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

[fuze0000]

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?

I 100% agree with you.  We should tweet cryptoCobain again.

[fastrabbit]

I agree with you too. But it sometimes discouraging to see the posts that are completely out of the rack. We really need a good dev and a good leader of the community to lead the supercoin. Supercoindev/supercointeam did a good job, unfortunately they had to leave, I respect their decisions but just hope the community will find great leaders.

[Bank_sy]

https://twitter.com/anonymouscoin/status/535883289866014720

"@tradesace I don't have time to browse the code, but let me know if there is any design documentation for the "anonymous multisig"

Is there a design documentation that we can provide him?

[Ticked]

https://twitter.com/anonymouscoin/status/535883289866014720

"@tradesace I don't have time to browse the code, but let me know if there is any design documentation for the "anonymous multisig"

Is there a design documentation that we can provide him?

I imagine the white paper would do the trick.

[Griffith]

https://twitter.com/anonymouscoin/status/535883289866014720

"@tradesace I don't have time to browse the code, but let me know if there is any design documentation for the "anonymous multisig"

Is there a design documentation that we can provide him?

you can show him this SuperSend trace.


EXAMPLE 1: BLOCK 798861

send wallet: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/super/address.dws?SPrq8J6vRpy5QZz3AE1TxUiYvfeto3AhqY.htm
SUPERSEND transaction block:  https://chainz.cryptoid.info/super/block.dws?798861.htm
reciever: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/super/address.dws?Sh6BvAWyrMfL8W6wNZG3qx9pfZ8KRwnmpc.htm

"Ghost" wallets to make it "harder" to follow. these are given away by not actually having a valid wallet generated super address. YES the address is a valid address. but it starts with a letter not S like all the other super addresses
1: CNCWvH4Bknr87a4PgDTRDasSxH4LnzX3iu


so whats the pattern? :
in a super block the "Ghost" wallet will have multiple outputs, and identical inputs. as you can see in example 1. it send out 66, 66, and 132 super coins. and then gets them right back...
-so whats the significance?

nothing. all it does is tell you in the amount that is shown twice, how much was sent in the SuperSend.

-ok so you still dont know where its coming from?

ah, but yes you do. if you look in the outputs (the people getting coins) you will see two additional transactions for that identical amount (66). that means one of those is the sender, and one is the receiver. how to tell the difference is click there wallet and check which one got half of what they sent back.

-so this was a one time conicidence, that doesnt prove anything.


EXMAPLE 2: BLOCK 798908

send wallet: same
SUPERSEND transaction block:  https://chainz.cryptoid.info/super/block.dws?798908.htm
reciever: same

"Ghost" wallets to make it "harder" to follow. these are given away by not actually having a valid wallet generated super address. YES the address is a valid address. but it starts with a letter not S like all the other super addresses
1: CNCWvH4Bknr87a4PgDTRDasSxH4LnzX3iu

same pattern. but as you can see this time, the amount is 50. not 66. again 1 wallet sending to itself X amount twice and Y amount once. and on the other side, 4 transactions with X amount. one is the sender, one is reciever. click on the wallet to see which one got half a transaction back and thats the sender.


any questions on why i call this a mixer and not anon?

i would like to appologize. my initial sense of what it was doing was wrong. i traced the code wrong and got stuck in a loop i thought it went through but didnt actually send it through, testing it on the actual BE i found my mistake in what i wrote down on my notes paper from when i went over the code.

[Fierce]

clap clap clap clap clap

[mdtspain]

We where asked to help this community, because the dev left. We where willing to help, but only receive insults from all sides.
We have no time for this and will continue to develop our coins.

I think that the community is just fine with the way how things are going with this coin and it also seems that there is enough knowledge in the community to secure continuation of the coin without us helping you out.

Good luck with the coin and with the dev.

[Ticked]

We where asked to help this community, because the dev left. We where willing to help, but only receive insults from all sides.
We have no time for this and will continue to develop our coins.

I think that the community is just fine with the way how things are going with this coin and it also seems that there is enough knowledge in the community to secure continuation of the coin without us helping you out.

Good luck with the coin and with the dev.

Yes, there was 1 insult, which I agree, was far out of line.  But on the whole, we're happy to have had you interested.

We're anything but 'fine with how' things are going here. All we've been looking for is a present team with a development roadmap.

If you choose to leave so quickly, so be it & good luck to you, but if you see a potential use for Super + MWC technology as Griffith had stated, please reconsider.  Any progress is beneficial.

[Griffith]

We where asked to help this community, because the dev left. We where willing to help, but only receive insults from all sides.
We have no time for this and will continue to develop our coins.

I think that the community is just fine with the way how things are going with this coin and it also seems that there is enough knowledge in the community to secure continuation of the coin without us helping you out.

Good luck with the coin and with the dev.

Yes, there was 1 insult, which I agree, was far out of line.  But on the whole, we're happy to have had you interested.

We're anything but 'fine with how' things are going here. All we've been looking for is a present team with a development roadmap.

If you choose to leave so quickly, so be it & good luck to you, but if you see a potential use for Super + MWC technology as Griffith had stated, please reconsider.  Any progress is beneficial.

we would work on the coin, but it seems half of the community is split at the moment. due to the debate on whether or not the current coin mixes or is anon, which i think i proved a few posts up as clearly as i could as to why i consider it mixing. and because of my statements on the anon subject,  it seems that a lot of people to want to find another dev (i am refering to the tweets and asking for cryptoCobain)

[Fierce]

@griffith so are you saying that you do not consider the coin anon? Also, we want you to work and develop the coin. Some community members hold more influence than others. We have been here for a long time. We have weathered the storm and we welcome your involvement, sirs

[Ticked]

We where asked to help this community, because the dev left. We where willing to help, but only receive insults from all sides.
We have no time for this and will continue to develop our coins.

I think that the community is just fine with the way how things are going with this coin and it also seems that there is enough knowledge in the community to secure continuation of the coin without us helping you out.

Good luck with the coin and with the dev.

Yes, there was 1 insult, which I agree, was far out of line.  But on the whole, we're happy to have had you interested.

We're anything but 'fine with how' things are going here. All we've been looking for is a present team with a development roadmap.

If you choose to leave so quickly, so be it & good luck to you, but if you see a potential use for Super + MWC technology as Griffith had stated, please reconsider.  Any progress is beneficial.

we would work on the coin, but it seems half of the community is split at the moment. due to the debate on whether or not the current coin mixes or is anon, which i think i proved a few posts up as clearly as i could as to why i consider it mixing. and because of my statements on the anon subject,  it seems that a lot of people to want to find another dev (i am refering to the tweets and asking for cryptoCobain)

CryptoCobain was once lined up to review the code, not work on it.  This was months ago. Now that it is open source, I figured why not have him look.  More eyes on the source, the more accurate the consensus on the technology.

I believe the tweet you are referring to was this post, 

https://twitter.com/anonymouscoin/status/535883289866014720

"@tradesace I don't have time to browse the code, but let me know if there is any design documentation for the "anonymous multisig"

Is there a design documentation that we can provide him?

This isn't a developer searching tweet, simply looking for code review here. Having another anon specialist review the code and its functionality is only good for the reputation of the coin. Attempts to get the code vetted by multiple sources is in the best interest of all parties involved.



I see your point in your above post about the mixing. It does seem counter intuitive to label Supersend addresses differently.  Thats the exact opposite of obscuring details...  It also sounds like something that could be changed.  As for the trace-ability, I'll wait for someone more technically astute to step in,  I'm but a mere investor brain.

[Griffith]

@griffith so are you saying that you do not consider the coin anon? Also, we want you to work and develop the coin. Some community members hold more influence than others. We have been here for a long time. We have weathered the storm and we welcome your involvement, sirs

i do not beleive it is anon. if you follow the links i have posted here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=736705.msg9615638#msg9615638 and read the explanation you will see why i consider it a mixer and not anon.

we would agree to take over and continue developement of the coin. in a fashion that if the community wants something done, we do it. otherwise we find new ways to do something ourselves and then ask for feedback. but the original dev has to agree otherwise the exchanges wont follow the new source updates and the coin will die because of different wallet codes (or at least break down / slow down)


EDIT: my bad, i thought that tweet was asking him to develop. i can explain what the code is doing in pure technical talk if you want me to. ive been trying to simplify everything i say to a level where someone who doesnt understand c++ would understand. but i can just tech explain it if that is desired

[fuze0000]

We where asked to help this community, because the dev left. We where willing to help, but only receive insults from all sides.
We have no time for this and will continue to develop our coins.

I think that the community is just fine with the way how things are going with this coin and it also seems that there is enough knowledge in the community to secure continuation of the coin without us helping you out.

Good luck with the coin and with the dev.

Yes, there was 1 insult, which I agree, was far out of line.  But on the whole, we're happy to have had you interested.

We're anything but 'fine with how' things are going here. All we've been looking for is a present team with a development roadmap.

If you choose to leave so quickly, so be it & good luck to you, but if you see a potential use for Super + MWC technology as Griffith had stated, please reconsider.  Any progress is beneficial.

we would work on the coin, but it seems half of the community is split at the moment. due to the debate on whether or not the current coin mixes or is anon, which i think i proved a few posts up as clearly as i could as to why i consider it mixing. and because of my statements on the anon subject,  it seems that a lot of people to want to find another dev (i am refering to the tweets and asking for cryptoCobain)

Griffith and mdtspain please stay.  Certain members have more pull that others.  A group effort is what supercoin needs the most.

[Fierce]

I also vote stay

EDIT- Does not mixing make it untraceable and therefore anon? The concept behind supercoin is that you can purchase something with the same anonymity as something like cash, is this true or false?

[Griffith]

I also vote stay

EDIT- Does not mixing make it untraceable and therefore anon? The concept behind supercoin is that you can purchase something with the same anonymity as something like cash, is this true or false?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=736705.msg9615638#msg9615638

that trace shows that, the mixing makes it obvious what the real transaction is.

so having both the send and recieve addresses shown in the mixed transaction, you can trace the flow of coins. and it isnt anon anymore. just mixing

[Ticked]

I also vote stay

EDIT- Does not mixing make it untraceable and therefore anon? The concept behind supercoin is that you can purchase something with the same anonymity as something like cash, is this true or false?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=736705.msg9615638#msg9615638

that trace shows that, the mixing makes it obvious what the real transaction is.

so having both the send and recieve addresses shown in the mixed transaction, you can trace the flow of coins. and it isnt anon anymore. just mixing

Is this something that can be altered? Perhaps delay one of the transactions, or any other solution?

[Griffith]

yes, i believe it can be fixed. it would change the way supersend works a bit. but it should work.

[Hollowman338]

Just an observer here, but a community rejection of griffith would be foolish.  You all have what appears to be a quality dev here.  I'd try to not let the more excitable elements in the supercoin community fuck that up.

[Ticked]

Just an observer here, but a community rejection of griffith would be foolish.  You all have what appears to be a quality dev here.  I'd try to not let the more excitable elements in the supercoin community fuck that up.

I couldn't agree more. Think before you post people.

yes, i believe it can be fixed. it would change the way supersend works a bit. but it should work.

Would love to here your proposal. If the proposed change is something that changes how SuperSend fundamentally works, I think it is important that there is a consensus among the technical folk here that the change is for the good.

As for,

we would agree to take over and continue developement of the coin. in a fashion that if the community wants something done, we do it. otherwise we find new ways to do something ourselves and then ask for feedback. but the original dev has to agree otherwise the exchanges wont follow the new source updates and the coin will die because of different wallet codes (or at least break down / slow down)

I'm not well attuned to know these working details of managing a coin.  I hope this is something that can be worked out, but I dont see it as being a huge hurdle for supercoindev.

EDIT: my bad, i thought that tweet was asking him to develop. i can explain what the code is doing in pure technical talk if you want me to. ive been trying to simplify everything i say to a level where someone who doesnt understand c++ would understand. but i can just tech explain it if that is desired

I appreciate the layman's terms honestly, it's what the masses need. Talk tech with those who understand it, i.e. strasburg, CryptoCobain, and Kristov Atlas.  I actually think it would be very beneficial for you to discuss with these folk how you see the code & how it could potentially be altered to be a step towards true anon. Cobain & Atlas are recognized names & have a decent following. This exposure could be important depending on their view of our technology.  Super needs a rep to talk to these kind of people.  I gladly would, but the subject matter is far over my head.

[kopam]

I totally vote to pick Griffith and his team, there is simply NO better way for Supercoin at this point.
They are a dedicated team that is willing to help us, it would be not just foolish but suicidal for this community to reject them !

It does not matter if supercoin is fully anon or not, what matters is that the code is great ( as they confirmed ) and is working, on top of that it can be fixed to become more anon !

WE HAVE TO DO THAT, or the coin will die.

And with all of us giving respect to the old dev i have to say that even if he does not agree on some points. The community should vote and if needed go for a takeover ! The simple reason is that he stated that he has no time for the coin, so even if he does not agree on something, he will NOT do anything to fix it. So a new dev IS NEEDED or the coin will die.

The source code is out there, the new dev team said they are willing to take over the coin and develop it.

Now is the time for this community to decide ! Do you wanna see supercoin survive ? Do you wanna see supercoin have a future ? Do you wanna see supercoin grow. DECIDE NOW and state your vote !