Topic: Cloakcoin's PoSA is not a trustless system for anonymous transaction - page 4. (Read 5989 times)

Likely this is what happened...

interesting discussions

Well that's because you are.  



+1


The reason there is no answer however, is likely that they are currently trying to think how to solve the problem.

Thanks fisheater

Yes this is a fair statement. The anonymous transaction trustless system can be solved, in my opinion, by using multisig technologies, that's why I watch closely the supercoin's phase 2 implementation. As for Cloakcoin, yes I agree it is a nice feature to incorporate staking nodes, it certainly advances our understanding of the system, but  it does not solve the anon tx trustless system as it claimed.

Yes, I agree with all this. I think PoSA solves part of this puzzle by incorporating the use of staking nodes as part of the system. This is a pretty neat idea.  No,  that's not a solution to the problem in of itself... which is why I'm saying let's cool our jets a bit. The full design of the system is unknown. In time if it's to be taken seriously more details will become known and analyzed. But, I think the thread implies that the system is inherently flawed.

Except that with Bitcoin you can trust a mined transaction after a few confirmations, despite not trusting anyone on the network. Bitcoin solved the BGP (Byzantine General's Problem) using the blockchain. Doing it anonymously requires ingenuity and extreme cleverness in the fields of software development, mathematics, and cryptography.

Yes the bitcoin actually solves the trustless system. But we talk here the anonymous transaction trustless system. Again in order to do it, you need to put forceful measures so no middle nodes (or even sender node) can cheat. The algorithm of these forceful measures and tech used are the key. This is the key consideration when building a trustless system. When nothing is mentioned about this, you can assume that it is probably not even thought about, and in consequence you can not believe what is claimed there.

I'm pretty sure I understand the meaning of the word trustless when used in relation to distributed system.

So far the only argument that it's not trustless is based on the scenario of tainting the network with bad actors.  This is a pretty generic problem in distributed systems.  It's nothing mind blowing or original.  The same applies to almost all the current proposed anonymous transactions systems.

What a hype, Cloak, stupid amateurs. They don't know even meaning of trustless.

Strasboug, you are wasting your time there. Clearly they have no idea on what is a trustless system and how to do it, otherwise they'd proudly tell you all the information. Your conclusion is correct on PoSA.

Many altcoins claimed buzz word without understanding what it means. I'd suggest you go to "development and tech discussions" section of this forum if you want to clarify any details. There are many more qualified people there.

You are one clever cookie aren't you.

You have been faggoting in the Darkcoin thread for more than a month. Now you and some of the CloakTrolls are playing or want to play victim.


Just the first occurrence amongst a continuous barrage of FUD posts on the unmoderated Darkcoin thread, because, well it is unmoderated and you can.

Now after riling up Darkcoin for more than month and pumping Cloakshit on every Anon wannabe coin that came up after Darkcoin success, you are consistently having them all fight with each other by trolling their thread while the Cloackshit scamcoin is an unmoderated thread to delete all posts not conforming to their standards.

When all said and done, you, MoosaNYC, toolio, all LTC bagholders pump and dump anon wannabe coins, split up the market by sowing pipedreams in scamcoin threads you are pumping, are safe for a bit longer right?

Why the fuck does anyone want this scamcoin when Anonymity is working already in CryptoNote coins. This scamcoin is valued higher than Boolberry? What a fucking joke.

I think that's the whole point.  No one has enough information to pass judgement.  Well, except you... it's not trustless, case closed.  But, by your own definition of trustless, Darksend+ would also not be trustless, no?

Talking at surface level blah blah does not help. The question is very simple: show us what has been used to prevent cheating, what methodology, what technique. I feel like I am talking to a bunch of kids, who have no idea on what I am talking about, who have no idea what is a trustless system and what people need to do there to make such system. I read and re-read the "whitepaper", there's virtually nothing there. Come on guys, if you are serious about making a trustless system, at least you know what I am talking about, and show us any related information. It is not difficult at all if you actually did such system.

It's pretty simple. There are a lot of smart people on these forums, way smarter then myself. I can promise you with all the tough competition out there someone will try to break PoSA. And That's why I love this place. If it's flawed, which I doubt, I'm sure on of the supercoin or darkcoin community members will try to point it out.

Gotta love a free open market.

Anybody can postulate all day long about PoSA and try to advance theories that it's likely flawed.  I assure you strasboug you're not the first person to bring this up. Personally, I'm not sure how this doesn't apply to Darkcoin as well. You send coins to the mixer. You "trust" the mixer is following the rules and handles your coins properly. The difference with PoSA is that since all staking nodes are involved the ability to attack the network is only as strong as your staking power in the network.

I know for a fact that Cloakcoin's PoSA developers are in fact aware of the concept of "bad actors".  It'll be addressed fully and the developers are actively looking for experts in the field to audit their code. It's not easy to get the time of people who are well known in the field.  But, all this is part of the development process.

But, this thread really amounts to a whole lot of nothing as far as I can see.  It's a theory that Cloakcoin development has somehow missed a fatal flaw in their system.  I doubt that.

If you said the implementation stage, yes. But if you implement with a wrong tech, then it does not mean anything the implementation stage is more advanced, because it did not achieve what it claimed and it is useless. The Cloakcoin whitepaper did not have anything to make people believe that it can be a trustless system, and from all the requests here the dev can not provide such theoretical method, so I'd say it is simply did not implement the trustless system, or the dev does not understand what is a trustless system.

Anonymous systems are experimental, but the cryptography behind the ones that work is widely understood by computer scientists and cryptographers.

The following is a short list (off the top of my head) of coins with "anonymous systems" that are invented by a software developer and have no basis in cryptography: DarkCoin, SummerCoin, CloakCoin, StealthCoin, SuperCoin, KoreCoin, VootCoin, Pesa, BitStar, PinkCoin, DarkCash, Navajo, Razor, ESportsCoin, DoomCoin, GuerillaCoin, XanonCoin.

Any of these coins can redeem themselves by, quite simply, putting out a whitepaper that has the mathematics for their proposed cryptographically firm anonymous transaction system. There doesn't have to be a lot of maths, but at the very least it needs to use algebra to express the anonymity set and prove mathematically that this set is both intractable and resistant to a reduction of the set by observation over time or Sybil attacks or similar. In fact, the vast majority, if not all, of the "anonymous systems" employed by coins mentioned above are open to Sybil attacks by an attacker that is not particularly well equipped or even particularly clever.

If any of them do put out such a whitepaper I'm sure there are cryptographers and mathematics majors here that will peer review it.

Failing that, don't buy into a coin just because it has a "whitepaper" with walls of text designed to impress. Most of them are just outrightly full of shit.

A+

As far as I can see, the method by which Supercoin moves to a trustless system is unclear. I have rewritten some of the OP explanation in a general way but the dev has not confided in me regarding exact detail..Unproven, but not disproven.

Cloakcoin's system is far more advanced  in it's development, and therefore obviously has more market value. However, anonymous systems are all very much experimental atm. No doubt there are many more on the drawing board.

I don't see the case for denigrating any coin at this stage.