|
CryptoGretzky
|
 |
June 25, 2014, 03:23:05 PM |
|
DONT LISTEN TO KRYTOGRETZKY HE ACCUSES EVERY COIN BEING A SCAM . GET LOST!
I am not calling it a scam... yet... These are questions that I am sure many people have in their heads... I hold quite a bit of burn myself... and I must know if I should dump or hold. Wait... so you are sending an actual wallet.dat?
So... wouldn't the wallet be able to be intercepted in the middle and isn't now the centralization (single failure and attack vector) into your BurnerConnect server?
Who runs the BurnerConnect server and how do we trust it not to then steal the wallet?
Also, how does it bypass the blockchain if you have coins sitting in your address? How do those coins magically gets recorded in the blockchain that it got moved? If it's not in the blockchain... how do you prevent double spending?
ps. Name one coin that I called a scam not ending up being a scam.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
Uran0s
|
|
June 25, 2014, 03:27:07 PM |
|
I am sure dev will explain everything, relax. What about multipool? Any progress ? We have 2 excellent anon features, multipool coming and we will be added on polo soon. Wish good luck everyone  |
|
|
|
|
BTCNeverSleeps
Member
 Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
June 25, 2014, 03:30:15 PM |
|
Hmm... then we have a problem, Houston...
We are talking about using MSN messenger/Skype like connection USING direct IP address to send a wallet.dat file anon now!??! So, you can't receive coins if you are offline?!?!?
I think that is why the dev said it is an advanced feature and he is using both Tor and BurnerConnect. Think about it for a minute. Lets say you are my brother and I want to send you 10BTC worth of Burner and do not want anyone else to know. BurnerConnect is perfect for that solution. I m sure the dev will go further in details soon |
|
|
|
|
solid12345
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 25, 2014, 03:31:37 PM |
|
Sometimes the simplest solution is the best, so many anon coins come up with these Rube Goldberg solutions for anonymity that look like the opening scene of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure.
|
|
|
|
|
BTCNeverSleeps
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
June 25, 2014, 03:37:54 PM |
|
Sometimes the simplest solution is the best, so many anon coins come up with these Rube Goldberg solutions for anonymity that look like the opening scene of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure.
+1000 I agree |
|
|
|
|
|
Uran0s
|
|
June 25, 2014, 03:38:31 PM |
|
Seems like we got another scam coin here... be very cautious with this one.
At last, if FUDERS arrives, burn will rise! I've been waiting for this moment ;]. News are spread, more eyes are concentaded on burn now. BTW 4,6 BTC buy wall, nasty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
schiavonxv
|
|
June 25, 2014, 03:41:39 PM |
|
I can't play BurnerGame.
I have a LG G2 16GB
|
|
|
|
BTCNeverSleeps
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
June 25, 2014, 03:44:24 PM |
|
Seems like we got another scam coin here... be very cautious with this one.
At last, if FUDERS arrives, burn will rise! I've been waiting for this moment ;]. News are spread, more eyes are concentaded on burn now. BTW 4,6 BTC buy wall, nasty. It never fails! This technology is so simple it is brilliant. Nothing about this seems like a scam. Sending a file or files from one client to another is very simple, any coder with experience can code that. I am willing to bet other developers will copy his idea now. No wonder why he didn't announce this earlier. |
|
|
|
|
|
Subtuppel
|
|
June 25, 2014, 03:44:49 PM |
|
I read this on twitter.
please explain how
person 1 starts:
wallet a sends to wallet b
then person 1 sends wallet b to person 2
person 2 imports == wallet b is sent into wallet c
is anon? there is just one tx in the middle and a 3 year old can track that.
|
|
|
|
BTCNeverSleeps
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
June 25, 2014, 03:52:42 PM |
|
I read this on twitter.
please explain how
person 1 starts:
wallet a sends to wallet b
then person 1 sends wallet b to person 2
person 2 imports == wallet b is sent into wallet c
is anon? there is just one tx in the middle and a 3 year old can track that.
We have to wait until the dev explains more. We are all jumping to conclusions. Who knows what is happening before it is sent to person B. |
|
|
|
|
|
Liquid71
|
|
June 25, 2014, 03:53:47 PM |
|
Razor already has tor..and nobody wants to play an Android game that you need to buy a crypto coin to play. Fail
|
|
|
|
dukeneptun
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 25, 2014, 03:54:51 PM |
|
I read this on twitter.
please explain how
person 1 starts:
wallet a sends to wallet b
then person 1 sends wallet b to person 2
person 2 imports == wallet b is sent into wallet c
is anon? there is just one tx in the middle and a 3 year old can track that.
We need more FUD. LOL Why just not wait for more details?  |
|
|
|
|
BTCNeverSleeps
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
June 25, 2014, 04:00:15 PM |
|
Razor already has tor..and nobody wants to play an Android game that you need to buy a crypto coin to play. Fail
I guess you didn't read his announcement. He is implementing two anon technologies. Tor and BurnerConnect. FUD...FUD...FUD |
|
|
|
|
BTCNeverSleeps
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
June 25, 2014, 04:12:49 PM |
|
Everything the dev promised he came through on. Please making jokes about the Android game but it is a unique way to drive people to the site and start asking about Burner. CoinDesk will most likely write about this.
|
|
|
|
|
CryptElious
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
June 25, 2014, 04:48:08 PM |
|
Today I have a few announcements and some surprises!
The closed beta of the new BurnerCoin wallet begins today. I want to thank everyone who sent me a pm requesting to be part of the beta! I have selected 10 beta testers and they will received the new wallets shortly after this announcement.
http://i61.tinypic.com/b63p6q.png
In my announcement on Monday I wrote we have been working on new technologies and today I would like to announce our new feature BurnerConnect will be enabled in the beta. BurnerConnect is a separate feature than Tor and we are considering it an advanced option.
BurnerConnect is a new anonymity feature that allows a sender to send BurnerCoins to a receiver via a direct tcp/ip connection! This method bypasses the blockchain and sends a specially created wallet to the receiver. The connections are established directly and no central server is needed.
How BurnerConnect will work...
1. The receiver gives the sender his/hers special BurnerConnect address. This address is a specially formatted version of the receivers IP address. Example: 102.32.91.42 = cxy-sy-mt-ry
2. The sender enters the receiver's BurnerConnect address into the new wallet.
3. The sender enters the amount he/she is sending and clicks send.
4. A new Burner wallet is created and the BurnerCoins are transfered to the new wallet.
5. A secured connection is then established with the receiver. The sender does not have access to the receiver BurnerCoins.
6. The new wallet is then sent to the receiver via the BurnerConnect connection. The blockchain is bypassed completely!
7. The receiver's client opens the wallet automatically and the BurnerCoins are now added.
8. The connection is immediately disconnected once the wallet is received.
We felt sending wallets/coins in this manner have numerous benefits for both the sender and the receiver. There are no central servers and exchanges needed for this technology. It is as simple as sending an email, and there is no record of the transfer in the blockchain.
BurnerConnect is up and running, and the beta testers will be able to use BurnerConnect along with Tor today!
I may be a bit new to Crypt coins / currencies but it does not seem like a good idea to break a transaction outside of the blockchain. How is the transaction validated? If the coins are truly outside of the block chain and the owner goes to sell them on an exchange, how does the exchange validate them? If they are outside of the block chain, how do you tell if they are counterfeit or not. It also begs the question if a coin can be moved in and out of the block chain does that call into question the validity of the block chain itself. Seems to me that moving coins in and out of the block chain opens the block chain to all sorts of potential shenanigans. I don't see the anonymity in this. IP traffic is super easy to trace. So, I dont see where the anonymity comes in here. Matter of fact this seems less anonymous than if the transaction was simply left in the block chain. But what do I know. I'm a noob. But, sure would like to understand better. Thanks |
|
|
|
|
mikesrevenge
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 25, 2014, 04:53:08 PM |
|
They are not outside the blockchain..
Its like taking your wallet.dat and emailing it to someone else.
They open it, and have access to the coins located on the blockchain as they were before.
The coins are on the blockchain, but they never move.
|
|
|
|
|
gorgo
Member
Offline
Activity: 111
Merit: 10
|
|
June 25, 2014, 04:57:22 PM |
|
I am sorry but either this explanation of burner connect is bogus
or it is a really bad idea in many ways
1. The Blockchain is always involved in a transaction (if you know how cryptocurrencies work you might understand why)
2. this does not add any kind of anonimity
3. it requires you to trust the sender since he created the wallet address and could be keeping the priv. key to tranfer the coins somewhere else before you have a chance to do so
4. why not just create the wallet on the receiver side. Would be more secure (no priv. key over the wire, even if its ssl encrypted) and trustless (burnerconnect seems here like a complicated way to achieve a simple thing)
5. internet connection of the receiver could break down
|
|
|
|
|
gorgo
Member
Offline
Activity: 111
Merit: 10
|
|
June 25, 2014, 04:59:23 PM |
|
They are not outside the blockchain..
Its like taking your wallet.dat and emailing it to someone else.
They open it, and have access to the coins located on the blockchain as they were before.
The coins are on the blockchain, but they never move.
that would require you to already have the exact amount of coins you want to send in a wallet address |
|
|
|
|
BTCNeverSleeps
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
June 25, 2014, 05:07:12 PM |
|
I am sorry but either this explanation of burner connect is bogus
or it is a really bad idea in many ways
1. The Blockchain is always involved in a transaction (if you know how cryptocurrencies work you might understand why)
2. this does not add any kind of anonimity
3. it requires you to trust the sender since he created the wallet address and could be keeping the priv. key to tranfer the coins somewhere else before you have a chance to do so
4. why not just create the wallet on the receiver side. Would be more secure (no priv. key over the wire, even if its ssl encrypted) and trustless (burnerconnect seems here like a complicated way to achieve a simple thing)
You and everyone else are making assumptions. The dev has not gone into details and gave a simple explanation. 1. The Blockchain is always involved in a transaction (if you know how cryptocurrencies work you might understand why) If the client is sending the wallet.dat or something similar, technically it is avoiding the blockchain. If I create a wallet and put 50 burnercoins in it, and then I email you that wallet, there is no trace of me sending you that 50 burnercoins in the blockchain. 2. this does not add any kind of anonimity That depends on what he is doing before he sends the file. 3. it requires you to trust the sender since he created the wallet address and could be keeping the priv. key to tranfer the coins somewhere else before you have a chance to do so That is if the users has access to that information. Maybe the dev is encrypting the file. 4. why not just create the wallet on the receiver side. Would be more secure (no priv. key over the wire, even if its ssl encrypted) and trustless (burnerconnect seems here like a complicated way to achieve a simple thing) Think about your solution, that wouldn't work. |
|
|
|
|
|
