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:
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.htmYou're an arse for fudding instead of just downloading the wallet and trying out Privacy Mode.
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.htm3) 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 the wrong thing. It's 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. Come on.
- 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.