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

[quarkfx]

DEVS DID INSIDE TRADING. THEY KNEW POSA DIDINT WORK FOR DAYS AND DEVS AND WHALES WERE SELLING.

JUST SEE THE CHART, IT FELL FROM 300K SO FAST, THIS IS NOT NORMAL

Provide your proof or shut up.

[Cornett]

DEVS DID INSIDE TRADING. THEY KNEW POSA DIDINT WORK FOR DAYS AND DEVS AND WHALES WERE SELLING.

JUST SEE THE CHART, IT FELL FROM 300K SO FAST, THIS IS NOT NORMAL

LOL
Nice try to crap here   do not disgrace youself

[__kot__]

@Celani10 is right... at least with the numbers - numbers don't lie.

[Vrontis]

@Celani10 is right... at least with the numbers - numbers don't lie.

How the numbers proves that the dev team dumped their stack?

[rustynailer]

@Celani10 is right... at least with the numbers - numbers don't lie.

Numbers don't lie thats right.  altys wallet hasn't changed, he is still holding

[pics4crypto]

while the failed audit is not a good news, this is important part:


"PoSA v1 is a fully anonymous system according to our audit, but it is not trustless.

It requires the active participation of nodes involved in the transaction. ............This is trust, like masternodes, and we don’t want it in our system."

so, the coin is fully functioning anon, but not trustless - just like other anon coins. BUT they want it to be fully trustless, that is why they had the audit and continue to work on it.

[Danob]

BTC hit 309 at btce lol

[collapse157]

while the failed audit is not a good news, this is important part:


"PoSA v1 is a fully anonymous system according to our audit, but it is not trustless.

It requires the active participation of nodes involved in the transaction. ............This is trust, like masternodes, and we don’t want it in our system."

so, the coin is fully functioning anon, but not trustless - just like other anon coins. BUT they want it to be fully trustless, that is why they had the audit and continue to work on it.

+1

Very nice post. This is working anon thats better than anyone elses cryptonote. Once auditor and devs figure out a good system this thing is back and primed. Lots of people stocking up now I bet .

[rustynailer]

while the failed audit is not a good news, this is important part:


"PoSA v1 is a fully anonymous system according to our audit, but it is not trustless.

It requires the active participation of nodes involved in the transaction. ............This is trust, like masternodes, and we don’t want it in our system."

so, the coin is fully functioning anon, but not trustless - just like other anon coins. BUT they want it to be fully trustless, that is why they had the audit and continue to work on it.

This is crazy, we are getting hammered because we want a trustless coin that does not need to have to trust in masternodes for example.

This is the holy grail ffs.

[Coinster2014]

while the failed audit is not a good news, this is important part:


"PoSA v1 is a fully anonymous system according to our audit, but it is not trustless.

It requires the active participation of nodes involved in the transaction. ............This is trust, like masternodes, and we don’t want it in our system."

so, the coin is fully functioning anon, but not trustless - just like other anon coins. BUT they want it to be fully trustless, that is why they had the audit and continue to work on it.

This is crazy, we are getting hammered because we want a trustless coin that does not need to have to trust in masternodes for example.

This is the holy grail ffs.

You know when it's "not trustless" means that when you send out coins, it can be stolen by malicious nodes right?   

[rustynailer]

while the failed audit is not a good news, this is important part:


"PoSA v1 is a fully anonymous system according to our audit, but it is not trustless.

It requires the active participation of nodes involved in the transaction. ............This is trust, like masternodes, and we don’t want it in our system."

so, the coin is fully functioning anon, but not trustless - just like other anon coins. BUT they want it to be fully trustless, that is why they had the audit and continue to work on it.

This is crazy, we are getting hammered because we want a trustless coin that does not need to have to trust in masternodes for example.

This is the holy grail ffs.

You know when it's "not trustless" means that when you send out coins, it can be stolen by malicious nodes right?   

I dont think you get the point.

It should work even with malicious nodes.  Thats my take on it.

[bangomatic]

while the failed audit is not a good news, this is important part:


"PoSA v1 is a fully anonymous system according to our audit, but it is not trustless.

It requires the active participation of nodes involved in the transaction. ............This is trust, like masternodes, and we don’t want it in our system."

so, the coin is fully functioning anon, but not trustless - just like other anon coins. BUT they want it to be fully trustless, that is why they had the audit and continue to work on it.

Yes, I'd like to see the same team audit DRK coin...   

[Coinster2014]

while the failed audit is not a good news, this is important part:


"PoSA v1 is a fully anonymous system according to our audit, but it is not trustless.

It requires the active participation of nodes involved in the transaction. ............This is trust, like masternodes, and we don’t want it in our system."

so, the coin is fully functioning anon, but not trustless - just like other anon coins. BUT they want it to be fully trustless, that is why they had the audit and continue to work on it.

This is crazy, we are getting hammered because we want a trustless coin that does not need to have to trust in masternodes for example.

This is the holy grail ffs.

You know when it's "not trustless" means that when you send out coins, it can be stolen by malicious nodes right?   

I dont think you get the point.

It should work even with malicious nodes.  Thats my take on it.

I think most people that dumped get exactly the point....   It's not trustless now means that coins can be stolen by malicious nodes.  The whole PoSA is fundamentally flawed and needs to be redesigned from the ground up.

[AHLS]

BTC hit 309 at btce lol

OMG what a bleeding !

#Cloakstrong

whales buying more, rich list rising bags, pump next weeks for sure

[collapse157]

They clearly say in the audit that the coins cannot be stolen, just put into a cold storage state where they aren't reachable. The wallet that does this doesn't "receive" your coins and can spend them at a later time. This really gives nodes no reason to do this unless for some reason they are trying to sabotage network. The devs of cloak already said there are flaws they found with cryptonote which probably causes similar things, maybe even ACTUAL STEALING coins.  They already are on a new concept that the auditor believes in if hes still holding.

Obvious dark holder fud ended.

[rustynailer]

while the failed audit is not a good news, this is important part:


"PoSA v1 is a fully anonymous system according to our audit, but it is not trustless.

It requires the active participation of nodes involved in the transaction. ............This is trust, like masternodes, and we don’t want it in our system."

so, the coin is fully functioning anon, but not trustless - just like other anon coins. BUT they want it to be fully trustless, that is why they had the audit and continue to work on it.

This is crazy, we are getting hammered because we want a trustless coin that does not need to have to trust in masternodes for example.

This is the holy grail ffs.

You know when it's "not trustless" means that when you send out coins, it can be stolen by malicious nodes right?   

I dont think you get the point.

It should work even with malicious nodes.  Thats my take on it.

I think most people that dumped get exactly the point....   It's not trustless now means that coins can be stolen by malicious nodes.  The whole PoSA is fundamentally flawed and needs to be redesigned from the ground up.

So you are saying we cant trust nodes.  Should we trust master nodes then?

[pics4crypto]

So you are saying we cant trust nodes.  Should we trust master nodes then?

any anon alt that deal with nodes (you call it master or not) most likely have the same problem.
Only difference so far is that CLOAK had an audit which showed that it is not trustless ; they identified the problem and they are having the new audit for the new protocol.

"We have already fully described this new protocol in a reproducible technical specification after round the clock efforts by the team. This new specification is being vigorously audited now by both the auditor and the entire development team; we expect the results within the next few days and will be publishing them"

Is there any other alt that had an audit and said that the coin is trustless in fact?

[Sansana]

This coin is starting to remind me of Vertcoin. One of the most advanced and flawless coins there is. And yet, check it's BTC/VTC ratio.
What I think? Whales will destroy any coin that poses a threat to BTC, and CLOAK is going that way. I like cloak, too bad I can't manipulate
the market like they do. I see coins with no dev team getting pumped up, and coins with great dev team beeing dumped down.

[rustynailer]

This coin is starting to remind me of Vertcoin. One of the most advanced and flawless coins there is. And yet, check it's BTC/VTC ratio.
What I think? Whales will destroy any coin that poses a threat to BTC, and CLOAK is going that way. I like cloak, too bad I can't manipulate
the market like they do. I see coins with no dev team getting pumped up, and coins with great dev team beeing dumped down.

It seems like all coins are under attack atm

[Haggisahh]

From what I can remember VTC had to deal with a very high rate of inflation, making the current price unsustainable without consistant high investments.
The issue here is probably a mix of most altcoins stuggling right now, the BTC price plummeting, and a brutal pump and dump.
I doubt we will see the price rising significantly for a while, a lot of people are itching to cut their losses still, but if the developers deliver something this might still be a good, if risky, longterm investment.

Edit: And I seriously doubt there is any "supression" or "attack" going on, its more likely a bunch of people wanting to exit.