strasboug (OP)
|
|
July 30, 2014, 01:03:28 AM |
|
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. Likely this is what happened...
|
|
|
|
ILikeMagicBeans
|
|
July 30, 2014, 05:38:57 PM |
|
lol... a butt hurt Supercoin holder... whatever
|
|
|
|
illodin
|
|
July 30, 2014, 05:42:23 PM |
|
lol... a butt hurt Supercoin holder... whatever Instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks, why don't you try and answer his question. Replies like yours are one of the reasons people get fed up and start straight up trolling.
|
|
|
|
ThePurplePlanet
|
|
July 30, 2014, 05:47:18 PM |
|
No PoS is trustless guys get real. Just their bagholders pumping coins
|
|
|
|
|
newuser01
|
|
July 31, 2014, 10:30:47 AM |
|
No PoS is trustless guys get real. Just their bagholders pumping coins
This Many newcomers don't seem to understand this
|
|
|
|
|
|
strasboug (OP)
|
|
August 01, 2014, 04:01:55 AM |
|
lmao, you try to confuse people?? where in this diagram it shows that it is a trustless system? NONE!
|
|
|
|
strasboug (OP)
|
|
August 01, 2014, 04:02:52 AM |
|
No PoS is trustless guys get real. Just their bagholders pumping coins
Do you understand what is a trustless system at all??
|
|
|
|
Coinster2014
Member
Offline
Activity: 65
Merit: 10
|
|
August 01, 2014, 04:52:29 AM |
|
Here's that explanation: WTF so the only thing I can see is Alty sends the coin to POSA #1 node, the POSA#1 node sends the coin to Joe and then Joe finds a Posa #2 node...then the Posa #2 sends the coin BACK to Joe???
what the hell is the point of that and how is it anonymous?
We're going to make another diagram to explain this better with visuals. The key is things are being sent to temporary addresses. I'll come up with something better soon. Think of it like this. You -> PosA Node #1 -> Receiver (temp address) -> PoSA Node #2 -> Actual Receiver Address PoSa Node #1 and #2 knows its safe to send to the Receiver temp address because of block escrow, a new transaction in the blockchain that is verified by all peers just like how normal transactions are. It's ANON because PoSA Node #2 uses different 'cloak' then what he received to send money to you breaking the trace. You could think of it like this. Bob has $50, wants to send $50 to alice. All his dollars are tainted with the letter B. If you send the money to alice you can see the B's and you know it's from Bob. If the money from PoSA Node#2 came from someone else (different traces) and was sent to the receiver it's Anon. Essentially Alice see's money with different letters on it, say C or something. This is what is happening in the final steps, this does require that the PoSA Nodes actually have the money to send so balance checks would be in place. I asked in the thread, but was completely ignored.... 1. I asked.... How can the #1 rich list address send out anon coins? For that matter... How can the top 10 easily send out anon coins? If it's one transaction, I don't think it's that hard to trace who sent to who especially if you are the large address? 2. Another question is are all the coins sent out as one transaction? So, if I send out some really unique coins amount, isn't it easy to trace? Say 50.12345678... You will see someone send out that exact amount and someone else receiving that exact amount within 10 blocks (# of escrow blocks).
|
|
|
|
Bobsurplus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
Making money since I was in the womb! @emc2whale
|
|
August 01, 2014, 05:12:31 AM |
|
#2 is a fair question. I too would like to know. I imagine it's something maybe like bitcoin fog but faster in the way it sends out coins. Cloakdevs have an answer, and I'd like to hear it but if they don't for whatever reason cant they just use many addressees and send many transactions to different anon addresses. I mean if you break up 50.12345678 into 15 or 20 transactions it would be much harder to trace, and then add to that all the other transactions going on at the same time... Anyway.. I'd like to hear what they gotta say about this.
#1 I;m sure they will be a rule or something in place to turn mega wallets into many little ones and allowing them to take part.
|
|
|
|
Coinster2014
Member
Offline
Activity: 65
Merit: 10
|
|
August 01, 2014, 05:15:42 AM |
|
#2 is a fair question. I too would like to know. I imagine it's something maybe like bitcoin fog but faster in the way it sends out coins. Cloakdevs have an answer, and I'd like to hear it but if they don't for whatever reason cant they just use many addressees and send many transactions to different anon addresses. I mean if you break up 50.12345678 into 15 or 20 transactions it would be much harder to trace, and then add to that all the other transactions going on at the same time... Anyway.. I'd like to hear what they gotta say about this.
#1 I;m sure they will be a rule or something in place to turn mega wallets into many little ones and allowing them to take part.
Yes, I understand that would make sense to break it down. I am just asking because according to the diagram they posted today, that's definitely was not in there. It's just Node #1, Node #2. Oh, also. Wouldn't Node #2 bear the brunt of the responsibility if the receiver does anything illegal with it and authority trace it to Node #2?
|
|
|
|
Bobsurplus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
Making money since I was in the womb! @emc2whale
|
|
August 01, 2014, 05:26:36 AM |
|
#2 is a fair question. I too would like to know. I imagine it's something maybe like bitcoin fog but faster in the way it sends out coins. Cloakdevs have an answer, and I'd like to hear it but if they don't for whatever reason cant they just use many addressees and send many transactions to different anon addresses. I mean if you break up 50.12345678 into 15 or 20 transactions it would be much harder to trace, and then add to that all the other transactions going on at the same time... Anyway.. I'd like to hear what they gotta say about this.
#1 I;m sure they will be a rule or something in place to turn mega wallets into many little ones and allowing them to take part.
Yes, I understand that would make sense to break it down. I am just asking because according to the diagram they posted today, that's definitely was not in there. It's just Node #1, Node #2. Oh, also. Wouldn't Node #2 bear the brunt of the responsibility if the receiver does anything illegal with it and authority trace it to Node #2? I know. I guess we need to wait and see what the new diagram will look like. In the mean time I have full faith in the cloakcamp and I all ready have real world vendors ready to sell good for cloak once the market is live.
|
|
|
|
dfox101
|
|
August 01, 2014, 06:35:50 AM |
|
Interesting diagram. However, the so called "block escrow" does not exist. Does cloak implemented such block? I can see potentially there are problems to make network confirm the block.
|
|
|
|
dfox101
|
|
August 01, 2014, 06:51:24 AM |
|
Also the second top left white box "10 Blocks..." it mentioned Node#1, then Node#2, does not make sense to me. Is it a typo? The Node#2 should be Node#1?
|
|
|
|
greenclover
|
|
August 01, 2014, 07:09:23 AM |
|
The "IF" block does not exist today. Did Cloakcoin implement that? This may be troublesome, as you need to write a temporary block into the formal chain and at some point (say 10 blocks later) rewrite it in permanent form.
Moreover, if the "IF" block exist, how to do you the sender (or whoever created it) write it in good condition? If the sender is a cheater, he can write a false condition that will fail, and Node#1 will stupidly send the coins to Joe, and sender will get his coins back. How can you prevent that? Remember this is an automatic process, no one is going to inspect the blockchain by hand.
Same for Joe, since the 1st coin already in his hand (#1 _POSA address is his, so basically he already got the coin, he can write a fraudulent IF block and get double amount easily).
Conclusion: this will not work as there's nothing force the sender/receiver to behave correctly.
|
|
|
|
dfox101
|
|
August 01, 2014, 07:14:36 AM |
|
The "IF" block does not exist today. Did Cloakcoin implement that? This may be troublesome, as you need to write a temporary block into the formal chain and at some point (say 10 blocks later) rewrite it in permanent form.
Moreover, if the "IF" block exist, how to do you the sender (or whoever created it) write it in good condition? If the sender is a cheater, he can write a false condition that will fail, and Node#1 will stupidly send the coins to Joe, and sender will get his coins back. How can you prevent that? Remember this is an automatic process, no one is going to inspect the blockchain by hand.
Same for Joe, since the 1st coin already in his hand (#1 _POSA address is his, so basically he already got the coin, he can write a fraudulent IF block and get double amount easily).
Conclusion: this will not work as there's nothing force the sender/receiver to behave correctly.
Yes I agree, these are the issues. There's nothing forcing they write good "IF" in the block they post to the network. So this can easily be fraud. Since sender is the one who write IF. So his IF can be to check an address he created, instead of the receiver created address. He is the one who post the "IF" tx to the network, he can do anything he wants.
|
|
|
|
strasboug (OP)
|
|
August 01, 2014, 07:16:50 AM |
|
The "IF" block does not exist today. Did Cloakcoin implement that? This may be troublesome, as you need to write a temporary block into the formal chain and at some point (say 10 blocks later) rewrite it in permanent form.
Moreover, if the "IF" block exist, how to do you the sender (or whoever created it) write it in good condition? If the sender is a cheater, he can write a false condition that will fail, and Node#1 will stupidly send the coins to Joe, and sender will get his coins back. How can you prevent that? Remember this is an automatic process, no one is going to inspect the blockchain by hand.
Same for Joe, since the 1st coin already in his hand (#1 _POSA address is his, so basically he already got the coin, he can write a fraudulent IF block and get double amount easily).
Conclusion: this will not work as there's nothing force the sender/receiver to behave correctly.
Yes I agree, these are the issues. There's nothing forcing they write good "IF" in the block they post to the network. So this can easily be fraud. Since sender is the one who write IF. So his IF can be to check an address he created, instead of the receiver created address. He is the one who post the "IF" tx to the network, he can do anything he wants. Good observations. As I said before, a trustless system needs to have mechanism that forces all parties behave correctly, otherwise it will not work...
|
|
|
|
surgexvb
|
|
August 01, 2014, 07:42:25 AM |
|
The "IF" block does not exist today. Did Cloakcoin implement that? This may be troublesome, as you need to write a temporary block into the formal chain and at some point (say 10 blocks later) rewrite it in permanent form.
Moreover, if the "IF" block exist, how to do you the sender (or whoever created it) write it in good condition? If the sender is a cheater, he can write a false condition that will fail, and Node#1 will stupidly send the coins to Joe, and sender will get his coins back. How can you prevent that? Remember this is an automatic process, no one is going to inspect the blockchain by hand.
Same for Joe, since the 1st coin already in his hand (#1 _POSA address is his, so basically he already got the coin, he can write a fraudulent IF block and get double amount easily).
Conclusion: this will not work as there's nothing force the sender/receiver to behave correctly.
Yes I agree, these are the issues. There's nothing forcing they write good "IF" in the block they post to the network. So this can easily be fraud. Since sender is the one who write IF. So his IF can be to check an address he created, instead of the receiver created address. He is the one who post the "IF" tx to the network, he can do anything he wants. Good observations. As I said before, a trustless system needs to have mechanism that forces all parties behave correctly, otherwise it will not work... This is all speculation. You don't know if there are measures in place. Once PoSA is released, the facts and flaws(if any) will make themselves known.
|
|
|
|
|