Quote from: darkota on June 28, 2014, 11:54:47 PM

Quote from: Jacques de Molay on June 28, 2014, 11:26:06 PM

Quote from: thelonecrouton on June 28, 2014, 11:25:01 PM

Quote from: Jacques de Molay on June 28, 2014, 11:19:19 PM

waaa ... waaaa ... waaaaa ... waaaaaaaaa ...

I am a whiny little bitch that cant think for myself.

Not my fault you cant read and have your head firmly lodged up your own ass for the world to see.

Ok this is what XC is.

A copy of Darkcoin, Darkcoin made x11 algo, DGW, Masternodes, and Darksend. Darkcoin's previous name was Xcoin. Darkcoin's Masternodes are trustless and decentralized, while Darksend works perfectly in giving anonymous transactions.

XC stands for Xcoin(which is Darkcoin's previous name), has Xnodes, used the x11 algo when it was PoS, and has Xsend. XC's Xnodes are trusted and not centralized, and they have been known to steal user's coins, and Xsend does not work, making XC just a half-shit, mediocre copy of Darkcoin without the anonymity part.

Conclusion: XC is a wannabe copy of Darkcoin, with it's name Xcoin, being the former name of Darkcoin, it's Xnodes(copy of Darkcoin's masternodes) stealing user's coins since they are trusted and centralized, and it's Xsend(copy of Darkcoin's Darksend) not even working.

Any coin> XC

Nice name Dark ota - cant half tell you are another dark bag holder that just cant stand ANY form of criticism good or bad about his coin/investment and will go into damage control immediately.

People shouldn't trade with emotions - it shows if this thread is anything to go by. That is like the number 1 rule.

So all darkcoin delivered was X11 algo - whoopy de doo, xsend is coinjoin, masternodes dont work and are centralised, masternodes steal coins and are targets to be hacked - as they are that easy to get into. Tell me how long did that take to get to this point Huh

? weeks / months Huh

Here is what XC did in 5 weeks: without the fanfare and 40%-50% premine nonsense and you are trying to tell me your coin is better than this coin Huh

lol what. Can I have some of what you guys are smoking in here.

"1) Xnodes are fully decentralised

   Any wallet can run as an Xnode, not just a few semi-centralised clients
   Xnode setup is not complicated or time-consuming

2) Xnodes are a trustless design

   An earlier iteration of XC's design specified a dynamic trust system; this has been improved upon with a fully trustless design
   Rev 2 Xnodes will use trustless multi-path multisig

3) Xnodes work

   Early tests of Xnodes' mixing function (Rev. 1) have not resulted in any kind of flaw in this aspect of XC's anonymity solution.
   Our not-so-well-intentioned friend Chaeplin claimed to have found a "design flaw" in Rev 1. However he fails to apprehend (a) precisely what was being tested, (b) what would constitute XC failing the test, and (c) what his results actually show. For a summary, see https://www.google.com/url?q=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php%3Ftopic%3D630547.msg7310485
   Tests of Xnodes' initial multipath implementation (Rev. 1.5) have turned up no problems. In fact, no one was even able to mount a claim for the bounty.
   Multi-path is being fully implemented as we speak for Rev. 2. When it is released, there will be (a) a sizeable public bounty, and (b) consultations with several cryptographers and other experts.
   Given past progress, we're pretty optimistic that Rev. 2 will be delivered on time, and will compound the anonymity that is already working in XC.

4) XC is already anonymous, and working

   I can't stress this enough. It's working! It doesn't mysteriously fork. It was released on time. There have been no setbacks.
   XC is only 5 weeks old, and we're already at this level.
   XC is not a completed design. It anonymity will compound. Its user-friendliness will become a 1-click thing. Thorough, professional testing will render it bulletproof. See the roadmap: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7535822#msg7535822.
   Xnodes do not steal coins. But for the sake of historical accuracy, here's where this rumor started: Rev. 1 was released to test whether anyone could prove that a link exists on the blockchain between sender and receiver. Chaeplin misconstrued the purpose of the release and harped on about the fact that because mixers forward coins, coins could be stolen. This is true, but it's besides the point. All we were testing was whether anyone could provide a link on the blockchain. The rest of the build, including vulnerable transaction-forwarding, was just scaffolding so that the tests could be carried out. But, alas, Chaeplin appeared not to be amenable to realising this fact. Perhaps if his intention was to contribute constructively he would have avoided this lapse of comprehension."

You can cry all you want, I own and trade both, the facts of the matter is, darkcoin is being left behind FAST. When your "dev" team of PR monkeys are constantly forking their own shit - leaves me with no doubt they have NFI. Proof is in the pudding. Never in words from fanboys. Look at it objectively, you have told me nothing new but merely trying to save yourself the embarrassment of being schoolled....again.

Try again, but this time try harder. Every problem that dark coin has faced has suddenly been XC's problem - don't think so. Keep responding though.

VRC is going to blow both these shit coins out of the water, mark my words