Quote from: timerland on August 16, 2014, 08:34:54 PM

Quote from: synechist on August 16, 2014, 08:33:52 PM

Quote from: monocolor on August 16, 2014, 08:22:28 PM

Quote from: synechist on August 16, 2014, 08:16:42 PM

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

BTW, I read other posts, why not you show people an example of m-of-m address in the block explorer.

This is a complete joke.

By being disposed against XC you're making it hard for you to come to understand.

The block explorer links I posted above are transactions in which

- multiple addresses sign

- all participating addresses sign or else the transaction fails.

Multiple addresses signing = "multisig".

Or perhaps you're mistaking XC's protocol for Bitcoin's and thereby expecting the address to start with a "4"?

This shows you have no knowledge on the multisig. In order to create multisig tx, like m-of-m you mentioned, you need to create a multisig address first. Then you can create multisig tx there.

No, XC just does things differently. If "knowledge of multisig" pertains to how it's done in Bitcoin, well, that would be irrelevant.

Quote

If you did this in XC, then it is extremely easy to point to people this address in the block explorer, then people can see this.

For private transactions, why would we want to do a thing like that?

(You're playing into my hands on that one.)

No, there's only one technology for multisig, there's nothing "different", or it is not multisig. Try to use some other names.

XC's multisig address starts with '4'. Clearly you never saw this before, lol Grin

I don't think you're in a position to state what technology XC has and doesn't have.

We're still based on bitcoin-QT, hence the ability to generate bitcoin-like multisig addresses (which we don't implement).

There's insufficient warrant to conclude from this that XC's m-of-m is not multisig.