[XC][XCurrency] Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat / Pos - page 776.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: SushiChef on July 21, 2014, 04:47:25 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 04:36:57 AM

Lastly the mainstream isn't hooked on privacy, they're hooked on fancy smartphone apps, ease of use, and friendly, approachable tech. I'm really not worried.

Not worried either.. (my head hurts a lot.. sorry for missing the "party". Would have loved some of these FUD "snacks")

Heh. No worries. The FUD just means a few more hours of cheap XC I'd say.

May the headache go away soon - and may last night have been worth it!

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 04:45:30 AM

That's why "XCurrency" makes sense. We did our market research.

It's also why XC's branding is green and white. It's professional and approachable, not technical and dark.

For example, compare this:

With this:

They're both cool, but which one is more approachable?

SushiChef

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 04:36:57 AM

Lastly the mainstream isn't hooked on privacy, they're hooked on fancy smartphone apps, ease of use, and friendly, approachable tech. I'm really not worried.

Not worried either.. (my head hurts a lot.. sorry for missing the "party". Would have loved some of these FUD "snacks")

CryptoGretzky

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 04:36:57 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

[Relative prices of competitors]

Without a good explanation of what PoSA is - when/if they release it - they're likely to be subject to FUD. For example, if they're anonymising via mining, what happens if there's an orphaned block? Does your tx just disappear?

Plus the name doesn't have the mainstream in mind IMO. They'll have as much trouble with that as DRK's name. It looks like the sort of thing "bad guys on the internet" use.

Lastly the mainstream isn't hooked on privacy, they're hooked on fancy smartphone apps, ease of use, and friendly, approachable tech. I'm really not worried.

On page 6 of the white paper of Cloak makes me wonder... http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=73frc7&s=8#.U8zgdvldVAI

Transaction Finalization and Output Delivery If the elected node is a Phase 2 node, it will solve a block containing the phase 2 transaction, redeem the input and generate an output to the destination recipient address. At this point the only link from the recipient would be from the Phase 2 node.

Would this link be something that can bite the phase 2 node that send this transaction out if the recipient does something illegal with it?

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: BrewCrewFan on July 21, 2014, 04:43:13 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 04:36:57 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

[Relative prices of competitors]

Without a good explanation of what PoSA is - when/if they release it - they're likely to be subject to FUD. For example, if they're anonymising via mining, what happens if there's an orphaned block? Does your tx just disappear?

Plus the name doesn't have the mainstream in mind IMO. They'll have as much trouble with that as DRK's name. It looks like the sort of thing "bad guys on the internet" use.

Lastly the mainstream isn't hooked on privacy, they're hooked on fancy smartphone apps, ease of use, and friendly, approachable tech. I'm really not worried.

You know I went on about that some time ago about naming and stuff like that. You be on later on? I have to go to work lol. I do agree naming is a good portion when thinking about mainstream. Right now people think cryptos = drugs, all the bad stuff in life.... you name it....

Heh. Yeah, that's why "XCurrency" makes sense. We did our market research.

It's also why XC's branding is green and white. It's professional and approachable, not technical and dark.

CrazyLeoW

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

XC

Quote from: BrewCrewFan on July 21, 2014, 04:40:33 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

.

Hey, chinaman, plz stop posting your offtopic comment. Lol

Go pound sand. I got more XC than you would know what to do with. Plus I find your remark kinda racist.

Oh, sorry, I just heard that word chinaman from a tv talkshow, just funny, plz don't mind.

BrewCrewFan

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 501

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 04:36:57 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

[Relative prices of competitors]

Without a good explanation of what PoSA is - when/if they release it - they're likely to be subject to FUD. For example, if they're anonymising via mining, what happens if there's an orphaned block? Does your tx just disappear?

Plus the name doesn't have the mainstream in mind IMO. They'll have as much trouble with that as DRK's name. It looks like the sort of thing "bad guys on the internet" use.

Lastly the mainstream isn't hooked on privacy, they're hooked on fancy smartphone apps, ease of use, and friendly, approachable tech. I'm really not worried.

You know I went on about that some time ago about naming and stuff like that. You be on later on? I have to go to work lol. I do agree naming is a good portion when thinking about mainstream. Right now people think cryptos = drugs, all the bad stuff in life.... you name it....

Ninja edit
I love how some think I am a troll lutz!

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: CrazyLeoW on July 21, 2014, 04:35:04 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 04:28:24 AM

Quote from: CrazyLeoW on July 21, 2014, 04:22:00 AM

Need to explain what does trustless mean.
Xnode system assumes all xnodes are not deserving of trust, so the sending algorithm must assume the transaction would fail by default. The transaction will not be comfirmed until the system get accomplishment from destination.
I guess a single xnode could not move the incoming coin from sending path into its own Local wallet By itself.

No that's not how trustless mixing works.

1) transaction is initiated

2) wallet requests to send fragments to other nodes

3) multisig between each participating node is set up and passed around for signing

4) multisig enables trust-less transactions as any changes to the signed transaction (ie: a node trying to steal coins) - makes the multi-signature invalid

- it's not coinjoin, because it’s not centralised

- it's not a ring signature because it's multidirectional

5) if a bad node fails to forward a transaction, then several other paths exist and the tx is sent along one of them instead

6) fragments sent to nodes

7) nodes mix and forward fragments from different addresses to the ones they receive fragments on

Cool

recipient receives transaction

Got it! Great!
But why didn't you explain this a few days ago to avoid so many fuds?

Because it's only recently that the tech was explained to me in enough detail for me to post that.

BrewCrewFan

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 501

Quote from: ?? on ??

.

Hey, chinaman, plz stop posting your offtopic comment. Lol

Go pound sand. I got more XC than you would know what to do with. Plus I find your remark kinda racist.

CrazyLeoW

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

XC

it's not a ring signature because it's multidirectional.
An advantage over XMR. LoL

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: ?? on ??

[Relative prices of competitors]

Without a good explanation of what PoSA is - when/if they release it - they're likely to be subject to FUD. For example, if they're anonymising via mining, what happens if there's an orphaned block? Does your tx just disappear?

Plus the name doesn't have the mainstream in mind IMO. They'll have as much trouble with that as DRK's name. It looks like the sort of thing "bad guys on the internet" use.

Lastly the mainstream isn't hooked on privacy, they're hooked on fancy smartphone apps, ease of use, and friendly, approachable tech. I'm really not worried.

dida

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

SoNiC BooM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Hate to say it but cloak might pass us in price even though we had that PoSA in place a long while ago.

Pseudo coin also..it have unique technology of mixing, less coins and right now it is waaay to cheapo.

CrazyLeoW

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

XC

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 04:28:24 AM

Quote from: CrazyLeoW on July 21, 2014, 04:22:00 AM

Need to explain what does trustless mean.
Xnode system assumes all xnodes are not deserving of trust, so the sending algorithm must assume the transaction would fail by default. The transaction will not be comfirmed until the system get accomplishment from destination.
I guess a single xnode could not move the incoming coin from sending path into its own Local wallet By itself.

No that's not how trustless mixing works.

1) transaction is initiated

2) wallet requests to send fragments to other nodes
(
3) multisig between each participating node is set up and passed around for signing

4) multisig enables trust-less transactions as any changes to the signed transaction (ie: a node trying to steal coins) - makes the multi-signature invalid

- it's not coinjoin, because it’s not centralised

- it's not a ring signature because it's multidirectional

5) if a bad node fails to forward a transaction, then several other paths exist and the tx is sent along one of them instead

6) fragments sent to nodes

7) nodes mix and forward fragments from different addresses to the ones they receive fragments on

Cool

recipient receives transaction

Got it! Great!
But why didn't you explain this a few days ago to avoid so many fuds?

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: CrazyLeoW on July 21, 2014, 04:22:00 AM

Need to explain what does trustless mean.
Xnode system assumes all xnodes are not deserving of trust, so the sending algorithm must assume the transaction would fail by default. The transaction will not be comfirmed until the system get accomplishment from destination.
I guess a single xnode could not move the incoming coin from sending path into its own Local wallet By itself.

No that's not how trustless mixing works.

1) transaction is initiated

2) wallet requests to send fragments to other nodes

3) multisig between each participating node is set up and passed around for signing

4) multisig enables trust-less transactions as any changes to the signed transaction (ie: a node trying to steal coins) - makes the multi-signature invalid

- it's not coinjoin, because it’s not centralised

- it's not a ring signature because it's multidirectional

5) if a bad node fails to forward a transaction, then several other paths exist and the tx is sent along one of them instead

6) fragments sent to nodes

7) nodes mix and forward fragments from different addresses to the ones they receive fragments on

Cool

recipient receives transaction

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on July 21, 2014, 04:20:33 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 03:58:19 AM

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on July 21, 2014, 03:54:11 AM

Quote from: Queeq on July 21, 2014, 03:47:53 AM

Could you please remind, what prevents malicious party from creating so many Xnodes that it would allow them to see the majority of private transactions? As far as I understand, there are no specific requirements (like 550 XCs before) so it's fairly easy for one party to have like 99% of the network nodes.

If that person has 99% of the network nodes, then the price would be bitcoin level cause just trying to buy up that much coins would push it to astronomical level.... he can steal all the coins he wants because then it's his value to lose....

No you guys are mistaken. There's currently no 550 XC requirement, and it's not necessary to have one because mixing is trustless.

This means that you don't have to trust other nodes. It makes no difference what their intentions are; your payments will reach the intended destination.

(Note though that we may add a minimum XC requirement for other purposes. But it won't be to improve the security of the network.)

I was just answering his imaginary scenarios with a imaginary effects. Wink

Heh. Fair enough ;-)

CrazyLeoW

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

XC

Need to explain what does trustless mean.
Xnode system assumes all xnodes are not deserving of trust, so the sending algorithm must assume the transaction would fail by default. The transaction will not be comfirmed until the system get accomplishment from destination.
I guess a single xnode could not move the incoming coin from sending path into its own Local wallet By itself.

CryptoGretzky

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: synechist on July 21, 2014, 03:58:19 AM

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on July 21, 2014, 03:54:11 AM

Quote from: Queeq on July 21, 2014, 03:47:53 AM

Could you please remind, what prevents malicious party from creating so many Xnodes that it would allow them to see the majority of private transactions? As far as I understand, there are no specific requirements (like 550 XCs before) so it's fairly easy for one party to have like 99% of the network nodes.

If that person has 99% of the network nodes, then the price would be bitcoin level cause just trying to buy up that much coins would push it to astronomical level.... he can steal all the coins he wants because then it's his value to lose....

No you guys are mistaken. There's currently no 550 XC requirement, and it's not necessary to have one because mixing is trustless.

This means that you don't have to trust other nodes. It makes no difference what their intentions are; your payments will reach the intended destination.

(Note though that we may add a minimum XC requirement for other purposes. But it won't be to improve the security of the network.)

I was just answering his imaginary scenarios with a imaginary effects. Wink

KimmyF

sr. member

Activity: 978

Merit: 250

Quote from: Queeq on July 21, 2014, 03:47:53 AM

Could you please remind, what prevents malicious party from creating so many Xnodes that it would allow them to see the majority of private transactions? As far as I understand, there are no specific requirements (like 550 XCs before) so it's fairly easy for one party to have like 99% of the network nodes.

Every XC-app with some coins in it is an xnode, there are almost 6000 xnodes out there, lets say 5% is online at any time. thats 300 == your remaining 1%. So you wish to put up 30K endpoints, run 30K XC-apps and while you at it break the same encryption thats protecting the BTC chains for years & then find & combine al those tiny parts to a single transaction. thats what i call ambition

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: synechist on July 20, 2014, 04:46:56 PM

Here's our latest roadmap to Rev 3 and beyond!

- the Rev 2 "UI update" is a progress bar for private transactions and send fail/success confirmation. It's not the major Rev 3 UI update.

- private transactions and EM will be merged into a single app at Rev 2.5.

So this is what's new:

- UI update at Rev 2

- Rev 3 UI preview at Rev 2.5

- Rev 2.5 is the point at which trustless mixing is merged with secure private messaging

- Additional tech update to xnodes in the Rev 2 phase (just to whet your appetites :-).

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on July 21, 2014, 03:54:11 AM

Quote from: Queeq on July 21, 2014, 03:47:53 AM

Could you please remind, what prevents malicious party from creating so many Xnodes that it would allow them to see the majority of private transactions? As far as I understand, there are no specific requirements (like 550 XCs before) so it's fairly easy for one party to have like 99% of the network nodes.

If that person has 99% of the network nodes, then the price would be bitcoin level cause just trying to buy up that much coins would push it to astronomical level.... he can steal all the coins he wants because then it's his value to lose....

No you guys are mistaken. There's currently no 550 XC requirement, and it's not necessary to have one because mixing is trustless.

This means that you don't have to trust other nodes. It makes no difference what their intentions are; your payments will reach the intended destination.

(Note though that we may add a minimum XC requirement for other purposes. But it won't be to improve the security of the network.)

Topic: [XC][XCurrency] Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat / Pos - page 776. (Read 1484248 times)