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

[kopam]

We should keep trying to reach supercoindev, so he can point out that he is okay for the new dev's to pick up from where he left.
Yes we could simply make a somewhat " hostile " take over, even if the dev agreed on that, with new thread, facebook, page and everything.
But it would just look so much better the other way.

[supercoindev]

Now...we will keep the source from Supercoin open source, however if we are going to add in wallet trading, multiple coin support and other exclusive developments to Supercoin, then those developments WILL stay closed source.

No coin has benefits if ALL the source code is open source. Closed source will give value to a coin as it will be unique. So I think we will do the following, we will make 2 wallets for every operating system. 1 with special futures and 1 without them.

Am I the only one who thinks that's ironic after all the struggling to get source published?

Yes absolutely, I am strongly against all the attempts to make the source code closed for supercoin. The only reason I publish all the code, is to keep supercoin open-source coin. I will strong against any dev to make it close-source again. Community, please keep supercoin open source!

[supercoindev]

We should keep trying to reach supercoindev, so he can point out that he is okay for the new dev's to pick up from where he left.
Yes we could simply make a somewhat " hostile " take over, even if the dev agreed on that, with new thread, facebook, page and everything.
But it would just look so much better the other way.

No one tried to reach me. I did not see any message. As I said before, I will endorse the devs who are willing to take-over, as long as they keep the supercoin open sourced.

BTW, I saw good discussions on the supercoin tech, I am glad that many people understand the tech well. Thanks to all who supported and described in supercoin tech in clarity. The whitepapers are good places to start, before diving into the code.

[fuze0000]

We should keep trying to reach supercoindev, so he can point out that he is okay for the new dev's to pick up from where he left.
Yes we could simply make a somewhat " hostile " take over, even if the dev agreed on that, with new thread, facebook, page and everything.
But it would just look so much better the other way.

No one tried to reach me. I did not see any message. As I said before, I will endorse the devs who are willing to take-over, as long as they keep the supercoin open sourced.

BTW, I saw good discussions on the supercoin tech, I am glad that many people understand the tech well. Thanks to all who supported and described in supercoin tech in clarity. The whitepapers are good places to start, before diving into the code.

Well now we know Supercoindev wants to keep the supercoin open sourced.  Can somebody give me the pro and cons of keeping supercoin open sourced after Griffith and mdtspain start upgrading supercoin?

[Griffith]

So the answer to a Test Run of your development skills, is: Why?
"Why does it need an installer" is not really what I would expect from someone that is serious about delivering a marketable product.
We are all trying to determine if giving you control of the code is a good idea, this test build seems like a pretty simple way to do that.

I proposed the Fix the Wallet test run to determine:
If you can.
If you can support all the OS's required.
If you can resist 'on the fly' or unannounced changes.
If you will beta test thoroughly.
If you will release it securely.
How you work with the community and/or people involved.

This would also finally produce something that regular people can install, making it worth recommending and advertising...

You mentioned that you "already fixed it". Ok great, then the hard part is done!
     Open source - Stated it would be posted in github.
     Installs without manual user steps. - Fix ready
     Includes updated supercoin.conf. - Fix ready

Steps To go:
     Update logo (Red one, to match what websites were told to use)
     Update version and changelog.
     Nothing fancy, and no other changes to code.
     Tested and reviewed before full release. (allows for community beta test and marketing prep)
     Compiled builds released by you with sha256 hash.

What do you think of the steps listed? Are they all necessary? Are any missing?
How long do you think it would take to complete this test build for win\linux\mac?
How would you beta test this build? and for how long?
(Knowing these answers would allow the community to schedule marketing and media stuff.)

These would all be great things to know before the keys to everything get handed over. Thanks for any clarification you can provide.
Hope we can give you some super for your time and effort.

i didnt say why to test my dev skills. i said why to an installer. the QT is 1 file and creates / reads from the directories that is needs already built in. which is normally the point of an installer. let me tell you what can be done almost immidiately (besides the changes i said i already made). all OS will be supported. (really simple and pretty much done). of course i can update the version 1 level. that will take maybe 30 seconds. as far as logo change goes. if someone can make a logo that the community like then it can be added immediately. im not good with Photoshop / graphics. sorry. there is usually whole separate divisions for that in a company from the other coders. how to beta test? umm... just run it? there isnt really any significant changes to be made to the actual networking portion of the code, so theres no real reason to test those immediate upgrades.

No one tried to reach me. I did not see any message. As I said before, I will endorse the devs who are willing to take-over, as long as they keep the supercoin open sourced.

BTW, I saw good discussions on the supercoin tech, I am glad that many people understand the tech well. Thanks to all who supported and described in supercoin tech in clarity. The whitepapers are good places to start, before diving into the code.

Well now we know Supercoindev wants to keep the supercoin open sourced.  Can somebody give me the pro and cons of keeping supercoin open sourced after Griffith and mdtspain start upgrading supercoin?

let me clarify what we plan to do. the coin source itself WILL be open source. what would be closed source is the mutliwallet that i am making from scratch that will be a SECONDARY platform for the coin to run in. there will always be the wallet for just supercoin that will be available. that other wallet that will be able to run multiple coins at the same time will be closed source. it will use the coins source (in a slightly different way) to be able to run use the coin in it. but the supercoins source itself will be open.

ALSO the in wallet trading will be closed source. there is NO connection between the source of the coin and the in wallet trading. they are two different code blocks. i dont need to edit the coins source at all in order to give it in wallet trading. so the in wallet trading section will remain closed.

TL;DR - supercoins code itself will be open source. the 3rd party things we make to work WITH the coins source will be closed as they wont be added into the coins code (they are separate code blocks)




this is our current plan for the coin

[gnarl]

We can update all these minor things in 1 day. As I see it by now, there has never been a Mac wallet, nor a linux wallet from the SuperDev....
But we have it ready ( I am using the mac wallet ).

For updating the logo...where is the Logo, who has the original files?...All the changes you propose and the steps to go can be done in 1 day.

Now...we will keep the source from Supercoin open source, however if we are going to add in wallet trading, multiple coin support and other exclusive developments to Supercoin, then those developments WILL stay closed source.

No coin has benefits if ALL the source code is open source. Closed source will give value to a coin as it will be unique. So I think we will do the following, we will make 2 wallets for every operating system. 1 with special futures and 1 without them.

The open source wallets (without special futures) will be for the persons that have doubts in us (Griffith and Me), the source code from these wallets will be available on the Github for copy cats and scam developers, because a normal user (that needs an installer) can not read that code AND is not interested in that code.

The Supercoin wallets with exclusive developments (in wallet trading, multi-coin support, etc...) will only be available pre-compiled. The Source code from these wallets will be on a closed section from the Github.

If you want to know how the development of in wallet trading is going then you should have a look on the MWC forum https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=752808.msg9544646#msg9544646 there you can see that the development is in the final stages and that the forum members are given the opertunity to choose which exchanges they want to be added.

Hello mtdspain,
Thank you for your response. Your answers inspire a little more confidence.

I understand your main focus is on your in-wallet exchange project, it does sound cool. This project is in need of normal users first though, and an easily-installed opensource wallet is the first step. It is great to hear you can create the win\linux\mac wallets, (and that you have a mac one working). That experience is exactly what is needed. A day to fix anything in 3 different operating systems it is something I have heard a few too many times though...  

I like your idea to have 1 open source and 1 closed source wallet. That reduces the confusion and security risk, and allows some progress to be made. Lets focus on the open source wallets first.

This leaves the questions about beta testing and secure release process that I asked before:
Will you answer the beta test question? How long would you test? Will you include the community and wait for responses before releasing?
(One bad release build can end this project. I just want to make sure untested code doesn't get dumped on users without testing...)
Will you put your name on any pre-compiled builds, and provide a hash, so we can assure users/customers/friends the download is not compromised?

This seems like a promising arrangement, thanks again for your answers.

[mdtspain]

We can update all these minor things in 1 day. As I see it by now, there has never been a Mac wallet, nor a linux wallet from the SuperDev....
But we have it ready ( I am using the mac wallet ).

For updating the logo...where is the Logo, who has the original files?...All the changes you propose and the steps to go can be done in 1 day.

Now...we will keep the source from Supercoin open source, however if we are going to add in wallet trading, multiple coin support and other exclusive developments to Supercoin, then those developments WILL stay closed source.

No coin has benefits if ALL the source code is open source. Closed source will give value to a coin as it will be unique. So I think we will do the following, we will make 2 wallets for every operating system. 1 with special futures and 1 without them.

The open source wallets (without special futures) will be for the persons that have doubts in us (Griffith and Me), the source code from these wallets will be available on the Github for copy cats and scam developers, because a normal user (that needs an installer) can not read that code AND is not interested in that code.

The Supercoin wallets with exclusive developments (in wallet trading, multi-coin support, etc...) will only be available pre-compiled. The Source code from these wallets will be on a closed section from the Github.

If you want to know how the development of in wallet trading is going then you should have a look on the MWC forum https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=752808.msg9544646#msg9544646 there you can see that the development is in the final stages and that the forum members are given the opertunity to choose which exchanges they want to be added.

Hello mtdspain,
Thank you for your response. Your answers inspire a little more confidence.

I understand your main focus is on your in-wallet exchange project, it does sound cool. This project is in need of normal users first though, and an easily-installed opensource wallet is the first step. It is great to hear you can create the win\linux\mac wallets, (and that you have a mac one working). That experience is exactly what is needed. A day to fix anything in 3 different operating systems it is something I have heard a few too many times though...  

I like your idea to have 1 open source and 1 closed source wallet. That reduces the confusion and security risk, and allows some progress to be made. Lets focus on the open source wallets first.

This leaves the questions about beta testing and secure release process that I asked before:
Will you answer the beta test question? How long would you test? Will you include the community and wait for responses before releasing?
(One bad release build can end this project. I just want to make sure untested code doesn't get dumped on users without testing...)
Will you put your name on any pre-compiled builds, and provide a hash, so we can assure users/customers/friends the download is not compromised?

This seems like a promising arrangement, thanks again for your answers.

I have compiled the MAC wallet on the same day that the code was released. It is online since then. The testing of the Anonymous Trustless Multisig Technology was done by Griffith and myself. He was using the Windows wallet, I used the MAC wallet... It works just fine.

The only thing that needs to be changed is the Logo for the Splash screen, also the SuperCoin.icns (used for the MAC icon on the dock) is a strange one a blue coin with a white D in it. This shows me that there never has been a MAC wallet.

We code and compile ALL our wallets ourselves, Windows, Linux, Mac and even coind wallets are done before, no need for help from strange sources that can touch the code.

I don't understand where the fear of untested code comes from. We are not working on the blockchain, we just make some minor changes, like there will be more, if superdev agrees for us to take over. If he agrees we will need to set up our own nodes, also a minor change in the net.cpp

* Conserning the fear for a compromised download... We can upload the wallets to the Github. I even have my foto and home address there.

[supercoindev]

No one tried to reach me. I did not see any message. As I said before, I will endorse the devs who are willing to take-over, as long as they keep the supercoin open sourced.

BTW, I saw good discussions on the supercoin tech, I am glad that many people understand the tech well. Thanks to all who supported and described in supercoin tech in clarity. The whitepapers are good places to start, before diving into the code.

Well now we know Supercoindev wants to keep the supercoin open sourced.  Can somebody give me the pro and cons of keeping supercoin open sourced after Griffith and mdtspain start upgrading supercoin?

let me clarify what we plan to do. the coin source itself WILL be open source. what would be closed source is the mutliwallet that i am making from scratch that will be a SECONDARY platform for the coin to run in. there will always be the wallet for just supercoin that will be available. that other wallet that will be able to run multiple coins at the same time will be closed source. it will use the coins source (in a slightly different way) to be able to run use the coin in it. but the supercoins source itself will be open.

ALSO the in wallet trading will be closed source. there is NO connection between the source of the coin and the in wallet trading. they are two different code blocks. i dont need to edit the coins source at all in order to give it in wallet trading. so the in wallet trading section will remain closed.

TL;DR - supercoins code itself will be open source. the 3rd party things we make to work WITH the coins source will be closed as they wont be added into the coins code (they are separate code blocks)

this is our current plan for the coin

As long as you keep the supercoin open source, I have no problem. What this means is that all that built on top of the current supercoin wallet and released as supercoin wallet should be open sourced.

You can, of course, create other apps such as multiwallet that support more than one coins. These are your apps, you decide whether you want to open source them or not, I have nothing to do with them.

[Griffith]

No one tried to reach me. I did not see any message. As I said before, I will endorse the devs who are willing to take-over, as long as they keep the supercoin open sourced.

BTW, I saw good discussions on the supercoin tech, I am glad that many people understand the tech well. Thanks to all who supported and described in supercoin tech in clarity. The whitepapers are good places to start, before diving into the code.

Well now we know Supercoindev wants to keep the supercoin open sourced.  Can somebody give me the pro and cons of keeping supercoin open sourced after Griffith and mdtspain start upgrading supercoin?

let me clarify what we plan to do. the coin source itself WILL be open source. what would be closed source is the mutliwallet that i am making from scratch that will be a SECONDARY platform for the coin to run in. there will always be the wallet for just supercoin that will be available. that other wallet that will be able to run multiple coins at the same time will be closed source. it will use the coins source (in a slightly different way) to be able to run use the coin in it. but the supercoins source itself will be open.

ALSO the in wallet trading will be closed source. there is NO connection between the source of the coin and the in wallet trading. they are two different code blocks. i dont need to edit the coins source at all in order to give it in wallet trading. so the in wallet trading section will remain closed.

TL;DR - supercoins code itself will be open source. the 3rd party things we make to work WITH the coins source will be closed as they wont be added into the coins code (they are separate code blocks)

this is our current plan for the coin

As long as you keep the supercoin open source, I have no problem. What this means is that all that built on top of the current supercoin wallet and released as supercoin wallet should be open sourced.

You can, of course, create other apps such as multiwallet that support more than one coins. These are your apps, you decide whether you want to open source them or not, I have nothing to do with them.

anything that would be added on top of the super source would be left open. i agree with this. glad to hear we are in agreement

[gnarl]

i didnt say why to test my dev skills. i said why to an installer. the QT is 1 file and creates / reads from the directories that is needs already built in. which is normally the point of an installer. let me tell you what can be done almost immidiately (besides the changes i said i already made). all OS will be supported. (really simple and pretty much done). of course i can update the version 1 level. that will take maybe 30 seconds. as far as logo change goes. if someone can make a logo that the community like then it can be added immediately. im not good with Photoshop / graphics. sorry. there is usually whole separate divisions for that in a company from the other coders. how to beta test? umm... just run it? there isnt really any significant changes to be made to the actual networking portion of the code, so theres no real reason to test those immediate upgrades.

Ah, ok.
Yes, they are easy and basic steps. That is why I proposed it, nice and simple with a small scope of work to start things off. Sounds like you have it covered.

The logo can be provided or recreated, in whatever format/size you need. That's not a problem.

I see you don't have an installer on the MWC project either, let me explain my request.

The current 'released' wallet build does not include a working supercoin.conf file, and does not do jack-shit without it. This has completely stopped adoption by anyone that is not hanging out here, or enjoys screwing around with projects-in-development.

Installers are important for regular people... Regular people install something, and expect it to work with no manual steps, if it does not work they delete it, and then tell everyone it is a piece of shit. Right?
Regular people are the customer base any project needs to succeed in the real world. You want doctors, lawyers, investors, school teachers, farmers, your relatives, to use the product right? You know, regular people with more money than computer skills? That is the target market. It needs to be fast and simple for them to install and use.

The answers in bold are exactly why I asked that question.  
3 wallet builds, 3 os's, installed in at least 2 os versions each, with no testing, just release it after making changes. [facepalm]
There are multiple people here that would be happy to test it in many operating systems\versions, if you choose to work with them.
Will you allow input before changes and feedback before releasing builds?

I am also worried about securely releasing a software product that handles money. That is why I asked if release builds will be built by you and include a hash of the build to ensure the download isn't compromised. It is simply a trust issue, if you put your name on it and provide a hash, it provides some basic accountability, which would be appreciated.
Will you release it securely?

Besides the last 2 important questions above, your experience and current wallet project looks really awesome, and I am looking forward to seeing your work.

[supercoindev]

Also, as someone suggested, if you want to takeover, please create your own repo in github and thread (if you want to continue using this thread, I have no problem - the thread is not owned by me, supercointeam owns it). This is the way how community takeover for open source coin works.

[iram3130]

Also, as someone suggested, if you want to takeover, please create your own repo in github and thread (if you want to continue using this thread, I have no problem - the thread is not owned by me, supercointeam owns it). This is the way how community takeover for open source coin works.

It's not a bad move, Just do this and let's see how he can improve coins.

[gnarl]

We code and compile ALL our wallets ourselves, Windows, Linux, Mac and even coind wallets are done before, no need for help from strange sources that can touch the code.

I don't understand where the fear of untested code comes from. We are not working on the blockchain, we just make some minor changes, like there will be more, if superdev agrees for us to take over. If he agrees we will need to set up our own nodes, also a minor change in the net.cpp

Its good to hear you take full responsibility, that inspires confidence.

My questions are based on these ideas
The only code you can trust, is code you can read/write/understand and compile yourself.
Any code that handles money, compiled by unknown sources, should be feared.
Open source code compiled by unknowns and delivered without a hash, should be feared. (unless you can compile it yourself, and check the hash, which makes the download pointless)
The future roadmap definitely includes changes to major code, so seeing how you respond to security procedures is important.

* Conserning the fear for a compromised download... We can upload the wallets to the Github. I even have my foto and home address there.

Awesome! that is exactly what I wanted to hear.

Thanks for both your responses, the idea is sounding better and better.

[sovie]

Also, as someone suggested, if you want to takeover, please create your own repo in github and thread (if you want to continue using this thread, I have no problem - the thread is not owned by me, supercointeam owns it). This is the way how community takeover for open source coin works.

Dont worry The trusted crypto team knows how to take over a coin,
we have done so already with multiwalletcoin and ecc with great success.
We have just been waiting for the go ahead from you the dev, which i see now we have although an official statement is required.
I would like to be the first to welcome supercoin community members to the trusted crypto group,
and encourage you all to participate in a well mannered and proactive fasion for the good of the coin
and its forthcoming success .

[Griffith]

Also, as someone suggested, if you want to takeover, please create your own repo in github and thread (if you want to continue using this thread, I have no problem - the thread is not owned by me, supercointeam owns it). This is the way how community takeover for open source coin works.

i know. the only thing i need from you at this point is an official statement that we are taking over so if a major update occurs the exchanges will follow the new git instead of the old one.

[iram3130]

Also, as someone suggested, if you want to takeover, please create your own repo in github and thread (if you want to continue using this thread, I have no problem - the thread is not owned by me, supercointeam owns it). This is the way how community takeover for open source coin works.

i know. the only thing i need from you at this point is an official statement that we are taking over so if a major update occurs the exchanges will follow the new git instead of the old one.

I know, and community trust you. That's matter most and most probably you won't lag down community.
I am just waiting for your good work start and please don't forget to promote Supercoin. Where it was lacking was old group.

[B4zz4]

...

The only thing that needs to be changed is the Logo for the Splash screen, also the SuperCoin.icns (used for the MAC icon on the dock) is a strange one a blue coin with a white D in it. This shows me that there never has been a MAC wallet.

...

If I may just intercede here mdtspain, that's not correct.

The bitcoin.icns in the app resources folder is not used, the dock icon is actually a white "S" for super and there have been Mac wallets from the beginning. I'm on a Mac and have been running a current wallet since mining began.

Just a clarification and may I also welcome you gentlemen aboard

[Edit: fix fat finger typos]

[mdtspain]

...

The only thing that needs to be changed is the Logo for the Splash screen, also the SuperCoin.icns (used for the MAC icon on the dock) is a strange one a blue coin with a white D in it. This shows me that there never has been a MAC wallet.

...

If I may just intercede here mdtspain, that's not correct.

The bitcoin.icns in the app resources folder is not used, the dock icon is actually a white "S" for super and there have been Mac wallets from the beginning. I'm on a Mac and have been running a current wallet since mining began.

Just a clarification and may I also welcome you gentlemen aboard

[Edit: fix fat finger typos]

Thank you for the welcome, we are all happy that we can help you all out.

Thank you for pointing this out to me. As you know that the bitcoin.icns is not used (it doesn't excist) but the .pro is pointing to it, then you also know that the wallet won't compile without the .icns file.
As I said the Logo needs to be changed that also includes the only .incs file in the res folder called SuperCoin.icns https://github.com/supercoinproject/supercoin-p2p/tree/master/src/qt/res/icons which for me looks like a blue coin with a white D.
Here is a screenshot from my MAC, with a running MAC wallet version 3.1.1.0 ....also note the dock icon and the logo (that needs to be changed)

On this screenshot you can also see the date when we started to test the Supercoin V3.1.1.0 wallet (21/11/14 20:40). Remember this is a MAC-wallet compiled from the Supercoin P2P source, just to test the Supersend Anon...nothing changed.

[nomad13666]

...

The only thing that needs to be changed is the Logo for the Splash screen, also the SuperCoin.icns (used for the MAC icon on the dock) is a strange one a blue coin with a white D in it. This shows me that there never has been a MAC wallet.

...

If I may just intercede here mdtspain, that's not correct.

The bitcoin.icns in the app resources folder is not used, the dock icon is actually a white "S" for super and there have been Mac wallets from the beginning. I'm on a Mac and have been running a current wallet since mining began.

Just a clarification and may I also welcome you gentlemen aboard

[Edit: fix fat finger typos]

Thank you for the welcome, we are all happy that we can help you all out.

Thank you for pointing this out to me. As you know that the bitcoin.icns is not used (it doesn't excist) but the .pro is pointing to it, then you also know that the wallet won't compile without the .icns file.
As I said the Logo needs to be changed that also includes the only .incs file in the res folder called SuperCoin.icns https://github.com/supercoinproject/supercoin-p2p/tree/master/src/qt/res/icons which for me looks like a blue coin with a white D.
Here is a screenshot from my MAC, with a running MAC wallet version 3.1.1.0 ....also note the dock icon and the logo (that needs to be changed)

On this screenshot you can also see the date when we started to test the Supercoin V3.1.1.0 wallet (21/11/14 20:40). Remember this is a MAC-wallet compiled from the Supercoin P2P source, just to test the Supersend Anon...nothing changed.

The blue with a white 'D' logo is Dreamcoin's logo...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=625460.0

[nomad13666]