The devs not responding to these comments (and they do know this is going on) just further demonstrates how little credibility this guy has.
I'll be blunt. The devs not responding is not a good thing. Look at how many pages have been filled with this stuff. There are many of us that want to hear real technical answers to things and don't get them. For example, I want to know what the size of the transactions will be with low mixes compared to CN coins as opposed to those given in the whitepaper as a selling point for chandran sigs. When I brought it up before, I was labeled a troll/fuder etc and got no answers.
When I asked real question about BTCD, jl777 answered me. When I asked questions about SDC, the dev answered me. Fact is, I could list a few more coins where the dev actually answered my questions but in here, all you get is posts about how this is the second coming and posts get buried with images.
Granted, unlike this guy, I didn't go into those other threads and come out saying it was crap and vaporware, but still, some of us would like some real technical discussions and when we don't see any, it does not reflect well on the coin and the devs.
It seems like only logical people think the same thing i have come to conclusion it is vaporwaer because of the bashing and the way ive been treated you saw what i asked to begin with and what followed your points are bang on correct now with regards to my claims its simple. Regular ring signatures cannot be used because double spending is untraceable as they are unlinkable. no one is able to find out wether any two signatures (with two spends) are generated by the same entity or not. Linkable ring signatures provide the remedy to this problem by allowing the public to detect any signer who has produced two or more signatures. Hondo does not know how to pick the right paper the tracability is needed to to prevent double spending and chandran are unlinkable/tracable The way its implied is vaporware!
Allrighty. So I found this which, if I'm understanding all the technical talk (and there's a good chance I'm not), says that you can make them traceable etc. Given that's from 2011, there's probably been some advancements since then
http://books.google.com/books?isbn=3642190731In particular, section 5 and section 6.
Perhaps the devs could comment on that.
There also seems to be a paper out there "Sub-linear size traceable ring signatures without random oracles" which I can't seem to find the complete text to. However, I've found references in other documents that theorize improvements or alternatives to it that makes it appear to apply to Chandran signatures. One of it's authors is Eiichiro Fujisaki. Interestingly, I found a post that said something along the lines of the CN method being "inspired" by that paper.
So, can you point out to me where you are getting the information that it can't be done?
