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

[marseille]

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/super/block.dws?798861.htm this is the link to the M2 -> R block.

look at the address: CNCWvH4Bknr87a4PgDTRDasSxH4LnzX3iu   

if you look at its outputs.


e9a6f7d23b...   264.6595 SUPER   
CNCWvH4Bknr87a4PgDTRDasSxH4LnzX3iu   132.66 SUPER
CNCWvH4Bknr87a4PgDTRDasSxH4LnzX3iu   66.0 SUPER
CNCWvH4Bknr87a4PgDTRDasSxH4LnzX3iu   66.0 SUPER


you will see that it sends those exact values back to itself. along with two additional 66.0 values, one to the R of the SuperSend. 1 to the S of the supersend.

there is an address that does this in EVERY M2 -> block of the SuperSend process. the address that sends to itself not only outlines how much was send in the super send (oulined by the transaction that is listed twice in this case 66.0) but also the two addresses that recieve that number of coins that arent this address are the S and R addresses. this is a pattern that happens in every SuperSend transaction. and thats how you identify the S and R

Use tx amount to link the transactions?? This only shows you have no knowledge in the anon tx at all. Strasboug described this and an easy way to fix yesterday, you don't read anything else in this thread?? Please read it again.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=736705.msg9608926#msg9608926

Once you have canonical forms, then good luck to match these, especially with a relative big network. BTW, all anon coins (whether centralized or p2p) have the same thing. But this is easily fixable (many proposed ways) and it is not at all an argument that it is not anon (same stupid argument is that look in the same block to relate the unrelated transactions).

Oh well... clearly I am not here to discuss with an expert, but more doing teaching. Forget it. I won't waste my time.

Yes fastrabbit, I am glad at least some people really understand the concepts. Too many fake experts in this domain.

he hasnt been saying anything correct. he was arguing a point that i already agreed with him on, then i just showed him a hole in the code that needs to be fixed. and he told me how to fix it. which i already knew shoud be done. by further developement which is why im here. i never said the current mixer couldnt be fixed to have anon. i just said at this moment it doesnt because there are problems with it.

in fact you both are agreeing with me yet arguing with me over what i am saying are just current problems with it that need to be fixed.

Nope you said everything wrong. First, you made people laugh with your definition of anon (hide all addresses and balances ), then you said multisig tx did nothing, then you try to relate the tx by looking at its coin amount. You know nothing in this domain. Please stop post these, it does not help anything.

Fastrabbit understands what he's talking about. Everyone can read the above discussions

[Griffith]

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/super/block.dws?798861.htm this is the link to the M2 -> R block.

look at the address: CNCWvH4Bknr87a4PgDTRDasSxH4LnzX3iu   

if you look at its outputs.


e9a6f7d23b...   264.6595 SUPER   
CNCWvH4Bknr87a4PgDTRDasSxH4LnzX3iu   132.66 SUPER
CNCWvH4Bknr87a4PgDTRDasSxH4LnzX3iu   66.0 SUPER
CNCWvH4Bknr87a4PgDTRDasSxH4LnzX3iu   66.0 SUPER


you will see that it sends those exact values back to itself. along with two additional 66.0 values, one to the R of the SuperSend. 1 to the S of the supersend.

there is an address that does this in EVERY M2 -> block of the SuperSend process. the address that sends to itself not only outlines how much was send in the super send (oulined by the transaction that is listed twice in this case 66.0) but also the two addresses that recieve that number of coins that arent this address are the S and R addresses. this is a pattern that happens in every SuperSend transaction. and thats how you identify the S and R

Use tx amount to link the transactions?? This only shows you have no knowledge in the anon tx at all. Strasboug described this and an easy way to fix yesterday, you don't read anything else in this thread?? Please read it again.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=736705.msg9608926#msg9608926

Once you have canonical forms, then good luck to match these, especially with a relative big network. BTW, all anon coins (whether centralized or p2p) have the same thing. But this is easily fixable (many proposed ways) and it is not at all an argument that it is not anon (same stupid argument is that look in the same block to relate the unrelated transactions).

Oh well... clearly I am not here to discuss with an expert, but more doing teaching. Forget it. I won't waste my time.

Yes fastrabbit, I am glad at least some people really understand the concepts. Too many fake experts in this domain.

he hasnt been saying anything correct. he was arguing a point that i already agreed with him on, then i just showed him a hole in the code that needs to be fixed. and he told me how to fix it. which i already knew shoud be done. by further developement which is why im here. i never said the current mixer couldnt be fixed to have anon. i just said at this moment it doesnt because there are problems with it.

in fact you both are agreeing with me yet arguing with me over what i am saying are just current problems with it that need to be fixed.

Nope you said everything wrong. First, you made people laugh with your definition of anon (hide all addresses and balances ), then you said multisig tx did nothing, then you try to relate the tx by looking at its coin amount. You apparently knows nothing in this domain. Please stop post these, it does not help anything.

Fastrabbit understands what he's talking about. Everyone can read the above discussions

my definition of anon is basically that equivelent of an iron curtain. nothing gets in or out. i never said multi sig did nothing. you said i said it did nothing. i said its current implementation is bad.

and no im not relying on someone to use the same address for everything., the BE that you use kindly groups all addresses linked to the same wallet as 1 wallet. its a new feature they have. so im not relying on one person using the same address. im relying on that code that is grouping addresses together.

[Griffith]

the end point of all of this is. there is a problem with the current implementation of the SuperSend because it can be traced at the moment and further development of the protocol is needed so that it cant be traced. some members of the community asked me to come here and look at it and continue development. thats the reason i can to this thread/coin.

[marseille]

Both supercoindev and strasboug said there are enhancements to do, but you stated in a wrong way, and from your statements, it is clear that you have no knowledge about it. Anon for coin has a standard definition that each coin follow, it is not you that make the definition, your definition of anon in altcoins is pure and simple WRONG.

[toaster3]

Unfortunately by reading the thread, I don't think Griffith knows enough to take over, but I don't mind if he does trial and error type development, he can become expert maybe in the future. There are way too few good devs for altcoin, and probably if there are they will do their own. Supercoindev is certainly one of the very best.

[Griffith]

Both supercoindev and strasboug said there are enhancements to do, but you stated in a wrong way, and from your statements, it is clear that you have no knowledge about it. Anon for coin has a standard definition that each coin follow, it is not you that make the definition, your definition of anon in altcoins is pure and simple WRONG.

my definition of anon goes beyond yours. that is the only difference

[marseille]

Both supercoindev and strasboug said there are enhancements to do, but you stated in a wrong way, and from your statements, it is clear that you have no knowledge about it. Anon for coin has a standard definition that each coin follow, it is not you that make the definition, your definition of anon in altcoins is pure and simple WRONG.

my definition of anon goes beyond yours. that is the only difference

You can define whatever you want, but unless it is accepted by the altcoin community, it does not mean anything and is simply wrong.

[Griffith]

Both supercoindev and strasboug said there are enhancements to do, but you stated in a wrong way, and from your statements, it is clear that you have no knowledge about it. Anon for coin has a standard definition that each coin follow, it is not you that make the definition, your definition of anon in altcoins is pure and simple WRONG.

my definition of anon goes beyond yours. that is the only difference

You can define whatever you want, but unless it is accepted by the altcoin community, it does not mean anything and is simply wrong.

alright ill just make that definition the next step in anon crypto. feed back from others is always good

[landslide]

Both supercoindev and strasboug said there are enhancements to do, but you stated in a wrong way, and from your statements, it is clear that you have no knowledge about it. Anon for coin has a standard definition that each coin follow, it is not you that make the definition, your definition of anon in altcoins is pure and simple WRONG.

my definition of anon goes beyond yours. that is the only difference

You can define whatever you want, but unless it is accepted by the altcoin community, it does not mean anything and is simply wrong.

alright ill just make that definition the next step in anon crypto. feed back from others is always good

Junk, anyone can define any junk, any use?

[jakiman]

Well that was fun to read.

Maybe it wasn't fun for you Griffith but I really am impressed how you held your calm and replied back without too much fire.
I hope you stay. You need nerves of steel in this tough cryoto world and seems you got some. That's a very good trait.

Also, thanks to everyone else who stepped up to clarify things and confirm that Supercoin's Anon/Multisig code is real deal!

Anyways, out of all this "quality" discussion, we have discovered that:
1. Supercoindev sure knows how to code.
2. Multisig anti-cheat p2p mixing system works brilliantly as it should. Surely this is BIG?
3. It really is 100% ANON as Sender & Receiver are NOT connected in the block explorer. Another WIN.
4. As strasboug stated, it could be improved even further by splitting the tx amounts into common amounts.

Now, let's all try and make this coin go somewhere!

@Supercoindev, any possibility to include all the history of the code?

[Griffith]

Well that was fun to read.

Maybe it wasn't fun for you Griffith but I really am impressed how you held your calm and replied back without too much fire.
I hope you stay. You need nerves of steel in this tough cryoto world and seems you got some. That's a very good trait.

Also, thanks to everyone else who stepped up to clarify things and confirm that Supercoin's Anon/Multisig code is real deal!

Anyways, out of all this "quality" discussion, we have discovered that:
1. Supercoindev sure knows how to code.
2. Multisig anti-cheat p2p mixing system works brilliantly as it should. Surely this is BIG?
3. It really is 100% ANON as Sender & Receiver are NOT connected in the block explorer. Another WIN.
4. As strasboug stated, it could be improved even further by splitting the tx amounts in common amounts.

Now, let's all try and make this coin go somewhere!

@Supercoindev, any possibility to include all the history of the code?

i think i put a bunch of words all in caps somewhere but it got set to all lower tbh. but that was only one post.

but with the last bit of the discussion, without strasboug's suggested improvements it isnt 100% anon yet. that was what the debate was about and boiled down to in the end. and we all pretty much agree on that fact at this point. (i think). its more like 85% at this point. because of that one vulnerability i pointed out earlier. well two. but i didnt go into much detail about the second one because it was more minor.

[jakiman]

i think i put a bunch of words all in caps somewhere but it got set to all lower tbh. but that was only one post.

I saw that. That was fine. I didn't see any personal insults that's for sure. I reckon I would have done worse than you.

but with the last bit of the discussion, without strasboug's suggested improvements it isnt 100% anon yet. that was what the debate was about and boiled down to in the end. and we all pretty much agree on that fact at this point. (i think). its more like 85% at this point. because of that one vulnerability i pointed out earlier. well two. but i didnt go into much detail about the second one because it was more minor.

Well, I can see your point that it can be traced back using tx amounts in certain scenarios.
But it is by definition 100% anon when you can't associate S/R addresses in block explorer.
Being able to narrow down S & R by tracing their tx amount isn't 100% proof now is it?
So yeah, the core function of anon is definitely working in my books. Legally anon enough.

[Griffith]

i think i put a bunch of words all in caps somewhere but it got set to all lower tbh. but that was only one post.

I saw that. That was fine. I didn't see any personal insults that's for sure. I reckon I would have done worse than you.

but with the last bit of the discussion, without strasboug's suggested improvements it isnt 100% anon yet. that was what the debate was about and boiled down to in the end. and we all pretty much agree on that fact at this point. (i think). its more like 85% at this point. because of that one vulnerability i pointed out earlier. well two. but i didnt go into much detail about the second one because it was more minor.

Well, I can see your point that it can be traced back using tx amounts in certain scenarios.
But it is by definition 100% anon when you can't associate S/R addresses in block explorer.
Being able to narrow down S & R by tracing their tx amount isn't 100% proof now is it?
So yeah, the core function of anon is definitely working in my books. Legally anon enough.

fair enough. i can agree to that statement

[jamesclark]

i think i put a bunch of words all in caps somewhere but it got set to all lower tbh. but that was only one post.

I saw that. That was fine. I didn't see any personal insults that's for sure. I reckon I would have done worse than you.

but with the last bit of the discussion, without strasboug's suggested improvements it isnt 100% anon yet. that was what the debate was about and boiled down to in the end. and we all pretty much agree on that fact at this point. (i think). its more like 85% at this point. because of that one vulnerability i pointed out earlier. well two. but i didnt go into much detail about the second one because it was more minor.

Well, I can see your point that it can be traced back using tx amounts in certain scenarios.
But it is by definition 100% anon when you can't associate S/R addresses in block explorer.
Being able to narrow down S & R by tracing their tx amount isn't 100% proof now is it?
So yeah, the core function of anon is definitely working in my books. Legally anon enough.

wow, some good activities here...

why people still query the anon? even not knowing what it is? I read strasboug's message which provided an easy way to get around this problem so you can not make deductions from the amount. Darkcoin implemented the same. People don't understand it so point fingers everywhere, looks silly to me.

[fuze0000]

The more important is this.  Is Supercoin more anonymous than darkcoin?

[monocolor]

Well that was fun to read.

Maybe it wasn't fun for you Griffith but I really am impressed how you held your calm and replied back without too much fire.
I hope you stay. You need nerves of steel in this tough cryoto world and seems you got some. That's a very good trait.

Also, thanks to everyone else who stepped up to clarify things and confirm that Supercoin's Anon/Multisig code is real deal!

Anyways, out of all this "quality" discussion, we have discovered that:
1. Supercoindev sure knows how to code.
2. Multisig anti-cheat p2p mixing system works brilliantly as it should. Surely this is BIG?
3. It really is 100% ANON as Sender & Receiver are NOT connected in the block explorer. Another WIN.
4. As strasboug stated, it could be improved even further by splitting the tx amounts in common amounts.

Now, let's all try and make this coin go somewhere!

@Supercoindev, any possibility to include all the history of the code?

i think i put a bunch of words all in caps somewhere but it got set to all lower tbh. but that was only one post.

but with the last bit of the discussion, without strasboug's suggested improvements it isnt 100% anon yet. that was what the debate was about and boiled down to in the end. and we all pretty much agree on that fact at this point. (i think). its more like 85% at this point. because of that one vulnerability i pointed out earlier. well two. but i didnt go into much detail about the second one because it was more minor.

It's fun to read these messages, like watch the circus

I don't think you get the point of strasboug, he meant that these small bells and whistles can be added easily without compromise the quality of the code. You can always make enhancements (and they are needed), but the base system you design should be anon system, and supercoin is exactly one of such system (that you can't connect source to destination). Of course at this time you can do guessing based on amount and block number etc, but these do not change the fact the coin is anon as these small things can be remediated easily, almost trivially.

Also, you are really brave I have to say, made so many mistakes of the base knowledge but still hang on, it is probably good quality for the coins like supercoin  

[Griffith]

yeah, i know, my initial review when i drew the diagram out on paper and made my first diagnostic of the coin was pretty far off, i made some looping mistakes and thought it was burning off coins by moving them around a lot. but the mixers didnt have the loop i thought they had and this turned out to be not true. that was so bad lol. so yes, i can admit when i thought there were loops in the mixers in this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=736705.msg9605259#msg9605259 i was wrong. i admit that.

the second part was fine though. you can, as the code is right now, find the sender and receiver of the supersend transactions as i corrected myself in this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=736705.msg9615638#msg9615638 and that is completely correct

[kopam]

A healthy discussion is always good, for everyone !

The important part is to find a way to continue developing the coin. If there are more then 1 person willing to help, isnt that even better ?
I mean if Griffith takes over and some one like strasboug offers to help, check for mistakes or whatever, isnt that just a big plus ?

And dont we all agree that the coin needs development for sure. And well since the code is brilliant, lets just make it even better


Isnt it a good idea for Griffith and strasboug  to discuss the code and what they think has to be done. Then send over a plan to supercoindev so he can finally give them all the access needed ?

[fuze0000]

A healthy discussion is always good, for everyone !

The important part is to find a way to continue developing the coin. If there are more then 1 person willing to help, isnt that even better ?
I mean if Griffith takes over and some one like strasboug offers to help, check for mistakes or whatever, isnt that just a big plus ?

And dont we all agree that the coin needs development for sure. And well since the code is brilliant, lets just make it even better


Isnt it a good idea for Griffith and strasboug  to discuss the code and what they think has to be done. Then send over a plan to supercoindev so he can finally give them all the access needed ?

I 100 % agree with this message!

[jakiman]

yeah, i know, my initial review when i drew the diagram out on paper and made my first diagnostic of the coin was pretty far off, i made some looping mistakes and thought it was burning off coins by moving them around a lot. but the mixers didnt have the loop i thought they had and this turned out to be not true. that was so bad lol. so yes, i can admit when i thought there were loops in the mixers in this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=736705.msg9605259#msg9605259 i was wrong. i admit that.

the second part was fine though. you can, as the code is right now, find the sender and receiver of the supersend transactions as i corrected myself in this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=736705.msg9615638#msg9615638 and that is completely correct

For the second part, you've pieced together the sender/receiver by their tx amount. That is called "guessing".
There is no way to be 100% certain that the "guess" you made is correct even if it looks so obvious & matching.
Hence this is still by definition "anonymous" as your method lacks incontrovertible proof of the sender & receiver.

In saying that, yes, the "guess" may be good enough for some and bad enough for those who use it.
At least the method on how this can be improved is already known. (Using canonical values etc.)

At the end of the day, I am happy to support Griffith or any other reputable users here who will continue Supercoin.