|
strasboug (OP)
|
 |
July 28, 2014, 05:00:37 AM
Last edit: July 28, 2014, 05:57:43 AM by strasboug |
|
Well Cloakcoin claimed that their PoSA is a trustless system, but I read their whitepaper in the thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.0It seems to me that this is not at all a trustless system. The reason is that the "elected" nodes have no restrictions at all to follow the rules (i.e. send coins to destination etc), he can change at will the transaction or even steal the coins. So the PoSA is a poorly designed trust system, which trust the "elected" node. Only until they cheated, they may be banned. Creating addresses is easy, so a cheater can simply create a new address, cheat once, then move to another address and cheat again. PoSA is not a trustless system. On the contrary, Supercoin is creating a trustless system by using multisig addresses and transactions. To be a trustless system, you must give restrictions to the middle nodes, so they must follow the rules. From what I read, the SuperCoin achieves this by creating multisig address, as an escrow, each party including middle nodes, have assets in the escrow, so they can't cheat, or they may lose the assets in escrow, which may be bigger than what they cheat. I am not associate with Supercoin or Cloakcoin, the reason I do not post these in Cloakcoin's thread is because their thread is self-mod, so they can delete anything at will. I welcome Cloakcoin dev to discuss here and prove me wrong, as although I am pretty experienced and understand most altcoin details, I could be wrong. But from what I read, I am pretty sure that Cloakcoin PoSA is not a trustless system, but a poorly designed trust system. DUE to many fud, I re-opened the thread with self-mod.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=713836.0 |
|
|
|
|
r0ach
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:09:40 AM |
|
You might want to change the post title to, "Bitcoin itself has failed and is not a trustless system". So how exactly is some fly by night altcoin going to solve what Satoshi didn't? Explanation below: The current Bitcoin model is already an obvious failure while people walk around in a delusional state pretending it isn't. It's advertised as requiring "no trusted 3rd parties", yet the entire thing relies on them in the form of a small number of mining pools for block verification. Since Bitcoin never solved the "no trusted 3rd parties" dilemma, it's time to admit that and come up with a solution, most likely assign a performance metric to regulate those parties (i.e. PoS with reputation variable).
Unless every single iota of Bitcoin dev manpower is redirected towards the solitary goal of getting rid of mining pools, they're operating under the textbook definition of insanity.
|
|
|
|
|
jamesclark
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:10:39 AM |
|
Well Cloakcoin claimed that their PoSA is a trustless system, but I read their whitepaper in the thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.0It seems to me that this is not at all a trustless system. The reason is that the "elected" nodes have no restrictions at all to follow the rules (i.e. send coins to destination etc), he can change at will the transaction or even steal the coins. So the PoSA is a poorly designed trust system, which trust the "elected" node. Only until they cheated, they may be banned. Creating addresses is easy, so a cheater can simply create a new address, cheat once, then move to another address and cheat again. PoSA is not a trustless system. On the contrary, Supercoin is creating a trustless system by using multisig addresses and transactions. To be a trustless system, you must give restrictions to the middle nodes, so they must follow the rules. From what I read, the SuperCoin achieves this by creating multisig address, as an escrow, each party including middle nodes, have assets in the escrow, so they can't cheat, or they may lose the assets in escrow, which may be bigger than what they cheat. I am not associate with Supercoin or Cloakcoin, the reason I do not post these in Cloakcoin's thread is because their thread is self-mod, so they can delete anything at will. I welcome Cloakcoin dev to discuss here and prove me wrong, as although I am pretty experienced and understand most altcoin details, I could be wrong. But from what I read, I am pretty sure that Cloakcoin PoSA is not a trustless system, but a poorly designed trust system. Looks you are right after I glanced through their whitepaper. But their whitepaper is very vague and unclear, missing many critical details. I'd like to see the reply from Cloakcoin dev. |
|
|
|
|
|
jamesclark
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:13:13 AM |
|
You might want to change the post title to, "Bitcoin itself has failed and is not a trustless system". So how exactly is some fly by night altcoin going to solve what Satoshi didn't? Explanation below: The current Bitcoin model is already an obvious failure while people walk around in a delusional state pretending it isn't. It's advertised as requiring "no trusted 3rd parties", yet the entire thing relies on them in the form of a small number of mining pools for block verification. Since Bitcoin never solved the "no trusted 3rd parties" dilemma, it's time to admit that and come up with a solution, most likely assign a performance metric to regulate those parties (i.e. PoS with reputation variable).
Unless every single iota of Bitcoin dev manpower is redirected towards the solitary goal of getting rid of mining pools, they're operating under the textbook definition of insanity.
I guess people talk different thing here. This, if I understand correctly, talks about anonymous transaction where bitcoin does not support anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
strasboug (OP)
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:14:52 AM |
|
You might want to change the post title to, "Bitcoin itself has failed and is not a trustless system". So how exactly is some fly by night altcoin going to solve what Satoshi didn't? Explanation below: The current Bitcoin model is already an obvious failure while people walk around in a delusional state pretending it isn't. It's advertised as requiring "no trusted 3rd parties", yet the entire thing relies on them in the form of a small number of mining pools for block verification. Since Bitcoin never solved the "no trusted 3rd parties" dilemma, it's time to admit that and come up with a solution, most likely assign a performance metric to regulate those parties (i.e. PoS with reputation variable).
Unless every single iota of Bitcoin dev manpower is redirected towards the solitary goal of getting rid of mining pools, they're operating under the textbook definition of insanity.
I guess people talk different thing here. This, if I understand correctly, talks about anonymous transaction where bitcoin does not support anyway. Sorry I may not stated it clearly. Yes this is about the anonymous transactions, I updated the title. Thanks jamesclark. |
|
|
|
|
|
heartastack
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:17:59 AM |
|
Well Cloakcoin claimed that their PoSA is a trustless system, but I read their whitepaper in the thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.0It seems to me that this is not at all a trustless system. The reason is that the "elected" nodes have no restrictions at all to follow the rules (i.e. send coins to destination etc), he can change at will the transaction or even steal the coins. So the PoSA is a poorly designed trust system, which trust the "elected" node. Only until they cheated, they may be banned. Creating addresses is easy, so a cheater can simply create a new address, cheat once, then move to another address and cheat again. PoSA is not a trustless system. On the contrary, Supercoin is creating a trustless system by using multisig addresses and transactions. To be a trustless system, you must give restrictions to the middle nodes, so they must follow the rules. From what I read, the SuperCoin achieves this by creating multisig address, as an escrow, each party including middle nodes, have assets in the escrow, so they can't cheat, or they may lose the assets in escrow, which may be bigger than what they cheat. I am not associate with Supercoin or Cloakcoin, the reason I do not post these in Cloakcoin's thread is because their thread is self-mod, so they can delete anything at will. I welcome Cloakcoin dev to discuss here and prove me wrong, as although I am pretty experienced and understand most altcoin details, I could be wrong. But from what I read, I am pretty sure that Cloakcoin PoSA is not a trustless system, but a poorly designed trust system. Please explain how someone can do this. |
|
|
|
|
stealth923
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:18:04 AM |
|
Just from reading their whitepaper you know the dev's have no idea and its clearly a scam in the anon hype.
The worst thing is their design, Sender-->Phase1-->Phase2-->Reciever. They have not thought about bad actor scenarios AT ALL.
If you have your wallet open and are selected for a Phase 2 node, the receiver can trace the transaction back to you!
I know I wouldnt want to leave my wallet open to be selected as the Phase 2 node to complete an illegal transaction.
The FBI could just start sending coins through the network to itself or another wallet it owns and capture everyone on the network who is a phase 2 node. GAME OVER.
|
|
|
|
|
|
heartastack
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:23:12 AM |
|
Just from reading their whitepaper you know the dev's have no idea and its clearly a scam in the anon hype.
The worst thing is their design, Sender-->Phase1-->Phase2-->Reciever. They have not thought about bad actor scenarios AT ALL.
If you have your wallet open and are selected for a Phase 2 node, the receiver can trace the transaction back to you!
I know I wouldnt want to leave my wallet open to be selected as the Phase 2 node to complete an illegal transaction.
The FBI could just start sending coins through the network to itself or another wallet it owns and capture everyone on the network who is a phase 2 node. GAME OVER.
Just from reading your nonsense it's clear you have not understanding or attempted to understand Cloak's method. You should talk to teh devs in IRC. Bad vector protection has been discussed and protection is being developed. |
|
|
|
|
|
brownmon
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:25:04 AM |
|
Just from reading your nonsense it's clear you have not understanding or attempted to understand Cloak's method. You should talk to teh devs in IRC.
Bad vector protection has been discussed and protection is being developed.
He already acknowledged he could be wrong. Can the devs please reply here, to educate the rest of us reading this thread? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thrillho
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:27:14 AM |
|
Just from reading their whitepaper you know the dev's have no idea and its clearly a scam in the anon hype.
The worst thing is their design, Sender-->Phase1-->Phase2-->Reciever. They have not thought about bad actor scenarios AT ALL.
If you have your wallet open and are selected for a Phase 2 node, the receiver can trace the transaction back to you!
I know I wouldnt want to leave my wallet open to be selected as the Phase 2 node to complete an illegal transaction.
The FBI could just start sending coins through the network to itself or another wallet it owns and capture everyone on the network who is a phase 2 node. GAME OVER.
Not true. Testing for "bad actors" is part of why there's been 20-something PoSA beta wallets. |
|
|
|
|
heartastack
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:27:41 AM |
|
Just from reading your nonsense it's clear you have not understanding or attempted to understand Cloak's method. You should talk to teh devs in IRC.
Bad vector protection has been discussed and protection is being developed.
He already acknowledged he could be wrong. Can the devs please reply here, to educate the rest of us reading this thread? There are 6 dev's for cloak and unlike all the scamcoin hype I'm reading the Cloak dev's are actually busy developing rather than spamming threads. If you have legitimate questions please post in cloak thread and you will be directed. Unfortunately riches don't come to you, you must do work and be patient. But I don't want to stand idle watching threads like these clog up the forum with cloak fud. Shame on you OP. Devs are not your slaves, they do a good deed for humanity. You are PIGS. |
|
|
|
|
djslick
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:27:57 AM |
|
Just from reading their whitepaper you know the dev's have no idea and its clearly a scam in the anon hype.
The worst thing is their design, Sender-->Phase1-->Phase2-->Reciever. They have not thought about bad actor scenarios AT ALL.
If you have your wallet open and are selected for a Phase 2 node, the receiver can trace the transaction back to you!
I know I wouldnt want to leave my wallet open to be selected as the Phase 2 node to complete an illegal transaction.
The FBI could just start sending coins through the network to itself or another wallet it owns and capture everyone on the network who is a phase 2 node. GAME OVER.
 you cracked the code einstein. you get a special internet sticker. |
|
|
|
Bobsurplus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
Making money since I was in the womb! @emc2whale
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:29:43 AM |
|
LOL, supercoin?
Get outa here!
|
|
|
|
|
|
smokim87
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:30:05 AM
Last edit: July 28, 2014, 05:42:01 AM by smokim87 |
|
Well Cloakcoin claimed that their PoSA is a trustless system, but I read their whitepaper in the thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.0It seems to me that this is not at all a trustless system. The reason is that the "elected" nodes have no restrictions at all to follow the rules (i.e. send coins to destination etc), he can change at will the transaction or even steal the coins. So the PoSA is a poorly designed trust system, which trust the "elected" node. Only until they cheated, they may be banned. Creating addresses is easy, so a cheater can simply create a new address, cheat once, then move to another address and cheat again. PoSA is not a trustless system. On the contrary, Supercoin is creating a trustless system by using multisig addresses and transactions. To be a trustless system, you must give restrictions to the middle nodes, so they must follow the rules. From what I read, the SuperCoin achieves this by creating multisig address, as an escrow, each party including middle nodes, have assets in the escrow, so they can't cheat, or they may lose the assets in escrow, which may be bigger than what they cheat. I am not associate with Supercoin or Cloakcoin, the reason I do not post these in Cloakcoin's thread is because their thread is self-mod, so they can delete anything at will. I welcome Cloakcoin dev to discuss here and prove me wrong, as although I am pretty experienced and understand most altcoin details, I could be wrong. But from what I read, I am pretty sure that Cloakcoin PoSA is not a trustless system, but a poorly designed trust system. This thread bound to happen, Looking at your posts you do look like a Supercoin supporter but that doesn't make a difference really. This might be FUD or might be true but if you what you say is true could you show us a demonstration? You claim there's a loophole, an exploit mind doing a demonstration and upload a video showing how this would be done and if its even possible? You might be right or wrong but until this is actually performed then sorry to say this is just an unproven theory. @stealth, I know your a dark supporter and nothing wrong with that, if Bob or whoever is posting FUD on darkcoin's thread doesn't mean you should too, aren't you better than the people doing so? Ignore the FUDers simple as that, hoping this discussion can stay on topic as this helps the development, innovation, evolution of cryptos. Its not always about the money. I am a cloak holder and supporter for the innovations they are doing but FUDing other coins is non-sense, childish and immature. Please show demonstrations. I also agree to the whitepaper, the current paper should be re-written explaining in detail how PoSA works but that doesn't mean it doesn't. I'll try contacting the devs and requesting a more detailed/technical whitepaper on PoSA. Thank you. Edit: Spoke to one of the Devs, a new, more detailed whitepaper is currently being written. |
|
|
|
|
|
YackBallz
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:30:25 AM |
|
Well Cloakcoin claimed that their PoSA is a trustless system, but I read their whitepaper in the thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.0It seems to me that this is not at all a trustless system. The reason is that the "elected" nodes have no restrictions at all to follow the rules (i.e. send coins to destination etc), he can change at will the transaction or even steal the coins. So the PoSA is a poorly designed trust system, which trust the "elected" node. Only until they cheated, they may be banned. Creating addresses is easy, so a cheater can simply create a new address, cheat once, then move to another address and cheat again. PoSA is not a trustless system. On the contrary, Supercoin.... (This is where everyone stopped reading and started doubting the intentions of this ad) There's a lot of guessing in this analysis. |
|
|
|
|
|
strasboug (OP)
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:39:34 AM |
|
Just from reading your nonsense it's clear you have not understanding or attempted to understand Cloak's method. You should talk to teh devs in IRC.
Bad vector protection has been discussed and protection is being developed.
He already acknowledged he could be wrong. Can the devs please reply here, to educate the rest of us reading this thread? There are 6 dev's for cloak and unlike all the scamcoin hype I'm reading the Cloak dev's are actually busy developing rather than spamming threads. If you have legitimate questions please post in cloak thread and you will be directed. Unfortunately riches don't come to you, you must do work and be patient. But I don't want to stand idle watching threads like these clog up the forum with cloak fud. Shame on you OP. Devs are not your slaves, they do a good deed for humanity. You are PIGS. I said why I did not post in cloak thread. I open this thread for the facts, not for stupid fuds like youself. |
|
|
|
|
|
strasboug (OP)
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:41:49 AM |
|
Just from reading your nonsense it's clear you have not understanding or attempted to understand Cloak's method. You should talk to teh devs in IRC.
Bad vector protection has been discussed and protection is being developed.
He already acknowledged he could be wrong. Can the devs please reply here, to educate the rest of us reading this thread? There are 6 dev's for cloak and unlike all the scamcoin hype I'm reading the Cloak dev's are actually busy developing rather than spamming threads. If you have legitimate questions please post in cloak thread and you will be directed. Unfortunately riches don't come to you, you must do work and be patient. But I don't want to stand idle watching threads like these clog up the forum with cloak fud. Shame on you OP. Devs are not your slaves, they do a good deed for humanity. You are PIGS. Why not post the logics how to prevent a middle node from cheating? If he uses Cloak released client, he can never cheat. The problem is that he can create his own client, with same interfaces, and does not do the transaction as described. Does the system have anyway to prevent it? |
|
|
|
|
r0ach
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:41:53 AM |
|
On the contrary, Supercoin....
Supercoin? What about Summerrapecoinv2? |
|
|
|
|
strasboug (OP)
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:43:25 AM |
|
Well Cloakcoin claimed that their PoSA is a trustless system, but I read their whitepaper in the thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.0It seems to me that this is not at all a trustless system. The reason is that the "elected" nodes have no restrictions at all to follow the rules (i.e. send coins to destination etc), he can change at will the transaction or even steal the coins. So the PoSA is a poorly designed trust system, which trust the "elected" node. Only until they cheated, they may be banned. Creating addresses is easy, so a cheater can simply create a new address, cheat once, then move to another address and cheat again. PoSA is not a trustless system. On the contrary, Supercoin.... (This is where everyone stopped reading and started doubting the intentions of this ad) There's a lot of guessing in this analysis. This is true in some sense. But I'd like to see how cheating at middle nodes can be prevented. From the whitepaper, there's no measures at all. |
|
|
|
|
djslick
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:47:20 AM |
|
Just from reading your nonsense it's clear you have not understanding or attempted to understand Cloak's method. You should talk to teh devs in IRC.
Bad vector protection has been discussed and protection is being developed.
He already acknowledged he could be wrong. Can the devs please reply here, to educate the rest of us reading this thread? There are 6 dev's for cloak and unlike all the scamcoin hype I'm reading the Cloak dev's are actually busy developing rather than spamming threads. If you have legitimate questions please post in cloak thread and you will be directed. Unfortunately riches don't come to you, you must do work and be patient. But I don't want to stand idle watching threads like these clog up the forum with cloak fud. Shame on you OP. Devs are not your slaves, they do a good deed for humanity. You are PIGS. I said why I did not post in cloak thread. I open this thread for the facts, not for stupid fuds like youself. AAAAAAAAAAAAAND GOODNIGHT /THREAD (anyone else who posts here is an accessory at this point, this is going nowhere) |
|
|
|
|
