Just a heads up on MasterMind710. He's responsible for the Cloak FUD subreddits and most of the baseless comments in the sections of Cloak related articles and videos. The only thing backing up his claims is his investment in DRK masternodes..
Moving forward.
1)
Since when is the right to privacy of developers a CON? Cloak developers have done more in the last month than most other coins have done in the last nine. Please explain to me how advocates of anon technology also advocate that developers reveal themselves in order for their work to be taking seriously. If you believe anon to be a negative factor in development, then the same argument will be made later down the road for merchants using anonymous currencies. Remember Satoshi was a fellow anon. Just because a new altcoin popped up with developers willing to expose themselves doesn't mean it is a recipe for success; Morever, this should not validate their work or their abilities.
I would hope the OP would reconsider his criteria for PRO/CON in relation to personal privacy.
2)
Please show me at least one alt-coin that has invested money into a high-level independent audit - closed or open. I'm not talking about Kristov Atlas, I'm saying a real authoritative audit from a place like
www.opencryptoaudit.org. These places are backed up 3-5 months in advance and the costs are upwards of $50k+. It's comes out to around $5,000+ a week per auditor. It's one thing to sit in this forum and play armchair auditor it's another thing to do it for a living. I'm an investor for Cloak and I'm willing to fund 100% of the independent audit for PoSA. I doubt anyone here is willing to do the same for their investment. I'm already speaking with various candidates and their results will eventually be made public when finished. Dagger, the project lead for Cloak clocks in 20+hour days as do the others on the team. This type of commitment is all I need to validate my investment in a professional audit. The crypto space is one of the most vile and disgusting communities on the internet. Shameless promotions and baseless accusations are all the norm here. Innovation is ripped from another coin and re-branded almost the same day the source is published. It's not a surprise that developers who innovate are moving to more of a closed source development cycle to protect their investors.
Pony up and do the same for your coin because once these results come in your internal reviews won't hold a candle to Cloaks.
3)
A detailed diagram has been released that outlines the inner workings of the Proof-Of-Stake Anon (PoSA) protocol. There is a public beta available for Cloak's PoSA. Feel free to join the IRC #CloakCoin. There are 7 core developers working on Cloak in addition to 5 other developers working on supporting projects. Anyone of them is available to answer questions. There is a diagram on the way that will be easier to read for those who have trouble understanding this one.
Update:
There's been quite a lot of pressure for us to release in greater details, information about our finished anon product.
The whitepaper was deliberately made sparse to avoid attempts at copying from an early stage.
Cloak PoSA is well advanced now so we can now reveal a more indepth paper that shows how our finished Proof of Stake Anonymity system works.
PoSA is entirely trustless and solves the Byzantine Generals problem.
1) There are so many scams in the altcoin world - anonymous devs usually now have something to hide. If you have the skills and experience to code something this complex you had better have the experience and industry experience to back it up. My opinion is that cloak dev's are high school kids based on their basic attempts at diagrams and immature non-professional language, meaning they have limited experience in the corporate world.
2) I call utter bullshit, I will organise escrow right now if you are willing to fund the 50k+ review for cloak. You might as well throw it down the drain. Additionally you wouldn't even be considered with that hilarious diagram, do you even know the pre-requisites required for a review board. I guess not.
where there are already flaws being discussed in the diagram and how trivial it really is.