Topic: [ANN][SUPERCOIN] Unique Most Advanced Anonymous Trustless Multisig Technology - page 10. (Read 288857 times)

Griffith quote
"if i follow the richlist from person to person i can see who has what coins. for what i see, if there is anon in a coin. the richlist wouldnt be able to exist in such a way where you can see what wallets have most of the coins. "


I'm not a coder but I even know that this is a ridiculous statement.

The idea is that you can send coins from one place to another without the coins being traced back to you.
If a coin can't be traced back to the sender then it is an annonomous send simple as that. And when this coin was being tested it was reported that this is indeed the case.



For wallets to be anonymous they have to be able to be implimented without a blockchain.

However your wallet is infact annonomous becouse the blockchain just shows which address end up with the coins AND not who OWNS THEM.

You can send a heap of coins to a wallet anonymously and no one will know where they came from, but they exist in that wallet and on the blockchain.

It's not like a bank account with your name on it.



Also if you want to purchase anything anonymously , when a vendor uses this coin, you can do so by using a different name along with this coin.

 
The altcoin is a Wild West for brave people, even without the knowledge on what is anonymous coin, people pretend to be expert and review the code of the most sophisticated and the only p2p anonymous coin?? How brave today's people are, which reminds me an old Chinese proverb: The ignorant is fearless (无知者无畏)!

BTW, great job supercoindev, and thanks for releasing the source code.

lmao, richlist has nothing to do with anon. Anonymous coin does not mean you don't see wallet address and the coins under it. Anonymous coin means that in transferring coins you can't tell which is the source from the destination or vice versa. Therefore you can't trace the flow of the coins. Anonymity never intends to hide the wallet address and its balance.

So it is ok to have richlist of a coin, as richlist does not mean anything, it simply shows balance of an address (and its transactions). A person can have 3 addresses belonging to him in the richlist, or have none in the richlist but he has most of the coins. I can have 10 addresses in the same wallet.dat with 10 mil SUPER yet each address won't have more than say 1.2 mil, no-one knows these addresses all belong to me (actually I can easily create 50 addresses under the same wallet.dat, I know someone has over 100 addresses in the same wallet.dat (to cheat some free distributed coins based on address) - as long as I partition the coins among them, the richlist will not show any address even I hold most of the coins).

Even people know one address belong to me, as long as they can not trace where I send the coins to or what is the true source that send me coin, I have my privacy.

 

if i follow the richlist from person to person i can see who has what coins. for what i see, if there is anon in a coin. the richlist wouldnt be able to exist in such a way where you can see what wallets have most of the coins.

I don't think you get the code, see my comments above.

Or, maybe we have different definitions about "anon", why not you state what is anon from your point of view? Mixing is one way to achieve anon as far as I understand.

Very nice supercoindev published the code. Thank you!

I went through the code quickly, well written code with a lot complex flows that I will try to understand later. Clearly supercoindev is an expert in multisig and he fixed code errors in the multisig related sections. The Bitcoin has the good multisig codebase, all rest altcoins except this one have the wrong code that certain multisig operations do not work.

Clearly the supercoin code support the anonymous transaction. The send address and receive address are not connected so can not be linked by looking at the explorer. One could try to use the tx amount to figure out the paths, such as if you send 1.234567 SUPERs and look in the explorer, you may be able to match unrelated addresses together. But if there are another tx with same amount, then it is absolutely not possible to figure out. Also, this issue can be fixed easily. I am sure supercoindev is aware of its solution and since he spent only 1 month on the coding, he likely did not have time to implement these minor features. By the way, this problem exist in almost all anon coins.

Fix is very simple: just break down the amount into "canonical" values. For example, we can have 1, 5, 10, 25, 50, etc as canonical values and the remaining part randomly split into 3 parts. So 27=25+1+1 and 42.25 = 25 + 10 + 5 + 1 + 1 + 0.11 + 0.06 + 0.08, and these split amount being sent each time. I saw some coins like DarkCoin claimed they did it, not tested it myself, but this is a common way. Also in the supercoin code supercoindev already implement the amount split algorithm, so this is almost noting to fix in the supercoin code.

Excellent job supercoindev, you are one of the very few devs in altcoins that are really competent!

i said it wasnt anon and was just mixing very well instead. i fully understand the code and his use of the message command system.

For the 1st thing I think supercoindev meant "it is not difficult to try a transaction and see whether you can find its source"

For the 2nd, it is not easy to see the re-used multisig address, if the network is big enough. The supercoin transaction to the destination is sent through an address by mixer which does not even participate in the generation of the multisig address, therefore it is simply impossible to trace the source, as the mixer received his coins from a different one that participate the multisig address.

For those who claimed that supercoin does not support anonymous transaction, I am 100% sure that they understand nothing about the code, nor do they understand the white papers.

Griffith acknowledged the skills of the multisig code used.
If it's not true-anon (is there one anyways), that OK. If it is, awesome!
At the end, I doubt anyone actually uses it a lot anyways.
It's more about the trust in the dev's coding skills that drives coins prices & community confidence.

No code is usually perfect. Every coder generally has a different way of doing things.
Also, it's open source now! It's open so it can be improved, tweaked by others!

It should not be about my coding skills is better than yours.

same here !

I just want Supercoin to be successful!

I would really like to see everyone working for the coin to do good, and not just fight over whats better.

Supercoindev did a great job and Griffith's dev team agrees on that, they say the code is great. Supercoindev will be leaving the coin as he does not have time for it, we all should respect that.

So why not just give out the BTC,facebook, twitter etc accounts to the new dev team and let them do their best for the coin.

I think its pretty obvious that the community wants them to take over and work on supercoin, so lets do it !

Isnt this the definition of not anon?  Hoping you meant 'it is difficult'


Or is this to say that when the supercoin network is large enough, the level of pseudoanonymity will be heightened. More potential random mixing nodes = higher difficulty in discerning sender.

Agree good job supercoindev and thank you!

yes you did a great job, though I don't understand all the code, I know it works fine with my client

and for those who said it is not an anonymous system, do a transaction and try to figure out the source, it is not difficult. The system uses random nodes to create multisig address, so when there are enough participating nodes, you will not be able to pinpoint the source. Also it is easy to use a random address from each party to create the multisig address, I did not implement it due to time constraint, but it is trivial to do so. All explaned in the whitepapers.

Anyway, no more jokes, I won't have time to answer them.

please don't waste time and no joke, I know what my code does, I don't need other people to tell me. Again if you don't understand the code, use debugger.

And, for those who don't understand, please read the white papers, they explain clearly how this works and why it is the p2p anonymous system.

since you say you have released all of it. id like to point something out. your code does not do anon. it just mixes transactions around, passing them through side nodes to get to the real destination. its basically like taking the scenic route when driving instead of staying on the main highway.

let me explain why i dont think supersend fits what the average person thinks of when they hear anon.

SuperSend will be abriviated to SS for the following:

SS has a max of 1000 coins per transaction. ok, thats fine. it has a 1% Additional fee. umm ok. and a max fee of .05 super. ok.

what your mixer system is doing. and it is very well designed btw. is taking the 100 coins. + fees. sending it through multiple mixing nodes until the 1% fee has been used up as transaction fees by the network to pass from mixing node to mixing node, and then it hits its destination. there is a few more complicated sig signs and fails in that process, but im explaining it for the average person.
There is a shortened version in your explaination paper of SS as A->X->B where as is the sender. X is a sum of all the mixing nodes it hits. and B is the intended recipient. it will jump as many times as is needed to burn the 1% to hit the intended mark with the amount the user intended to send them.

the reason why i dont call this anon, is because if you look at the BE, there is a nice neat richlist all sorted out. and if you REALLY wanted to. you can click on there wallets, find SS transactions and trace them back to the sender by clicking on the blocks and tx IDs of the mixer nodes. Annoying? yes. anon? no.

what i consider anon, and i get the feeling most people do think of anon as the same thing, is that if the transaction is sent with anon it cant be traced back to the sender. we all know of course that, with computers because of the way they work, TRUE anon is impossible. but we all want to get as close as we can.

what i did with multishift for MWC was i actually changed the wallet addresses when a transaction sends. as a result, the richlist compilations for that coin are complete shambles/gibberish (assuming the user uses MutliShift for all of their transactions). to clarify it changes the sending address, not the recieving so no you dont have to look to see what your new address is every time someone wants to send you coins.

ideally, i think a good anon solution is a mix between what the two coins have. you built a good mixing system. i have addresses actually changing themselves. and i will probably do that for the coins next.


TL;DR you have a mixing system, not anon. SuperSend transactions are traceable after X number jumps. i will post an example of this later.


EDIT: the super send also delays the transactions a considerable number of blocks before it actually hits its destination

mdtspain is correct there are no need for insults.  When Griffith gets a chance they should have a one on one conversation.