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

[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.

+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]

lol... a butt hurt Supercoin holder... whatever

[illodin]

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]

No PoS is trustless guys get real. Just their bagholders pumping coins

[illodin]

Now someone (I'm not sure he is a dev but it appears so) is giving some information:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.msg8115799#msg8115799
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.msg8115919#msg8115919
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.msg8115986#msg8115986

Seems like there will be more details in the future, as it's still being designed:

It sounds like it will be a problem.  Is there are technical description of the protocol available yet?

No, if I gave you a white paper today it would be out of date tomorrow.

[newuser01]

No PoS is trustless guys get real. Just their bagholders pumping coins

This

Many newcomers don't seem to understand this

[smokim87]

As promised a more technical whitepaper has been posted a few minute ago. Its a diagram explaining how POSA works:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.msg8128502#msg8128502

[smokim87]

Another update from one of the devs and little clarification on the diagram:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.msg8128786#msg8128786

[strasboug]

As promised a more technical whitepaper has been posted a few minute ago. Its a diagram explaining how POSA works:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.msg8128502#msg8128502

lmao, you try to confuse people?? where in this diagram it shows that it is a trustless system? NONE!

[strasboug]

No PoS is trustless guys get real. Just their bagholders pumping coins

Do you understand what is a trustless system at all??

[Coinster2014]

Another update from one of the devs and little clarification on the diagram:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.msg8128786#msg8128786

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]

#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]

#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]

#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]

As promised a more technical whitepaper has been posted a few minute ago. Its a diagram explaining how POSA works:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.msg8128502#msg8128502

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.