Quote from: dasource on January 15, 2017, 10:03:31 AM

Quote from: Quartz-Team on January 14, 2017, 11:18:15 PM

You didn't answer the question though. How do you prove that you sent X SDC to stealth address: smY.....................xx if the intended recipient denies having received the payment. There is no trace of the stealth address in the block explorer to refer back to and not in your wallet transactions either. This is a genuine question. Is this why exchanges like Poloniex only uses 'normal' deposit addresses for SDC and not stealth? Because if there was a dispute you can't prove the transactions as it's unlinked. That is the point isn't it? So, with XMR there is a key that can be used / payment ID that can be shared for the purpose of audit so that a dispute can be settled between the seller / buyer.

https://imgur.com/gQlj9Oy

It's not FUD but a genuine question. How do you prove that you sent to a certain stealth address? I suggest that you can't prove it, hence the exchanges uses 'normal' addresses and so you will need to use 'normal' addresses for trade as well for transparency as there is no audit system with a peyment ID as is the case with XMR.

So, the trust-less system isn't trust-less after all if you use stealth addresses, you will need to trust the recipient not to lie and say he didn't receive the payment.

You would imagine it would be obvious since the technology is known as "Dual [key] Stealth Addresses" .. i.e. dual simply referring to the pairs of spend and view/scan keys.

I also figured it was obvious because he has almost no posting history, and as expected he left a "lonk" to menero and reference to peyment id. Wink

This is exactly what I expect when they start to see the writing on the wall so to speak. The long wait for SDC's massive success/acceptance are going to make it all that much sweeter.

Maybe we should discuss the GUI next? Roll Eyes