Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Post
Topic
Board Announcements (Altcoins)
Re: [ANN] [CLOAK] Cloakcoin | No Premine | X13 | Decentralized Market and PoSA
by
mrrgnome
on 06/10/2014, 03:51:58 UTC
Quote from: DentIt on October 05, 2014, 09:26:57 PM
Quote from: Reoelliott on October 05, 2014, 09:23:22 PM
Quote from: DentIt on October 05, 2014, 08:56:00 PM
Quote from: CryptoAllDay on October 05, 2014, 08:49:45 PM
Quote from: DentIt on October 05, 2014, 08:43:08 PM
Quote from: CryptoAllDay on October 05, 2014, 08:39:21 PM
it's supposedly trustless anon using ring escrow but pending an audit of course.


So who is that auditor that every user of CLOAK would blindly trust with their money? And how would that be "trustless"? And what would stop the devs from inserting a backdoor into the closed source AFTER the audit? Or would all development stop after the audit?

[21:42:53] who will be auditing it?
[21:42:57] ^
[21:43:06] because you would have to trust that person(s) Blink^
[21:43:09] id say first the audit... after that let the community decide
[21:43:28] w/o any audit or checks, it is nothing but a GUI change and promises
[21:43:34] <@alty> Well, why not let the community select an auditor then as a first step
[21:43:40] <@cashmen> Smiley

Also, I can tell you didn't download or test the new wallet at all since you said it's just a UI redesign when the UI is practically the same.

I can read the IRC myself, thanks. You didn't answer my question though. How would an audit in any way make CLOAK trustless if it remains closed source and the devs can make any changes they want at any time without anyone ever noticing? Trustless and closed source are mutually exclusive.




Comon guys, They were honest enough to reveal the first Audit and in turn put their entire coin at stake to begin with, I think this has already proved enough honesty and integrity from alty!!!


Trust: -4: -1 / +0(0)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!


How ironic Wink


Edit: By the way, that audit was done by one of the second team devs (mrgnome), and they only revealed the result because the other devs and mrgnome had an internal disagreement and mrgnome would have made his audit public if alty hadn't acted first.

I'd be happy to audit the code again on behalf of the community, but if it is closed source only then I'm willing to bet the devs are doing what they long petitioned me to let them get away with previously and are simply encrypting some trustless blockchain like record. Decompiling the source will likely yield the encryption key and break either the trustless or anonymous features of their spec, depending on how they have rigged up the protocol. That's probably why it is closed source. Won't know until it's audited.