BTW, this is Gavin Andersen's example on the multisig in Bitcoin. Supercoin/mammothcoin implemented exactly the multisig technology, same is done at OpenBazaar.
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071
XC devs please learn and hope you will have a real multisig system implemented, not just a name.
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071
XC devs please learn and hope you will have a real multisig system implemented, not just a name.
Funny... do you still use AOL for your email as well. You are using bitcoin technology and open bazaar's rationale, both without anon.... therefore nodes can be more trusted, but they have to be trusted. XC offers trustless mixing where every node signs off and can't steal coins, if it doesn't sign, it resyncs and sends the transaction to another set. Highly likely most transactions will be very quick, but if there is an attempt to be a bad actor they are inhibited from gaining access to the coins. Your old technology multi sig allows bad actors/nodes to steal coins. THis has been know for a long time, with coins before yours that you stole to write your code. In fact you deleted a 500 post thread because it primarily discussed the inadequacies of this design.
ok since you attempted so many times, let me answer you: multisig tech is not anon, it can be used for anon system like what Supercoin/Mammothcoin did. There's no "old" multisig, there's only one, implemnted by Bitcoin and used by many.
You try to use regular tx and with some software side controls, this is completely different things. It is not multisig, it is whatever your private tech. Don't call it multisig because it is not. No wonder why Xc people never saw a XC multisig address starting with "4".
Please don't post garbage here. I think everything is very clear. If you have other facts as I asked, please post, otherwise don't waste our time.
If EVERY node has to sign(meaning multiple signers) it is multi-sig. It is a trustless version, unlike supers where coins can be stolen.
