Hi AmoreJaz,

Thanks for the note.  I'll respond to each of your points below:

1.  The github repository link (https://github.com/fancywarlock/XBR) has been replaced with https://github.com/fancywarlock/bitcoinR. I did make a mistake and published the wrong code to the wrong repository address.  I thanked the user via PM and publicly and will happily send a bounty his/her way (if they choose to disclose their identity for AML/KYC) for pointing out my error.  It was not a good first look on my part- apologies again to the board.

2.  I need to understand your comment about the team members' "portfolios" a bit better please.  I am not sure to what exactly you are referring, but I can assure you that they are all very much a part of the bitcoinR project, and all of whom have signed contracts that indicate that we can publicly associate them via our website and other media.  Please clarify what you are looking for here and I'll see if I can make it happen.

3.  In the early days, our project was not called bitcoinR; and very much to your point, I wrestled with the idea of calling it any name that derived from "Bitcoin"; however, even a cursory examination of our source code will indicate that we haven't changed a great deal from the original Bitcoin code.  Technically, Bitcoin Core and bitcoinR are quite similar with the exception of crypto-economic parameters such as Block Halving, Target Spacing, Target Timed Difficulty Adjustment, Block Halving, # of Transaction confirmations, etc.  If you are scientifically inclined, you'll know that you want to change as few variables as possible when conducting an experiment.  We even left the money supply the same at 21,000,000; but sped up the block time for two reasons: First to accelerate the timeline of the experiment and the Second, to give regular people a shot at mining XBR while they were quarantined due to COVID-19.  So, it really seemed LESS transparent to name our project / experiment something other than bitcoin"X" since the technology is admittedly derivative.  

As for the balance of the name, we added the "R" to ensure that we delineated our project and brand from the original, and to (hopefully) indicate our charge which is to operate a Bitcoin-fork in a manner that is consistent with the way a central bank / reserve bank would operate from a quantitative easing/tightening perspective.  I could go on, but respectfully, all of this is explained in the whitepaper.

-----

So, in summary: we are trying our very best to make something that will be adopted within the market, but we aren't shilling it or promising units of XBR will be worth anything at all.  We are making a level attempt to ensure that we follow all AML/KYC rules in the process.  We aren't going to get everything right in the beginning, and maybe we won't get them right at all; but we will be honest and transparent in the process, and hopefully we will have made something that rewards the active participation of others.

Lastly, please understand that not all innovations are of the technical variety, there are economic and procedural innovations as well.  The real social experiment of bitcoinR is technical de-centralization paired with an economic centralization that requires a trusted party to stabilize unit value.  This is a combination requiring human intervention because we are unaware of a coding algorithm to assimilate, process and assign real world value of items / effort.
  
So, in this way, the bitcoinR project is a very, very different experiment than was Satoshi's Bitcoin (even while it is technically derivative).  In the end, we are not sure that XBR will ever have any value at all and plainly state this on our official website, in the whitepaper and here in the ANN thread.  It's for this reason (and others) that we have chosen to release bitcoinR to the mining community instead of continuing our attempt to understand whether or not XBR would be classified as a security if it were sold.  

Thanks again for the questions.

NS