https://twitter.com/anonymouscoin/status/535883289866014720

"@tradesace I don't have time to browse the code, but let me know if there is any design documentation for the "anonymous multisig"

Is there a design documentation that we can provide him?

you can show him this SuperSend trace.


EXAMPLE 1: BLOCK 798861

send wallet: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/super/address.dws?SPrq8J6vRpy5QZz3AE1TxUiYvfeto3AhqY.htm
SUPERSEND transaction block:  https://chainz.cryptoid.info/super/block.dws?798861.htm
reciever: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/super/address.dws?Sh6BvAWyrMfL8W6wNZG3qx9pfZ8KRwnmpc.htm

"Ghost" wallets to make it "harder" to follow. these are given away by not actually having a valid wallet generated super address. YES the address is a valid address. but it starts with a letter not S like all the other super addresses
1: CNCWvH4Bknr87a4PgDTRDasSxH4LnzX3iu


so whats the pattern? :
in a super block the "Ghost" wallet will have multiple outputs, and identical inputs. as you can see in example 1. it send out 66, 66, and 132 super coins. and then gets them right back...
-so whats the significance?

nothing. all it does is tell you in the amount that is shown twice, how much was sent in the SuperSend.

-ok so you still dont know where its coming from?

ah, but yes you do. if you look in the outputs (the people getting coins) you will see two additional transactions for that identical amount (66). that means one of those is the sender, and one is the receiver. how to tell the difference is click there wallet and check which one got half of what they sent back.

-so this was a one time conicidence, that doesnt prove anything.


EXMAPLE 2: BLOCK 798908

send wallet: same
SUPERSEND transaction block:  https://chainz.cryptoid.info/super/block.dws?798908.htm
reciever: same

"Ghost" wallets to make it "harder" to follow. these are given away by not actually having a valid wallet generated super address. YES the address is a valid address. but it starts with a letter not S like all the other super addresses
1: CNCWvH4Bknr87a4PgDTRDasSxH4LnzX3iu

same pattern. but as you can see this time, the amount is 50. not 66. again 1 wallet sending to itself X amount twice and Y amount once. and on the other side, 4 transactions with X amount. one is the sender, one is reciever. click on the wallet to see which one got half a transaction back and thats the sender.


any questions on why i call this a mixer and not anon?

i would like to appologize. my initial sense of what it was doing was wrong. i traced the code wrong and got stuck in a loop i thought it went through but didnt actually send it through, testing it on the actual BE i found my mistake in what i wrote down on my notes paper from when i went over the code.

We where asked to help this community, because the dev left. We where willing to help, but only receive insults from all sides.
We have no time for this and will continue to develop our coins.

I think that the community is just fine with the way how things are going with this coin and it also seems that there is enough knowledge in the community to secure continuation of the coin without us helping you out.

Good luck with the coin and with the dev.

we would work on the coin, but it seems half of the community is split at the moment. due to the debate on whether or not the current coin mixes or is anon, which i think i proved a few posts up as clearly as i could as to why i consider it mixing. and because of my statements on the anon subject,  it seems that a lot of people to want to find another dev (i am refering to the tweets and asking for cryptoCobain)

CryptoCobain was once lined up to review the code, not work on it.  This was months ago. Now that it is open source, I figured why not have him look.  More eyes on the source, the more accurate the consensus on the technology.

I believe the tweet you are referring to was this post, 

This isn't a developer searching tweet, simply looking for code review here. Having another anon specialist review the code and its functionality is only good for the reputation of the coin. Attempts to get the code vetted by multiple sources is in the best interest of all parties involved.



I see your point in your above post about the mixing. It does seem counter intuitive to label Supersend addresses differently.  Thats the exact opposite of obscuring details...  It also sounds like something that could be changed.  As for the trace-ability, I'll wait for someone more technically astute to step in,  I'm but a mere investor brain.

Griffith and mdtspain please stay.  Certain members have more pull that others.  A group effort is what supercoin needs the most.

https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/736705.msg9615638#msg9615638

that trace shows that, the mixing makes it obvious what the real transaction is.

so having both the send and recieve addresses shown in the mixed transaction, you can trace the flow of coins. and it isnt anon anymore. just mixing

yes, i believe it can be fixed. it would change the way supersend works a bit. but it should work.

I couldn't agree more. Think before you post people.


Would love to here your proposal. If the proposed change is something that changes how SuperSend fundamentally works, I think it is important that there is a consensus among the technical folk here that the change is for the good.

As for,


I'm not well attuned to know these working details of managing a coin.  I hope this is something that can be worked out, but I dont see it as being a huge hurdle for supercoindev.


I appreciate the layman's terms honestly, it's what the masses need. Talk tech with those who understand it, i.e. strasburg, CryptoCobain, and Kristov Atlas.  I actually think it would be very beneficial for you to discuss with these folk how you see the code & how it could potentially be altered to be a step towards true anon. Cobain & Atlas are recognized names & have a decent following. This exposure could be important depending on their view of our technology.  Super needs a rep to talk to these kind of people.  I gladly would, but the subject matter is far over my head.