Re: Supercoin is fundamentally broken - read why inside and save yourself money
The following posts of mine were deleted by timerland:
I'm not sure what is less appealing about this post:
- the poor linguistic abilities it portrays
- its factual inaccuracy (because XC does use multisig transactions)
- its deceitfulness.
Poor showing sir.
No, there's only one technology for multisig, there's nothing "different", or it is not multisig. Try to use some other names.
You are incorrect about this.
I repeat: you are not in a position to tell what technology XC has or has not implemented.
XC has technology that you do not know about.
Therefore you are not in a position to make the above statement.
Yes this is the truth from all the above messages.
This is an irresponsibly one-sided remark.
because while you are arguing and without knowing what is multisig address and what is multisig transaction!
marseille posted Gavin Andersen's example of multisig transaction, go read it and understand it please, before repeating the same thing here!
I understand multisig quite well thank you, and I object to your patronising remarks on this topic.
Proceed as if I understand, and you'll come across less arrogantly.
because while you are arguing and without knowing what is multisig address and what is multisig transaction!
marseille posted Gavin Andersen's example of multisig transaction, go read it and understand it please, before repeating the same thing here!
I again request you that please on the facts, no fuds, and understand multisig before posting please.
Again here Gavin Andersen showed what is a multisig tx and how to create, sign and spend!
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071
Ah, deleting perfectly relevant posts again are you?
Nice ethics you have.
Go ahead, delete this one too. It'll make you look good.
because while you are arguing and without knowing what is multisig address and what is multisig transaction!
marseille posted Gavin Andersen's example of multisig transaction, go read it and understand it please, before repeating the same thing here!
I again request you that please on the facts, no fuds, and understand multisig before posting please.
Again here Gavin Andersen showed what is a multisig tx and how to create, sign and spend!
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071
I understand multisig quite well thank you, and I do not enjoy being patronised, so kindly stop.
You are not in a position to tell what I do not understand, so kindly refrain from making assertions you cannot substantiate.
I've told you this several times: XC DOES NOT USE WHAT YOU CALL "MULTISIG".
It uses multisig transactions, not multisig addresses.
Can we move on?
It uses regular tx in this case, where you can put software to do anything, but it does not require all party to sign in order to spend! mutisig transaction is the transaction created on multisig address (you understand why? well read what is multisig!).
You do not have sufficient grounds to assert that XC uses regular transactions.
You only have sufficient grounds to assert that XC uses addresses that conform to the regular format (but don't necessarily behave that way in XC by any means.
Again, you're making assumptions that go beyond the evidence you have.
Quote
TOR DEPENDED POOR COIN 
CERTAINLY NOT TRUSTLESS
They cheated people like they are trustless they dont haven even multisig address
CERTAINLY NOT TRUSTLESSThey cheated people like they are trustless they dont haven even multisig address
I'm not sure what is less appealing about this post:
- the poor linguistic abilities it portrays
- its factual inaccuracy (because XC does use multisig transactions)
- its deceitfulness.
Poor showing sir.
Quote
No, there's only one technology for multisig, there's nothing "different", or it is not multisig. Try to use some other names.
You are incorrect about this.
I repeat: you are not in a position to tell what technology XC has or has not implemented.
XC has technology that you do not know about.
Therefore you are not in a position to make the above statement.
Quote
Yes this is the truth from all the above messages.
This is an irresponsibly one-sided remark.
Quote
And in what sense can the following deleted posts possibly be taken as inappropriate?
No, there's only one technology for multisig, there's nothing "different", or it is not multisig. Try to use some other names.
You are incorrect about this.
I repeat: you are not in a position to tell what technology XC has or has not implemented.
XC has technology that you do not know about.
Therefore you are not in a position to make the above statement.
Yes this is the truth from all the above messages.
This is an irresponsibly one-sided remark.
What possible reason would you have for deleting these?
Quote
No, there's only one technology for multisig, there's nothing "different", or it is not multisig. Try to use some other names.
You are incorrect about this.
I repeat: you are not in a position to tell what technology XC has or has not implemented.
XC has technology that you do not know about.
Therefore you are not in a position to make the above statement.
Quote
Yes this is the truth from all the above messages.
This is an irresponsibly one-sided remark.
What possible reason would you have for deleting these?
because while you are arguing and without knowing what is multisig address and what is multisig transaction!
marseille posted Gavin Andersen's example of multisig transaction, go read it and understand it please, before repeating the same thing here!
I understand multisig quite well thank you, and I object to your patronising remarks on this topic.
Proceed as if I understand, and you'll come across less arrogantly.
Quote
because while you are arguing and without knowing what is multisig address and what is multisig transaction!
marseille posted Gavin Andersen's example of multisig transaction, go read it and understand it please, before repeating the same thing here!
I again request you that please on the facts, no fuds, and understand multisig before posting please.
Again here Gavin Andersen showed what is a multisig tx and how to create, sign and spend!
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071
Ah, deleting perfectly relevant posts again are you?
Nice ethics you have.
Go ahead, delete this one too. It'll make you look good.
Quote
because while you are arguing and without knowing what is multisig address and what is multisig transaction!
marseille posted Gavin Andersen's example of multisig transaction, go read it and understand it please, before repeating the same thing here!
I again request you that please on the facts, no fuds, and understand multisig before posting please.
Again here Gavin Andersen showed what is a multisig tx and how to create, sign and spend!
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071
I understand multisig quite well thank you, and I do not enjoy being patronised, so kindly stop.
You are not in a position to tell what I do not understand, so kindly refrain from making assertions you cannot substantiate.
Quote
I am tired to argue with you guys, please if you want to show facts:
provide us an XC multisig address that has tx associated with it, in the blockchain, so we can inspect and see what is there. This can prove you actually have the capability of multisig.
what you have provided so far are NOT XC multisig addresses, they are regular XC addresses. What I asked is extremely simple, and can be provided in 30 sec.
provide us an XC multisig address that has tx associated with it, in the blockchain, so we can inspect and see what is there. This can prove you actually have the capability of multisig.
what you have provided so far are NOT XC multisig addresses, they are regular XC addresses. What I asked is extremely simple, and can be provided in 30 sec.
I've told you this several times: XC DOES NOT USE WHAT YOU CALL "MULTISIG".
It uses multisig transactions, not multisig addresses.
Can we move on?
It uses regular tx in this case, where you can put software to do anything, but it does not require all party to sign in order to spend! mutisig transaction is the transaction created on multisig address (you understand why? well read what is multisig!).
You do not have sufficient grounds to assert that XC uses regular transactions.
You only have sufficient grounds to assert that XC uses addresses that conform to the regular format (but don't necessarily behave that way in XC by any means.
Again, you're making assumptions that go beyond the evidence you have.
Quote
You've deleted multiple relevant posts of mine.
I will post them here so that those who wish to pursue this discussion can participate.
I will post them here so that those who wish to pursue this discussion can participate.