Hey everyone
This has created a lot of attention and I'm getting bombarded with messages right now.
The BurnerConnect announcement only gives a brief outline of how the technology will work, we will give you more in depth details in the next few days, but right now we're really busy with the beta testing and improving the technology.
Thanks
Topic: [ANN] ◢◣ BurnerCoin x13 PoW+PoS ◢◣ Android Game available on play store! - page 30. (Read 123276 times)
June 25, 2014, 01:34:22 PM
June 25, 2014, 12:50:17 PM
The point is that you will need the blockchain to create a new wallet with the amount of coins you want to send
Yea I agree. The Blockchain has to be invovled in some way. But I think the dev meant when sending the coins to the receiver you are avoiding the blockchain. He did not go into details with what happens before the coins/wallet is sent.
June 25, 2014, 12:38:37 PM
They are not outside the blockchain..
Its like taking your wallet.dat and emailing it to someone else.
They open it, and have access to the coins located on the blockchain as they were before.
The coins are on the blockchain, but they never move.
Its like taking your wallet.dat and emailing it to someone else.
They open it, and have access to the coins located on the blockchain as they were before.
The coins are on the blockchain, but they never move.
that would require you to already have the exact amount of coins you want to send in a wallet address
The point is that you will need the blockchain to create a new wallet with the amount of coins you want to send
June 25, 2014, 12:31:07 PM
They are not outside the blockchain..
Its like taking your wallet.dat and emailing it to someone else.
They open it, and have access to the coins located on the blockchain as they were before.
The coins are on the blockchain, but they never move.
Its like taking your wallet.dat and emailing it to someone else.
They open it, and have access to the coins located on the blockchain as they were before.
The coins are on the blockchain, but they never move.
that would require you to already have the exact amount of coins you want to send in a wallet address
June 25, 2014, 12:27:09 PM
You and everyone else are making assumptions. The dev has not gone into details and gave a simple explanation.
1. The Blockchain is always involved in a transaction (if you know how cryptocurrencies work you might understand why)
If the client is sending the wallet.dat or something similar, technically it is avoiding the blockchain. If I create a wallet and put 50 burnercoins in it, and then I email you that wallet, there is no trace of me sending you that 50 burnercoins in the blockchain.
Call it put 50 burnercoins in it if you like
fact is that happens on the blockchain
2. this does not add any kind of anonimity
That depends on what he is doing before he sends the file.
no it does not it is just a simple transaction
3. it requires you to trust the sender since he created the wallet address and could be keeping the priv. key to tranfer the coins somewhere else before you have a chance to do so
That is if the users has access to that information. Maybe the dev is encrypting the file.
it only requires a modified client to copy the file somewhere else before its encrypted
4. why not just create the wallet on the receiver side. Would be more secure (no priv. key over the wire, even if its ssl encrypted) and trustless (burnerconnect seems here like a complicated way to achieve a simple thing)
Think about your solution, that wouldn't work.
it would since you already have a direct connection he could just hand over the public key
June 25, 2014, 12:26:12 PM
Who will be first polo or mintpal?
Both should collaborate and add at same time lol
June 25, 2014, 12:18:44 PM
Who will be first polo or mintpal?
June 25, 2014, 12:07:12 PM
I am sorry but either this explanation of burner connect is bogus
or it is a really bad idea in many ways
1. The Blockchain is always involved in a transaction (if you know how cryptocurrencies work you might understand why)
2. this does not add any kind of anonimity
3. it requires you to trust the sender since he created the wallet address and could be keeping the priv. key to tranfer the coins somewhere else before you have a chance to do so
4. why not just create the wallet on the receiver side. Would be more secure (no priv. key over the wire, even if its ssl encrypted) and trustless (burnerconnect seems here like a complicated way to achieve a simple thing)
or it is a really bad idea in many ways
1. The Blockchain is always involved in a transaction (if you know how cryptocurrencies work you might understand why)
2. this does not add any kind of anonimity
3. it requires you to trust the sender since he created the wallet address and could be keeping the priv. key to tranfer the coins somewhere else before you have a chance to do so
4. why not just create the wallet on the receiver side. Would be more secure (no priv. key over the wire, even if its ssl encrypted) and trustless (burnerconnect seems here like a complicated way to achieve a simple thing)
You and everyone else are making assumptions. The dev has not gone into details and gave a simple explanation.
1. The Blockchain is always involved in a transaction (if you know how cryptocurrencies work you might understand why)
If the client is sending the wallet.dat or something similar, technically it is avoiding the blockchain. If I create a wallet and put 50 burnercoins in it, and then I email you that wallet, there is no trace of me sending you that 50 burnercoins in the blockchain.
2. this does not add any kind of anonimity
That depends on what he is doing before he sends the file.
3. it requires you to trust the sender since he created the wallet address and could be keeping the priv. key to tranfer the coins somewhere else before you have a chance to do so
That is if the users has access to that information. Maybe the dev is encrypting the file.
4. why not just create the wallet on the receiver side. Would be more secure (no priv. key over the wire, even if its ssl encrypted) and trustless (burnerconnect seems here like a complicated way to achieve a simple thing)
Think about your solution, that wouldn't work.
June 25, 2014, 11:59:23 AM
They are not outside the blockchain..
Its like taking your wallet.dat and emailing it to someone else.
They open it, and have access to the coins located on the blockchain as they were before.
The coins are on the blockchain, but they never move.
Its like taking your wallet.dat and emailing it to someone else.
They open it, and have access to the coins located on the blockchain as they were before.
The coins are on the blockchain, but they never move.
that would require you to already have the exact amount of coins you want to send in a wallet address
June 25, 2014, 11:57:22 AM
I am sorry but either this explanation of burner connect is bogus
or it is a really bad idea in many ways
1. The Blockchain is always involved in a transaction (if you know how cryptocurrencies work you might understand why)
2. this does not add any kind of anonimity
3. it requires you to trust the sender since he created the wallet address and could be keeping the priv. key to tranfer the coins somewhere else before you have a chance to do so
4. why not just create the wallet on the receiver side. Would be more secure (no priv. key over the wire, even if its ssl encrypted) and trustless (burnerconnect seems here like a complicated way to achieve a simple thing)
5. internet connection of the receiver could break down
or it is a really bad idea in many ways
1. The Blockchain is always involved in a transaction (if you know how cryptocurrencies work you might understand why)
2. this does not add any kind of anonimity
3. it requires you to trust the sender since he created the wallet address and could be keeping the priv. key to tranfer the coins somewhere else before you have a chance to do so
4. why not just create the wallet on the receiver side. Would be more secure (no priv. key over the wire, even if its ssl encrypted) and trustless (burnerconnect seems here like a complicated way to achieve a simple thing)
5. internet connection of the receiver could break down
June 25, 2014, 11:53:08 AM
They are not outside the blockchain..
Its like taking your wallet.dat and emailing it to someone else.
They open it, and have access to the coins located on the blockchain as they were before.
The coins are on the blockchain, but they never move.
Its like taking your wallet.dat and emailing it to someone else.
They open it, and have access to the coins located on the blockchain as they were before.
The coins are on the blockchain, but they never move.
June 25, 2014, 11:48:08 AM
June 25, 2014, 11:12:49 AM
Everything the dev promised he came through on. Please making jokes about the Android game but it is a unique way to drive people to the site and start asking about Burner. CoinDesk will most likely write about this.
June 25, 2014, 11:00:15 AM
Razor already has tor..and nobody wants to play an Android game that you need to buy a crypto coin to play. Fail
I guess you didn't read his announcement. He is implementing two anon technologies. Tor and BurnerConnect.
FUD...FUD...FUD
June 25, 2014, 10:54:51 AM
I read this on twitter.
please explain how
person 1 starts:
wallet a sends to wallet b
then person 1 sends wallet b to person 2
person 2 imports == wallet b is sent into wallet c
is anon? there is just one tx in the middle and a 3 year old can track that.
please explain how
person 1 starts:
wallet a sends to wallet b
then person 1 sends wallet b to person 2
person 2 imports == wallet b is sent into wallet c
is anon? there is just one tx in the middle and a 3 year old can track that.
We need more FUD. LOL
Why just not wait for more details?
June 25, 2014, 10:53:47 AM
Razor already has tor..and nobody wants to play an Android game that you need to buy a crypto coin to play. Fail
June 25, 2014, 10:52:42 AM
I read this on twitter.
please explain how
person 1 starts:
wallet a sends to wallet b
then person 1 sends wallet b to person 2
person 2 imports == wallet b is sent into wallet c
is anon? there is just one tx in the middle and a 3 year old can track that.
please explain how
person 1 starts:
wallet a sends to wallet b
then person 1 sends wallet b to person 2
person 2 imports == wallet b is sent into wallet c
is anon? there is just one tx in the middle and a 3 year old can track that.
We have to wait until the dev explains more. We are all jumping to conclusions. Who knows what is happening before it is sent to person B.
June 25, 2014, 10:44:49 AM
I read this on twitter.
please explain how
person 1 starts:
wallet a sends to wallet b
then person 1 sends wallet b to person 2
person 2 imports == wallet b is sent into wallet c
is anon? there is just one tx in the middle and a 3 year old can track that.
please explain how
person 1 starts:
wallet a sends to wallet b
then person 1 sends wallet b to person 2
person 2 imports == wallet b is sent into wallet c
is anon? there is just one tx in the middle and a 3 year old can track that.
June 25, 2014, 10:44:24 AM
Seems like we got another scam coin here... be very cautious with this one.
At last, if FUDERS arrives, burn will rise! I've been waiting for this moment ;]. News are spread, more eyes are concentaded on burn now.
BTW 4,6 BTC buy wall, nasty.
It never fails! This technology is so simple it is brilliant. Nothing about this seems like a scam. Sending a file or files from one client to another is very simple, any coder with experience can code that. I am willing to bet other developers will copy his idea now. No wonder why he didn't announce this earlier.
June 25, 2014, 10:41:39 AM
I can't play BurnerGame.
I have a LG G2 16GB
I have a LG G2 16GB
Jump to: