CloakSend 2.0 / PoSA - fake or legit?

im not trolling, ive asked intelligent questions, never trolled about their choices, they choose what they want to believe in, and that is fine by me...
 
New information about the potential CLOAK scam : http://www.reddit.com/user/doghousedetective/
Ah the scam is revealed!!

Cloak coin users a webserver to mix the coins, like fedora

http://www.cloaksend.com/api/cloaks...2XpGp/C5qKmSjW1K1CiADtnMHMPBjQWybHQ9S8ce/50.0

That is the URL the client calls (unencrypted) and sends the coins to that address, then the fedora mixer sends them to the receiver.

Proof it is a scam and POSA doesnt exist at all!!!
Click to expand...

Please be aware this is not a fact, it needs to be confirmed.

EDIT: this could be correct but related to CloakSend 1.0, not 2.0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've read this paper over and over again. It is literally, the system is trust less, because the system is trust less. I've read a significant amount of technical papers, in many fields, and this just screams scam. I suspect to a lay person it appears impressive, but it is nothing but obfuscation. If there was a revolutionary solution here, even a general outline would drastically improve the coins acceptance. The lack of any specifics, whatsoever, leave me in severe doubt.
The paper, grammatical errors aside, does not appear to be authored by someone who has ever written a scientific paper before.
 
nsimmons said:
I've read this paper over and over again. It is literally, the system is trust less, because the system is trust less. I've read a significant amount of technical papers, in many fields, and this just screams scam. I suspect to a lay person it appears impressive, but it is nothing but obfuscation. If there was a revolutionary solution here, even a general outline would drastically improve the coins acceptance. The lack of any specifics, whatsoever, leave me in severe doubt.
The paper, grammatical errors aside, does not appear to be authored by someone who has ever written a scientific paper before.
Click to expand...

I agree, only statements, but no proof in their paper. At least they provided a diagram on CloakSend 2.0 / PoSA 2.0 now - appears like mixing with 2 parties, using their stake. Differs from Darksend in the fact that masternodes don't involve their 1000 DRK "stake" for mixing.

xpjXvL3.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
karisu said:
If that is true, doesn't that mean clients behind a firewall,NAT or with blocked ports have a problem?
Click to expand...
Yes - but a workaround would not necessarily be impossible. It also means cold wallets are very challenging.

Essentially, it takes security best practices and says fuck you.
With darkcoin once you have denominated coins, there is no reason your wallet needs to be online - to send or receive coins. This requires a little bit of work (not possible with the default wallet) but it is a big part of what I'm working on (see the link in my signature for more details.).

However with cloakcoin that is not possible at the protocol level, not simply a modified wallet required.

EDIT: To clarify that last part - with darkcoin it isn't possible to send coins if your wallet is offline. However like normal you do not not to be online to receive coins. With cloackcoin you need to be online to do either.
 
Last edited:
karisu said:
If that is true, doesn't that mean clients behind a firewall,NAT or with blocked ports have a problem?
Click to expand...
If so called stealth address (or similar method) is used for payee, it makes sense.

But coin forwarding is still happen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top