Cloakcoin's PoSA is not a trustless system for anonymous transaction

[YackBallz]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I can't give you my eyes or my experiences; you'll just have to use it and find out for yourself.
You can be fair or not.
You're posting a special thread claiming a theory as fact. Calling people out. That's a lot of effort.
Now please tell us more about supercoin again.

[Majormax]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I can't give you my eyes or my experiences; you'll just have to use it and find out for yourself.
You can be fair or not.
You're posting a special thread claiming a theory as fact. Calling people out. That's a lot of effort.
Now please tell us more about supercoin again.

As far as I can see, the method by which Supercoin moves to a trustless system is unclear. I have rewritten some of the OP explanation in a general way but the dev has not confided in me regarding exact detail..Unproven, but not disproven.

Cloakcoin's system is far more advanced  in it's development, and therefore obviously has more market value. However, anonymous systems are all very much experimental atm. No doubt there are many more on the drawing board.

I don't see the case for denigrating any coin at this stage.

[kitaco]

AnonyMint has a good overview of why Cloakcoin is snake oil:

Flaws I see in the white paper:

1. Non-zero transaction fees.

2. PoS, i.e. does nothing to deal with centralization of mining.

3. The anonymization is flawed. It relies on two mining nodes not sharing their knowledge of which transactions correlate to which inputs received by the network. That is a fundamentally flawed concept that I dismissed long enough with my analysis of DarkCoin, because mining nodes can be Sybil attacked (the adversary can flood the network with mining nodes). It gets worse with PoS because those with the largest stake have the most mining nodes, thus your anonymity is for sale (or hackers can target with spyware those nodes with the highest stake).

Worse yet, if the first peer of the two has seen the transactions then it doesn't matter how the second peer rearranges them, so the entire thing is trivially defeated.  Assuming the senders of the transactions are encrypting them for the final peer, then the problem is as you add stages/hops (the paper proposes to double the stages) the system can be attacked with transaction spam since the transactions aren't verified until they are decrypted at the final peer. I assume you could ban IP addresses if sending nodes can't enter the network at-will.

Also, a cryptographic whitepaper without a single piece of algebra to prove a claim indicates it is written by people who do not understand cryptography. I wouldn't trust such a whitepaper.

A+

[rethink-your-strategy]

Cloakcoin's system is far more advanced  in it's development, and therefore obviously has more market value. However, anonymous systems are all very much experimental atm. No doubt there are many more on the drawing board.

I don't see the case for denigrating any coin at this stage.

Anonymous systems are experimental, but the cryptography behind the ones that work is widely understood by computer scientists and cryptographers.

The following is a short list (off the top of my head) of coins with "anonymous systems" that are invented by a software developer and have no basis in cryptography: DarkCoin, SummerCoin, CloakCoin, StealthCoin, SuperCoin, KoreCoin, VootCoin, Pesa, BitStar, PinkCoin, DarkCash, Navajo, Razor, ESportsCoin, DoomCoin, GuerillaCoin, XanonCoin.

Any of these coins can redeem themselves by, quite simply, putting out a whitepaper that has the mathematics for their proposed cryptographically firm anonymous transaction system. There doesn't have to be a lot of maths, but at the very least it needs to use algebra to express the anonymity set and prove mathematically that this set is both intractable and resistant to a reduction of the set by observation over time or Sybil attacks or similar. In fact, the vast majority, if not all, of the "anonymous systems" employed by coins mentioned above are open to Sybil attacks by an attacker that is not particularly well equipped or even particularly clever.

If any of them do put out such a whitepaper I'm sure there are cryptographers and mathematics majors here that will peer review it.

Failing that, don't buy into a coin just because it has a "whitepaper" with walls of text designed to impress. Most of them are just outrightly full of shit.

[strasboug]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I can't give you my eyes or my experiences; you'll just have to use it and find out for yourself.
You can be fair or not.
You're posting a special thread claiming a theory as fact. Calling people out. That's a lot of effort.
Now please tell us more about supercoin again.

As far as I can see, the method by which Supercoin moves to a trustless system is unclear. I have rewritten some of the OP explanation in a general way but the dev has not confided in me regarding exact detail..Unproven, but not disproven.

Cloakcoin's system is far more advanced  in it's development, and therefore obviously has more market value. However, anonymous systems are all very much experimental atm. No doubt there are many more on the drawing board.

I don't see the case for denigrating any coin at this stage.

If you said the implementation stage, yes. But if you implement with a wrong tech, then it does not mean anything the implementation stage is more advanced, because it did not achieve what it claimed and it is useless. The Cloakcoin whitepaper did not have anything to make people believe that it can be a trustless system, and from all the requests here the dev can not provide such theoretical method, so I'd say it is simply did not implement the trustless system, or the dev does not understand what is a trustless system.

[socket]

Anybody can postulate all day long about PoSA and try to advance theories that it's likely flawed.  I assure you strasboug you're not the first person to bring this up. Personally, I'm not sure how this doesn't apply to Darkcoin as well. You send coins to the mixer. You "trust" the mixer is following the rules and handles your coins properly. The difference with PoSA is that since all staking nodes are involved the ability to attack the network is only as strong as your staking power in the network.

I know for a fact that Cloakcoin's PoSA developers are in fact aware of the concept of "bad actors".  It'll be addressed fully and the developers are actively looking for experts in the field to audit their code. It's not easy to get the time of people who are well known in the field.  But, all this is part of the development process.

But, this thread really amounts to a whole lot of nothing as far as I can see.  It's a theory that Cloakcoin development has somehow missed a fatal flaw in their system.  I doubt that.

[Bobsurplus]

It's pretty simple. There are a lot of smart people on these forums, way smarter then myself. I can promise you with all the tough competition out there someone will try to break PoSA. And That's why I love this place. If it's flawed, which I doubt, I'm sure on of the supercoin or darkcoin community members will try to point it out.

Gotta love a free open market.

[strasboug]

Anybody can postulate all day long about PoSA and try to advance theories that it's likely flawed.  I assure you strasboug you're not the first person to bring this up. Personally, I'm not sure how this doesn't apply to Darkcoin as well. You send coins to the mixer. You "trust" the mixer is following the rules and handles your coins properly. The difference with PoSA is that since all staking nodes are involved the ability to attack the network is only as strong as your staking power in the network.

I know for a fact that Cloakcoin's PoSA developers are in fact aware of the concept of "bad actors".  It'll be addressed fully and the developers are actively looking for experts in the field to audit their code. It's not easy to get the time of people who are well known in the field.  But, all this is part of the development process.

But, this thread really amounts to a whole lot of nothing as far as I can see.  It's a theory that Cloakcoin development has somehow missed a fatal flaw in their system.  I doubt that.

Talking at surface level blah blah does not help. The question is very simple: show us what has been used to prevent cheating, what methodology, what technique. I feel like I am talking to a bunch of kids, who have no idea on what I am talking about, who have no idea what is a trustless system and what people need to do there to make such system. I read and re-read the "whitepaper", there's virtually nothing there. Come on guys, if you are serious about making a trustless system, at least you know what I am talking about, and show us any related information. It is not difficult at all if you actually did such system.

[socket]

Talking at surface level blah blah does not help. The question is very simple: show us what has been used to prevent cheating, what methodology, what technique. I feel like I am talking to a bunch of kids, who have no idea on what I am talking about, who have no idea what is a trustless system and what people need to do there to make such system. I read and re-read the "whitepaper", there's virtually nothing there. Come on guys, if you are serious about making a trustless system, at least you know what I am talking about, and show us any related information. It is not difficult at all if you actually did such system.

I think that's the whole point.  No one has enough information to pass judgement.  Well, except you... it's not trustless, case closed.  But, by your own definition of trustless, Darksend+ would also not be trustless, no?

[slapper]

It's pretty simple. There are a lot of smart people on these forums, way smarter then myself. I can promise you with all the tough competition out there someone will try to break PoSA. And That's why I love this place. If it's flawed, which I doubt, I'm sure on of the supercoin or darkcoin community members will try to point it out.

Gotta love a free open market.

You are one clever cookie aren't you.

You have been faggoting in the Darkcoin thread for more than a month. Now you and some of the CloakTrolls are playing or want to play victim.

Can someone tell me, why there are still people investing in darkcoin? Seems silly to me with a few other anon options out there who are doing it way better then darkcoin.

Anyone care to explain?

Just the first occurrence amongst a continuous barrage of FUD posts on the unmoderated Darkcoin thread, because, well it is unmoderated and you can.

Now after riling up Darkcoin for more than month and pumping Cloakshit on every Anon wannabe coin that came up after Darkcoin success, you are consistently having them all fight with each other by trolling their thread while the Cloackshit scamcoin is an unmoderated thread to delete all posts not conforming to their standards.

When all said and done, you, MoosaNYC, toolio, all LTC bagholders pump and dump anon wannabe coins, split up the market by sowing pipedreams in scamcoin threads you are pumping, are safe for a bit longer right?

Why the fuck does anyone want this scamcoin when Anonymity is working already in CryptoNote coins. This scamcoin is valued higher than Boolberry? What a fucking joke.

[fisheater]

Anybody can postulate all day long about PoSA and try to advance theories that it's likely flawed.  I assure you strasboug you're not the first person to bring this up. Personally, I'm not sure how this doesn't apply to Darkcoin as well. You send coins to the mixer. You "trust" the mixer is following the rules and handles your coins properly. The difference with PoSA is that since all staking nodes are involved the ability to attack the network is only as strong as your staking power in the network.

I know for a fact that Cloakcoin's PoSA developers are in fact aware of the concept of "bad actors".  It'll be addressed fully and the developers are actively looking for experts in the field to audit their code. It's not easy to get the time of people who are well known in the field.  But, all this is part of the development process.

But, this thread really amounts to a whole lot of nothing as far as I can see.  It's a theory that Cloakcoin development has somehow missed a fatal flaw in their system.  I doubt that.

Talking at surface level blah blah does not help. The question is very simple: show us what has been used to prevent cheating, what methodology, what technique. I feel like I am talking to a bunch of kids, who have no idea on what I am talking about, who have no idea what is a trustless system and what people need to do there to make such system. I read and re-read the "whitepaper", there's virtually nothing there. Come on guys, if you are serious about making a trustless system, at least you know what I am talking about, and show us any related information. It is not difficult at all if you actually did such system.

Strasboug, you are wasting your time there. Clearly they have no idea on what is a trustless system and how to do it, otherwise they'd proudly tell you all the information. Your conclusion is correct on PoSA.

Many altcoins claimed buzz word without understanding what it means. I'd suggest you go to "development and tech discussions" section of this forum if you want to clarify any details. There are many more qualified people there.

[johnd7]

What a hype, Cloak, stupid amateurs. They don't know even meaning of trustless.

[socket]

I'm pretty sure I understand the meaning of the word trustless when used in relation to distributed system.

So far the only argument that it's not trustless is based on the scenario of tainting the network with bad actors.  This is a pretty generic problem in distributed systems.  It's nothing mind blowing or original.  The same applies to almost all the current proposed anonymous transactions systems.

[strasboug]

I'm pretty sure I understand the meaning of the word trustless when used in relation to distributed system.

So far the only argument that it's not trustless is based on the scenario of tainting the network with bad actors.  This is a pretty generic problem in distributed systems.  It's nothing mind blowing or original.  The same applies to almost all the current proposed anonymous transactions systems.

Yes the bitcoin actually solves the trustless system. But we talk here the anonymous transaction trustless system. Again in order to do it, you need to put forceful measures so no middle nodes (or even sender node) can cheat. The algorithm of these forceful measures and tech used are the key. This is the key consideration when building a trustless system. When nothing is mentioned about this, you can assume that it is probably not even thought about, and in consequence you can not believe what is claimed there.

[fluffypony]

So far the only argument that it's not trustless is based on the scenario of tainting the network with bad actors.  This is a pretty generic problem in distributed systems.  It's nothing mind blowing or original.  The same applies to almost all the current proposed anonymous transactions systems.

Except that with Bitcoin you can trust a mined transaction after a few confirmations, despite not trusting anyone on the network. Bitcoin solved the BGP (Byzantine General's Problem) using the blockchain. Doing it anonymously requires ingenuity and extreme cleverness in the fields of software development, mathematics, and cryptography.

[socket]

Yes, I agree with all this. I think PoSA solves part of this puzzle by incorporating the use of staking nodes as part of the system. This is a pretty neat idea.  No,  that's not a solution to the problem in of itself... which is why I'm saying let's cool our jets a bit. The full design of the system is unknown. In time if it's to be taken seriously more details will become known and analyzed. But, I think the thread implies that the system is inherently flawed.

[strasboug]

Yes, I agree with all this. I think PoSA solves part of this puzzle by incorporating the use of staking nodes as part of the system. This is a pretty neat idea.  No,  that's not a solution to the problem in of itself... which is why I'm saying let's cool our jets a bit. The full design of the system is unknown. In time if it's to be taken seriously more details will become known and analyzed. But, I think the thread implies that the system is inherently flawed.

Yes this is a fair statement. The anonymous transaction trustless system can be solved, in my opinion, by using multisig technologies, that's why I watch closely the supercoin's phase 2 implementation. As for Cloakcoin, yes I agree it is a nice feature to incorporate staking nodes, it certainly advances our understanding of the system, but  it does not solve the anon tx trustless system as it claimed.

[strasboug]

Strasboug, you are wasting your time there. Clearly they have no idea on what is a trustless system and how to do it, otherwise they'd proudly tell you all the information. Your conclusion is correct on PoSA.

Many altcoins claimed buzz word without understanding what it means. I'd suggest you go to "development and tech discussions" section of this forum if you want to clarify any details. There are many more qualified people there.

Thanks fisheater

[illodin]

Talking at surface level blah blah does not help. The question is very simple: show us what has been used to prevent cheating, what methodology, what technique. I feel like I am talking to a bunch of kids, who have no idea on what I am talking about, who have no idea what is a trustless system and what people need to do there to make such system. I read and re-read the "whitepaper", there's virtually nothing there. Come on guys, if you are serious about making a trustless system, at least you know what I am talking about, and show us any related information. It is not difficult at all if you actually did such system.

Well that's because you are.  

Strasboug, you are wasting your time there. Clearly they have no idea on what is a trustless system and how to do it, otherwise they'd proudly tell you all the information.

+1


The reason there is no answer however, is likely that they are currently trying to think how to solve the problem.

[some138]

interesting discussions