sentence it says that Anoncoin will use RSA_UFOs and generate them by using Sanders 1999.

Can you even read?

EDIT:
Of course you have to trust Gnosis that the coding is correct. But you need to trust any other developers as well when you use any program on this world. Like I said before, If you don't trust anybody you will live in a box.

EDIT2: Other people don't need that trust, they read the opensource code

[SmokingSkull]

No, you don't need to trust anyone. You can verify how the accumulator works before compiling your code if you like. (ignore back on.)

We will be able to verify how the accumulators works with the opensource code but the problem is no that.
The problem is that Gnosis will generate the keys (RSA) of these accumulators. Even if he use RSA-UFO to generate them, he have the control of all the generation operation.
There is nothing trustless. You need to trust that Gnosis is honest and will not keep the factors to forge zerocoin proofs and then infinite ANC.
Source: https://wiki.anoncoin.net/Zerocoin#Zerocoin_in_practice (Section: Criticisms, fourth paragraph)

The fourth paragraph clearly states that the original Zerocoin approach has the flaw you thinking of. However in the last sentence it says that Anoncoin will use RSA_UFOs and generate them by using Sanders 1999.

Can you even read?

EDIT:
Of course you have to trust Gnosis that the coding is correct. But you need to trust any other developers as well when you use any program on this world. Like I said before, If you don't trust anybody you will live in a box.

Ok if you are too ... (I'll be polite) to understand I ask you:
1) Who will use RSA-UFOs to generate these keys?

Reponse is Gnosis.

2) Then if Gnosis will use RSA-UFOs to generate the keys of accumulators. Where is the trustless setup? You need to trust that Gnosis is honest and will not keep the factors for him to forge zerocoin proofs and then infinite ANC.

1 - We used the source code to do so.
2 - He used "hashing"

[SmokingSkull]

EDIT:
Of course you have to trust Gnosis that the coding is correct. But you need to trust any other developers as well when you use any program on this world. Like I said before, If you don't trust anybody you will live in a box.

EDIT2: Other people don't need that trust, they read the opensource code

Thanks to agree with me. Finally you understand that you need to trust Gnosis.
As I said before, in the opensource code, it will be not possible to see if Gnosis hold the factors (P and Q) of the RSA keys or not. You will see only the N number in the opensource code.

I didn't agree with you and that.
I said you need to trust Gnosis that the source code is legit when you can't read it.

It's a different thing.

Yes, we need to know if Gnosis holds the factors (or if he is able to) - you are right by saying that this would be a major major threat.
But you need to understand that by generating by hashing the only way to know the complete factorization is to factorize it.

EDIT: If you don't understand it, and you feel there is too few sources to explain it to you, PM Gnosis. This is getting ridiculous really, you make too much of a fuzz because you have a lack of understanding it, it even seems like you don't want to. So like I said, PM Gnosis or read into the source, that's important for you.

[drAGon925]

The fourth paragraph clearly states that the original Zerocoin approach has the flaw you thinking of. However in the last sentence it says that Anoncoin will use RSA_UFOs and generate them by using Sanders 1999.

Can you even read?

EDIT:
Of course you have to trust Gnosis that the coding is correct. But you need to trust any other developers as well when you use any program on this world. Like I said before, If you don't trust anybody you will live in a box.

EDIT2: Other people don't need that trust, they read the opensource code

he live in a box   , with 40W panel  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=227287.msg7973840#msg7973840

[lunokhod2]

No, you don't need to trust anyone. You can verify how the accumulator works before compiling your code if you like. (ignore back on.)

We will be able to verify how the accumulators works with the opensource code but the problem is no that.
The problem is that Gnosis will generate the keys (RSA) of these accumulators.
There is nothing trustless. You need to trust that Gnosis is honest and will not keep the factors to forge zerocoin proofs and then infinite ANC.
Source: https://wiki.anoncoin.net/Zerocoin#Zerocoin_in_practice (Section: Criticisms, fourth paragraph)

If gnosis has his own rsa ufos - with factors - then he had 8 core years squirrelled away in his basement ? get real !!! You cannot fake the numbers nor the work needed to work them out.

But, even if Gnosis had an alternative set of RSA UFOs, these wouldn't work with Zerocoin. The ZC mint transactions use the agreed upon value of N (the rsa ufo), and the spend transaction uses the same value of N. Miners verify that this is done correctly. There is no back door.

[matthewh3]

Building a hard to factor number without knowing its factorization - https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/9191/building-a-hard-to-factor-number-without-knowing-its-factorization

Efficient accumulators without trapdoor extended abstract - http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-47942-0_21#page-1

[matthewh3]

The source code and the data from the RSA UFO factorisation can be verified that they were correctly implemented in a trustless manner.  Once it's all been made opensource in the next few weeks.  So any arguments claiming it to be a scam are moot until then.

[vipgelsi]

After doing some researching on wiki this coin seems promising.

[lunokhod2]

No, you don't need to trust anyone. You can verify how the accumulator works before compiling your code if you like. (ignore back on.)

We will be able to verify how the accumulators works with the opensource code but the problem is no that.
The problem is that Gnosis will generate the keys (RSA) of these accumulators.
There is nothing trustless. You need to trust that Gnosis is honest and will not keep the factors to forge zerocoin proofs and then infinite ANC.
Source: https://wiki.anoncoin.net/Zerocoin#Zerocoin_in_practice (Section: Criticisms, fourth paragraph)

If gnosis has his own rsa ufos - with factors - then he had 8 core years squirrelled away in his basement ? get real !!! You cannot fake the numbers nor the work needed to work them out.

But, even if Gnosis had an alternative set of RSA UFOs, these wouldn't work with Zerocoin. The ZC mint transactions use the agreed upon value of N (the rsa ufo), and the spend transaction uses the same value of N. Miners verify that this is done correctly. There is no back door.

You turn around too. You try to invalidate my arguments trying to divert the issue.
As I said before, in the opensource code, it will be not possible to see if Gnosis hold the factors (P and Q) of the RSA keys or not. You will see only the N number in the opensource code.

According to the anoncoin wiki: https://wiki.anoncoin.net/Zerocoin#Zerocoin_in_practice (Section: Criticisms, fourth paragraph)
If Gnosis knows the factors, he will be able to forge zerocoin proofs and then infinite ANC. And there is no way to be sure he destroy these factors. You need to trust Gnosis.

Excuse me for being blunt, but you really don't know what you are talking about it. If N was chosen using Sanders method of generating RSA UFOs, there is no way that anyone could know the factorization of N. Since we are using Sander generated RSA UFOs for N, which are generated in a deterministic way, and since the number N can be verified in the code and by miners, there is no way that Gnosis could know its factorization, and there is no way that Gnosis could forge zerocoin proofs. This is what makes Zerocoin trustless.

What part don't you understand? I think that this is crystal clear.