XC uses multisig address and transaction? The answer is NO!! Look at facts here! - page 3.

adhitthana

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 03:22:28 PM

This shows you have no knowledge on the multisig.

There is no such thing as the multisig.
There are different ways to have a transaction that require multiple signatures.

XC is using a form that does not require multi sig addresses.
Mammoth is using a kind that does require adresses.

timerland

hero member

Activity: 1526

Merit: 596

Xc people, you guys talked a lot, and it seems to me that you did not even see a m-of-m multisig address in XC. Some138 created 2, you can create yourself. Oh man, please learn how to create multisig address and how to spend the tx. Bitcoin has detailed posts on them, learn it.

monocolor

hero member

Activity: 766

Merit: 621

Own ONION

Quote from: synechist on August 16, 2014, 03:16:42 PM

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 03:11:13 PM

BTW, I read other posts, why not you show people an example of m-of-m address in the block explorer.

This is a complete joke.

By being disposed against XC you're making it hard for you to come to understand.

The block explorer links I posted above are transactions in which

- multiple addresses sign

- all participating addresses sign or else the transaction fails.

Multiple addresses signing = "multisig".

Or perhaps you're mistaking XC's protocol for Bitcoin's and thereby expecting the address to start with a "4"?

This shows you have no knowledge on the multisig. In order to create multisig tx, like m-of-m you mentioned, you need to create a multisig address first. Then you can create multisig tx there.

If you did this in XC, then it is extremely easy to point to people this address in the block explorer, then people can see this.

I am not mistaken at all. Some138 already showed you how to create a multisig address. You seem at complete lost on the multisig address. Maybe some138 did not tell you the details. Let me show you here:

- open XC client
- find some pairs of public-private keys (you can use those posted by Some138)
- open console window
- type help addmultisigaddress
- follow the format, and use the public keys above, you will create a multisig address

now tell me, what's the starting letter of this address? A 'X'? You never saw a XC multisig address before, not to say you understand anything about it!

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 03:16:54 PM

Quote from: synechist on August 16, 2014, 03:13:51 PM

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 03:11:13 PM

Quote from: synechist on August 16, 2014, 03:07:35 PM

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 03:06:09 PM

hahaha, m-of-m multisig, this is the first time I see this, very entertaining... used in mix transactions trustlessly?? This is even more a joke, by trustless you mean the m members doing mixing are not trusted, so if there is one bad guy, you all screwed, because m-of-m address in order to spend, you need everyone to sign, if one bad guy not sign, your fund is locked forever.

This seems written by a guy who has zero knowledge about multisig, except the word "multisig".

That's why the altcoin there are so many scam coins. Grin

No:

Quote

3) Supplementary information:

- XC's multipath technology, used for obfuscating the amount sent in a transaction and the identity of sender and receiver, makes use of m-of-m transactions in order to achieve trustless mixing.

- Trustless mixing is a world-first. Nobody's ever done it before. Hence my prior request that you ask questions before coming to conclusions.

- m-of-m requires that all parties sign or else the transaction is invalidated.

- As such, m-of-m prevents bad nodes stealing coins instead of forwarding them.

- if a transaction is invalidated, the participating nodes resync the session-based network they form for the transaction in question, and proceed.

Then why you need m-of-m at all, you can just process with the assumption m-of-m will fail. The m-of-m there is absolutely of no use.

You're actually quite close to the truth here.

The assumption that m-of-m will fail is exactly what is needed for a bad node to fail at stealing coins.

If a node doesn't sign, if gets kicked out of the ad-hoc network formed for the transaction in question, and then the network resyncs and signs again.

no in this case m-of-m transaction is no use, and if you remove it the system should just function as before. That's why no one is using m-of-m multisig in this kind of trustless system. m-of-m is virtually of no use.

Why do you think it is of no use?

If you don't have m-of-m then you'd have to trust the node forwarding your coins.

If you retain it then unless the node signs the transaction it cannot participate.

And if it cannot participate then it cannot steal coins.

But - if it does participate then it also cannot steal coins, because it's just signed them on to a further recipient.

Nice.

mr_random

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1001

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 03:16:54 PM

Quote from: synechist on August 16, 2014, 03:13:51 PM

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 03:11:13 PM

Quote from: synechist on August 16, 2014, 03:07:35 PM

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 03:06:09 PM

hahaha, m-of-m multisig, this is the first time I see this, very entertaining... used in mix transactions trustlessly?? This is even more a joke, by trustless you mean the m members doing mixing are not trusted, so if there is one bad guy, you all screwed, because m-of-m address in order to spend, you need everyone to sign, if one bad guy not sign, your fund is locked forever.

This seems written by a guy who has zero knowledge about multisig, except the word "multisig".

That's why the altcoin there are so many scam coins. Grin

No:

Quote

3) Supplementary information:

- XC's multipath technology, used for obfuscating the amount sent in a transaction and the identity of sender and receiver, makes use of m-of-m transactions in order to achieve trustless mixing.

- Trustless mixing is a world-first. Nobody's ever done it before. Hence my prior request that you ask questions before coming to conclusions.

- m-of-m requires that all parties sign or else the transaction is invalidated.

- As such, m-of-m prevents bad nodes stealing coins instead of forwarding them.

- if a transaction is invalidated, the participating nodes resync the session-based network they form for the transaction in question, and proceed.

Then why you need m-of-m at all, you can just process with the assumption m-of-m will fail. The m-of-m there is absolutely of no use.

You're actually quite close to the truth here.

The assumption that m-of-m will fail is exactly what is needed for a bad node to fail at stealing coins.

If a node doesn't sign, if gets kicked out of the ad-hoc network formed for the transaction in question, and then the network resyncs and signs again.

no in this case m-of-m transaction is no use, and if you remove it the system should just function as before. That's why no one is using m-of-m multisig in this kind of trustless system. m-of-m is virtually of no use.

m-of-m prevents a node stealing the funds.

n-of-m sounds weaker to me. Why wouldn't you want all the relevant parties to sign? What if one of the parties who doesn't sign steals funds?

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: timerland on August 16, 2014, 03:14:38 PM

what about show people one m-of-m multisig address in the block explorer? we'll go from there. Very very simple question, 30 sec.

Please no waste of time. I have other work to do. This is extremely simple here.

See my previous post.

"Multisig" refers to multiple parties being required to sign a transaction for it to go through.

It does not require an address beginning with a "4".

Why presume to understand XC's code when you don't yet understand what the code is intended to do?

monocolor

hero member

Activity: 766

Merit: 621

Own ONION

Quote from: synechist on August 16, 2014, 03:13:51 PM

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 03:11:13 PM

Quote from: synechist on August 16, 2014, 03:07:35 PM

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 03:06:09 PM

hahaha, m-of-m multisig, this is the first time I see this, very entertaining... used in mix transactions trustlessly?? This is even more a joke, by trustless you mean the m members doing mixing are not trusted, so if there is one bad guy, you all screwed, because m-of-m address in order to spend, you need everyone to sign, if one bad guy not sign, your fund is locked forever.

This seems written by a guy who has zero knowledge about multisig, except the word "multisig".

That's why the altcoin there are so many scam coins. Grin

No:

Quote

3) Supplementary information:

- XC's multipath technology, used for obfuscating the amount sent in a transaction and the identity of sender and receiver, makes use of m-of-m transactions in order to achieve trustless mixing.

- Trustless mixing is a world-first. Nobody's ever done it before. Hence my prior request that you ask questions before coming to conclusions.

- m-of-m requires that all parties sign or else the transaction is invalidated.

- As such, m-of-m prevents bad nodes stealing coins instead of forwarding them.

- if a transaction is invalidated, the participating nodes resync the session-based network they form for the transaction in question, and proceed.

Then why you need m-of-m at all, you can just process with the assumption m-of-m will fail. The m-of-m there is absolutely of no use.

You're actually quite close to the truth here.

The assumption that m-of-m will fail is exactly what is needed for a bad node to fail at stealing coins.

If a node doesn't sign, if gets kicked out of the ad-hoc network formed for the transaction in question, and then the network resyncs and signs again.

no in this case m-of-m transaction is no use, and if you remove it the system should just function as before. That's why no one is using m-of-m multisig in this kind of trustless system. m-of-m is virtually of no use.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 03:11:13 PM

BTW, I read other posts, why not you show people an example of m-of-m address in the block explorer.

This is a complete joke.

By being disposed against XC you're making it hard for you to come to understand.

The block explorer links I posted above are transactions in which

- multiple addresses sign

- all participating addresses sign or else the transaction fails.

Multiple addresses signing = "multisig".

Or perhaps you're mistaking XC's protocol for Bitcoin's and thereby expecting the address to start with a "4"?

timerland

hero member

Activity: 1526

Merit: 596

what about show people one m-of-m multisig address in the block explorer? we'll go from there. Very very simple question, 30 sec.

Please no waste of time. I have other work to do. This is extremely simple here.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 03:11:13 PM

Quote from: synechist on August 16, 2014, 03:07:35 PM

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 03:06:09 PM

hahaha, m-of-m multisig, this is the first time I see this, very entertaining... used in mix transactions trustlessly?? This is even more a joke, by trustless you mean the m members doing mixing are not trusted, so if there is one bad guy, you all screwed, because m-of-m address in order to spend, you need everyone to sign, if one bad guy not sign, your fund is locked forever.

This seems written by a guy who has zero knowledge about multisig, except the word "multisig".

That's why the altcoin there are so many scam coins. Grin

No:

Quote

3) Supplementary information:

- XC's multipath technology, used for obfuscating the amount sent in a transaction and the identity of sender and receiver, makes use of m-of-m transactions in order to achieve trustless mixing.

- Trustless mixing is a world-first. Nobody's ever done it before. Hence my prior request that you ask questions before coming to conclusions.

- m-of-m requires that all parties sign or else the transaction is invalidated.

- As such, m-of-m prevents bad nodes stealing coins instead of forwarding them.

- if a transaction is invalidated, the participating nodes resync the session-based network they form for the transaction in question, and proceed.

Then why you need m-of-m at all, you can just process with the assumption m-of-m will fail. The m-of-m there is absolutely of no use.

You're actually quite close to the truth here.

The assumption that m-of-m will fail is exactly what is needed for a bad node to fail at stealing coins.

If a node doesn't sign, if gets kicked out of the ad-hoc network formed for the transaction in question, and then the network resyncs and signs again.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: timerland on August 16, 2014, 02:51:38 PM

huh? show me a m-of-m multisig address and tx then, and explain what's the use of m-of-m?

m-of-m and m-of-n is the same multisig tech, show us then the address + tx?

The part where I invited you to play join-the-dots: here's a relevant excerpt:

Quote from: synechist on August 16, 2014, 05:08:05 AM

3) Supplementary information:

- XC's multipath technology, used for obfuscating the amount sent in a transaction and the identity of sender and receiver, makes use of m-of-m transactions in order to achieve trustless mixing.

- Trustless mixing is a world-first. Nobody's ever done it before. Hence my prior request that you ask questions before coming to conclusions.

- m-of-m requires that all parties sign or else the transaction is invalidated.

- As such, m-of-m prevents bad nodes stealing coins instead of forwarding them.

- if a transaction is invalidated, the participating nodes resync the session-based network they form for the transaction in question, and proceed.

...
- You can start listening this weekend. ATCSECURE releases a whitepaper explaining how all this works.

Can we proceed from here?

monocolor

hero member

Activity: 766

Merit: 621

Own ONION

Quote from: synechist on August 16, 2014, 03:07:35 PM

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 03:06:09 PM

hahaha, m-of-m multisig, this is the first time I see this, very entertaining... used in mix transactions trustlessly?? This is even more a joke, by trustless you mean the m members doing mixing are not trusted, so if there is one bad guy, you all screwed, because m-of-m address in order to spend, you need everyone to sign, if one bad guy not sign, your fund is locked forever.

This seems written by a guy who has zero knowledge about multisig, except the word "multisig".

That's why the altcoin there are so many scam coins. Grin

No:

Quote

3) Supplementary information:

- XC's multipath technology, used for obfuscating the amount sent in a transaction and the identity of sender and receiver, makes use of m-of-m transactions in order to achieve trustless mixing.

- Trustless mixing is a world-first. Nobody's ever done it before. Hence my prior request that you ask questions before coming to conclusions.

- m-of-m requires that all parties sign or else the transaction is invalidated.

- As such, m-of-m prevents bad nodes stealing coins instead of forwarding them.

- if a transaction is invalidated, the participating nodes resync the session-based network they form for the transaction in question, and proceed.

Then why you need m-of-m at all, you can just process with the assumption m-of-m will fail. The m-of-m there is absolutely of no use.

BTW, I read other posts, why not you show people an example of m-of-m address in the block explorer.

This is a complete joke.

mr_random

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1001

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 03:06:09 PM

hahaha, m-of-m multisig, this is the first time I see this, very entertaining... used in mix transactions trustlessly?? This is even more a joke, by trustless you mean the m members doing mixing are not trusted, so if there is one bad guy, you all screwed, because m-of-m address in order to spend, you need everyone to sign, if one bad guy not sign, your fund is locked forever.

This seems written by a guy who has zero knowledge about multisig, except the word "multisig".

That's why the altcoin there are so many scam coins. Grin

Actually if one person doesn't sign, the transaction is simply rejected, the same as DRK.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 03:06:09 PM

hahaha, m-of-m multisig, this is the first time I see this, very entertaining... used in mix transactions trustlessly?? This is even more a joke, by trustless you mean the m members doing mixing are not trusted, so if there is one bad guy, you all screwed, because m-of-m address in order to spend, you need everyone to sign, if one bad guy not sign, your fund is locked forever.

This seems written by a guy who has zero knowledge about multisig, except the word "multisig".

That's why the altcoin there are so many scam coins. Grin

No:

Quote

3) Supplementary information:

- XC's multipath technology, used for obfuscating the amount sent in a transaction and the identity of sender and receiver, makes use of m-of-m transactions in order to achieve trustless mixing.

- Trustless mixing is a world-first. Nobody's ever done it before. Hence my prior request that you ask questions before coming to conclusions.

- m-of-m requires that all parties sign or else the transaction is invalidated.

- As such, m-of-m prevents bad nodes stealing coins instead of forwarding them.

- if a transaction is invalidated, the participating nodes resync the session-based network they form for the transaction in question, and proceed.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: btcsup on August 16, 2014, 03:01:21 PM

Quote from: synechist on August 16, 2014, 02:36:17 PM

Quote from: timerland on August 16, 2014, 02:33:37 PM

people already showed you what you posted do not have a single multisig address. What your links for??

we ask some simple info and you provided something complete different. Please answer the simple question, and don't post ton of unrelated info to confuse people.

Let me state it more briefly then: you're asking for the wrong thing.

MULTI_SIG M-OF-N is not used in XC.

Can we move on now?

oh What really was quick

))

You accepted the fact finally.

YEAH like you just said "MULTI_SIG M-OF-N is not used in XC"

And yet I also state that m-of-m multisig transactions are used in XC.

Did you somehow miss that part?

Did you miss it intentionally?

monocolor

hero member

Activity: 766

Merit: 621

Own ONION

Quote from: timerland on August 16, 2014, 02:51:38 PM

Quote from: synechist on August 16, 2014, 02:47:05 PM

Quote from: timerland on August 16, 2014, 02:41:37 PM

Quote from: synechist on August 16, 2014, 02:38:37 PM

Quote from: timerland on August 16, 2014, 02:33:37 PM

moreover, now I see you changed m-of-m multisig to n-of-m multisig, lol, learned something new?

No I didn't. Even in my prior post - which you quoted above - I use the term "m-of-m".

Where are you getting this from?

lol, m-of-m? check the screenshot at OP? is it not clear enough?

OK I think XC people agreed finally they did not use the multisig, so please do not claim it, thanks.

Also I downloaded your client, I see the privacy mode, it uses tor network, this is completely different from multisig, it is apple to orange, lol.

Umm... what? I have consistently stated that XC uses m-of-m multisig. Even in the OP of this thread your screenshots display the phrase "m-of-m".

I have ONLY used this phrase from the beginning.

- except where I assert that XC does not use m-of-n.

And no, TOR is optional. XC's Privacy Mode uses m-of-m to mix transactions trustlessly.

huh? show me a m-of-m multisig address and tx then, and explain what's the use of m-of-m?

m-of-m and m-of-n is the same multisig tech, show us then the address + tx?

hahaha, m-of-m multisig, this is the first time I see this, very entertaining... used in mix transactions trustlessly?? This is even more a joke, by trustless you mean the m members doing mixing are not trusted, so if there is one bad guy, you all screwed, because m-of-m address in order to spend, you need everyone to sign, if one bad guy not sign, your fund is locked forever.

This seems written by a guy who has zero knowledge about multisig, except the word "multisig".

That's why the altcoin there are so many scam coins. Grin

mr_random

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1001

Quote from: btcsup on August 16, 2014, 02:58:26 PM

Quote from: mr_random on August 16, 2014, 02:27:44 PM

Quote from: timerland on August 16, 2014, 02:24:53 PM

Quote from: dadon on August 16, 2014, 02:19:49 PM

Quote from: timerland on August 16, 2014, 02:15:13 PM

Quote from: BrewCrewFan on August 16, 2014, 02:12:37 PM

Is that not the POINT of being hidden? What good would it do it you can trace it though the block chain to find out the receivers address?

you completely misunderstand what is anonymous system. A tutorial here: anonymous system simply makes sender-receiver not traceable, it does not mean the transaction not recorded in the block chain? sounds simple enough? Grin

Well there still that month old bounty for 2 BTC to anyone who can link sender to receiver should be easy for you ohh great one. let me guess you don't have the time to make 1k even though if XC is as shit as you claim it to be would only take a few minutes, oh lets see you got better stuff to do..lol..like i said 2 BTC up for grabs all you gotta do is accept the challenge...I DARE YOU!!

Again, please don't waste time here. I can use a simple mixer and you don't be able to trace my transaction. But here we talk about multisig, and let me repeat this simple question for the last time:

provide us a multisig address that has tx associated with it, in the blockchain, so we can inspect and see what is there. This can prove you actually have the capability of multisig.

Didn't Dan the XC dev just say that multisig addresses aren't used? And that it relies on the transactions being signed by all parties instead?

So why do you keep asking for a multisig address, can you explain? I am not a programmer.

Mammoth or supercoin devs can help you with this explanation just visit their OP.

If you think in a million years I would put a single satoshi into mammoth or supercoin after all the FUD they have tried to spread you are deluded.

You guys have made a lot of enemies.

hoertest

hero member

Activity: 882

Merit: 1000

i thought big letters get deleted, stand by your word at least.

btcsup

member

Activity: 93

Merit: 10

Quote from: synechist on August 16, 2014, 02:36:17 PM

Quote from: timerland on August 16, 2014, 02:33:37 PM

people already showed you what you posted do not have a single multisig address. What your links for??

we ask some simple info and you provided something complete different. Please answer the simple question, and don't post ton of unrelated info to confuse people.

Let me state it more briefly then: you're asking for the wrong thing.

MULTI_SIG M-OF-N is not used in XC.

Can we move on now?

oh What really was quick

))

You accepted the fact finally.

YEAH like you just said "MULTI_SIG M-OF-N is not used in XC"

adhitthana

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

Quote from: timerland on August 16, 2014, 02:41:37 PM

OK I think XC people agreed finally they did not use the multisig, so please do not claim it, thanks.

There is more than one kind of "multi sig" transaction.

Quote

Also I downloaded your client, I see the privacy mode, it uses tor network, this is completely different from multisig, it is apple to orange, lol.

The Tor aspect of XC has nothing to do with the multi sig aspect. XC gives the option to use Tor as an additional feature.

A Multi Sig transaction is one that requires multiple signatures.
XC therefore uses multi sig.

Topic: XC uses multisig address and transaction? The answer is NO!! Look at facts here! - page 3. (Read 7114 times)