Quote from: machico on August 19, 2017, 12:13:13 AM

Quote from: woogod on August 18, 2017, 11:41:35 PM

BTC38 delisting threw off the markets,
But if this coin can be developed to have zerocoin integration and possible even incentivised nodes - the way ZCOIN is going. Then I think this coin can be worth even more than what it was before.

woogod - do you have much involvement with zcoin? This is what Cryptoslave wrote about Zcoin:

The zcoin implementation of zerocoin is done using a trusted source for accumulator namely RSA-2048. The RSA-2048 number was created by RSA Laboratories in March 1991 to encourage research into computational number theory and the practical difficulty of factoring large integers. It was thus created by a company incorporated in USA and this company is thus to be trusted to not have kept the original two prime factors. Because we cannot trust this company to not have kept the factors, it is to be assumed this company or employees can forge fake zcoins at will, which can be done easily when the factor are known. Furthermore they badly coded their zerocoin implementation with a typo that allowed to reuse spent zerocoin. Zcoin by this way in February suffered a heist of 370000 zcoin worth about 2600000$ now.

The Anoncoin implementation of zerocoin aim to use RSA-UFO as trustless accumulators. In contrast, RSA-2048 or a multiparty computation both involve different degrees of trust. In a similar way that what happened with zcoin, if some entity known the prime factors they can then generate infinite amount of zerocoin with fake Zero knowledge proof.

Hoppefully, Sander gave a way to generate semiprime number with a certain degree of certainty in a trustless way using an algorithm. Those numbers are called RSA-UFO for generalised RSA moduli of Unknown complete Factorisation. It is important to note that this work by Sander is superior to secure multiparty computation protocols. Indeed, if MPC are employed during system setup colluding member could recover P and Q and thus the problem of someone who known the trapdoor also remain in the distributed setting. In contrast nobody know the complete factorisation of the RSA-UFO thus the problem of trapdoor is resolved with this setup for the accumulator.

Gnosis implemented a function that on startup all Anoncoin wallet software deterministically generates the same 16 raw UFOs using SHA-256 hashing of the numbers 0-15. This being done, people from the Anoncoin community brute forced those numbers for 75 days using the Elliptic Curve Method of factorization to remove the small factors up to 165 bits. If the RSA-UFO bit length after division by small factors is lower than 3456, the RSA-UFO was unfit for the security level we wanted because it would have been possible to use the General Number Field Sieve (GNFS) to factor it. It was shown by Monte-Carlo simulation that with this minimum number of 3456 bits the RSA-UFO was unfactorable with a certainty of 80%. By using 13 such RSA-UFO, and with only one of them needed to be secure, and the zerocoin having to be accumulated in all of them, the probability of all of them to be unsecure is 0.2^13=0.0000000008192 ~ 1 out of 1 billion.

So the procedure to generate the complete RSA UFOs is 1) create the 13 "raw" UFOs by hashing, and 2) divide out the small factors found in the UFO project. This is performed not only by the UFO clients and server, but also will be performed on startup by all Anoncoin wallet software. This is the trustless way to zerocoin we want to finalize in Anoncoin. In this way, the security will resist extremely powerful attackers able to remove factors by the Elliptic Curve Method (ECM) up to 768 bits and able to factor numbers up to 2048 bits using the Generalized Number Field Sieve (GNFS). This is far beyond what anybody is likely to be able to do for many decades.

To summarize, the difference between zerocoin-in-Anoncoin and zerocoin-in-Zcoin is that the latter is using a trusted accumulator. For Zcoin and Zcash, even using MPC, no amount of studying the source code will tell you if the master key was destroyed as it's supposed to be. Nobody can be sure. In contrast, studying the source of Anoncoin (and relevant papers on the crypto, and the RSA-UFO wiki page) enables people to verify that there are no backdoors. This is why Anoncoin aim for using such a trustless solution. This, combined with the only implementation of I2P-SAM in the wallet of all coin, development of the C++ i2p router i2pd with orignal, and cooperation with services such as exchanged.i2p lead us to be the best trustless anonymous coin on the market.

I don't have that much involvement with the coin, I have just traded it a few times and turned decent profit on them.
I just quote ZCOIN because I thought ZCOIN and ANONCOIN are both zerocoin iterations, but it seems that ANC is different in the trustless setup.
I am not yet technical enough to testify any truth in what Cryptoslave has said - but when I get into contact with him I can understand better.
But according to what he says ANC does seem to be a better choice than zcoin or zcash given the trustless setup.

When did cryptoslave say this?