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.
ok thank you, so the supenet could theoreticlly function without BTCD. In theory XC could pull out of the blocknet and it would still be running for the rest of the coins. is that possible in supernet too?.
As far as I know, yes.
You know shit...
This is what James said...
"100,000+ nodes will do quite a lot of InstantDEX, Teleport, Privatebet, Tradebots, etc. Plus add in dozens of additional services from other coins. In the center of all this is BTCD. We are the center of the spiral. Let other coins make their money, everybody needs money. I think that is why it is called money.
BTCD is what allows all this to happen and even if just a small percentage of the overall commerce spills into BTCD revenue share it will be a giant boost to the value of BTCD. I have not worked out all the numbers, but with all this revenues being generated, we can definitely make it a cash positive decision for the other coins, while sharing in the business each coin adds."
SuperNET is just a centralized shit, controlled by James alone.
Bragging about how is Pumped BTCD, and dumped afterwards it seems if you take a look at the charts.
"BTCD was $100,000 marketcap when I joined it. Now it is about 60x more. 6 weeks, 60x. But it was only 6 million USD, which if BTC gained that much would be a gain of .001. So the same amount of marketcap is 6000% for BTCD and 0.1% for BTC. The next 60x for BTCD will certainly take a bit longer than 6 weeks"
Yea, go SuperNET
What he's saying there is essentialy the same thing that people have been saying in this thread. Mainly that the anonymity tech provided to the network is key. Just as XC plans to provide it's mixing for blockNET, BTCD will provide people with teleport.
And I'm not bragging about anything as I hold none of the core currencies involved with superNET. Not because I don't think they are good though. I'm just trying to look at it from a logical perspective. Perhaps there's something I'm missing and I'll see that it's in fact not as good as it sounds.