Quote from: eltito on May 31, 2014, 10:59:52 PM

Quote from: eduffield on May 31, 2014, 10:01:38 PM

Quote from: MrWHALE on May 31, 2014, 09:54:01 PM

More Random FUD

MrWhale,

Since you don't seem to have any understanding of what the term "trustless" means, I'll explain it to you. It's impossible to do trustless mixing with the way XC works.

It's obvious that it's just a normal mixer that was implemented in a decentralized way. So it must work like this:

1.) Your client connects to a mixer node
2.) Your client sends money to the mixer node, then asks it to send money to another address
3.) Your money gets deposited into the mixers pool of funds
4.) Then the miner sends out the money to the address you specified

The problem is the node doesn't have to send the money, then you've just lost the money you sent. What if I ran a node and messed with the code to collect money but not send any out?

Darksend is "trustless" because it requires signatures from everyone involved to make the transaction valid. There is no opportunity to lose money at any point during the process.

Nor does he seem to understand the differences between a generic coinjoin implementation and Darksend (they are quite different, Mr. Whale).

Also, his "study" is straight up amateur hour as far as those sorts of usually go. ~~Someone should do some Internet sleuthing on its authors and origination.~~ At minimum the authors display a critical lack of understanding of Darksend's coinjoin modifications. My hunch is that it's an intentional hit piece masquerading as objective research.

Let me rephrase that: I would be interested in knowing if there is any demonstrable connection between that "study" and any of DRK's competitor coins or communities.

Don't go doxxing anybody for fuck's sake.

His "study" was quite hilarious! Show's he doesn't know anything.

smophf7

Posts

Merits