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

[fuze0000]

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.

Wise words that I can live by!

[1714757656]

1714757656

[1714757656]

1714757656

[1714757656]

1714757656

[1714757656]

1714757656

[1714757656]

1714757656

[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

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.

my point was that it was less of a random guess and more of an educated assumption if it happens every single time. but yes that can and should be fixed

[fuze0000]

It is always refreshing to see individuals with High IQs debating for the betterment of supercoin.

[landslide]

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

your 2nd part is way off too, see above messages from marseille, strasboug, and many others.

[pgb]

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

your 2nd part is way off too, see above messages from marseille, strasboug, and many others.

marseille, strasboug, supercoin, supercoindev all French, same English level ... . Could more than one be the same person? the intensity of the discussion was dying so ...

I like Griffith and the way he behaves and reacts to accusations. He may not be Satoshi but all here accusing and attacking aren't Satoshi either. So, if I had a vote I would go with Griffith, at least until Satoshi turns up to help us

[strasboug]

I really see no need a "dev" with no knowledge on this to "take over". Forget it, better let more comptent people like strasboug to take over, if he has time of course. Strasboug seems to understand details.

"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.

Please, don't make people laugh any more, do you have any knowledge about the multisig? You seem to be surprised that the multisig address starts with "C" and not "S", did you read anything in this thread? If you never read it, check the 2nd post of this thread, it has all the details and a detailed example. BTW, do you know for BTC the multisig address starts with which letter? (hint: not "1" of course).

First you show people your understanding of "anon", now "multisig", will this end at all or you just want to continue to act like a joker??

Fastrabbit, thank you for the great summary of the tech used in supercoin and recommended me. Though I am very much interested in the tech and watch closely all the related development, I won't have enough time to take over as dev, as I know it is a commitment that needs a lot time. I admire supercoindev who did a perfect job before.

Also, as many of us saw, supercoin still have many things to be improved. But, based on tx amount to guess the links and say supercoin is not anon is clearly wrong. As I mentioned in an earlier message, this is easily fixable and considered as nothing from tech point of view. From tech side, it is important to know if there's a systematic way to link the source to destination, and you can not do this in supercoin, so it is an anon coin, no question on it. For all other anon coins, you can do the same guessing, "guessing" is not an argument here.

Griffith's understanding of supercoin tech seems at the novice level, with many concepts wrong/mixed, but from his messages he starts to understand some concepts. Everyone can learn. I was at novice level a year ago too, but now I understand it. BTW, the successfully use of multisig in supercoin is amazing, this opens a new door for the altcoins. I see several possible completion of the code in the error handling parts, as supercoindev mentioned. He could not finish all the coding, but with 1 months all the code working perfectly is a great achievement and showed his deep understanding of the problem and super coding skills.

[mountainview]

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.

for all altcoins anonymous, you can make the same guess, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, it does not mean much.

[popolite11]

everyonehas his own guess

[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

your 2nd part is way off too, see above messages from marseille, strasboug, and many others.

marseille, strasboug, supercoin, supercoindev all French, same English level ... . Could more than one be the same person? the intensity of the discussion was dying so ...

I like Griffith and the way he behaves and reacts to accusations. He may not be Satoshi but all here accusing and attacking aren't Satoshi either. So, if I had a vote I would go with Griffith, at least until Satoshi turns up to help us

wouldnt be surprised if that was the case. considering some of the accounts were made within 30 min of each other. however, that proves nothing.

[dfox101]

I always liked the new technologies of supercoin, nice to see the code published, it can also be applied to other coins

[popolite11]

I always liked the new technologies of supercoin, nice to see the code published, it can also be applied to other coins

as the othercoins will accept this codethis coin will grow more

[strasboug]

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

your 2nd part is way off too, see above messages from marseille, strasboug, and many others.

marseille, strasboug, supercoin, supercoindev all French, same English level ... . Could more than one be the same person? the intensity of the discussion was dying so ...

I like Griffith and the way he behaves and reacts to accusations. He may not be Satoshi but all here accusing and attacking aren't Satoshi either. So, if I had a vote I would go with Griffith, at least until Satoshi turns up to help us

wouldnt be surprised if that was the case. considering some of the accounts were made within 30 min of each other. however, that proves nothing.

lost in technical discussions now engage in a vicious personal attack? shame!

[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

your 2nd part is way off too, see above messages from marseille, strasboug, and many others.

marseille, strasboug, supercoin, supercoindev all French, same English level ... . Could more than one be the same person? the intensity of the discussion was dying so ...

I like Griffith and the way he behaves and reacts to accusations. He may not be Satoshi but all here accusing and attacking aren't Satoshi either. So, if I had a vote I would go with Griffith, at least until Satoshi turns up to help us

wouldnt be surprised if that was the case. considering some of the accounts were made within 30 min of each other. however, that proves nothing.

lost in technical discussions now engage in a vicious personal attack? shame!

yet you (all accounts) started with personal insults. and i didnt say you were all the same person. i said i wouldnt be surprised. please stop putting words into my mouth.

[strasboug]

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

your 2nd part is way off too, see above messages from marseille, strasboug, and many others.

marseille, strasboug, supercoin, supercoindev all French, same English level ... . Could more than one be the same person? the intensity of the discussion was dying so ...

I like Griffith and the way he behaves and reacts to accusations. He may not be Satoshi but all here accusing and attacking aren't Satoshi either. So, if I had a vote I would go with Griffith, at least until Satoshi turns up to help us

wouldnt be surprised if that was the case. considering some of the accounts were made within 30 min of each other. however, that proves nothing.

lost in technical discussions now engage in a vicious personal attack? shame!

yet you (all accounts) started with personal insults. and i didnt say you were all the same person. i said i wouldnt be surprised. please stop putting words into my mouth.

Show *any* facts that these accounts from the same person?? Clearly you lost in the tech discussions now try to attack me and other people in person.

You can think all the accounts that disagree with you are from one person, it doesn't matter, take whatever the stupid way you have for attacking, but
- Does it change the fact that you have no idea on what is anon coin? No
- Does it change the fact that you think multisig does nothing and why the coins transfer back and forth and make many people laugh at you? No
- Does it change the fact that you understand nothing on the tech side and insist that you can guess the links using the tx amount, despite my earlier message on the same topic that you did not even read? No
- Does it change the fact that you know nothing about the multisig and all the workflows that were published in the whitepapers by supercoindev long ago? No
- Does it change the fact that you pretend to be an expert and made so many tech mistakes and caused so many people who understand the tech to post against you? No

Everyone, by going through previous messages, will understand how much you know, and how much you pretend to know. The facts are there, everyone can see. Your attempt of attack will not change the facts. Like other people who understand, I don't need to spend more time arguing with you. You are exactly as what fastrabbit said "Ignorant is fearless", and stupid.

[mdtspain]

As stated before:

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.

Before I forget...We will have:
In wallet trading
Multiple Coin Support
Real Anon

[pgb]

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

your 2nd part is way off too, see above messages from marseille, strasboug, and many others.

marseille, strasboug, supercoin, supercoindev all French, same English level ... . Could more than one be the same person? the intensity of the discussion was dying so ...

I like Griffith and the way he behaves and reacts to accusations. He may not be Satoshi but all here accusing and attacking aren't Satoshi either. So, if I had a vote I would go with Griffith, at least until Satoshi turns up to help us

wouldnt be surprised if that was the case. considering some of the accounts were made within 30 min of each other. however, that proves nothing.

lost in technical discussions now engage in a vicious personal attack? shame!

yet you (all accounts) started with personal insults. and i didnt say you were all the same person. i said i wouldnt be surprised. please stop putting words into my mouth.

Well, the approach from all of them is the same. Insult first, then they show how clever they are and how nobody else can understand as his code is so good, and then all say they have no time as they are too busy. When I read some of the post I needed to check who's writing. In any case it wasn't Griffith that brought this up, it was me after seeing some similarities in behaviour and the fact that all 4 were French. Saying that I have to say that I have nothing against the French, nor against supercoindev and his friends, I do care for Supercoin cause I have quite a few and I see Griffith as a decent person first and a potential good dev. But this is only my opinion and I could be totally wrong, so apologies in advance if somebody feels I stepped over the line.

[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

your 2nd part is way off too, see above messages from marseille, strasboug, and many others.

marseille, strasboug, supercoin, supercoindev all French, same English level ... . Could more than one be the same person? the intensity of the discussion was dying so ...

I like Griffith and the way he behaves and reacts to accusations. He may not be Satoshi but all here accusing and attacking aren't Satoshi either. So, if I had a vote I would go with Griffith, at least until Satoshi turns up to help us

wouldnt be surprised if that was the case. considering some of the accounts were made within 30 min of each other. however, that proves nothing.

lost in technical discussions now engage in a vicious personal attack? shame!

yet you (all accounts) started with personal insults. and i didnt say you were all the same person. i said i wouldnt be surprised. please stop putting words into my mouth.

Well, the approach from all of them is the same. Insult first, then they show how clever they are and how nobody else can understand as his code is so good, and then all say they have no time as they are too busy. When I read some of the post I needed to check who's writing. In any case it wasn't Griffith that brought this up, it was me after seeing some similarities in behaviour and the fact that all 4 were French. Saying that I have to say that I have nothing against the French, nor against supercoindev and his friends, I do care for Supercoin cause I have quite a few and I see Griffith as a decent person first and a potential good dev. But this is only my opinion and I could be totally wrong, so apologies in advance if somebody feels I stepped over the line.

its ok. they probably wont respond to anyone besides me since i am the target. it doesnt really matter to me. dont worry, you are fine. i was messaged about it possibly being the case that you pointed out from a few other people as well. no harm done to me. so dont worry

the exposure is real, and the anger rises (joke/troll statement)

[pgb]

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

your 2nd part is way off too, see above messages from marseille, strasboug, and many others.

marseille, strasboug, supercoin, supercoindev all French, same English level ... . Could more than one be the same person? the intensity of the discussion was dying so ...

I like Griffith and the way he behaves and reacts to accusations. He may not be Satoshi but all here accusing and attacking aren't Satoshi either. So, if I had a vote I would go with Griffith, at least until Satoshi turns up to help us

wouldnt be surprised if that was the case. considering some of the accounts were made within 30 min of each other. however, that proves nothing.

lost in technical discussions now engage in a vicious personal attack? shame!

yet you (all accounts) started with personal insults. and i didnt say you were all the same person. i said i wouldnt be surprised. please stop putting words into my mouth.

Well, the approach from all of them is the same. Insult first, then they show how clever they are and how nobody else can understand as his code is so good, and then all say they have no time as they are too busy. When I read some of the post I needed to check who's writing. In any case it wasn't Griffith that brought this up, it was me after seeing some similarities in behaviour and the fact that all 4 were French. Saying that I have to say that I have nothing against the French, nor against supercoindev and his friends, I do care for Supercoin cause I have quite a few and I see Griffith as a decent person first and a potential good dev. But this is only my opinion and I could be totally wrong, so apologies in advance if somebody feels I stepped over the line.

its ok. they probably wont respond to anyone besides me since i am the target. it doesnt really matter to me. dont worry, you are fine. i was messaged about it possibly being the case that you pointed out from a few other people as well. no harm done to me. so dont worry

I'm really sorry because we do need you and there seems to be agenda to run you away. I believe supercoindev doesn't want the coin to succeed without him and that showed with him releasing the code to everybody at the same time instead of giving the Supercoin owners/users/investors a head-start. It is a shame really, but that is how I see things. Hope you can reconsider your decision. I would like to ask the rest of the community to express their thoughts and if they do want you to stay and help to shout that loud enough.

[fuze0000]

I say make supercoin even better!  I want Griffith to upgrade supercoin to the next level!  After reading the last 60 messages , I have realized that supercoin is more anonymous than darkcoin and with the correct upgrades from Griffith and mdtspain we can make supercoin the ultimate mixer and anonyomous with multisignature and then the final level to (not even show up on the blockchain) in the words of Griffith the best mixer but he can do better.  Then lets make a supercoin that is up Griffith ideals!  If we can will him over then supercoin will over take bitcoin!

[placergold]

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

x

your 2nd part is way off too, see above messages from marseille, strasboug, and many others.

marseille, strasboug, supercoin, supercoindev all French, same English level ... . Could more than one be the same person? the intensity of the discussion was dying so ...

I like Griffith and the way he behaves and reacts to accusations. He may not be Satoshi but all here accusing and attacking aren't Satoshi either. So, if I had a vote I would go with Griffith, at least until Satoshi turns up to help us

wouldnt be surprised if that was the case. considering some of the accounts were made within 30 min of each other. however, that proves nothing.

lost in technical discussions now engage in a vicious personal attack? shame!

yet you (all accounts) started with personal insults. and i didnt say you were all the same person. i said i wouldnt be surprised. please stop putting words into my mouth.

Show *any* facts that these accounts from the same person?? Clearly you lost in the tech discussions now try to attack me and other people in person.

You can think all the accounts that disagree with you are from one person, it doesn't matter, take whatever the stupid way you have for attacking, but
- Does it change the fact that you have no idea on what is anon coin? No
- Does it change the fact that you think multisig does nothing and why the coins transfer back and forth and make many people laugh at you? No
- Does it change the fact that you understand nothing on the tech side and insist that you can guess the links using the tx amount, despite my earlier message on the same topic that you did not even read? No
- Does it change the fact that you know nothing about the multisig and all the workflows that were published in the whitepapers by supercoindev long ago? No
- Does it change the fact that you pretend to be an expert and made so many tech mistakes and caused so many people who understand the tech to post against you? No

Everyone, by going through previous messages, will understand how much you know, and how much you pretend to know. The facts are there, everyone can see. Your attempt of attack will not change the facts. Like other people who understand, I don't need to spend more time arguing with you. You are exactly as what fastrabbit said "Ignorant is fearless", and stupid.

someone tried to outsmart the original dev and only showed he has no knowledge at all. this is typical in many coins. luckily i sold all my supercoins now...