Topic: [ANN][CRYPT] CryptCoin x11 + PoS | P2P Anonymity | 0% Premine | Commander - page 188. (Read 512703 times)

All true.

Maybe Mindfox don't want to give too much hint on what he is working on. Copycats are waiting in the shadow.

Ok I am satisfied that MindFox has no wallet, I didn't understand who you were just like I don't know who the Dev's are. Nothing childish about requiring the DEV's to put their wallets up. The wallets must contain a substantial amount of coin. If they copy and paste a random wallet then they will screw themselves when that wallet sells off. So this would require their actual wallets. This way we will know they are not taking advantage of this Illegal activity. Of course they could send a large amount to another wallet but guess what we would see that transaction. Should be easy to comprehend. The transactions will provide transparency to what they have done since this debacle started. Of course there may be Dev wallets that had action and some that had none, so they could publish the ones without action in them and not show the wallets with, but this is better than nothing.

This is why ANON is so important to this group be it through not showing their true Identities or even giving the investors the peace of mind that they are not in on this perpetration. Get them to post their wallets, you will understand easily how this will prove their integrity and by not showing any kind of wallet it will have the opposite effect. If they can find a wallet with a substantial amount of coin that has not moved and is not accumulating coin then they could be in the clear without divulging their real wallet but if they can't then it is suspicious that the DEV's (Not MindFox) either don't have a wallet or won't show their wallet. Do you get it now? I would hope that you being keen to Hard to Trace Methods would understand how I can go back and trace their history.

This is actually the best way to prove your concept and give integrity to the coin simultaneously, since we will see at least 500K to 1Million coin not moving. Once the ANON features are rolled out the DEV's will be able to sell at will and we can also enjoy the ANON function so it won't matter at that point.

Tell the DEV's to Show us the Money!

Since Early,
CryptoNick

can everyone just let the man code

But why don't you or other team members (maybe moosa) publish some kind of updated whitepaper?

You don't have to provide much technical details or even actual implementation. Just clearly state goals that you're trying to achieve and maybe some general concepts (zero-knowledge-proofs, public key cryptography etc.).

Most of crypto whitepapers actually provide just this anyway. Lots of marketing buzzwords, but you really can't make any conclusions about the security of the system (except if the main concept doesn't sound right - using exchanges as mixers?) because the technical details are completely missing or are vague.

so are you creating a anonymous function or a hard to trace function

I'm using this term (as I always did) because I do not think there can be true anonymity in-code with the wallet alone and at the same time keep compatibility with bitcoin blockchain. At least not without compromising some critical systems of the wallet itself. That's only my opinion of courses. Noone can tell what the future brings.
The whitepaper is a draft, not a whitepaper. I also cleared that out many times.
My plan is to make this coin resistant to various kinds of attacks using well known methods against the well known types of attacks. Either by using in-wallet methods or by marrying services (not everything at once of course).

Mindfox, why are you using term "hard to trace system"? What does it mean? Why don't you use term "anonymity" (I know that anonymity is vague term, but "hard to trace" if vague also)?

It seems that you're developing a system that will resistant to some specific types of attack, but it would be vulnerable to other (known) types of attacks.

To what kind of attack do you plan that your system will be resistant?

And why the whitepaper is not saying anything about this "hard to trace system"?

I agree on this with pbremen01

Where did I say that I have no dev/coding experience? I was just saying that I'm not "cryptocoin" dev. Maybe I didn't make this clear enough, sorry.

And for providing security audits you don't have to be dev/coder. You can be mathematician/cryptologist for example. Most security methods (schemes, algorithms etc.) are actually developed by mathematicians. The devs just code/implement them because they usually don't have enough mathematical knowledge or insight to actually develop them.

Because the point of bitcoin is opensource, and further more the professionals here like to read code before compiling and using it. The comments in the bitcoin source code clearly state their licensing. You don't get to pick and choose which pieces of code are open source. if its modified bitcoin code, or even code added, it still falls under the same licensure. Furthermore, i feel like your point is a bit misleading. Even if someone else copies crypts code and uses it, Crypt is the still the original work and no one will forget that. They haven't forgotten about bitcoin, litecoin, primecoin, megacoin, anoncoin and darkcoin, quarkcoin, all of which were first of their kind and with the exception of primecoin, each has been copied and rebranded ad nauseum with little actual affect on the originals themselves.

are you ready to come up with some other BS now ?

and I wouldn't be surprised some were paid to hype the smoke and shadows

Thank you. The clears up some things up for me.

hard to trace system, yes.

Yes.


I don't know the specifics as I'm not working on it.

No, it is not

As per 3, no I'm not.


I hope I replied in a detailed manner and satisfied all your questions.

LOL its amazing how much people are trying to FUD crypt coin. i wouldn't be surprised if people are actually paid to do this.

This is sort of unclear, probably due to how I phrased the question.

I want to get this clear, so I'll ask more clearly. I'll list the things I understand to be true.

1. Mindfox is working on a system for anonymity.

2. There is a project for this coin called Commander.

3. Commander looks to be a webwallet with various features.

4. Commander is not the anonymity plan for this coin.

5. Mindfox is *not* working on Commander.

Are these things true, or am I wrong about one or more of them?

Exactly as you said it.

You've just proven to everyone you know nothing about what you're saying. Youve gone ahead and discredited yourself. Thanks

You didn't apologize yet for calling me names though. Is that new kind of ethics?