Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 08:16:54 PM

Quote from: synechist on August 16, 2014, 08:13:51 PM

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 08:11:13 PM

Quote from: synechist on August 16, 2014, 08:07:35 PM

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 08:06:09 PM

hahaha, m-of-m multisig, this is the first time I see this, very entertaining... used in mix transactions trustlessly?? This is even more a joke, by trustless you mean the m members doing mixing are not trusted, so if there is one bad guy, you all screwed, because m-of-m address in order to spend, you need everyone to sign, if one bad guy not sign, your fund is locked forever.

This seems written by a guy who has zero knowledge about multisig, except the word "multisig".

That's why the altcoin there are so many scam coins. Grin

No:

Quote

3) 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.

Then why you need m-of-m at all, you can just process with the assumption m-of-m will fail. The m-of-m there is absolutely of no use.

You're actually quite close to the truth here.

The assumption that m-of-m will fail is exactly what is needed for a bad node to fail at stealing coins.

If a node doesn't sign, if gets kicked out of the ad-hoc network formed for the transaction in question, and then the network resyncs and signs again.

no in this case m-of-m transaction is no use, and if you remove it the system should just function as before. That's why no one is using m-of-m multisig in this kind of trustless system. m-of-m is virtually of no use.

Why do you think it is of no use?

If you don't have m-of-m then you'd have to trust the node forwarding your coins.

If you retain it then unless the node signs the transaction it cannot participate.

And if it cannot participate then it cannot steal coins.

But - if it does participate then it also cannot steal coins, because it's just signed them on to a further recipient.

Nice.