[ANN][SUPERCOIN]First P2p Decentralized Trustless Anonymous Wallet Coming Soon

[cyberhacker]

Maybe you did not enable the CoinControl feature. To enable, go to Setting->Option->Display, and check the second checkbox (Display coincontrol features (expert only!)). Now go back to Send tab, you will see the above screen.

got it!

[1715620428]

1715620428

[1715620428]

1715620428

[1715620428]

1715620428

[supercoindev]

This is where you enable coincontrol...

[apojii]

This is where you enable coincontrol...

Yeah, it works.
I suggest explain the method in OP, so many people don't know that.

[supercointeam]

This is where you enable coincontrol...

Yeah, it works.
I suggest explain the method in OP, so many people don't know that.

Yes it's updated in OP. Thanks for feedback.

[cyberhacker]

Yes it's updated in OP. Thanks for feedback.

we are ready to test.

Keep kicking.

[cyberhacker]

i just did test on testnet.

works fine to me. i can't find sender

sorry for my imcompetence, and hope some one can make a pro video presentation and paste some screenshots.

[provenceday]

i just did test on testnet.

works fine to me. i can't find sender

sorry for my imcompetence, and hope some one can make a pro video presentation and paste some screenshots.

will do this when back home.

[cyberhacker]

if polo raise the bar and do retro review. 80% will be delisted, and most new will not be added.

[supercointeam]

Can some one review the videos?

Feedback video: http://screencast-o-matic.com/watch/c21ohHnpyH (1 minute)
Take attention to the first 10 SUPER transfer was not anonymous send
12 SUPERs transfer divided 3 parts was anonymous send
55 SUPERs transfer divided 3 parts was anonymous send

Now check this video afters transfer happened & confirmed on network
http://screencast-o-matic.com/watch/c21oh7npyJ
see the lastest 55 SUPERs anonymous send to addresses are different in transaction details but 10 SUPERs transfer which is not anonymous send to address is same as shown at video 1: mx5BkFGaQPrpLwVvTY3PesoD82nhhyNG87

http://screencast-o-matic.com/watch/c21o12npy7 see for more details from other receiver point.

if its good i can add to the OP.

[supercointeam]

i just did test on testnet.

works fine to me. i can't find sender

sorry for my imcompetence, and hope some one can make a pro video presentation and paste some screenshots.

You or community can try to send here this wallet

mrusioLdvJgcbenVh7CTWg5czH8fKiwAB2

so we can confirm it. its better you send it by both normal send and anonymous send and we can share screen of what we received it.

Those who see crashes or not success on anonymous send should pm me for mixer node.

[cyberhacker]

i just did test on testnet.

works fine to me. i can't find sender

sorry for my imcompetence, and hope some one can make a pro video presentation and paste some screenshots.

You or community can try to send here this wallet

mrusioLdvJgcbenVh7CTWg5czH8fKiwAB2

so we can confirm it. its better you send it by both normal send and anonymous send and we can share screen of what we received it.

normal way sent 1000 coins.


anonymous send erro. "you have no connection to mixer ......."

[cyberhacker]

update from BUSONI

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652351.msg7319548#msg7319548

I would like to point out that I did not personally review the code, as many people seem to think. The person who did has very high standards and was not thrilled with what he saw, and he was overzealous in his criticisms. When I made this post, I firmly believed that the maximum supply was inflated. My intention with going public before contacting the devs was to make sure they did not have a chance to cover up the mistake or take advantage of the issue.

It is my responsibility to ensure that these issues are addressed correctly, so no fingers should be pointed anywhere but at me. I see now that I should have had another reviewer confirm the findings, and investigated sufficiently to make sure I understood all of the code myself before proceeding. I apologize for this misstep. There are still some parts of the code we're concerned about, so our investigations will continue, and I will talk to the devs privately about the anon feature.

This whole raising the standards for coins thing is in an early stage, and we are constantly improving our process. We believe strongly in integrity and transparency, and it has always been my intention to use Poloniex's position to improve the quality of crypto.

[supercointeam]

i just did test on testnet.

works fine to me. i can't find sender

sorry for my imcompetence, and hope some one can make a pro video presentation and paste some screenshots.

You or community can try to send here this wallet

mrusioLdvJgcbenVh7CTWg5czH8fKiwAB2

so we can confirm it. its better you send it by both normal send and anonymous send and we can share screen of what we received it.

normal way sent 1000 coins.


anonymous send erro. "you have no connection to mixer ......."

you have no connection to mixer ....... please use the one i'll send in my PM to you soon.

[provenceday]

update from BUSONI

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652351.msg7319548#msg7319548

I would like to point out that I did not personally review the code, as many people seem to think. The person who did has very high standards and was not thrilled with what he saw, and he was overzealous in his criticisms. When I made this post, I firmly believed that the maximum supply was inflated. My intention with going public before contacting the devs was to make sure they did not have a chance to cover up the mistake or take advantage of the issue.

It is my responsibility to ensure that these issues are addressed correctly, so no fingers should be pointed anywhere but at me. I see now that I should have had another reviewer confirm the findings, and investigated sufficiently to make sure I understood all of the code myself before proceeding. I apologize for this misstep. There are still some parts of the code we're concerned about, so our investigations will continue, and I will talk to the devs privately about the anon feature.

This whole raising the standards for coins thing is in an early stage, and we are constantly improving our process. We believe strongly in integrity and transparency, and it has always been my intention to use Poloniex's position to improve the quality of crypto.

it seems that's the real busoni.

[Cohle]

Looks like busoni (Poloniex) is back-peddling on his SUPER FUD -

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652351.msg7319548#msg7319548

The man owes SUPER a public apology through other channels (twitter, announcement on his site).

[cyberhacker]

Looks like busoni (Poloniex) is back-peddling on his SUPER FUD -

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652351.msg7319548#msg7319548

The man owes SUPER a public apology through other channels (twitter, announcement on his site).

+1. HE is struggling to find more evidence to second his stupid announcement and decision.  give him some time and leave polo alone.

i do suggest BITTREX to do some interface improvement and troll box implementation. BTC-E trading interface is my favorite and POLO did adopted that.

so imagine if BITTREX steadily improves their features.

i don't care where i am trading. as long as coin and dev are legit.

[provenceday]

Looks like busoni (Poloniex) is back-peddling on his SUPER FUD -

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652351.msg7319548#msg7319548

The man owes SUPER a public apology through other channels (twitter, announcement on his site).

+1. HE is struggling to find more evidence to second his stupid announcement and decision.  give him some time and leave polo alone.

i do suggest BITTREX to do some interface improvement and troll box implementation. BTC-E trading interface is my favorite and POLO did adopted that.

so imagine if BITTREX steadily improves their features.

i don't care where i am trading. as long as coin and dev are legit.

Mintpal and Bter will come out later. Take it easy.

[supercointeam]

Can some one review the videos?

Feedback video: http://screencast-o-matic.com/watch/c21ohHnpyH (1 minute)
Take attention to the first 10 SUPER transfer was not anonymous send
12 SUPERs transfer divided 3 parts was anonymous send
55 SUPERs transfer divided 3 parts was anonymous send

Now check this video afters transfer happened & confirmed on network
http://screencast-o-matic.com/watch/c21oh7npyJ
see the lastest 55 SUPERs anonymous send to addresses are different in transaction details but 10 SUPERs transfer which is not anonymous send to address is same as shown at video 1: mx5BkFGaQPrpLwVvTY3PesoD82nhhyNG87

And this one
http://screencast-o-matic.com/watch/c21o12npy7 see for more details from other receiver point.

if its good enough i can add to the OP.

+1 comment please :-)

[Cohle]

I don't give a shit about Polo listing SUPER. I no longer trade at that exchange. busoni needs to publicly apologise though.

[cyberhacker]

i just did test on testnet.

works fine to me. i can't find sender

sorry for my imcompetence, and hope some one can make a pro video presentation and paste some screenshots.

You or community can try to send here this wallet

mrusioLdvJgcbenVh7CTWg5czH8fKiwAB2

so we can confirm it. its better you send it by both normal send and anonymous send and we can share screen of what we received it.

normal way sent 1000 coins.


anonymous send erro. "you have no connection to mixer ......."

you have no connection to mixer ....... please use the one i'll send in my PM to you soon.

roger that.

mixer is working. i am sending you 999 coins and it was split  in 3 transaction (each to different address)


your address: mrusioLdvJgcbenVh7CTWg5czH8fKiwAB2
my address: mjGB1NNUBfwud2RbGEQHhqUZze33hyyV6i

Code:

{
"txid" : "30e3cdadf8b8139b26a6c3e47d43d3a36ef26d9b0d43d05c12c984888a2de3b7",
"version" : 1,
"time" : 1402814017,
"locktime" : 0,
"vin" : [
{
"txid" : "92d7ecc758532ab22865bc705fd7b8b4df1ee04a2cf625c7b0820cd97c70cfa9",
"vout" : 1,
"scriptSig" : {
"asm" : "304402203ea87864d3f536956c33018baaca246bd4bc3376ed7193da18dd966057c53ebb0220704250b384efe7da187e9a3e34889c7118aefb239a26ce263880edabd9869d1401 02754ea4375006b1f86c63d78ed28e3485c025d4aa325dff4618a1622f27c2e977",
"hex" : "47304402203ea87864d3f536956c33018baaca246bd4bc3376ed7193da18dd966057c53ebb0220704250b384efe7da187e9a3e34889c7118aefb239a26ce263880edabd9869d14012102754ea4375006b1f86c63d78ed28e3485c025d4aa325dff4618a1622f27c2e977"
},
"sequence" : 4294967295
}
],
"vout" : [
{
"value" : 496.85391459,
"n" : 0,
"scriptPubKey" : {
"asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 d999e5ffdda2f6b13bd35931669fb061c9273e18 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"reqSigs" : 1,
"type" : "pubkeyhash",
"addresses" : [
"n1MXHjQdZHDd66Fv8rcUAaXvYBxH2f2Bpu"
]
}
},
{
"value" : 503.14598541,
"n" : 1,
"scriptPubKey" : {
"asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 2a2e25fc8d659f463cf5f7802be4bbcef98b8641 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"reqSigs" : 1,
"type" : "pubkeyhash",
"addresses" : [
"mjMyxZFeKTzcpPCktKmHD1xuHoPv4HRPbT"
]
}
}
],
"amount" : -503.14598541,
"fee" : -0.00010000,
"confirmations" : 0,
"txid" : "30e3cdadf8b8139b26a6c3e47d43d3a36ef26d9b0d43d05c12c984888a2de3b7",
"time" : 1402814018,
"timereceived" : 1402814018,
"details" : [
{
"account" : "",
"address" : "mjMyxZFeKTzcpPCktKmHD1xuHoPv4HRPbT",
"category" : "send",
"amount" : -503.14598541,
"fee" : -0.00010000
}
]
}

i can't find either sender or receiver's address in tx.

i am not an expert. but from what i have done. i would say, anon feature works fine.

waiting for more professional feedbacks.

Thanks to SUPER team.