[ANN][SUPERCOIN] Unique Most Advanced Anonymous Trustless Multisig Technology

[Griffith]

alright guys, we have looked at the code and fully understand what it is doing, i am going to try and contact the supercoin dev to see if he has left some of the code out because based on the description of what he says it does it seems like he might have left a part of the code missing for privacy. i am also going to ask them to release the usernames / passwords for the  BitcoinTalk, FB, twitter, etc accounts so that we can takeover management of the PR for the coin as well.

I doubt you really understand the code. The code is complete and I did not miss out or leave out any code. Please compile the code and run it. Use debugger as I suggested before if you need more details about workflow etc.

Again, let me be clear:
1. The code I released is the complete code for supercoin 3.1.1.
2. It compiles and runs as the executables we released a few months back
3. No garbage talks about code that it is not right, not correct, not implemented etc (all healthy comments are welcomed), as the wallet has been running for many months without any problems
4. I don't have time to walk through the code with people, just read the code (there will be people who understand the code, this code is not for mediocre "devs" - they can't write any code like this anyway. Otherwise you will see many coins having new techs like supercoin). If you can't figure out the code (there are many logic/workflows inside), then use debugger to follow the flows.
5. There maybe some posts on "reviews" of the code, citing this wrong and that wrong, the community can believe whatever they want, but just remember that the supercoin wallet 3.1.1 has been working very well and very fast for many months, this is the fact and the code in its entirety is released now. So it is your choice to believe in fact or some "devs" "reviews" - this is actually the main reason I released the code to public, instead of letting some incompetent people to own and comment at will at my code.

Anyway, I won't be there often, and in general I wont reply to comments and messages (especially fuds). If you really get into the code and have some detail questions (which proves that you are a competent dev), I may be able to help if I have time.

I will take a leap of faith and stand by supercoindev as long as they keep showing the supercoin community useful attention.

Note: I released the complete code for phase 2 - p2p anonymous system with multisig technologies (Supercoin version 3.1.1). In the code you will see some limited comments too (I did not have time to put detailed comments in code).
There's also a codebase for 2.x which is the centralized mixer system. I don't think there's a need to release the code, as it is considered as a common and obsolete technology, which many other coins (such as Blackcoin) used too (though my implementation is unique and from scratch). Therefore I won't release this part of the code.

since you say you have released all of it. id like to point something out. your code does not do anon. it just mixes transactions around, passing them through side nodes to get to the real destination. its basically like taking the scenic route when driving instead of staying on the main highway.

let me explain why i dont think supersend fits what the average person thinks of when they hear anon.

SuperSend will be abriviated to SS for the following:

SS has a max of 1000 coins per transaction. ok, thats fine. it has a 1% Additional fee. umm ok. and a max fee of .05 super. ok.

what your mixer system is doing. and it is very well designed btw. is taking the 100 coins. + fees. sending it through multiple mixing nodes until the 1% fee has been used up as transaction fees by the network to pass from mixing node to mixing node, and then it hits its destination. there is a few more complicated sig signs and fails in that process, but im explaining it for the average person.
There is a shortened version in your explaination paper of SS as A->X->B where as is the sender. X is a sum of all the mixing nodes it hits. and B is the intended recipient. it will jump as many times as is needed to burn the 1% to hit the intended mark with the amount the user intended to send them.

the reason why i dont call this anon, is because if you look at the BE, there is a nice neat richlist all sorted out. and if you REALLY wanted to. you can click on there wallets, find SS transactions and trace them back to the sender by clicking on the blocks and tx IDs of the mixer nodes. Annoying? yes. anon? no.

what i consider anon, and i get the feeling most people do think of anon as the same thing, is that if the transaction is sent with anon it cant be traced back to the sender. we all know of course that, with computers because of the way they work, TRUE anon is impossible. but we all want to get as close as we can.

what i did with multishift for MWC was i actually changed the wallet addresses when a transaction sends. as a result, the richlist compilations for that coin are complete shambles/gibberish (assuming the user uses MutliShift for all of their transactions). to clarify it changes the sending address, not the recieving so no you dont have to look to see what your new address is every time someone wants to send you coins.

ideally, i think a good anon solution is a mix between what the two coins have. you built a good mixing system. i have addresses actually changing themselves. and i will probably do that for the coins next.


TL;DR you have a mixing system, not anon. SuperSend transactions are traceable after X number jumps. i will post an example of this later.


EDIT: the super send also delays the transactions a considerable number of blocks before it actually hits its destination

[supercoindev]

First of all...we compiled the code allready...nobody said that that wasn't possible...we have the MAC wallets ready
Second...wait a bit Griffith will tell you excatly what the code does.
Third...you don't know him...so no need for insults

please don't waste time and no joke, I know what my code does, I don't need other people to tell me. Again if you don't understand the code, use debugger.

And, for those who don't understand, please read the white papers, they explain clearly how this works and why it is the p2p anonymous system.

[supercoindev]

and for those who said it is not an anonymous system, do a transaction and try to figure out the source, it is not difficult. The system uses random nodes to create multisig address, so when there are enough participating nodes, you will not be able to pinpoint the source. Also it is easy to use a random address from each party to create the multisig address, I did not implement it due to time constraint, but it is trivial to do so. All explaned in the whitepapers.

Anyway, no more jokes, I won't have time to answer them.

[toaster3]

and for those who said it is not an anonymous system, do a transaction and try to figure out the source, it is not difficult. The system uses random nodes to create multisig address, so when there are enough participating nodes, you will not be able to pinpoint the source. Also it is easy to use a random address from each party to create the multisig address, I did not implement it due to time constraint, but it is trivial to do so. All explaned in the whitepapers.

Anyway, no more jokes, I won't have time to answer them.

yes you did a great job, though I don't understand all the code, I know it works fine with my client

[timerland]

and for those who said it is not an anonymous system, do a transaction and try to figure out the source, it is not difficult. The system uses random nodes to create multisig address, so when there are enough participating nodes, you will not be able to pinpoint the source. Also it is easy to use a random address from each party to create the multisig address, I did not implement it due to time constraint, but it is trivial to do so. All explaned in the whitepapers.

Anyway, no more jokes, I won't have time to answer them.

yes you did a great job, though I don't understand all the code, I know it works fine with my client

Agree good job supercoindev and thank you!

[Ticked]

do a transaction and try to figure out the source, it is not difficult.

Isnt this the definition of not anon?  Hoping you meant 'it is difficult'

The system uses random nodes to create multisig address, so when there are enough participating nodes, you will not be able to pinpoint the source.

Or is this to say that when the supercoin network is large enough, the level of pseudoanonymity will be heightened. More potential random mixing nodes = higher difficulty in discerning sender.

[kopam]

I would really like to see everyone working for the coin to do good, and not just fight over whats better.

Supercoindev did a great job and Griffith's dev team agrees on that, they say the code is great. Supercoindev will be leaving the coin as he does not have time for it, we all should respect that.

So why not just give out the BTC,facebook, twitter etc accounts to the new dev team and let them do their best for the coin.

I think its pretty obvious that the community wants them to take over and work on supercoin, so lets do it !

[fuze0000]

I just want Supercoin to be successful!

[kopam]

I just want Supercoin to be successful!

same here !

[jakiman]

Griffith acknowledged the skills of the multisig code used.
If it's not true-anon (is there one anyways), that OK. If it is, awesome!
At the end, I doubt anyone actually uses it a lot anyways.
It's more about the trust in the dev's coding skills that drives coins prices & community confidence.

No code is usually perfect. Every coder generally has a different way of doing things.
Also, it's open source now! It's open so it can be improved, tweaked by others!

It should not be about my coding skills is better than yours.

[marseille]

do a transaction and try to figure out the source, it is not difficult.

Isnt this the definition of not anon?  Hoping you meant 'it is difficult'

The system uses random nodes to create multisig address, so when there are enough participating nodes, you will not be able to pinpoint the source.

Or is this to say that when the supercoin network is large enough, the level of pseudoanonymity will be heightened. More potential random mixing nodes = higher difficulty in discerning sender.

For the 1st thing I think supercoindev meant "it is not difficult to try a transaction and see whether you can find its source"

For the 2nd, it is not easy to see the re-used multisig address, if the network is big enough. The supercoin transaction to the destination is sent through an address by mixer which does not even participate in the generation of the multisig address, therefore it is simply impossible to trace the source, as the mixer received his coins from a different one that participate the multisig address.

For those who claimed that supercoin does not support anonymous transaction, I am 100% sure that they understand nothing about the code, nor do they understand the white papers.

[Griffith]

do a transaction and try to figure out the source, it is not difficult.

Isnt this the definition of not anon?  Hoping you meant 'it is difficult'

The system uses random nodes to create multisig address, so when there are enough participating nodes, you will not be able to pinpoint the source.

Or is this to say that when the supercoin network is large enough, the level of pseudoanonymity will be heightened. More potential random mixing nodes = higher difficulty in discerning sender.

For the 1st thing I think supercoindev meant "it is not difficult to try a transaction and see whether you can find its source"

For the 2nd, it is not easy to see the re-used multisig address, if the network is big enough. The supercoin transaction to the destination is sent through an address by mixer which does not even participate in the generation of the multisig address, therefore it is simply impossible to trace the source, as the mixer received his coins from a different one that participate the multisig address.

For those who claimed that supercoin does not support anonymous transaction, I am 100% sure that they understand nothing about the code, nor do they understand the white papers.

i said it wasnt anon and was just mixing very well instead. i fully understand the code and his use of the message command system.

[strasboug]

Very nice supercoindev published the code. Thank you!

I went through the code quickly, well written code with a lot complex flows that I will try to understand later. Clearly supercoindev is an expert in multisig and he fixed code errors in the multisig related sections. The Bitcoin has the good multisig codebase, all rest altcoins except this one have the wrong code that certain multisig operations do not work.

Clearly the supercoin code support the anonymous transaction. The send address and receive address are not connected so can not be linked by looking at the explorer. One could try to use the tx amount to figure out the paths, such as if you send 1.234567 SUPERs and look in the explorer, you may be able to match unrelated addresses together. But if there are another tx with same amount, then it is absolutely not possible to figure out. Also, this issue can be fixed easily. I am sure supercoindev is aware of its solution and since he spent only 1 month on the coding, he likely did not have time to implement these minor features. By the way, this problem exist in almost all anon coins.

Fix is very simple: just break down the amount into "canonical" values. For example, we can have 1, 5, 10, 25, 50, etc as canonical values and the remaining part randomly split into 3 parts. So 27=25+1+1 and 42.25 = 25 + 10 + 5 + 1 + 1 + 0.11 + 0.06 + 0.08, and these split amount being sent each time. I saw some coins like DarkCoin claimed they did it, not tested it myself, but this is a common way. Also in the supercoin code supercoindev already implement the amount split algorithm, so this is almost noting to fix in the supercoin code.

Excellent job supercoindev, you are one of the very few devs in altcoins that are really competent!

[strasboug]

do a transaction and try to figure out the source, it is not difficult.

Isnt this the definition of not anon?  Hoping you meant 'it is difficult'

The system uses random nodes to create multisig address, so when there are enough participating nodes, you will not be able to pinpoint the source.

Or is this to say that when the supercoin network is large enough, the level of pseudoanonymity will be heightened. More potential random mixing nodes = higher difficulty in discerning sender.

For the 1st thing I think supercoindev meant "it is not difficult to try a transaction and see whether you can find its source"

For the 2nd, it is not easy to see the re-used multisig address, if the network is big enough. The supercoin transaction to the destination is sent through an address by mixer which does not even participate in the generation of the multisig address, therefore it is simply impossible to trace the source, as the mixer received his coins from a different one that participate the multisig address.

For those who claimed that supercoin does not support anonymous transaction, I am 100% sure that they understand nothing about the code, nor do they understand the white papers.

i said it wasnt anon and was just mixing very well instead. i fully understand the code and his use of the message command system.

I don't think you get the code, see my comments above.

Or, maybe we have different definitions about "anon", why not you state what is anon from your point of view? Mixing is one way to achieve anon as far as I understand.

[Griffith]

do a transaction and try to figure out the source, it is not difficult.

Isnt this the definition of not anon?  Hoping you meant 'it is difficult'

The system uses random nodes to create multisig address, so when there are enough participating nodes, you will not be able to pinpoint the source.

Or is this to say that when the supercoin network is large enough, the level of pseudoanonymity will be heightened. More potential random mixing nodes = higher difficulty in discerning sender.

For the 1st thing I think supercoindev meant "it is not difficult to try a transaction and see whether you can find its source"

For the 2nd, it is not easy to see the re-used multisig address, if the network is big enough. The supercoin transaction to the destination is sent through an address by mixer which does not even participate in the generation of the multisig address, therefore it is simply impossible to trace the source, as the mixer received his coins from a different one that participate the multisig address.

For those who claimed that supercoin does not support anonymous transaction, I am 100% sure that they understand nothing about the code, nor do they understand the white papers.

i said it wasnt anon and was just mixing very well instead. i fully understand the code and his use of the message command system.

I don't think you get the code, see my comments above.

Or, maybe we have different definitions about "anon", why not you state what is anon from your point of view? Mixing is one way to achieve anon as far as I understand.

if i follow the richlist from person to person i can see who has what coins. for what i see, if there is anon in a coin. the richlist wouldnt be able to exist in such a way where you can see what wallets have most of the coins.

[strasboug]

do a transaction and try to figure out the source, it is not difficult.

Isnt this the definition of not anon?  Hoping you meant 'it is difficult'

The system uses random nodes to create multisig address, so when there are enough participating nodes, you will not be able to pinpoint the source.

Or is this to say that when the supercoin network is large enough, the level of pseudoanonymity will be heightened. More potential random mixing nodes = higher difficulty in discerning sender.

For the 1st thing I think supercoindev meant "it is not difficult to try a transaction and see whether you can find its source"

For the 2nd, it is not easy to see the re-used multisig address, if the network is big enough. The supercoin transaction to the destination is sent through an address by mixer which does not even participate in the generation of the multisig address, therefore it is simply impossible to trace the source, as the mixer received his coins from a different one that participate the multisig address.

For those who claimed that supercoin does not support anonymous transaction, I am 100% sure that they understand nothing about the code, nor do they understand the white papers.

i said it wasnt anon and was just mixing very well instead. i fully understand the code and his use of the message command system.

I don't think you get the code, see my comments above.

Or, maybe we have different definitions about "anon", why not you state what is anon from your point of view? Mixing is one way to achieve anon as far as I understand.

if i follow the richlist from person to person i can see who has what coins. for what i see, if there is anon in a coin. the richlist wouldnt be able to exist in such a way where you can see what wallets have most of the coins.

lmao, richlist has nothing to do with anon. Anonymous coin does not mean you don't see wallet address and the coins under it. Anonymous coin means that in transferring coins you can't tell which is the source from the destination or vice versa. Therefore you can't trace the flow of the coins. Anonymity never intends to hide the wallet address and its balance.

So it is ok to have richlist of a coin, as richlist does not mean anything, it simply shows balance of an address (and its transactions). A person can have 3 addresses belonging to him in the richlist, or have none in the richlist but he has most of the coins. I can have 10 addresses in the same wallet.dat with 10 mil SUPER yet each address won't have more than say 1.2 mil, no-one knows these addresses all belong to me (actually I can easily create 50 addresses under the same wallet.dat, I know someone has over 100 addresses in the same wallet.dat (to cheat some free distributed coins based on address) - as long as I partition the coins among them, the richlist will not show any address even I hold most of the coins).

Even people know one address belong to me, as long as they can not trace where I send the coins to or what is the true source that send me coin, I have my privacy.

 

[fastrabbit]

do a transaction and try to figure out the source, it is not difficult.

Isnt this the definition of not anon?  Hoping you meant 'it is difficult'

The system uses random nodes to create multisig address, so when there are enough participating nodes, you will not be able to pinpoint the source.

Or is this to say that when the supercoin network is large enough, the level of pseudoanonymity will be heightened. More potential random mixing nodes = higher difficulty in discerning sender.

For the 1st thing I think supercoindev meant "it is not difficult to try a transaction and see whether you can find its source"

For the 2nd, it is not easy to see the re-used multisig address, if the network is big enough. The supercoin transaction to the destination is sent through an address by mixer which does not even participate in the generation of the multisig address, therefore it is simply impossible to trace the source, as the mixer received his coins from a different one that participate the multisig address.

For those who claimed that supercoin does not support anonymous transaction, I am 100% sure that they understand nothing about the code, nor do they understand the white papers.

i said it wasnt anon and was just mixing very well instead. i fully understand the code and his use of the message command system.

I don't think you get the code, see my comments above.

Or, maybe we have different definitions about "anon", why not you state what is anon from your point of view? Mixing is one way to achieve anon as far as I understand.

if i follow the richlist from person to person i can see who has what coins. for what i see, if there is anon in a coin. the richlist wouldnt be able to exist in such a way where you can see what wallets have most of the coins.

lmao, richlist has nothing to do with anon. Anonymous coin does not mean you don't see wallet address and the coins under it. Anonymous coin means that in transferring coins you can't tell which is the source from the destination or vice versa. Therefore you can't trace the flow of the coins. Anonymity never intends to hide the wallet address and its balance.

So it is ok to have richlist of a coin, as richlist does not mean anything, it simply shows balance of an address (and its transactions). A person can have 3 addresses belonging to him in the richlist, or have none in the richlist but he has most of the coins. I can have 10 addresses in the same wallet.dat with 10 mil SUPER yet each address won't have more than say 1.2 mil, no-one knows these addresses all belong to me (actually I can easily create 50 addresses under the same wallet.dat, I know someone has over 100 addresses in the same wallet.dat (to cheat some free distributed coins based on address) - as long as I partition the coins among them, the richlist will not show any address even I hold most of the coins).

Even people know one address belong to me, as long as they can not trace where I send the coins to or what is the true source that send me coin, I have my privacy.

 
The altcoin is a Wild West for brave people, even without the knowledge on what is anonymous coin, people pretend to be expert and review the code of the most sophisticated and the only p2p anonymous coin?? How brave today's people are, which reminds me an old Chinese proverb: The ignorant is fearless (无知者无畏)!

BTW, great job supercoindev, and thanks for releasing the source code.

[digi123]

Griffith quote
"if i follow the richlist from person to person i can see who has what coins. for what i see, if there is anon in a coin. the richlist wouldnt be able to exist in such a way where you can see what wallets have most of the coins. "


I'm not a coder but I even know that this is a ridiculous statement.

The idea is that you can send coins from one place to another without the coins being traced back to you.
If a coin can't be traced back to the sender then it is an annonomous send simple as that. And when this coin was being tested it was reported that this is indeed the case.



For wallets to be anonymous they have to be able to be implimented without a blockchain.

However your wallet is infact annonomous becouse the blockchain just shows which address end up with the coins AND not who OWNS THEM.

You can send a heap of coins to a wallet anonymously and no one will know where they came from, but they exist in that wallet and on the blockchain.

It's not like a bank account with your name on it.



Also if you want to purchase anything anonymously , when a vendor uses this coin, you can do so by using a different name along with this coin.

[Fierce]

So if griffith does not know what anon is he obviously cannot develop the most sophisticated anon coin. Are we continuing to look for a new dev now!?

[Ticked]

Point 1.

So if griffith does not know what anon is he obviously cannot develop the most sophisticated anon coin. Are we continuing to look for a new dev now!?

If a person misunderstands, it isn't to say that the person CAN'T understand. Griffith seems to understand HOW the code operates. He simply defined true anon above and beyond what we, the community, were expecting. Griffith is stating anon for wallets, when this is a user issue/non-issue. It is not detrimental for a balance of an address to be known, nor was it ever a clear aim of future to obscure balances. What we want is transactional anonymity via whatever means necessary.  According to Mr. strasboug, supercoindev has accomplished exactly that via decentralized anonymously chosen mixers,

Clearly the supercoin code support the anonymous transaction. The send address and receive address are not connected so can not be linked by looking at the explorer. One could try to use the tx amount to figure out the paths, such as if you send 1.234567 SUPERs and look in the explorer, you may be able to match unrelated addresses together. But if there are another tx with same amount, then it is absolutely not possible to figure out.

No matter what, due to the nature of how computers work, some of the responsibility of truly anonymous untraceable transactions lands on the user. SUPER has seemingly accomplished what they set out to do. F'ing Kudos!

Further, Strasboug, thank you for your insight, I genuinely hope you stick around in the Super world, you appear to have a brain that could help craft a healthy developmental future.



Point 2.
On another note....

the wallet has been running for many months without any problems

Although it appears to run fine once up and running, the below predicament should be one of the first things on the roadmap eliminated....

I am new to Supercoin community. I downloaded windows wallet v3.1.1.0 and cannot get it sync. Is it the current wallet?

Hi, yes it's the current wallet. Can you give me more information...what is your current block, how many connections do you have?

I have just compiled the v3.1.1.0 wallet for MAC users....I am also syncing

I will also buy some Supercoin when the wallet has synced.

Michael

Blockcount ZERO

On page 1 there is a SuperCoin.conf file. Copy that and put it in the SuperCoin Dir

(depending on OS):

Windows: %APPDATA%\SuperCoin\
Linux: ~/.SuperCoin/
Mac: ~/Library/Application Support/SuperCoin/

If you are on windows, be sure that the file is saved as .conf . Windows doesn't like to save .conf files

Why make it more difficult to initially compile a wallet than it needs to be?  Automate this part of the install asap. This simple hurdle has caused multiple confusion posts over the past few months and in the coming, if we are to try to build our user base, will only result in more easily avoidable confusion/FUD.


Point 3.
There have been multiple posts about fighting in the thread. People, its only fighting if we choose to escalate it to that level.   This coin is in a pivotal point in its history, discussions with different viewpoints only strengthen the view of the community long term.  Its healthy to voice ideas and have the worthwhile ones weeded out. Let's think in the view of DISCUSSION, not ARGUMENT.

Point 4.
Previously, we had the attention of CryptoCobain & he was ready to review the code.  Now that it has been open sourced, is it time to reach out to him again?