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

[synechist]

BTW, I read other posts, why not you show people an example of m-of-m address in the block explorer.

This is a complete joke.

By being disposed against XC you're making it hard for you to come to understand.

The block explorer links I posted above are transactions in which

- multiple addresses sign

- all participating addresses sign or else the transaction fails.


Multiple addresses signing = "multisig".


Or perhaps you're mistaking XC's protocol for Bitcoin's and thereby expecting the address to start with a "4"?

This shows you have no knowledge on the multisig. In order to create multisig tx, like m-of-m you mentioned, you need to create a multisig address first. Then you can create multisig tx there.

No, XC just does things differently. If "knowledge of multisig" pertains to how it's done in Bitcoin, well, that would be irrelevant.

If you did this in XC, then it is extremely easy to point to people this address in the block explorer, then people can see this.

For private transactions, why would we want to do a thing like that?

(You're playing into my hands on that one.)

[timerland]

BTW, I read other posts, why not you show people an example of m-of-m address in the block explorer.

This is a complete joke.

By being disposed against XC you're making it hard for you to come to understand.

The block explorer links I posted above are transactions in which

- multiple addresses sign

- all participating addresses sign or else the transaction fails.


Multiple addresses signing = "multisig".


Or perhaps you're mistaking XC's protocol for Bitcoin's and thereby expecting the address to start with a "4"?

This shows you have no knowledge on the multisig. In order to create multisig tx, like m-of-m you mentioned, you need to create a multisig address first. Then you can create multisig tx there.

No, XC just does things differently. If "knowledge of multisig" pertains to how it's done in Bitcoin, well, that would be irrelevant.

If you did this in XC, then it is extremely easy to point to people this address in the block explorer, then people can see this.

For private transactions, why would we want to do a thing like that?

(You're playing into my hands on that one.)

No, there's only one technology for multisig, there's nothing "different", or it is not multisig. Try to use some other names.

XC's multisig address starts with '4'. Clearly you never saw this before, lol

[synechist]

BTW, I read other posts, why not you show people an example of m-of-m address in the block explorer.

This is a complete joke.

By being disposed against XC you're making it hard for you to come to understand.

The block explorer links I posted above are transactions in which

- multiple addresses sign

- all participating addresses sign or else the transaction fails.


Multiple addresses signing = "multisig".


Or perhaps you're mistaking XC's protocol for Bitcoin's and thereby expecting the address to start with a "4"?

This shows you have no knowledge on the multisig. In order to create multisig tx, like m-of-m you mentioned, you need to create a multisig address first. Then you can create multisig tx there.

No, XC just does things differently. If "knowledge of multisig" pertains to how it's done in Bitcoin, well, that would be irrelevant.

If you did this in XC, then it is extremely easy to point to people this address in the block explorer, then people can see this.

For private transactions, why would we want to do a thing like that?

(You're playing into my hands on that one.)

No, there's only one technology for multisig, there's nothing "different", or it is not multisig. Try to use some other names.

XC's multisig address starts with '4'. Clearly you never saw this before, lol

I don't think you're in a position to state what technology XC has and doesn't have.

We're still based on bitcoin-QT, hence the ability to generate bitcoin-like multisig addresses (which we don't implement).

There's insufficient warrant to conclude from this that XC's m-of-m is not multisig.

[timerland]

I am really getting tired with all the fuds, if you have no knowledge about multisig, don't waste time here. I am sure I spend a lot less time deleting your fud than you type it. So let's all have a better life

[marseille]

Xc people, you guys talked a lot, and it seems to me that you did not even see a m-of-m multisig address in XC. Some138 created 2, you can create yourself. Oh man, please learn how to create multisig address and how to spend the tx. Bitcoin has detailed posts on them, learn it.

I am amazed by the braveness of these XC people. From what they posted, they never saw a true XC multisig address before, and they keep argue and argue with all the people knowing multisig, what is the point??

Please, create some XC multisig address on your own, and learn how the sign and everything work. Gavin Andersen posted some examples how to create multisig address and sign and spend there, please follow his example and try on your own.

If you never see an address starts with '4' in XC, you never did multisig at all, period.

lol, they used their own "private" technology, which they just used the multisig name without understanding it. Very brave indeed.

[marseille]

BTW, this is Gavin Andersen's example on the multisig in Bitcoin. Supercoin/mammothcoin implemented exactly the multisig technology, same is done at OpenBazaar.

https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071

XC devs please learn and hope you will have a real multisig system implemented, not just a name.

[timerland]

BTW, this is Gavin Andersen's example on the multisig in Bitcoin. Supercoin/mammothcoin implemented exactly the multisig technology, same is done at OpenBazaar.

https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071

XC devs please learn and hope you will have a real multisig system implemented, not just a name.

Yes this is the truth from all the above messages.

FUDs do not help, truth will prevail. I am glad I created a thread to show people the truth.

[synechist]

I will repeat a previous remark that you ignored:

Multisig transactions and multisig addresses are two different things.

A multisig address is just an address that requires y of x signatures.

A multisig transaction is just a transaction that requires more than one signature.

The two concepts are separable; the former is not required for the latter.

[timerland]

I am tired to argue with you guys, please if you want to show facts:

provide us an XC 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.

what you have provided so far are NOT XC multisig addresses, they are regular XC addresses. What I asked is extremely simple, and can be provided in 30 sec.

[timerland]

I will repeat a previous remark that you ignored:

Multisig transactions and multisig addresses are two different things.

A multisig address is just an address that requires y of x signatures.

A multisig transaction is just a transaction that requires more than one signature.

The two concepts are separable; the former is not required for the latter.

I hope you are joking, or you completely have no idea what is multisig. Multisig tx must be created on multisig address so it can be guaranteed the feature it has. Otherwise what you created is simply a regular tx, no restrictions at all.

I feel like teaching a tutorial on what is multisig here. Please ask this question at the development thread of bitcoin, you'll get the right answer.

[synechist]

I am tired to argue with you guys, please if you want to show facts:

provide us an XC 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.

what you have provided so far are NOT XC multisig addresses, they are regular XC addresses. What I asked is extremely simple, and can be provided in 30 sec.

I've told you this several times: XC DOES NOT USE WHAT YOU CALL "MULTISIG".

It uses multisig transactions, not multisig addresses.

Can we move on?

[synechist]

I will repeat a previous remark that you ignored:

Multisig transactions and multisig addresses are two different things.

A multisig address is just an address that requires y of x signatures.

A multisig transaction is just a transaction that requires more than one signature.

The two concepts are separable; the former is not required for the latter.

I hope you are joking, or you completely have no idea what is multisig. Multisig tx must be created on multisig address so it can be guaranteed the feature it has. Otherwise what you created is simply a regular tx, no restrictions at all.

How often do I need to repeat myself? You are not in a position to tell what technology XC has.

We use multisig transactions. We don't use multisig addresses. End.

[synechist]

And in what sense can the following deleted posts possibly be taken as inappropriate?

No, there's only one technology for multisig, there's nothing "different", or it is not multisig. Try to use some other names.

You are incorrect about this.

I repeat: you are not in a position to tell what technology XC has or has not implemented.

XC has technology that you do not know about.

Therefore you are not in a position to make the above statement.

Yes this is the truth from all the above messages.

This is an irresponsibly one-sided remark.

What possible reason would you have for deleting these?

[timerland]

I am tired to argue with you guys, please if you want to show facts:

provide us an XC 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.

what you have provided so far are NOT XC multisig addresses, they are regular XC addresses. What I asked is extremely simple, and can be provided in 30 sec.

I've told you this several times: XC DOES NOT USE WHAT YOU CALL "MULTISIG".

It uses multisig transactions, not multisig addresses.

Can we move on?

It uses regular tx in this case, where you can put software to do anything, but it does not require all party to sign in order to spend! mutisig transaction is the transaction created on multisig address (you understand why? well read what is multisig!).

[timerland]

And in what sense can the following deleted posts possibly be taken as inappropriate?

No, there's only one technology for multisig, there's nothing "different", or it is not multisig. Try to use some other names.

You are incorrect about this.

I repeat: you are not in a position to tell what technology XC has or has not implemented.

XC has technology that you do not know about.

Therefore you are not in a position to make the above statement.

Yes this is the truth from all the above messages.

This is an irresponsibly one-sided remark.

What possible reason would you have for deleting these?

because while you are arguing and you don't even know what is multisig address and what is multisig transaction!

marseille posted Gavin Andersen's example of multisig transaction, go read it and understand it please, before repeating the same thing here!

I again request you that please on the facts, no fuds, and understand multisig before posting please.

Again here Gavin Andersen showed what is a multisig tx and how to create, sign and spend!
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071


BTW, I thank all the fuds to pump the thread for me, appreciated

[therightmintality]

BTW, this is Gavin Andersen's example on the multisig in Bitcoin. Supercoin/mammothcoin implemented exactly the multisig technology, same is done at OpenBazaar.

https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071

XC devs please learn and hope you will have a real multisig system implemented, not just a name.

Funny... do you still use AOL for your email as well.  You are using bitcoin technology and open bazaar's rationale, both without anon....  therefore nodes can be more trusted, but they have to be trusted.  XC offers trustless mixing where every node signs off and can't steal coins, if it doesn't sign, it resyncs and sends the transaction to another set.   Highly likely most transactions will be very quick, but if there is an attempt to be a bad actor they are inhibited from gaining access to the coins.   Your old technology multi sig allows bad actors/nodes to steal coins.  THis has been know for a long time, with coins before yours that you stole to write your code.   In fact you deleted a 500 post thread because it primarily discussed the inadequacies of this design.

[timerland]

BTW, this is Gavin Andersen's example on the multisig in Bitcoin. Supercoin/mammothcoin implemented exactly the multisig technology, same is done at OpenBazaar.

https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071

XC devs please learn and hope you will have a real multisig system implemented, not just a name.

Funny... do you still use AOL for your email as well.  You are using bitcoin technology and open bazaar's rationale, both without anon....  therefore nodes can be more trusted, but they have to be trusted.  XC offers trustless mixing where every node signs off and can't steal coins, if it doesn't sign, it resyncs and sends the transaction to another set.   Highly likely most transactions will be very quick, but if there is an attempt to be a bad actor they are inhibited from gaining access to the coins.   Your old technology multi sig allows bad actors/nodes to steal coins.  THis has been know for a long time, with coins before yours that you stole to write your code.   In fact you deleted a 500 post thread because it primarily discussed the inadequacies of this design.

ok since you attempted so many times, let me answer you: multisig tech is not anon, it can be used for anon system like what Supercoin/Mammothcoin did. There's no "old" multisig, there's only one, implemnted by Bitcoin and used by many.

You try to use regular tx and with some software side controls, this is completely different things. It is not multisig, it is whatever your private tech. Don't call it multisig because it is not. No wonder why Xc people never saw a XC multisig address starting with "4".

Please don't post garbage here. I think everything is very clear. If you have other facts as I asked, please post, otherwise don't waste our time.

[therightmintality]

BTW, this is Gavin Andersen's example on the multisig in Bitcoin. Supercoin/mammothcoin implemented exactly the multisig technology, same is done at OpenBazaar.

https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071

XC devs please learn and hope you will have a real multisig system implemented, not just a name.

Funny... do you still use AOL for your email as well.  You are using bitcoin technology and open bazaar's rationale, both without anon....  therefore nodes can be more trusted, but they have to be trusted.  XC offers trustless mixing where every node signs off and can't steal coins, if it doesn't sign, it resyncs and sends the transaction to another set.   Highly likely most transactions will be very quick, but if there is an attempt to be a bad actor they are inhibited from gaining access to the coins.   Your old technology multi sig allows bad actors/nodes to steal coins.  THis has been know for a long time, with coins before yours that you stole to write your code.   In fact you deleted a 500 post thread because it primarily discussed the inadequacies of this design.

ok since you attempted so many times, let me answer you: multisig tech is not anon, it can be used for anon system like what Supercoin/Mammothcoin did. There's no "old" multisig, there's only one, implemnted by Bitcoin and used by many.

You try to use regular tx and with some software side controls, this is completely different things. It is not multisig, it is whatever your private tech. Don't call it multisig because it is not. No wonder why Xc people never saw a XC multisig address starting with "4".

Please don't post garbage here. I think everything is very clear. If you have other facts as I asked, please post, otherwise don't waste our time.

If EVERY node has to sign(meaning multiple signers)  it is multi-sig.  It is a trustless version, unlike supers where coins can be stolen.

[timerland]

BTW, this is Gavin Andersen's example on the multisig in Bitcoin. Supercoin/mammothcoin implemented exactly the multisig technology, same is done at OpenBazaar.

https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071

XC devs please learn and hope you will have a real multisig system implemented, not just a name.

Funny... do you still use AOL for your email as well.  You are using bitcoin technology and open bazaar's rationale, both without anon....  therefore nodes can be more trusted, but they have to be trusted.  XC offers trustless mixing where every node signs off and can't steal coins, if it doesn't sign, it resyncs and sends the transaction to another set.   Highly likely most transactions will be very quick, but if there is an attempt to be a bad actor they are inhibited from gaining access to the coins.   Your old technology multi sig allows bad actors/nodes to steal coins.  THis has been know for a long time, with coins before yours that you stole to write your code.   In fact you deleted a 500 post thread because it primarily discussed the inadequacies of this design.

ok since you attempted so many times, let me answer you: multisig tech is not anon, it can be used for anon system like what Supercoin/Mammothcoin did. There's no "old" multisig, there's only one, implemnted by Bitcoin and used by many.

You try to use regular tx and with some software side controls, this is completely different things. It is not multisig, it is whatever your private tech. Don't call it multisig because it is not. No wonder why Xc people never saw a XC multisig address starting with "4".

Please don't post garbage here. I think everything is very clear. If you have other facts as I asked, please post, otherwise don't waste our time.

If EVERY node has to sign(meaning multiple signers)  it is multi-sig.  It is a trustless version, unlike supers where coins can be stolen.

No, please do a google on multisig transactions, you see what it is. For example:
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3718/what-are-multi-signature-transactions
http://bitcoinmagazine.com/11108/multisig-future-bitcoin/

what you have is reg tx, anyone can post it in the network.

someone also posted a youtube on multisig with open bazaar implementation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK85PCee3pU

multisig addresses can be created with RPC command such as addmultisigaddress in almost any client of the coin, including the XC client (that's how some138 created 2 multisig addresses for XC). multisig tx are those tx created on multisig address, where you have to have the required signature with private key in order to spend it (i.e. being accepted by the network). For normal raw tx, any one can post it in the network, no additional sigs required.

[fluffypony]

If EVERY node has to sign(meaning multiple signers)  it is multi-sig.  It is a trustless version, unlike supers where coins can be stolen.

lol - every node on the network? You understand that multi-sig is just an extension of pay-to-script-hash, right? When you understand P2SH we can talk.