Re: [XC][XCurrency] Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat / Pos
I've been reading about the blockNET and I feel like superNET is being misrepresented in your marketing copy. I didn't want to bring this up in your blockNET topic or make a new post out of it but I'd like to hear your opinion on why you chose these three particular points:
1. The way you've represented it makes it sound like BTCD is somehow above all the other coins in superNET. BTCD is to superNET as XC is to blockNET. In superNET BTCD provides the Teleport technology and jl777 as developer. In blockNET XC provides the Xbridge technology and atcsecure as developer. Nothing other than BTCD providing an essential part of the anonymity tech of superNET makes BTCD special.
2. I'm also curious about the p2p claims that are written. Maybe I'm missing something here and if you could enlighten me I would appreciate it. But SuperNET is using an implementation of Kademlia for p2p nodes, which is the same technology that Bittorrent is built on and as far as I know using such a protocol would quality as 'true p2p'.
3. The intention of superNET isn't to have a single centralised enity holding 10% of each coins money supply. SuperNET is intended to be a decentralised organization controlled by shareholders, not one single person. And those coins are meant to be held indefinitely via multiple people using multisig technology. It should function in a similar way as I'm understanding your blockNET foundation to hold.
As an aside I'm not sure why the 10% holding are painted in a negative manner in general. The idea of removing 10% of each currencies money supply to add value to the asset is a fairly large benefit to both people who hold the member coins and asset holders. Since you already have established the blockNET foundation which like superNET is not going to be a centralised organization, a similar deal would appear to be in the best interests of everyone. Having 10% of coins bought at market value and then removed from circulation sounds like a win-win scenario for all parties. Applying the appropriate multisig and distributing the keys among the blockNET foundation would seem to eliminate the centralisation part of it. This is just something to consider. I just feel like this arrangement is mutually beneficial and I was surprised that it was presented as a negative aspect of superNET.
I'm making this post just to make sure that there's no misunderstandings between blockNET and superNET and so that people don't get the wrong idea. I don't think you intentionally misrepresented those points so I figured just posting this here might persuade you to correct some of the factual errors in the blockNET literature so far.
I wish blockNET good luck. Networking coins is an interesting idea and seeing how someone else chooses to do an implementation of the technology will be interesting to see.
1. The way you've represented it makes it sound like BTCD is somehow above all the other coins in superNET. BTCD is to superNET as XC is to blockNET. In superNET BTCD provides the Teleport technology and jl777 as developer. In blockNET XC provides the Xbridge technology and atcsecure as developer. Nothing other than BTCD providing an essential part of the anonymity tech of superNET makes BTCD special.
2. I'm also curious about the p2p claims that are written. Maybe I'm missing something here and if you could enlighten me I would appreciate it. But SuperNET is using an implementation of Kademlia for p2p nodes, which is the same technology that Bittorrent is built on and as far as I know using such a protocol would quality as 'true p2p'.
3. The intention of superNET isn't to have a single centralised enity holding 10% of each coins money supply. SuperNET is intended to be a decentralised organization controlled by shareholders, not one single person. And those coins are meant to be held indefinitely via multiple people using multisig technology. It should function in a similar way as I'm understanding your blockNET foundation to hold.
As an aside I'm not sure why the 10% holding are painted in a negative manner in general. The idea of removing 10% of each currencies money supply to add value to the asset is a fairly large benefit to both people who hold the member coins and asset holders. Since you already have established the blockNET foundation which like superNET is not going to be a centralised organization, a similar deal would appear to be in the best interests of everyone. Having 10% of coins bought at market value and then removed from circulation sounds like a win-win scenario for all parties. Applying the appropriate multisig and distributing the keys among the blockNET foundation would seem to eliminate the centralisation part of it. This is just something to consider. I just feel like this arrangement is mutually beneficial and I was surprised that it was presented as a negative aspect of superNET.
I'm making this post just to make sure that there's no misunderstandings between blockNET and superNET and so that people don't get the wrong idea. I don't think you intentionally misrepresented those points so I figured just posting this here might persuade you to correct some of the factual errors in the blockNET literature so far.
I wish blockNET good luck. Networking coins is an interesting idea and seeing how someone else chooses to do an implementation of the technology will be interesting to see.
hi,
just for clarification . will two coins on the supernet be able to connect without a BTCD node taking part in the process?
Yes, most definitely.
If someone wanted to use NXT for example and use BTCD's teleport then that would be different. But if they didn't want to use any of BTCD's technology then BTCD doesn't gain anything directly. That being said teleport is considered an essential part of the anon solution(similar to how I'm reading here that XC is with blockNET).