Cryptographic contests and bounties where the systems inner working are not published, are generally not accepted among cryptographers.
While Kerckhoffs's principle mainly applies to cryptographic systems, following Shannon's maxim, I believe it should be applied analogously to anonymity systems. If the way the system works is opaque, you cannot reason well about its security.
Yes we have plans for external testing of the XC app around the official public launch (Rev 3). They'll need access to the code.
However the last time we did this (Rev 1) a reviewer cloned XC, so we'll try to be strategic about it.
- it's not coinjoin, because it’s not centralised or semi-centralised. There's nothing akin to masternodes in XC either.
This is a very strange claim.
CoinJoin was originally designed to be decentralized and trustless. To me, it sounds more like you have implemented CoinJoin the way it was originally supposed to be built.
Apologies, I should've been clearer on this point; I was combining the Darksend coinjoin implementation with gmaxwell's general concept for it.
XC is not coinjoin, so say the devs.
Let us hope for their sake that nobody hex edits name and certain other things in the binary to launch a clone coin. :-)
Indeed!
