[ANN] [CLOAK] Cloakcoin | No Premine | X13 | Decentralized Market and PoSA

[DentIt]

And that's silly, what would stop ANY closed source coin or software from inserting a backdoor?

That's EXACTLY my point. That's why no closed source coin can ever be trustless.

I don't get it.  Why would open-source be a requirement of trustless anonymity?  If it works then it works, which the audit will determine.

It's really not that complicated. If you have to trust someone/-thing, it's not trustless. Even if the auditor would declare the current code "trustless", you still would have to trust his judgement and honesty, and also trust the devs to not introduce new flaws(or even intentional backdoors) into the code with a later update. That's why open source is so important in the crypto community.

[1714666637]

1714666637

[1714666637]

1714666637

[1714666637]

1714666637

[1714666637]

1714666637

[1714666637]

1714666637

[1714666637]

1714666637

[Reoelliott]

it's supposedly trustless anon using ring escrow but pending an audit of course.

So who is that auditor that every user of CLOAK would blindly trust with their money? And how would that be "trustless"? And what would stop the devs from inserting a backdoor into the closed source AFTER the audit? Or would all development stop after the audit?

[21:42:53] <svenp> who will be auditing it?
[21:42:57] <Blink^> ^
[21:43:06] <DITitit> because you would have to trust that person(s) Blink^
[21:43:09] <DaveyJones> id say first the audit... after that let the community decide
[21:43:28] <Blink^> w/o any audit or checks, it is nothing but a GUI change and promises
[21:43:34] <@alty> Well, why not let the community select an auditor then as a first step
[21:43:40] <@cashmen> Smiley

Also, I can tell you didn't download or test the new wallet at all since you said it's just a UI redesign when the UI is practically the same.

I can read the IRC myself, thanks. You didn't answer my question though. How would an audit in any way make CLOAK trustless if it remains closed source and the devs can make any changes they want at any time without anyone ever noticing? Trustless and closed source are mutually exclusive.

Comon guys, They were honest enough to reveal the first Audit and in turn put their entire coin at stake to begin with, I think this has already proved enough honesty and integrity from alty!!!

[DaveyJones]

And that's silly, what would stop ANY closed source coin or software from inserting a backdoor?

That's EXACTLY my point. That's why no closed source coin can ever be trustless.

I don't get it.  Why would open-source be a requirement of trustless anonymity?  If it works then it works, which the audit will determine.

It's really not that complicated. If you have to trust someone/-thing, it's not trustless. Even if the auditor would declare the current code "trustless", you still would have to trust his judgement and honesty, and also trust the devs to not introduce new flaws(or even intentional backdoors) into the code with a later update. That's why open source is so important in the crypto community.

I will agree... but that is to happen when the coin got its name back, so other copycats dont pump their coins with it

[DaveyJones]

it's supposedly trustless anon using ring escrow but pending an audit of course.

So who is that auditor that every user of CLOAK would blindly trust with their money? And how would that be "trustless"? And what would stop the devs from inserting a backdoor into the closed source AFTER the audit? Or would all development stop after the audit?

[21:42:53] <svenp> who will be auditing it?
[21:42:57] <Blink^> ^
[21:43:06] <DITitit> because you would have to trust that person(s) Blink^
[21:43:09] <DaveyJones> id say first the audit... after that let the community decide
[21:43:28] <Blink^> w/o any audit or checks, it is nothing but a GUI change and promises
[21:43:34] <@alty> Well, why not let the community select an auditor then as a first step
[21:43:40] <@cashmen> Smiley

Also, I can tell you didn't download or test the new wallet at all since you said it's just a UI redesign when the UI is practically the same.

I can read the IRC myself, thanks. You didn't answer my question though. How would an audit in any way make CLOAK trustless if it remains closed source and the devs can make any changes they want at any time without anyone ever noticing? Trustless and closed source are mutually exclusive.

Comon guys, They were honest enough to reveal the first Audit and in turn put their entire coin at stake to begin with, I think this has already proved enough honesty and integrity from alty!!!

true

[DentIt]

it's supposedly trustless anon using ring escrow but pending an audit of course.

So who is that auditor that every user of CLOAK would blindly trust with their money? And how would that be "trustless"? And what would stop the devs from inserting a backdoor into the closed source AFTER the audit? Or would all development stop after the audit?

[21:42:53] <svenp> who will be auditing it?
[21:42:57] <Blink^> ^
[21:43:06] <DITitit> because you would have to trust that person(s) Blink^
[21:43:09] <DaveyJones> id say first the audit... after that let the community decide
[21:43:28] <Blink^> w/o any audit or checks, it is nothing but a GUI change and promises
[21:43:34] <@alty> Well, why not let the community select an auditor then as a first step
[21:43:40] <@cashmen> Smiley

Also, I can tell you didn't download or test the new wallet at all since you said it's just a UI redesign when the UI is practically the same.

I can read the IRC myself, thanks. You didn't answer my question though. How would an audit in any way make CLOAK trustless if it remains closed source and the devs can make any changes they want at any time without anyone ever noticing? Trustless and closed source are mutually exclusive.

Comon guys, They were honest enough to reveal the first Audit and in turn put their entire coin at stake to begin with, I think this has already proved enough honesty and integrity from alty!!!

Trust: -4: -1 / +0(0)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!


How ironic


Edit: By the way, that audit was done by one of the second team devs (mrgnome), and they only revealed the result because the other devs and mrgnome had an internal disagreement and mrgnome would have made his audit public if alty hadn't acted first.

[Cloakko]

Show me the white paper of POSA v3 and then we'll talk.

And by white paper, I mean a technical one, not a fancy pdf.

[bangomatic]

it's supposedly trustless anon using ring escrow but pending an audit of course.

So who is that auditor that every user of CLOAK would blindly trust with their money? And how would that be "trustless"? And what would stop the devs from inserting a backdoor into the closed source AFTER the audit? Or would all development stop after the audit?

[21:43:34] <@alty> Well, why not let the community select an auditor then as a first step

Also, I can tell you didn't download or test the new wallet at all since you said it's just a UI redesign when the UI is practically the same.
And that's silly, what would stop ANY closed source coin or software from inserting a backdoor?

Kristov Atlas if he is available?

Dan Metcalf would be a good choice as well.

[iCEBREAKER]

Show me the white paper of POSA v3 and then we'll talk.

And by white paper, I mean a technical one, not a fancy pdf.

OK, I'll ask Alty to scan the cocktail napkin.  He has to clean the puke off it first, since dagger was very drunk last night.

[mrrgnome]

it's supposedly trustless anon using ring escrow but pending an audit of course.

So who is that auditor that every user of CLOAK would blindly trust with their money? And how would that be "trustless"? And what would stop the devs from inserting a backdoor into the closed source AFTER the audit? Or would all development stop after the audit?

[21:42:53] <svenp> who will be auditing it?
[21:42:57] <Blink^> ^
[21:43:06] <DITitit> because you would have to trust that person(s) Blink^
[21:43:09] <DaveyJones> id say first the audit... after that let the community decide
[21:43:28] <Blink^> w/o any audit or checks, it is nothing but a GUI change and promises
[21:43:34] <@alty> Well, why not let the community select an auditor then as a first step
[21:43:40] <@cashmen> Smiley

Also, I can tell you didn't download or test the new wallet at all since you said it's just a UI redesign when the UI is practically the same.

I can read the IRC myself, thanks. You didn't answer my question though. How would an audit in any way make CLOAK trustless if it remains closed source and the devs can make any changes they want at any time without anyone ever noticing? Trustless and closed source are mutually exclusive.

Comon guys, They were honest enough to reveal the first Audit and in turn put their entire coin at stake to begin with, I think this has already proved enough honesty and integrity from alty!!!

Trust: -4: -1 / +0(0)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!


How ironic


Edit: By the way, that audit was done by one of the second team devs (mrgnome), and they only revealed the result because the other devs and mrgnome had an internal disagreement and mrgnome would have made his audit public if alty hadn't acted first.

I'd be happy to audit the code again on behalf of the community, but if it is closed source only then I'm willing to bet the devs are doing what they long petitioned me to let them get away with previously and are simply encrypting some trustless blockchain like record. Decompiling the source will likely yield the encryption key and break either the trustless or anonymous features of their spec, depending on how they have rigged up the protocol. That's probably why it is closed source. Won't know until it's audited.

[mikerutch]

it's supposedly trustless anon using ring escrow but pending an audit of course.

So who is that auditor that every user of CLOAK would blindly trust with their money? And how would that be "trustless"? And what would stop the devs from inserting a backdoor into the closed source AFTER the audit? Or would all development stop after the audit?

[21:42:53] <svenp> who will be auditing it?
[21:42:57] <Blink^> ^
[21:43:06] <DITitit> because you would have to trust that person(s) Blink^
[21:43:09] <DaveyJones> id say first the audit... after that let the community decide
[21:43:28] <Blink^> w/o any audit or checks, it is nothing but a GUI change and promises
[21:43:34] <@alty> Well, why not let the community select an auditor then as a first step
[21:43:40] <@cashmen> Smiley

Also, I can tell you didn't download or test the new wallet at all since you said it's just a UI redesign when the UI is practically the same.

I can read the IRC myself, thanks. You didn't answer my question though. How would an audit in any way make CLOAK trustless if it remains closed source and the devs can make any changes they want at any time without anyone ever noticing? Trustless and closed source are mutually exclusive.

Comon guys, They were honest enough to reveal the first Audit and in turn put their entire coin at stake to begin with, I think this has already proved enough honesty and integrity from alty!!!

Trust: -4: -1 / +0(0)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!


How ironic


Edit: By the way, that audit was done by one of the second team devs (mrgnome), and they only revealed the result because the other devs and mrgnome had an internal disagreement and mrgnome would have made his audit public if alty hadn't acted first.

I'd be happy to audit the code again on behalf of the community, but if it is closed source only then I'm willing to bet the devs are doing what they long petitioned me to let them get away with previously and are simply encrypting some trustless blockchain like record. Decompiling the source will likely yield the encryption key and break either the trustless or anonymous features of their spec, depending on how they have rigged up the protocol. That's probably why it is closed source. Won't know until it's audited.

Lmao, Alty begging you to let him get away with that!....what a crook he is!!!,  hats off to you sir for not letting this crook not successfully scam people. And to you Alty you pathetic weed ya coins dead and any ass clown that invests into this scam now is semi retarded. The so called "HOLY GRAIL" of crypto being onemarket is already being looked at by a number of other coins. Alty= fail

[igor107th]

cloak is dead look 

[ketos]

is he getting somone to look at it?

[DaveyJones]

it's supposedly trustless anon using ring escrow but pending an audit of course.

So who is that auditor that every user of CLOAK would blindly trust with their money? And how would that be "trustless"? And what would stop the devs from inserting a backdoor into the closed source AFTER the audit? Or would all development stop after the audit?

[21:43:34] <@alty> Well, why not let the community select an auditor then as a first step

Also, I can tell you didn't download or test the new wallet at all since you said it's just a UI redesign when the UI is practically the same.
And that's silly, what would stop ANY closed source coin or software from inserting a backdoor?

Kristov Atlas if he is available?

Dan Metcalf would be a good choice as well.

sure let the main dev of another alt have a look into the code ... you must be kidding me

[c4shm3n]

it's supposedly trustless anon using ring escrow but pending an audit of course.

So who is that auditor that every user of CLOAK would blindly trust with their money? And how would that be "trustless"? And what would stop the devs from inserting a backdoor into the closed source AFTER the audit? Or would all development stop after the audit?

[21:43:34] <@alty> Well, why not let the community select an auditor then as a first step

Also, I can tell you didn't download or test the new wallet at all since you said it's just a UI redesign when the UI is practically the same.
And that's silly, what would stop ANY closed source coin or software from inserting a backdoor?

Kristov Atlas if he is available?

Dan Metcalf would be a good choice as well.

sure let the main dev of another alt have a look into the code ... you must be kidding me

+1

it must be neutral person and not a dev of another coin

[DentIt]

it's supposedly trustless anon using ring escrow but pending an audit of course.

So who is that auditor that every user of CLOAK would blindly trust with their money? And how would that be "trustless"? And what would stop the devs from inserting a backdoor into the closed source AFTER the audit? Or would all development stop after the audit?

[21:43:34] <@alty> Well, why not let the community select an auditor then as a first step

Also, I can tell you didn't download or test the new wallet at all since you said it's just a UI redesign when the UI is practically the same.
And that's silly, what would stop ANY closed source coin or software from inserting a backdoor?

Kristov Atlas if he is available?

Dan Metcalf would be a good choice as well.

sure let the main dev of another alt have a look into the code ... you must be kidding me

+1

it must be neutral person and not a dev of another coin

I vote for mrgnome!

[jorrr]

i just noticed that if i don't post every page on bitcointalk nobody misses my comments... 

[bangomatic]

it's supposedly trustless anon using ring escrow but pending an audit of course.

So who is that auditor that every user of CLOAK would blindly trust with their money? And how would that be "trustless"? And what would stop the devs from inserting a backdoor into the closed source AFTER the audit? Or would all development stop after the audit?

[21:43:34] <@alty> Well, why not let the community select an auditor then as a first step

Also, I can tell you didn't download or test the new wallet at all since you said it's just a UI redesign when the UI is practically the same.
And that's silly, what would stop ANY closed source coin or software from inserting a backdoor?

Kristov Atlas if he is available?

Dan Metcalf would be a good choice as well.

sure let the main dev of another alt have a look into the code ... you must be kidding me

Kidding? not at all.  I would trust his audit.  And if you guys want the code to be open source then why wouldnt you want another dev looking at the code?  I'd rather see the code audited and if it passes audit then stay closed source until cloak can get rolling again.

[lab rat hoax]

I trust mrgnome, let's take him up on his offer

[DentIt]

And if you guys want the code to be open source then why wouldnt you want another dev looking at the code?

That's the thing. Alty says open source isn't going to happen anymore, since the biggest CLOAK bagholders investors are against it. He is basically giving up on true trustless anon because they are too afraid other developers may "steal their shit". Me personally, I rather suspect that he isn't open sourcing so we don't see how much of the current code has been copied from other coins in the last few days just to get a closed source wallet working, so he can show it off as "proof of development".

[btcspender]

I trust mrgnome, let's take him up on his offer

Might as well he seems willing.

That's the thing. Alty says open source isn't going to happen anymore, since the biggest CLOAK bagholders investors are against it. He is basically giving up on true trustless anon because they are too afraid other developers may "steal their shit". Me personally, I rather suspect that he isn't open sourcing so we don't see how much of the current code has been copied from other coins in the last few days just to get a closed source wallet working, so he can show it off as "proof of development".

Did Alty say this in irc?
It's a terrible decision, if any investors want a successful long term investment with huge returns then open source is the way to go.