Topic: [ANN][SUPERCOIN] Unique Most Advanced Anonymous Trustless Multisig Technology - page 9. (Read 288864 times)

Just an observer here, but a community rejection of griffith would be foolish.  You all have what appears to be a quality dev here.  I'd try to not let the more excitable elements in the supercoin community fuck that up.

yes, i believe it can be fixed. it would change the way supersend works a bit. but it should work.

Is this something that can be altered? Perhaps delay one of the transactions, or any other solution?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9615638

that trace shows that, the mixing makes it obvious what the real transaction is.

so having both the send and recieve addresses shown in the mixed transaction, you can trace the flow of coins. and it isnt anon anymore. just mixing

I also vote stay

EDIT- Does not mixing make it untraceable and therefore anon? The concept behind supercoin is that you can purchase something with the same anonymity as something like cash, is this true or false?

Griffith and mdtspain please stay.  Certain members have more pull that others.  A group effort is what supercoin needs the most.

i do not beleive it is anon. if you follow the links i have posted here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9615638 and read the explanation you will see why i consider it a mixer and not anon.

we would agree to take over and continue developement of the coin. in a fashion that if the community wants something done, we do it. otherwise we find new ways to do something ourselves and then ask for feedback. but the original dev has to agree otherwise the exchanges wont follow the new source updates and the coin will die because of different wallet codes (or at least break down / slow down)


EDIT: my bad, i thought that tweet was asking him to develop. i can explain what the code is doing in pure technical talk if you want me to. ive been trying to simplify everything i say to a level where someone who doesnt understand c++ would understand. but i can just tech explain it if that is desired

CryptoCobain was once lined up to review the code, not work on it.  This was months ago. Now that it is open source, I figured why not have him look.  More eyes on the source, the more accurate the consensus on the technology.

I believe the tweet you are referring to was this post, 

This isn't a developer searching tweet, simply looking for code review here. Having another anon specialist review the code and its functionality is only good for the reputation of the coin. Attempts to get the code vetted by multiple sources is in the best interest of all parties involved.



I see your point in your above post about the mixing. It does seem counter intuitive to label Supersend addresses differently.  Thats the exact opposite of obscuring details...  It also sounds like something that could be changed.  As for the trace-ability, I'll wait for someone more technically astute to step in,  I'm but a mere investor brain.

@griffith so are you saying that you do not consider the coin anon? Also, we want you to work and develop the coin. Some community members hold more influence than others. We have been here for a long time. We have weathered the storm and we welcome your involvement, sirs

we would work on the coin, but it seems half of the community is split at the moment. due to the debate on whether or not the current coin mixes or is anon, which i think i proved a few posts up as clearly as i could as to why i consider it mixing. and because of my statements on the anon subject,  it seems that a lot of people to want to find another dev (i am refering to the tweets and asking for cryptoCobain)

Yes, there was 1 insult, which I agree, was far out of line.  But on the whole, we're happy to have had you interested.

We're anything but 'fine with how' things are going here. All we've been looking for is a present team with a development roadmap.

If you choose to leave so quickly, so be it & good luck to you, but if you see a potential use for Super + MWC technology as Griffith had stated, please reconsider.  Any progress is beneficial.

We where asked to help this community, because the dev left. We where willing to help, but only receive insults from all sides.
We have no time for this and will continue to develop our coins.

I think that the community is just fine with the way how things are going with this coin and it also seems that there is enough knowledge in the community to secure continuation of the coin without us helping you out.

Good luck with the coin and with the dev.

clap clap clap clap clap

you can show him this SuperSend trace.


EXAMPLE 1: BLOCK 798861

send wallet: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/super/address.dws?SPrq8J6vRpy5QZz3AE1TxUiYvfeto3AhqY.htm
SUPERSEND transaction block:  https://chainz.cryptoid.info/super/block.dws?798861.htm
reciever: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/super/address.dws?Sh6BvAWyrMfL8W6wNZG3qx9pfZ8KRwnmpc.htm

"Ghost" wallets to make it "harder" to follow. these are given away by not actually having a valid wallet generated super address. YES the address is a valid address. but it starts with a letter not S like all the other super addresses
1: CNCWvH4Bknr87a4PgDTRDasSxH4LnzX3iu


so whats the pattern? :
in a super block the "Ghost" wallet will have multiple outputs, and identical inputs. as you can see in example 1. it send out 66, 66, and 132 super coins. and then gets them right back...
-so whats the significance?

nothing. all it does is tell you in the amount that is shown twice, how much was sent in the SuperSend.

-ok so you still dont know where its coming from?

ah, but yes you do. if you look in the outputs (the people getting coins) you will see two additional transactions for that identical amount (66). that means one of those is the sender, and one is the receiver. how to tell the difference is click there wallet and check which one got half of what they sent back.

-so this was a one time conicidence, that doesnt prove anything.


EXMAPLE 2: BLOCK 798908

send wallet: same
SUPERSEND transaction block:  https://chainz.cryptoid.info/super/block.dws?798908.htm
reciever: same

"Ghost" wallets to make it "harder" to follow. these are given away by not actually having a valid wallet generated super address. YES the address is a valid address. but it starts with a letter not S like all the other super addresses
1: CNCWvH4Bknr87a4PgDTRDasSxH4LnzX3iu

same pattern. but as you can see this time, the amount is 50. not 66. again 1 wallet sending to itself X amount twice and Y amount once. and on the other side, 4 transactions with X amount. one is the sender, one is reciever. click on the wallet to see which one got half a transaction back and thats the sender.


any questions on why i call this a mixer and not anon?

i would like to appologize. my initial sense of what it was doing was wrong. i traced the code wrong and got stuck in a loop i thought it went through but didnt actually send it through, testing it on the actual BE i found my mistake in what i wrote down on my notes paper from when i went over the code.

I imagine the white paper would do the trick.

https://twitter.com/anonymouscoin/status/535883289866014720

"@tradesace I don't have time to browse the code, but let me know if there is any design documentation for the "anonymous multisig"

Is there a design documentation that we can provide him?

I agree with you too. But it sometimes discouraging to see the posts that are completely out of the rack. We really need a good dev and a good leader of the community to lead the supercoin. Supercoindev/supercointeam did a good job, unfortunately they had to leave, I respect their decisions but just hope the community will find great leaders.

I 100% agree with you.  We should tweet cryptoCobain again.

Point 1.

If a person misunderstands, it isn't to say that the person CAN'T understand. Griffith seems to understand HOW the code operates. He simply defined true anon above and beyond what we, the community, were expecting. Griffith is stating anon for wallets, when this is a user issue/non-issue. It is not detrimental for a balance of an address to be known, nor was it ever a clear aim of future to obscure balances. What we want is transactional anonymity via whatever means necessary.  According to Mr. strasboug, supercoindev has accomplished exactly that via decentralized anonymously chosen mixers,


No matter what, due to the nature of how computers work, some of the responsibility of truly anonymous untraceable transactions lands on the user. SUPER has seemingly accomplished what they set out to do. F'ing Kudos!

Further, Strasboug, thank you for your insight, I genuinely hope you stick around in the Super world, you appear to have a brain that could help craft a healthy developmental future.



Point 2.
On another note....


Although it appears to run fine once up and running, the below predicament should be one of the first things on the roadmap eliminated....




Why make it more difficult to initially compile a wallet than it needs to be?  Automate this part of the install asap. This simple hurdle has caused multiple confusion posts over the past few months and in the coming, if we are to try to build our user base, will only result in more easily avoidable confusion/FUD.


Point 3.
There have been multiple posts about fighting in the thread. People, its only fighting if we choose to escalate it to that level.   This coin is in a pivotal point in its history, discussions with different viewpoints only strengthen the view of the community long term.  Its healthy to voice ideas and have the worthwhile ones weeded out. Let's think in the view of DISCUSSION, not ARGUMENT.

Point 4.
Previously, we had the attention of CryptoCobain & he was ready to review the code.  Now that it has been open sourced, is it time to reach out to him again?

So if griffith does not know what anon is he obviously cannot develop the most sophisticated anon coin. Are we continuing to look for a new dev now!?