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

[therightmintality]

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.

Every node the transaction is using to process, not every node on the entire network. 

[adhitthana]

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.

This is a little unclear. You made a very clear and concise explanation of why you thought Supercoin had problems.
Now, however, it seems that you were not aware of how XC's trustless system works, and may have dismissed it prematurely.. Though I am happy to be corrected, but I can't see how you could have if you thought the previous poster meant "every node on the network".

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on XC as you  have a good understanding of these issues, and are fairly measured, and if Cloak and Super do indeed have problems then it may be that XC is the coin which could provide a better solution than Crypto Note coins.
Thanks in advance

[timerland]

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.

they clearly don't know what is a multisig. They think something else is multisig, lol

[adhitthana]

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.

they clearly don't know what is a multisig. They think something else is multisig, lol

Well I will admit I did not know that the term multi-sig could not be applied to any transaction that requires multiple signatures.
I'm not convinced it is wrong to use the term for more than just the older type of transaction, but I can see where the confusion came from.

[synechist]

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.

No, not every node on the network.

For a transaction, an ad-hoc "network" is set up between participating nodes.

Most nodes participating will receive fragments of the transaction and sent them on.

Some nodes are redundant.

If a node fails to sign, then it gets booted out of the transaction, the ad-hoc network resyncs, and another node takes its place.

If all participating nodes sign, this sends the fragments onwards to other nodes.

As such, m-of-m signatures are required for each fragment to be sent, hence the term "multisig".

You're all welcome to dispute the applicability of the term, since multisig addresses aren't used. However regardless of what you call it, multiple signatures are required for each transaction.

[fluffypony]

This is a little unclear. You made a very clear and concise explanation of why you thought Supercoin had problems.
Now, however, it seems that you were not aware of how XC's trustless system works, and may have dismissed it prematurely.. Though I am happy to be corrected, but I can't see how you could have if you thought the previous poster meant "every node on the network".

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on XC as you  have a good understanding of these issues, and are fairly measured, and if Cloak and Super do indeed have problems then it may be that XC is the coin which could provide a better solution than Crypto Note coins.
Thanks in advance

Contextually the conversation was around trustless systems - my comment was meant to demonstrate that you can't have a trustless system unless "everyone" is or could be involved. If you require an N-sized subset of the network to validate, then it means you are trusting that nobody in the subset group are malicious. It was quite late and was an unclear comment, unfortunately.

Incidentally, I keep coming back to a simple premise: we need to see valid mathematics behind things in order to understand them. These discussions wouldn't happen if whitepapers had more algebra and fewer "diagrams" (such as they are). The knee-jerk reaction here seems to be "just look at the blockchain!" or similar, when looking at the blockchain created by a closed-source application won't reveal the size of the anonymity set. Bitcoin assumes that all (bar 1) connected peers are malicious (it can do nothing about complete isolation), and that should be the basis from which all good cryptography starts. A lot of the "solutions" I see lately start from the assumption that "every peer is basically ok/trustworthy and has no incentive to be malicious", which is patently wrong.

[adhitthana]

This is a little unclear. You made a very clear and concise explanation of why you thought Supercoin had problems.
Now, however, it seems that you were not aware of how XC's trustless system works, and may have dismissed it prematurely.. Though I am happy to be corrected, but I can't see how you could have if you thought the previous poster meant "every node on the network".

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on XC as you  have a good understanding of these issues, and are fairly measured, and if Cloak and Super do indeed have problems then it may be that XC is the coin which could provide a better solution than Crypto Note coins.
Thanks in advance

Contextually the conversation was around trustless systems - my comment was meant to demonstrate that you can't have a trustless system unless "everyone" is or could be involved.

Thanks for your reply. I'm sure other will have a better grasp but IIUC all nodes could be involved under Xc's system (though I stand to be corrected).

If you require an N-sized subset of the network to validate, then it means you are trusting that nobody in the subset group are malicious. It was quite late and was an unclear comment, unfortunately

Ok...but what can a malicious actor do in XC's system? I don't think they can do much as they are just signing transactions without the possibility of them stealing coins. Again I stand to be corrected.

Incidentally, I keep coming back to a simple premise: we need to see valid mathematics behind things in order to understand them. These discussions wouldn't happen if whitepapers had more algebra and fewer "diagrams" (such as they are).

Yes, although Satoshi's white paper didn't have too much algebra...or did it? But I think you're right but I don't really have a grasp of the maths...so...hard for me to say much

The knee-jerk reaction here seems to be "just look at the blockchain!" or similar, when looking at the blockchain created by a closed-source application won't reveal the size of the anonymity set. Bitcoin assumes that all (bar 1) connected peers are malicious (it can do nothing about complete isolation), and that should be the basis from which all good cryptography starts. A lot of the "solutions" I see lately start from the assumption that "every peer is basically ok/trustworthy and has no incentive to be malicious", which is patently wrong.

ok that  seems a fair call...but maybe more will be apparent if and when XC is open?

Thanks again for your reply, its appreciated  

[fluffypony]

Yes, although Satoshi's white paper didn't have too much algebra...or did it? But I think you're right but I don't really have a grasp of the maths...so...hard for me to say much

The day I see something comparable to this (excerpt from the Bitcoin whitepaper) in an altcoin whitepaper is the day I will do a little dance around the room;)

ok that  seems a fair call...but maybe more will be apparent if and when XC is open?

Thanks again for your reply, its appreciated  

Absolutely - once things are fully open and there's a whitepaper then there can be a discussion around the validity and correctness of the mathematics and cryptography presented in the whitepaper, as well as a discussion as to whether the code correctly adheres to the principles in the whitepaper.

[timerland]

I appreciate some good discussions there. However, let us focus on our original questions. That is, does XC uses multisig technology? The answer is a clear no. They clearly took something else as the multisig, and they did not even see an XC multisig address before (which some138 first created 2 of them).

This said, I don't conclude that they don't have an anonymous system. XC may have a good anonymous system but this is not the investigation here. As I said before, multisig and anonymous system are two different things. Although multisig can be used to create an anonymous system like what Supercoin/mammothcoin did. Multisig can also be used for other things like open p2p marketplace created by Open Bazaar, in this case there's nothing to do with anonymous system. So let's be clear what is the problem we are investigating here, and don't boil the ocean by citing unrelated things. I am not here to judge the whole technologies used by XC. I merely try to understand their claim on the multisig, for that me and many others have got a clear answer and conclusion.

So investigation closed. No more fuds please, especially no need from people who understands nothing about the subject and multisig. Thank you all.

[marseille]

I appreciate some good discussions there. However, let us focus on our original questions. That is, does XC uses multisig technology? The answer is a clear no. They clearly took something else as the multisig, and they did not even see an XC multisig address before (which some138 first created 2 of them).

This said, I don't conclude that they don't have an anonymous system. XC may have a good anonymous system but this is not the investigation here. As I said before, multisig and anonymous system are two different things. Although multisig can be used to create an anonymous system like what Supercoin/mammothcoin did. Multisig can also be used for other things like open p2p marketplace created by Open Bazaar, in this case there's nothing to do with anonymous system. So let's be clear what is the problem we are investigating here, and don't boil the ocean by citing unrelated things. I am not here to judge the whole technologies used by XC. I merely try to understand their claim on the multisig, for that me and many others have got a clear answer and conclusion.

So investigation closed. No more fuds please, especially no need from people who understands nothing about the subject and multisig. Thank you all.

Thank you for the investigation, that clarified which coin in the alt coin world actually implemented multisig.

[synechist]

I appreciate some good discussions there. However, let us focus on our original questions. That is, does XC uses multisig technology? The answer is a clear no. They clearly took something else as the multisig, and they did not even see an XC multisig address before (which some138 first created 2 of them).

This said, I don't conclude that they don't have an anonymous system. XC may have a good anonymous system but this is not the investigation here. As I said before, multisig and anonymous system are two different things. Although multisig can be used to create an anonymous system like what Supercoin/mammothcoin did. Multisig can also be used for other things like open p2p marketplace created by Open Bazaar, in this case there's nothing to do with anonymous system. So let's be clear what is the problem we are investigating here, and don't boil the ocean by citing unrelated things. I am not here to judge the whole technologies used by XC. I merely try to understand their claim on the multisig, for that me and many others have got a clear answer and conclusion.

So investigation closed. No more fuds please, especially no need from people who understands nothing about the subject and multisig. Thank you all.

Thank you for the investigation, that clarified which coin in the alt coin world actually implemented multisig.

**Timerland wins an argument about a terminological nicety by deleting comments that disagree with his terminological preference.

You don't win an argument (or even establish a point) by deciding that any views contrary to your own are off-topic. I've made a clear case for my view, only to have had it repeated to me that Timerland's terminological preference rules and thus that (a) I do not understand multisig and (b) my comments are irrelevant and worthy of deletion.

Secondly you don't establish a point by removing other parties from the debate. Timerland's having a party all on his own.

Timerland you silly totalitarian. Better delete this quick before anyone sees.

Respect for Timerland's ethics: zero.

[timerland]

I appreciate some good discussions there. However, let us focus on our original questions. That is, does XC uses multisig technology? The answer is a clear no. They clearly took something else as the multisig, and they did not even see an XC multisig address before (which some138 first created 2 of them).

This said, I don't conclude that they don't have an anonymous system. XC may have a good anonymous system but this is not the investigation here. As I said before, multisig and anonymous system are two different things. Although multisig can be used to create an anonymous system like what Supercoin/mammothcoin did. Multisig can also be used for other things like open p2p marketplace created by Open Bazaar, in this case there's nothing to do with anonymous system. So let's be clear what is the problem we are investigating here, and don't boil the ocean by citing unrelated things. I am not here to judge the whole technologies used by XC. I merely try to understand their claim on the multisig, for that me and many others have got a clear answer and conclusion.

So investigation closed. No more fuds please, especially no need from people who understands nothing about the subject and multisig. Thank you all.

Thank you for the investigation, that clarified which coin in the alt coin world actually implemented multisig.

**Timerland wins an argument about a terminological nicety by deleting comments that disagree with his terminological preference.

You don't win an argument (or even establish a point) by deciding that any views contrary to your own are off-topic. I've made a clear case for my view, only to have had it repeated to me that Timerland's terminological preference rules and thus that (a) I do not understand multisig and (b) my comments are irrelevant and worthy of deletion.

Secondly you don't establish a point by removing other parties from the debate. Timerland's having a party all on his own.

Timerland you silly totalitarian. Better delete this quick before anyone sees.

Respect for Timerland's ethics: zero.

synechist, I am surprised at your low moral and ethics. You and your fud partners fud this thread and many others, only to show other people how stupid you are, it is disgusting the way you desperately argue and try to deny the facts.

Again, here are the facts:

XC does not have multisig tech implemented. XC dev and its supporters did not even see an XC multisig address until some138 created 2 true XC multisig addresses for them.

They clearly mixed something else as the multig while they did not even realize it.

Again, this investigation is not on how good or bad XC is, or whether XC supported anonymous transfer. These subjects are not part of this investigation. The purpose of this investigation is simple and clear, it is stated clearly in the OP. And now the investigation is concluded with clear facts.

The fuds will never ever change the facts!

[synechist]

synechist, I am surprised at your low moral and ethics. You and your fud partners fud this thread and many others, only to show other people how stupid you are, it is disgusting the way you desperately argue and try to deny the facts.

Again, here are the facts:

XC does not have multisig tech [edit: under Timerland's definition] implemented. XC dev and its supporters did not even see an XC multisig address until some138 created 2 true XC multisig addresses for them.

They clearly mixed something else as the multig while they did not even realize it.

Again, this investigation is not on how good or bad XC is, or whether XC supported anonymous transfer. These subjects are not part of this investigation. The purpose of this investigation is simple and clear, it is stated clearly in the OP. And now the investigation is concluded with clear facts.

The fuds will never ever change the facts!

To repeat myself once again, you don't have a monopoly on terminology. Who do you think you are? God?

It's incredibly arrogant to call your terminological preference a "fact". Our preference differs. Deal with it. (In fact, terms are never "facts". They only describe facts. So you're on very shaky ground there.)

XC uses the term "multisig" to refer to transactions that require multiple parties to sign in order to be valid. This is a common scenario with any new technology: what to call it? It's new, and so there are no words for it. In this case we decided that our tech is best termed a multisig transaction that is distinct from a multisig address.

If you don't like our usage, well you'll just have to accept it anyway.

You don't get to decide. Because you're not God.



P.S. You don't know what FUD is do you? It stands for "fear, uncertainty and doubt". To have a differing opinion to yours is not to spread FUD. Perhaps it's you who needs to use terms correctly.

[timerland]

synechist, I am surprised at your low moral and ethics. You and your fud partners fud this thread and many others, only to show other people how stupid you are, it is disgusting the way you desperately argue and try to deny the facts.

Again, here are the facts:

XC does not have multisig tech [edit: under Timerland's definition] implemented. XC dev and its supporters did not even see an XC multisig address until some138 created 2 true XC multisig addresses for them.

They clearly mixed something else as the multig while they did not even realize it.

Again, this investigation is not on how good or bad XC is, or whether XC supported anonymous transfer. These subjects are not part of this investigation. The purpose of this investigation is simple and clear, it is stated clearly in the OP. And now the investigation is concluded with clear facts.

The fuds will never ever change the facts!

To repeat myself once again, you don't have a monopoly on terminology. Who do you think you are? God?

It's incredibly arrogant to call your terminological preference a "fact". Our preference differs. Deal with it. (In fact, terms are never "facts". They only describe facts. So you're on very shaky ground there.)

XC uses the term "multisig" to refer to transactions that require multiple parties to sign in order to be valid. This is a common scenario with any new technology: what to call it? It's new, and so there are no words for it. In this case we decided that our tech is best termed a multisig transaction that is distinct from a multisig address.

If you don't like our usage, well you'll just have to accept it anyway.
You don't get to decide. Because you're not God.

P.S. You don't know what FUD is do you? It stands for "fear, uncertainty and doubt". To have a differing opinion to yours is not to spread FUD. Perhaps it's you who needs to use terms correctly.

There are common terms used, which means something. Like multisig technology means what bitcoin implemented in the coin code and its many usage.
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3718/what-are-multi-signature-transactions
http://bitcoinmagazine.com/11108/multisig-future-bitcoin/

By using this common terms for something else, people will think either you are completely ignorance, or want to use it for your benefits in a cheating way. Either way it is not good. If you don't know it, it's probably ok. Now you are told the facts and you continue to depend it desperately, I don't see the points.

[timerland]

now that supercoin released their code, XC you can copy it over and claim real multisig 

[UnicornFarts]

To repeat myself once again, you don't have a monopoly on terminology. Who do you think you are? God?

*Sigh* - I love this guy.

Somehow I see him trying to tell a judge this during a rape case.  "Rape?  It wasn't rape.  Pfffft ... you think you have a monopoly on terminology"

[illodin]

It can be concluded that timerland is clearly in love with multisig.

Some questions that arise after reading all this though is that does XC have multisig? And what is multisig? Is it fud?

[jakiman]

Some very interesting discussions are going within the Supercoin thread since the source code release.
So Supercoin does actually have a very advanced p2p anon using multisig for its anti-cheat system.
Source code is now public so everyone can check it out for themselves. No need for assumptions.

Dev notes & code release:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=736705.msg9588332#msg9588332