please, don't use big letter unless absolutely needed. All fuds will be deleted.
And please focus on multisig discussion.
delete the fud of btcsup then And please focus on multisig discussion.
Topic: XC uses multisig address and transaction? The answer is NO!! Look at facts here! - page 4. (Read 7114 times)
August 16, 2014, 02:58:35 PM
August 16, 2014, 02:58:26 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?
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.
August 16, 2014, 02:53:41 PM
please, don't use big letter unless absolutely needed. All fuds will be deleted.
And please focus on multisig discussion.
And please focus on multisig discussion.
August 16, 2014, 02:51:38 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?
August 16, 2014, 02:50:32 PM
The revelation is just massively epic.
August 16, 2014, 02:50:02 PM
August 16, 2014, 02:49:53 PM
August 16, 2014, 02:49:44 PM
You apparently have no knowledge on what is a multisig at all!
The evidence in this thread suggests that you do not have the understanding to comprehend m-of-m multisig transactions.
And again, can I request that you be civil?
m-of-m again? lmao, let's not continue please
Yes, m-of-m.
You're really not willing to enquire about what it's useful for are you?
I'll tell you anyway: trustless mixing.
August 16, 2014, 02:47:54 PM
XC finally accepted they have no multisig address thus they are not trustless
tor depended something else they packaged it like trustless
tor depended something else they packaged it like trustless
No we did not.
See my previous post.
You dirty fudder.
August 16, 2014, 02:47:32 PM
btcup, I don't see where the XC dev says it's a multisig address. Try to be calm and provide real evidence rather than screaming big letters. Thanks.
August 16, 2014, 02:47:05 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.
August 16, 2014, 02:47:00 PM
XC finally accepted they have no multisig address thus they are not trustless
Tor depended something else they packaged it like trustless
Tor depended something else they packaged it like trustless
August 16, 2014, 02:44:12 PM
I have the real proof atcsecure xc dev posted on mammothcoin thread and he said this is as multisig address!
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229177.htm (This is atcsecure's (XC dev) multisig wallet lol see how he tries to cheat without fear)
see how he tries
He as big dev saying first he does not need whitepaper at all, second advising poor mammoth dev to check multisig...
This the amazing technology how to cheat people.
But he is stupid enough to post non multisig address at the same time. http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229177.htm
This is not possible without using multisig to build decentralization unless alliens (or hype) builds new technology. See video speaks about.
XC facts
FACT 1 XC dev is proven to be lier!
FACT 2 XC dev cheated people on website about XC technology.
FACT 3 XC dev tried to fud with army of fudster on mammothcoin.
FACT 4 XC dev selling something else with different package.
To learn more about REAL multisig technology Watch the video
OpenBazaar's Sam Patterson Talks Ecommerce, Decentralization, Multisig & More | Coin Brief Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK85PCee3pU
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229177.htm (This is atcsecure's (XC dev) multisig wallet
lol see how he tries to cheat without fear) see how he tries
He as big dev saying first he does not need whitepaper at all, second advising poor mammoth dev to check multisig...
This the amazing technology how to cheat people.
But he is stupid enough to post non multisig address at the same time. http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229177.htm
This is not possible without using multisig to build decentralization unless alliens (or hype) builds new technology. See video speaks about.
XC facts
FACT 1 XC dev is proven to be lier!
FACT 2 XC dev cheated people on website about XC technology.
FACT 3 XC dev tried to fud with army of fudster on mammothcoin.
FACT 4 XC dev selling something else with different package.
To learn more about REAL multisig technology Watch the video
OpenBazaar's Sam Patterson Talks Ecommerce, Decentralization, Multisig & More | Coin Brief Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK85PCee3pU
August 16, 2014, 02:43:46 PM
Man, I head out to enjoy my weekend and come back to this mess?
Again, you guys need to work on your civility.
Now, let's play join-the-dots:
1) I posted the following a little earlier:
- http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/block.dws?62014.htm
- http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229177.htm
You're an arse for fudding instead of just downloading the wallet and trying out Privacy Mode.
So, your reasoning process:
- timerland doesn't understand the point of m-of-m multisig.
- timerland doesn't bother to ask people from XC what m-of-m is used for.
- timerland simply concludes, with the foolhardiness of a drunk pullet, that the truth is not that he lacks understanding but that XC is a scam.
You're not very civil are you?
Just come and ask us questions next time instead of creating a fruitless and irritating FUD thread.
If you have further questions, you're welcome to ask, nicely.
2) ATCSECURE, XC's core dev, posted the following not too long ago:
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.
4) Conclusion:
- You might've guessed this before - though your intentions evidently have barricaded you from this surprisingly obvious conclusion - but XC DOES NOT USE MULTI_SIG M-OF-N.
- So you're looking for something that I've already stated (see above post) that XC does not use. All this talk of addresses beginning with a 4, condescending offers to explain multisig, etc. refer to the wrong thing.
- I refer you to the latter half of my previous post: timerland needs to ask questions before coming to conclusions about a technology he doesn't understand.
- If you don't get the point of m-of-m transactions, then stop talking and listen. Idiots.
- You can start listening this weekend. ATCSECURE releases a whitepaper explaining how all this works.
And if you speak again, kindly be civil, for heaven's sake.
Again, you guys need to work on your civility.
Now, let's play join-the-dots:
1) I posted the following a little earlier:
Can anyone show me XC's multisig addresses and their associated transactions?
Would these satisfy your curiosity? - http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/block.dws?62014.htm
- http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229177.htm
You're an arse for fudding instead of just downloading the wallet and trying out Privacy Mode.
Quote
m-of-m multisig? Are you drunk? What fun will you have to have m-of-m multisig?? If one guy is bad then you want the wallet is locked forever?
So, your reasoning process:
- timerland doesn't understand the point of m-of-m multisig.
- timerland doesn't bother to ask people from XC what m-of-m is used for.
- timerland simply concludes, with the foolhardiness of a drunk pullet, that the truth is not that he lacks understanding but that XC is a scam.
You're not very civil are you?
Just come and ask us questions next time instead of creating a fruitless and irritating FUD thread.
If you have further questions, you're welcome to ask, nicely.
2) ATCSECURE, XC's core dev, posted the following not too long ago:
They are mixing apples and oranges, XC is trustless based on the signatures of all parties during the private transaction. Its not using MULTI_SIG N OF M Address's.
The transactions are SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES, if any of the outputs are missing, then it is not signed by all parties.
Here is an example of a private decentralized distributed multi-path transaction consisting of 4 parties. >>> http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229236.htm
The transactions are SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES, if any of the outputs are missing, then it is not signed by all parties.
Here is an example of a private decentralized distributed multi-path transaction consisting of 4 parties. >>> http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/tx.dws?229236.htm
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.
4) Conclusion:
- You might've guessed this before - though your intentions evidently have barricaded you from this surprisingly obvious conclusion - but XC DOES NOT USE MULTI_SIG M-OF-N.
- So you're looking for something that I've already stated (see above post) that XC does not use. All this talk of addresses beginning with a 4, condescending offers to explain multisig, etc. refer to the wrong thing.
- I refer you to the latter half of my previous post: timerland needs to ask questions before coming to conclusions about a technology he doesn't understand.
- If you don't get the point of m-of-m transactions, then stop talking and listen. Idiots.
- You can start listening this weekend. ATCSECURE releases a whitepaper explaining how all this works.
And if you speak again, kindly be civil, for heaven's sake.
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.
moreover, now I see you changed m-of-m multisig to n-of-m multisig, lol, learned something new? can you show me how you plan to use m-of-m multisig? You apparently have no knowledge on what is a multisig at all!
If you like, we can rehash how n-of-m multisig can have bad actors/nodes and steal coins. XC solves this issue. I believe you started a whole new thread after 500 pages because of the talk of this issue. Do you want to play... are you sure?
August 16, 2014, 02:43:22 PM
You apparently have no knowledge on what is a multisig at all!
The evidence in this thread suggests that you do not have the understanding to comprehend m-of-m multisig transactions.
And again, can I request that you be civil?
m-of-m again? lmao, let's not continue please
August 16, 2014, 02:42:40 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?
OK fair enough. I got what I was looking for.
August 16, 2014, 02:41:52 PM
You apparently have no knowledge on what is a multisig at all!
The evidence in this thread suggests that you do not have the understanding to comprehend m-of-m multisig transactions.
And again, can I request that you be civil?
August 16, 2014, 02:41:37 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.
August 16, 2014, 02:38:37 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?
August 16, 2014, 02:36:17 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?
Jump to: