the whitepaper for XSPEC also has a few grammar issues which i couldnt find in XSPC's white paper.
FYI Mixins and mixin should be Mixing's and mixing.
it looks bad on the 2016 spectre to see them trying to discredit a project that's built with the goals to help other cryptos and create a standard on what coins should have and help those coins using that community.
FYI as well, smart ass, a
mixin is term for a 'dummy' anonymous transaction output used in a ring signature and is not the same as the word 'mixing' and
mixins is the plural of mixin. Think of it as a mix-in, something that you mix in with something else.
i cant find many online resources to back up the claim that mixin is a word. mix-in would be grammatically correct
Mixin is a class for object orientated programming languages reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixinand there is 0 dictionary's that contain mixin as a word. with that meaning not even urban.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mixin&utm_source=search-actionYou must be pretty dumb, Blobboy, a mixin is just a made up noun, like Blobboy is not in the dictionary, just a name for something. Monero started using it (
https://www.monero.how/monero-glossary#privacy-level) and as they have the same mechanism as Monero for adding mixins they use the same term.
...and you wanna talk about grammar as this is highly relevant to the coin being discussed in this thread;
So, you, Blobboy, say it should be Mixing's - You use an apostrophe to show that a thing or person belongs or relates to someone or something. What is the thing that belong to your Mixing? Oh, and isn't ..ing ending in your mixing a verb tense? So, how does something belong to a verb?
Let's make this into a grammar discussion, that's a lot of fun!