XC uses multisig address and transaction? The answer is NO!! Look at facts here!

[timerland]

I will post it in BIG letters... no fud so no reason to delete

They are mixing apples and oranges, XC is trustless based on the signatures of all parties during the private transaction.  Its not using MULTI_SIG N OF M Address's.

The transactions are SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES, if any of the outputs are missing, then it is not signed by all parties.



Here is an example of a private decentralized distributed multi-path transaction consisting of 4 parties. >>> http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229236.htm

No need to be big letters, it seems that you are so desperate. My reply was just above your post. Here let me post it again:

You made me laugh again, where is the multisig address in this link?

The following are quoted from greenclover:

Multisig addresses usually start with a different letter than their regular address. For example, Bitcoin's regular address starts with "1", its multisig address starts with "3". Supercoin's regular address starts with "S", its multisig address starts with "C". Mammothcoin's regular address starts with "M", its multisig address starts with "b". etc. For XC, its regular address starts with X and multisig address starts with "4". Everyone can create a multisig address using XC client and verify yourself.

SO!! is it settled XC does use Multisig, your two threads have been proven to be a waste of time and made you look not only stupid but desperate, next time try harder..bye

Where is it the multisig addres you used??? simple question can't answer?

Stop cheating people!

[1715065442]

1715065442

[1715065442]

1715065442

[1715065442]

1715065442

[1715065442]

1715065442

[BrewCrewFan]

Yes that's good.

BTW, XC supporters, the 2 multisig addresses I created (I suppose most of you if not all first time to see real multisig address for XC), they are not on the blockchain explorer yet. Because no tx associated with them.

Hint: do some deposits to the two addresses, then you will see them in the blockchain explorer. The only problem is that you will not be able to spend the fund there, as I am the only one to have the private keys that can sign and spend.

If needed, I can provide a tutorial on how the multisig tx can be used and how they are signed etc. Actually you find most already in the SuperSend's whitepaper.

WOW!! you can read code and understand stuff better then some of us, your so superior aren't you, XC will release a white paper for you to jack off too latter today so do your wrist stretches and get your aloe and lanolin ready wanker.

Yes yes, whitepaper, resume, etc, stop talking these nonsense.

People here are asking you for a simple multisig address, so they can verify what you have claimed implemented multisig. So many posts are done, no single multisig address can be provided, what does that meaning? anyone can see it!

Is that not the POINT of being hidden? What good would it do it you can trace it though the block chain to find out the receivers address?

[braxx]

Yes that's good.

BTW, XC supporters, the 2 multisig addresses I created (I suppose most of you if not all first time to see real multisig address for XC), they are not on the blockchain explorer yet. Because no tx associated with them.

Hint: do some deposits to the two addresses, then you will see them in the blockchain explorer. The only problem is that you will not be able to spend the fund there, as I am the only one to have the private keys that can sign and spend.

If needed, I can provide a tutorial on how the multisig tx can be used and how they are signed etc. Actually you find most already in the SuperSend's whitepaper.

WOW!! you can read code and understand stuff better then some of us, your so superior aren't you, XC will release a white paper for you to jack off too latter today so do your wrist stretches and get your aloe and lanolin ready wanker.

Yes yes, whitepaper, resume, etc, stop talking these nonsense.

People here are asking you for a simple multisig address, so they can verify what you have claimed implemented multisig. So many posts are done, no single multisig address can be provided, what does that meaning? anyone can see it!

what language do you speak so I can arrange a translation for you...
I'm not native english but still I can understand what atc is saying...

what don't you understand that it does not use multisig adresses

so no use of adresses starting with 4

[timerland]

Its not using MULTI_SIG N OF M Address's.

lmao, so it is using 1-of-1 "multisig" address? Do you understand what it means the multisig??

[timerland]

Is that not the POINT of being hidden? What good would it do it you can trace it though the block chain to find out the receivers address?

you completely misunderstand what is anonymous system. A tutorial here: anonymous system simply makes sender-receiver not traceable, it does not mean the transaction not recorded in the block chain? sounds simple enough?

[timerland]

People, if you have zero knowledge about multisig, please don't waste time here.

I won't have time all day here to do tutorials for you. All fuds will be deleted in this thread. Please provides FACTS.

[some138]

Yes that's good.

BTW, XC supporters, the 2 multisig addresses I created (I suppose most of you if not all first time to see real multisig address for XC), they are not on the blockchain explorer yet. Because no tx associated with them.

Hint: do some deposits to the two addresses, then you will see them in the blockchain explorer. The only problem is that you will not be able to spend the fund there, as I am the only one to have the private keys that can sign and spend.

If needed, I can provide a tutorial on how the multisig tx can be used and how they are signed etc. Actually you find most already in the SuperSend's whitepaper.

WOW!! you can read code and understand stuff better then some of us, your so superior aren't you, XC will release a white paper for you to jack off too latter today so do your wrist stretches and get your aloe and lanolin ready wanker.

Yes yes, whitepaper, resume, etc, stop talking these nonsense.

People here are asking you for a simple multisig address, so they can verify what you have claimed implemented multisig. So many posts are done, no single multisig address can be provided, what does that meaning? anyone can see it!

what language do you speak so I can arrange a translation for you...
I'm not native english but still I can understand what atc is saying...

what don't you understand that it does not use multisig adresses

so no use of adresses starting with 4

Do you understand anything at all at multisig address and tx??

[BrewCrewFan]

Is that not the POINT of being hidden? What good would it do it you can trace it though the block chain to find out the receivers address?

you completely misunderstand what is anonymous system. A tutorial here: anonymous system simply makes sender-receiver not traceable, it does not mean the transaction not recorded in the block chain? sounds simple enough?

Yes but whatever address you might start with would not show up on the chain, instead it would show up as something else.
I know how it works

Like I said your not up for any debate. Go ahead and delete this too.

[dadon]

Is that not the POINT of being hidden? What good would it do it you can trace it though the block chain to find out the receivers address?

you completely misunderstand what is anonymous system. A tutorial here: anonymous system simply makes sender-receiver not traceable, it does not mean the transaction not recorded in the block chain? sounds simple enough?

Well there still that month old bounty for 2 BTC to anyone who can link sender to receiver should be easy for you ohh great one. let me guess you don't have the time to make 1k even though if XC is as shit as you claim it to be would only take a few minutes, oh lets see you got better stuff to do..lol..like i said 2 BTC up for grabs all you gotta do is accept the challenge...I DARE YOU!!

[marseille]

Is that not the POINT of being hidden? What good would it do it you can trace it though the block chain to find out the receivers address?

you completely misunderstand what is anonymous system. A tutorial here: anonymous system simply makes sender-receiver not traceable, it does not mean the transaction not recorded in the block chain? sounds simple enough?

Yes but whatever address you might start with would not show up on the chain, instead it would show up as something else.
I know how it works

Like I said your not up for any debate. Go ahead and delete this too.

some transactions not in blockchain??? lmao, you can say bitcoin is a paper money? go dream at home please.

[timerland]

Is that not the POINT of being hidden? What good would it do it you can trace it though the block chain to find out the receivers address?

you completely misunderstand what is anonymous system. A tutorial here: anonymous system simply makes sender-receiver not traceable, it does not mean the transaction not recorded in the block chain? sounds simple enough?

Well there still that month old bounty for 2 BTC to anyone who can link sender to receiver should be easy for you ohh great one. let me guess you don't have the time to make 1k even though if XC is as shit as you claim it to be would only take a few minutes, oh lets see you got better stuff to do..lol..like i said 2 BTC up for grabs all you gotta do is accept the challenge...I DARE YOU!!

Again, please don't waste time here. I can use a simple mixer and you don't be able to trace my transaction. But here we talk about multisig, and let me repeat this simple question for the last time:

provide us a multisig address that has tx associated with it, in the blockchain, so we can inspect and see what is there. This can prove you actually have the capability of multisig.

[mr_random]

Is that not the POINT of being hidden? What good would it do it you can trace it though the block chain to find out the receivers address?

you completely misunderstand what is anonymous system. A tutorial here: anonymous system simply makes sender-receiver not traceable, it does not mean the transaction not recorded in the block chain? sounds simple enough?

Well there still that month old bounty for 2 BTC to anyone who can link sender to receiver should be easy for you ohh great one. let me guess you don't have the time to make 1k even though if XC is as shit as you claim it to be would only take a few minutes, oh lets see you got better stuff to do..lol..like i said 2 BTC up for grabs all you gotta do is accept the challenge...I DARE YOU!!

Again, please don't waste time here. I can use a simple mixer and you don't be able to trace my transaction. But here we talk about multisig, and let me repeat this simple question for the last time:

provide us a multisig address that has tx associated with it, in the blockchain, so we can inspect and see what is there. This can prove you actually have the capability of multisig.

Didn't Dan the XC dev just say that multisig addresses aren't used? And that it relies on the transactions being signed by all parties instead?

So why do you keep asking for a multisig address, can you explain? I am not a programmer.

[NewWorldCoiner]

XC facts
FACT 1 XC dev is proven to be lier!
FACT 2 XC dev cheated people on website about XC technology.
FACT 3 XC dev tried to fud with army of fudster on mammothcoin.
FACT 4 XC dev selling something else with different package.[/b]

So you leave this BULLSHIT in place but delete other posts?

Maybe you received your answer already, perhaps you just didn't like the way it sounded and deleted it. You might wanna check for that.

And attack XC? Are you mad? DRK tried that, didn't quite go to plan...

[timerland]

Is that not the POINT of being hidden? What good would it do it you can trace it though the block chain to find out the receivers address?

you completely misunderstand what is anonymous system. A tutorial here: anonymous system simply makes sender-receiver not traceable, it does not mean the transaction not recorded in the block chain? sounds simple enough?

Well there still that month old bounty for 2 BTC to anyone who can link sender to receiver should be easy for you ohh great one. let me guess you don't have the time to make 1k even though if XC is as shit as you claim it to be would only take a few minutes, oh lets see you got better stuff to do..lol..like i said 2 BTC up for grabs all you gotta do is accept the challenge...I DARE YOU!!

Again, please don't waste time here. I can use a simple mixer and you don't be able to trace my transaction. But here we talk about multisig, and let me repeat this simple question for the last time:

provide us a multisig address that has tx associated with it, in the blockchain, so we can inspect and see what is there. This can prove you actually have the capability of multisig.

Didn't Dan the XC dev just say that multisig addresses aren't used? And that it relies on the transactions being signed by all parties instead?

So why do you keep asking for a multisig address, can you explain? I am not a programmer.

Hmm this is more interesting... so you said multisig is not used in XC at all? this may be the truth after all these trouble

I keep asking it because XC claimed that it has multisig implemented, so I want to find out if this is true and how it is used. Very simple.

[btcsup]

You want to learn truth? See how XC dev try to cheat mammothdev

I have the real proof atcsecure xc dev posted on mammothcoin thread and he said this is as multisig address!

http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229177.htm (This is atcsecure's (XC dev) multisig wallet    lol see how he tries to cheat without fear)

see how he tries



He as big dev saying first he does not need whitepaper at all, second advising poor mammoth dev to check multisig...

This the amazing technology how to cheat people.

But he is stupid enough to post non multisig address at the same time. http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229177.htm
This is not possible without using multisig to build decentralization unless alliens (or hype) builds new technology. See video speaks about.

XC facts
FACT 1 XC dev is proven to be lier!
FACT 2 XC dev cheated people on website about XC technology.
FACT 3 XC dev tried to fud with army of fudster on mammothcoin.
FACT 4 XC dev selling something else with different package.

To learn more about REAL multisig technology Watch the video

OpenBazaar's Sam Patterson Talks Ecommerce, Decentralization, Multisig & More | Coin Brief Interview


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK85PCee3pU

[synechist]

Man, I head out to enjoy my weekend and come back to this mess?

Again, you guys need to work on your civility.

Now, let's play join-the-dots:

1) I posted the following a little earlier:

Can anyone show me XC's multisig addresses and their associated transactions?

Would these satisfy your curiosity?
- http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/block.dws?62014.htm
- http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229177.htm

You're an arse for fudding instead of just downloading the wallet and trying out Privacy Mode.

m-of-m multisig? Are you drunk? What fun will you have to have m-of-m multisig?? If one guy is bad then you want the wallet is locked forever?

So, your reasoning process:
- timerland doesn't understand the point of m-of-m multisig.

- timerland doesn't bother to ask people from XC what m-of-m is used for.

- timerland simply concludes, with the foolhardiness of a drunk pullet, that the truth is not that he lacks understanding but that XC is a scam.


You're not very civil are you?

Just come and ask us questions next time instead of creating a fruitless and irritating FUD thread.

If you have further questions, you're welcome to ask, nicely.

2) ATCSECURE, XC's core dev, posted the following not too long ago:

They are mixing apples and oranges, XC is trustless based on the signatures of all parties during the private transaction.  Its not using MULTI_SIG N OF M Address's.

The transactions are SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES, if any of the outputs are missing, then it is not signed by all parties.

Here is an example of a private decentralized distributed multi-path transaction consisting of 4 parties. >>> http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229236.htm

3) Supplementary information:

- XC's multipath technology, used for obfuscating the amount sent in a transaction and the identity of sender and receiver, makes use of m-of-m transactions in order to achieve trustless mixing.

- Trustless mixing is a world-first. Nobody's ever done it before. Hence my prior request that you ask questions before coming to conclusions.

- m-of-m requires that all parties sign or else the transaction is invalidated.

- As such, m-of-m prevents bad nodes stealing coins instead of forwarding them.

- if a transaction is invalidated, the participating nodes resync the session-based network they form for the transaction in question, and proceed.


4) Conclusion:

- You might've guessed this before - though your intentions evidently have barricaded you from this surprisingly obvious conclusion - but XC DOES NOT USE MULTI_SIG M-OF-N.

- So you're looking for the wrong thing. It's something that I've already stated (see above post) that XC does not use. All this talk of addresses beginning with a 4, condescending offers to explain multisig, etc. refer to the wrong thing. Come on.

- I refer you to the latter half of my previous post: timerland needs to ask questions before coming to conclusions about a technology he doesn't understand.

- If you don't get the point of m-of-m transactions, then stop talking and listen. Idiots.

- You can start listening this weekend. ATCSECURE releases a whitepaper explaining how all this works.


And if you speak again, kindly be civil, for heaven's sake.

[Queeq]

Timerland, in your original post you show the screenshots that mention multisig transactions, not multisig addresses. I guess these are two different things and it's incorrect to ask for multisig addresses which are not used in XC as what is there is some proprietary technology with resembling name but different by content.

[timerland]

Man, I head out to enjoy my weekend and come back to this mess?

Again, you guys need to work on your civility.

Now, let's play join-the-dots:

1) I posted the following a little earlier:

Can anyone show me XC's multisig addresses and their associated transactions?

Would these satisfy your curiosity?
- http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/block.dws?62014.htm
- http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229177.htm

You're an arse for fudding instead of just downloading the wallet and trying out Privacy Mode.

m-of-m multisig? Are you drunk? What fun will you have to have m-of-m multisig?? If one guy is bad then you want the wallet is locked forever?

So, your reasoning process:
- timerland doesn't understand the point of m-of-m multisig.

- timerland doesn't bother to ask people from XC what m-of-m is used for.

- timerland simply concludes, with the foolhardiness of a drunk pullet, that the truth is not that he lacks understanding but that XC is a scam.


You're not very civil are you?

Just come and ask us questions next time instead of creating a fruitless and irritating FUD thread.

If you have further questions, you're welcome to ask, nicely.

2) ATCSECURE, XC's core dev, posted the following not too long ago:

They are mixing apples and oranges, XC is trustless based on the signatures of all parties during the private transaction.  Its not using MULTI_SIG N OF M Address's.

The transactions are SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES, if any of the outputs are missing, then it is not signed by all parties.

Here is an example of a private decentralized distributed multi-path transaction consisting of 4 parties. >>> http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229236.htm

3) Supplementary information:

- XC's multipath technology, used for obfuscating the amount sent in a transaction and the identity of sender and receiver, makes use of m-of-m transactions in order to achieve trustless mixing.

- Trustless mixing is a world-first. Nobody's ever done it before. Hence my prior request that you ask questions before coming to conclusions.

- m-of-m requires that all parties sign or else the transaction is invalidated.

- As such, m-of-m prevents bad nodes stealing coins instead of forwarding them.

- if a transaction is invalidated, the participating nodes resync the session-based network they form for the transaction in question, and proceed.


4) Conclusion:

- You might've guessed this before - though your intentions evidently have barricaded you from this surprisingly obvious conclusion - but XC DOES NOT USE MULTI_SIG M-OF-N.

- So you're looking for something that I've already stated (see above post) that XC does not use. All this talk of addresses beginning with a 4, condescending offers to explain multisig, etc. refer to the wrong thing.

- I refer you to the latter half of my previous post: timerland needs to ask questions before coming to conclusions about a technology he doesn't understand.

- If you don't get the point of m-of-m transactions, then stop talking and listen. Idiots.

- You can start listening this weekend. ATCSECURE releases a whitepaper explaining how all this works.


And if you speak again, kindly be civil, for heaven's sake.

people already showed you what you posted do not have a single multisig address. What your links for??

we ask some simple info and you provided something complete different. Please answer the simple question, and don't post ton of unrelated info to confuse people.

moreover, now I see you changed m-of-m multisig to n-of-m multisig, lol, learned something new? can you show me how you plan to use m-of-m multisig? You apparently have no knowledge on what is a multisig at all!

[synechist]

people already showed you what you posted do not have a single multisig address. What your links for??

we ask some simple info and you provided something complete different. Please answer the simple question, and don't post ton of unrelated info to confuse people.

Let me state it more briefly then: you're asking for the wrong thing.

MULTI_SIG M-OF-N is not used in XC.


Can we move on now?

[synechist]

moreover, now I see you changed m-of-m multisig to n-of-m multisig, lol, learned something new?

No I didn't. Even in my prior post - which you quoted above - I use the term "m-of-m".

Where are you getting this from?