Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 40 results by DFJ
Why are we circling 3 BTC transactions...? Anyhow code updates are real... You can see the commits on github. RSA-UFO achievement is real and material. I don't know what the right price is right now given the delay, but it is not beneath the all-time low when this coin did not have those achievements... Maybe we settle around 100k-120k once people realize the above and then go up again when at least the dif / etc. fixes happen.
Steps for adoption: Think dark markets. Think getting blessing from core bitcoin developers as providing valuable technology, even if not appropriate for bitcoin itself. Think talking to the coinbase guys. Email ben horowitz.
BUT all this is dependent on having best in class tech. And it has to be better and more marketable than darkcoin. Once we are up and running, anoncoin needs to extremely credibly be able to say all of the following:
1) We have solved the anonymity problem. Further work in this area (by other coins, etc) is a waste, because there are no shortcomings to our solution
2) Our solution (if not the math itself) is easy to understand, and is an elegant technology like bitcoin, not a hack-y technology like all the other coins with mixers and masternodes and minimum coin requirements and so forth (looking at you darkcoin, for all I admire you)
3) We can scale just as well as bitcoin for the following A, B, C reasons related to dealing with keeping the blockchain a reasonable size and being able to verify transactions with reasonable computation requirements
BUT all this is dependent on having best in class tech. And it has to be better and more marketable than darkcoin. Once we are up and running, anoncoin needs to extremely credibly be able to say all of the following:
1) We have solved the anonymity problem. Further work in this area (by other coins, etc) is a waste, because there are no shortcomings to our solution
2) Our solution (if not the math itself) is easy to understand, and is an elegant technology like bitcoin, not a hack-y technology like all the other coins with mixers and masternodes and minimum coin requirements and so forth (looking at you darkcoin, for all I admire you)
3) We can scale just as well as bitcoin for the following A, B, C reasons related to dealing with keeping the blockchain a reasonable size and being able to verify transactions with reasonable computation requirements
I guess its already been said in other words but a logo with the guy fawkes mask on it is about as good an idea as a logo with a swastika on it. Very interesting analysis above, by the way.
Re: [ANN][XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthText, World's first anonymous SMS Tx!
The devs not responding to these comments (and they do know this is going on) just further demonstrates how little credibility this guy has.
I'll be blunt. The devs not responding is not a good thing. Look at how many pages have been filled with this stuff. There are many of us that want to hear real technical answers to things and don't get them. For example, I want to know what the size of the transactions will be with low mixes compared to CN coins as opposed to those given in the whitepaper as a selling point for chandran sigs. When I brought it up before, I was labeled a troll/fuder etc and got no answers.
When I asked real question about BTCD, jl777 answered me. When I asked questions about SDC, the dev answered me. Fact is, I could list a few more coins where the dev actually answered my questions but in here, all you get is posts about how this is the second coming and posts get buried with images.
Granted, unlike this guy, I didn't go into those other threads and come out saying it was crap and vaporware, but still, some of us would like some real technical discussions and when we don't see any, it does not reflect well on the coin and the devs.
Not an unreasonable request, but you should similarly see that it's not unreasonable to ignore the request. For example, in the early days of XC, which despite its other failings has seen many technical successes, Dan answered technical questions in the thread all the time. Then he clearly realized that was a massive drain on his time and not worth it as for every intelligent and well meaning technical question he had to wade through a pile of worthless troll questions. Parallel here is that while your question is reasonable, does the dev really need to take his time to deal with longandshort, who doesn't have an argument and just shouts that he doesn't think the project will work? So maybe dev decides he'd rather just focus on coding rather than putting himself at the beck and call of Random People On The Internet and answers neither question.
Quite an interesting take on the actions of someone you are not, so you are saying that everyone else that has asked anything here that has not revived a mature answer is not worthy because they are "some random from the internet" You do realise we are all random and are all on the Internet don't you? no clearly not with a stupid idea such as that..so because i asked a simple question and got bashed and have been asking it ever since im not worthy because i wont give up..cmon you have lost the plot! and are quite offensive. you would not put up with this bs so why should any body else! that is whats lost to me! how you justify it is scary! this is plain and simple about my sig and the claims i present nothing more nothing less you people cant answer and you handle it by swinging an axe. primitive to say the least!
Look - my point is if I fire off an email to elon musk asking that he defend this or that about the model d, he's not going to answer me. He doesn't know who I am, and it isn't efficient for him to spend time answering technical questions just because Someone Wants To Know. This is a similar, albeit lesser, scenario. Maybe for your own reference go through a16z's portfolio and start firing off technical questions to various founders. Most will not bother to respond to you, and that does NOT mean there is anything wrong with their respective businesses. It just means they don't value your opinion enough to respond to you... Make sense?
And by the way, you probably can get an answer to the question you are asking, just not by repeatedly spamming this thread with crap. Try PM, try slackchat.
I actually haven't made any song and dance about the devs not responding nor have i asked them to although it would be nice, i understood from the very beginning what you're trying to explain to me as though i don't. If i did want them only i could pm, email and slack chat them directly.
I'm in a public forum asking the community at large in an efficient way to me. I'm covering a number of ethical goals as a way to gain the attention of all and talk about this. I, and as stated by other bct users, they have also been met with quite vulgar responses for the community here at large. Often abused, bashed and had just about every thing about them attacked and thrown against them but rarely has anyone commented on the things they or i were/am asking or bringing up without some form of abusive text or slander..This has been a trend here for quite a long time and they bit me and here i am..
Call it what you want twist it how you will assume the worse if thats what helps you understand it but its as simple as this. razorcoin devs deserve their copyright to remain intact, i think its ethical for the community to encourage the dev team to correct that in the next wave of updates to their branches. i also think that we need to have a discussion about the use of chandran signs in this new chain they propose and my point has been this and its still up for a cohesive counter argument without abuse and without pointing to papers that are immaterial. Fact is the devs have put this as a feature to bet on and if ther is argument that its not doable we should be talking about it weather people like it or not! If the devs are too busy to explain themselves fine but it should not be on the roadmap! as of this point the coin is ported form other projects except for sms relay which is separate to the chain itself. this does not warrant excessive buzzing and big betting on their release without a intelligent debate about if its doable..im saying its not ive given my reasons any cryptographer would understand what im saying and an educated response form someone or discussion is all this thread needs not the absolute putrid filth that has flown so i could aslo ask the community to find them selfs a competent community manager to set a culture because it literally is the wild west in here and i think you're community members be i like them or not need to be more educated and by that i mean they need more documentation!
people like emilio and btc-writer spamming the things they do on topics they don't have the faintest clue about they are setting up for failure but it does not seem to bother then because anybody telling thy are wrong are accused of fudding! i have already taught emilio how to use tables for his graphics so he can not take up half a page with them in a post and you can thank me for at least that! i don't want to tell you all how to do your jobs but you cannot deny this any longer this community is putrid but means well so i hope to see drastic change because this industry needs it and less of this crap!
NOR HAVE YOU ASKED THEM? Do you see why even reasonable people like me find you obnoxious? If you want to know whether the Chandran implementation will work, go ask the dev. If you don't want to ask the dev, then you are not trying to get an answer to your question and should go away. All I have access to is the same academic papers that you do.
Re: [ANN][XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthText, World's first anonymous SMS Tx!
The devs not responding to these comments (and they do know this is going on) just further demonstrates how little credibility this guy has.
I'll be blunt. The devs not responding is not a good thing. Look at how many pages have been filled with this stuff. There are many of us that want to hear real technical answers to things and don't get them. For example, I want to know what the size of the transactions will be with low mixes compared to CN coins as opposed to those given in the whitepaper as a selling point for chandran sigs. When I brought it up before, I was labeled a troll/fuder etc and got no answers.
When I asked real question about BTCD, jl777 answered me. When I asked questions about SDC, the dev answered me. Fact is, I could list a few more coins where the dev actually answered my questions but in here, all you get is posts about how this is the second coming and posts get buried with images.
Granted, unlike this guy, I didn't go into those other threads and come out saying it was crap and vaporware, but still, some of us would like some real technical discussions and when we don't see any, it does not reflect well on the coin and the devs.
Not an unreasonable request, but you should similarly see that it's not unreasonable to ignore the request. For example, in the early days of XC, which despite its other failings has seen many technical successes, Dan answered technical questions in the thread all the time. Then he clearly realized that was a massive drain on his time and not worth it as for every intelligent and well meaning technical question he had to wade through a pile of worthless troll questions. Parallel here is that while your question is reasonable, does the dev really need to take his time to deal with longandshort, who doesn't have an argument and just shouts that he doesn't think the project will work? So maybe dev decides he'd rather just focus on coding rather than putting himself at the beck and call of Random People On The Internet and answers neither question.
Quite an interesting take on the actions of someone you are not, so you are saying that everyone else that has asked anything here that has not revived a mature answer is not worthy because they are "some random from the internet" You do realise we are all random and are all on the Internet don't you? no clearly not with a stupid idea such as that..so because i asked a simple question and got bashed and have been asking it ever since im not worthy because i wont give up..cmon you have lost the plot! and are quite offensive. you would not put up with this bs so why should any body else! that is whats lost to me! how you justify it is scary! this is plain and simple about my sig and the claims i present nothing more nothing less you people cant answer and you handle it by swinging an axe. primitive to say the least!
Look - my point is if I fire off an email to elon musk asking that he defend this or that about the model d, he's not going to answer me. He doesn't know who I am, and it isn't efficient for him to spend time answering technical questions just because Someone Wants To Know. This is a similar, albeit lesser, scenario. Maybe for your own reference go through a16z's portfolio and start firing off technical questions to various founders. Most will not bother to respond to you, and that does NOT mean there is anything wrong with their respective businesses. It just means they don't value your opinion enough to respond to you... Make sense?
And by the way, you probably can get an answer to the question you are asking, just not by repeatedly spamming this thread with crap. Try PM, try slackchat.
Re: [ANN][XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthText, World's first anonymous SMS Tx!
The devs not responding to these comments (and they do know this is going on) just further demonstrates how little credibility this guy has.
I'll be blunt. The devs not responding is not a good thing. Look at how many pages have been filled with this stuff. There are many of us that want to hear real technical answers to things and don't get them. For example, I want to know what the size of the transactions will be with low mixes compared to CN coins as opposed to those given in the whitepaper as a selling point for chandran sigs. When I brought it up before, I was labeled a troll/fuder etc and got no answers.
When I asked real question about BTCD, jl777 answered me. When I asked questions about SDC, the dev answered me. Fact is, I could list a few more coins where the dev actually answered my questions but in here, all you get is posts about how this is the second coming and posts get buried with images.
Granted, unlike this guy, I didn't go into those other threads and come out saying it was crap and vaporware, but still, some of us would like some real technical discussions and when we don't see any, it does not reflect well on the coin and the devs.
Not an unreasonable request, but you should similarly see that it's not unreasonable to ignore the request. For example, in the early days of XC, which despite its other failings has seen many technical successes, Dan answered technical questions in the thread all the time. Then he clearly realized that was a massive drain on his time and not worth it as for every intelligent and well meaning technical question he had to wade through a pile of worthless troll questions. Parallel here is that while your question is reasonable, does the dev really need to take his time to deal with longandshort, who doesn't have an argument and just shouts that he doesn't think the project will work? So maybe dev decides he'd rather just focus on coding rather than putting himself at the beck and call of Random People On The Internet and answers neither question.
Re: [ANN][XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthText, World's first anonymous SMS Tx!
Longandshort, please get your unemployed ass out of the public library and go find a job. Some other homeless guy needs the machine you're using.
Re: [ANN][XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthText, World's first anonymous SMS Tx!
Longandshort, honestly, fuck off. (1) Reuse of opensource code is not a crime; it is intelligent and efficient. Everything from facebook to various google apps to pretty much any popular consumer or business software you could name includes other peoples code. Whether etiquette was violated through copyright removal, I don't know, but at worst its an issue of etiquette. And (2) I don't think anyone here is certain that the stealthsend implementation will be successful. BUT it if is it is far superior to monero et al, implying a market cap above them, i.e. in the $5mm+ neighborhood. That's almost 10 times what it is today, and it is worth waiting and seeing, given the developers earlier successes (anon SMS e.g.) and consistent work thus far.
Re: [FIBRE] | 650k | FibreConnect | FibreDark | FibreLock | Cryptsy,Bittrex,Poloniex
OK putting on my financial engineer hat, because I think we can do better than donations. My suggested structure follows, which meets the goal of raising money, without hurting current investors or creating some unworkable two coin structure (i.e. hurt current investors...):
1) Fibrelite is a new coin, that Fibre holders are able to convert to. Fibre will cease to exist some period after the conversion.
2) "Baseline" # of coins in Fibrelite is the same as Fibre and Fibre holders can convert 1:1. Thus there is no dilution
2a) But now you say then no money is raised, so what is the point
3) "Upside" # of coins in Fibrelite are the ICO. Selling price is whatever the price of Fibre is at the start of the ICO (or some average over the last X days, whatever). However many BTC come in from the ICO dictate how many "Upside" coins get actually released, the remaining unsold coins are burned. Maybe some BTC target is set, but the key point is the unsold coins (if any) are burned.
4) Net result is that the value of Fibre holdings = value of fibrelite holdings in BTC for current fibre investors (because price is the same and # of coins held by individual investors are the same), but since new coins are sold in the fibrelite ICO, devs get the money they need to maximally execute on their awesome plans.
Comments / criticisms? Let me know if any of that was unclear. May need some tweaking but I think this is straightforwardly feasible from a tech perspective and best achieves everyone's objective.
From a communication perspective, maybe you say something like the following:
1) Fibre is a great coin, and the worst case is that we continue to develop aggressively to grow and meet our goals
2) But we have even greater goals to create value for investors that we can execute on with new funding
3) Therefore we are considering a "v2" upgraded Fibre, ie. Fibrelite, which would have an ICO to provide that funding
4) We are 100% committed to not only protecting Fibre investors, but making sure they as early supporters get all the same upside in Fibrelite, which we think will be even greater for them than if we simply stay on the current course and develop fibre only (which is an option, but not one we think is the best)
5) To achieve (4), the ICO will have the same coin price as fibre, and new coins will only be created pro rata to new invested BTC coming in. Fibrelite will also benefit, because potential investors will know our level of commitment in return for their support
1) Fibrelite is a new coin, that Fibre holders are able to convert to. Fibre will cease to exist some period after the conversion.
2) "Baseline" # of coins in Fibrelite is the same as Fibre and Fibre holders can convert 1:1. Thus there is no dilution
2a) But now you say then no money is raised, so what is the point
3) "Upside" # of coins in Fibrelite are the ICO. Selling price is whatever the price of Fibre is at the start of the ICO (or some average over the last X days, whatever). However many BTC come in from the ICO dictate how many "Upside" coins get actually released, the remaining unsold coins are burned. Maybe some BTC target is set, but the key point is the unsold coins (if any) are burned.
4) Net result is that the value of Fibre holdings = value of fibrelite holdings in BTC for current fibre investors (because price is the same and # of coins held by individual investors are the same), but since new coins are sold in the fibrelite ICO, devs get the money they need to maximally execute on their awesome plans.
Comments / criticisms? Let me know if any of that was unclear. May need some tweaking but I think this is straightforwardly feasible from a tech perspective and best achieves everyone's objective.
From a communication perspective, maybe you say something like the following:
1) Fibre is a great coin, and the worst case is that we continue to develop aggressively to grow and meet our goals
2) But we have even greater goals to create value for investors that we can execute on with new funding
3) Therefore we are considering a "v2" upgraded Fibre, ie. Fibrelite, which would have an ICO to provide that funding
4) We are 100% committed to not only protecting Fibre investors, but making sure they as early supporters get all the same upside in Fibrelite, which we think will be even greater for them than if we simply stay on the current course and develop fibre only (which is an option, but not one we think is the best)
5) To achieve (4), the ICO will have the same coin price as fibre, and new coins will only be created pro rata to new invested BTC coming in. Fibrelite will also benefit, because potential investors will know our level of commitment in return for their support
Re: [FIBRE] | 650k | FibreConnect | FibreDark | FibreLock | Cryptsy,Bittrex,Poloniex
Couple thoughts. If it matters, I work at a wall street bank and have an understanding of the relevant market dynamics. Triff generally has the right of it.
1) Two separate coins is a bad idea. Or at least its bad for Fibre. The value of Fibre is essentially a claim on the future development work and adoption of Fibre. If there are instead two coins by the same devs with the same ideas, you're not getting any synergies, you're just getting disorganization and dilution. It would be like if Satoshi had come out with Bitcoin1 and Bitcoin2. Doesn't make any sense.
2) Donations requests are also a bad solution. It's the classic "tragedy of the commons" problem, where gain of the community and gain of the individual contributor are highly divergent. It makes too much financial sense to sit back and hope others donate.
3) Given 1 & 2; it seems the best course is to either (A) hardfork Fibre to effectively create a new / larger "premine"; or (B) create a new coin that accomplishes the same thing by allowing Fibre holders to convert, with the end result that current Fibre holders have the same ownership levels in the new coin as they do in Fibre, except that the dev group has a greater share.
Possibly more creativity is needed for (3), but (1) & (2) are unworkable.
1) Two separate coins is a bad idea. Or at least its bad for Fibre. The value of Fibre is essentially a claim on the future development work and adoption of Fibre. If there are instead two coins by the same devs with the same ideas, you're not getting any synergies, you're just getting disorganization and dilution. It would be like if Satoshi had come out with Bitcoin1 and Bitcoin2. Doesn't make any sense.
2) Donations requests are also a bad solution. It's the classic "tragedy of the commons" problem, where gain of the community and gain of the individual contributor are highly divergent. It makes too much financial sense to sit back and hope others donate.
3) Given 1 & 2; it seems the best course is to either (A) hardfork Fibre to effectively create a new / larger "premine"; or (B) create a new coin that accomplishes the same thing by allowing Fibre holders to convert, with the end result that current Fibre holders have the same ownership levels in the new coin as they do in Fibre, except that the dev group has a greater share.
Possibly more creativity is needed for (3), but (1) & (2) are unworkable.
Another option is to just buy more coins and crush the upcoming October 18 release. It might feel a little silly to buy your own coin on an exchange, but if the market cap doubles or triples to $500k you are making a lot of money and could be in a similar situation economically.
I also think the multipool idea is potentially great, but I don't personally know whether that has been tried or shown to be a successful strategy in the past.
Re: [FIBRE] | 650k | FibreConnect | FibreDark | FibreLock | Cryptsy,Bittrex,Poloniex
Couple thoughts. If it matters, I work at a wall street bank and have an understanding of the relevant market dynamics. Triff generally has the right of it.
1) Two separate coins is a bad idea. Or at least its bad for Fibre. The value of Fibre is essentially a claim on the future development work and adoption of Fibre. If there are instead two coins by the same devs with the same ideas, you're not getting any synergies, you're just getting disorganization and dilution. It would be like if Satoshi had come out with Bitcoin1 and Bitcoin2. Doesn't make any sense.
2) Donations requests are also a bad solution. It's the classic "tragedy of the commons" problem, where gain of the community and gain of the individual contributor are highly divergent. It makes too much financial sense to sit back and hope others donate.
3) Given 1 & 2; it seems the best course is to either (A) hardfork Fibre to effectively create a new / larger "premine"; or (B) create a new coin that accomplishes the same thing by allowing Fibre holders to convert, with the end result that current Fibre holders have the same ownership levels in the new coin as they do in Fibre, except that the dev group has a greater share.
Possibly more creativity is needed for (3), but (1) & (2) are unworkable.
1) Two separate coins is a bad idea. Or at least its bad for Fibre. The value of Fibre is essentially a claim on the future development work and adoption of Fibre. If there are instead two coins by the same devs with the same ideas, you're not getting any synergies, you're just getting disorganization and dilution. It would be like if Satoshi had come out with Bitcoin1 and Bitcoin2. Doesn't make any sense.
2) Donations requests are also a bad solution. It's the classic "tragedy of the commons" problem, where gain of the community and gain of the individual contributor are highly divergent. It makes too much financial sense to sit back and hope others donate.
3) Given 1 & 2; it seems the best course is to either (A) hardfork Fibre to effectively create a new / larger "premine"; or (B) create a new coin that accomplishes the same thing by allowing Fibre holders to convert, with the end result that current Fibre holders have the same ownership levels in the new coin as they do in Fibre, except that the dev group has a greater share.
Possibly more creativity is needed for (3), but (1) & (2) are unworkable.
Re: [ANN][UTIL] UtilityCoin - Big Update - PDF Release = Goals - News - Announcement
Well, none of the examples in the PDF made any sense, but I guess that doesn't mean valuable development won't occur... But seriously the whole licensing through the block chain doesn't make any sense. Why is that better than just purchasing a license key with USD like people do normally? Do you not notice that all the value in that section is created by the software you are describing (not you) and not by utilitycoin (you)?
Re: [ANN] RootCoin [ROOT] - rootEX™ announced - ANON-tx using BitKey™- PoW/PoS/PoI
Pretty hilarious seeing all the day traders whine that Bitsta isn't building his life around the goal to make them money. Thanks guys.
/here for the actual technology
/here for the actual technology
I think some patience is necessary here. Let them finish Rev. 3, publish the whitepaper, and offer a big bounty for anyone who can break the anonymity of XCurrency. Those things will put us in the spotlight and get us all the attention we ever wanted. Days can seem like weeks in this fast paced crypto jungle but let's remember all our strengths and be content.
The thing is that support now matters. Look at DRK. Supposedly, we are all here because we think we have a better technology than DRK does, correct? Yet DRK has a far higher market cap, far higher user base, etc. They have that because they built support early.
Every day XC waits to build additional support is another day some other community gets to take that support and hold on to it. CLOAK is another instructive example. If everyone thinking about CLOAK knew XC already had solved anonymity, they would be far less interested in CLOAK. Instead, those investors do not believe XC has solved anonymity and are attracted to CLOAK as a solution. So they become attached to CLOAK, and are less likely to support XC in the future. This is not a good thing because (to the earlier point about Betamax and bluray) at some point the ship really does sail and all the proof in the world that your tech is 10% better won't matter because it won't be enough to overcome the disparity in community size. Lots of coins have better tech than BTC, but Expedia doesn't use them as a payment solution because they can't compete with the early support BTC got...
So if we have the best anon lets start proving it rather than waiting around and assuming that will just work out fine. XC would benefit by improving its messaging.
I hold DRK, XMR, and XC, so I don't play favorites. That aside, large communities don't necessarily mean the end of any sort of traction to the upside--look at how large Doge's community is and yet it's not enough to overcome the inflation, let alone make up for the fact that it really offers nothing more than a "fun" meme coin.
No sense in trying to market yourself if what you are marketing isn't complete. Just the way it is.
So what is the point of synechist then if PR and marketing at this stage doesn't matter? Of course it matters, which is why he plays a valuable role. I just think he could play a much MORE valuable role. And are you aware of the number of brands that start marketing prior to product launch? Why do you think they do that?
We can do a better job here.
I think some patience is necessary here. Let them finish Rev. 3, publish the whitepaper, and offer a big bounty for anyone who can break the anonymity of XCurrency. Those things will put us in the spotlight and get us all the attention we ever wanted. Days can seem like weeks in this fast paced crypto jungle but let's remember all our strengths and be content.
The thing is that support now matters. Look at DRK. Supposedly, we are all here because we think we have a better technology than DRK does, correct? Yet DRK has a far higher market cap, far higher user base, etc. They have that because they built support early.
Every day XC waits to build additional support is another day some other community gets to take that support and hold on to it. CLOAK is another instructive example. If everyone thinking about CLOAK knew XC already had solved anonymity, they would be far less interested in CLOAK. Instead, those investors do not believe XC has solved anonymity and are attracted to CLOAK as a solution. So they become attached to CLOAK, and are less likely to support XC in the future. This is not a good thing because (to the earlier point about Betamax and bluray) at some point the ship really does sail and all the proof in the world that your tech is 10% better won't matter because it won't be enough to overcome the disparity in community size. Lots of coins have better tech than BTC, but Expedia doesn't use them as a payment solution because they can't compete with the early support BTC got...
So if we have the best anon lets start proving it rather than waiting around and assuming that will just work out fine. XC would benefit by improving its messaging.
What are you suggesting we do?
Would you read my prior posts before replying?
It's uncommonly known that the XC team has a plan. :-)
I'm suggesting we write a whitepaper now rather than later, or at least have a good answer to the following: Can you point interested users, service providers and investors to a concise explanation of why we have a better anon solution than any of the following coins they might choose from:
DRK
Vericoin
Cloak
And I'm not meaning high level statments such as "we have multipath" or "we have more nodes." Why do those characteristics matter? Under what scenarios is XC more secure? Why would a payment processor, ecommerce marketplace, etc, choose XC over its competitors?
Or: what are the shortcomings to our anonymity solution? What are the shortcomings of competing solutions? These would all be valuable.
I think some patience is necessary here. Let them finish Rev. 3, publish the whitepaper, and offer a big bounty for anyone who can break the anonymity of XCurrency. Those things will put us in the spotlight and get us all the attention we ever wanted. Days can seem like weeks in this fast paced crypto jungle but let's remember all our strengths and be content.
The thing is that support now matters. Look at DRK. Supposedly, we are all here because we think we have a better technology than DRK does, correct? Yet DRK has a far higher market cap, far higher user base, etc. They have that because they built support early.
Every day XC waits to build additional support is another day some other community gets to take that support and hold on to it. CLOAK is another instructive example. If everyone thinking about CLOAK knew XC already had solved anonymity, they would be far less interested in CLOAK. Instead, those investors do not believe XC has solved anonymity and are attracted to CLOAK as a solution. So they become attached to CLOAK, and are less likely to support XC in the future. This is not a good thing because (to the earlier point about Betamax and bluray) at some point the ship really does sail and all the proof in the world that your tech is 10% better won't matter because it won't be enough to overcome the disparity in community size. Lots of coins have better tech than BTC, but Expedia doesn't use them as a payment solution because they can't compete with the early support BTC got...
So if we have the best anon lets start proving it rather than waiting around and assuming that will just work out fine. XC would benefit by improving its messaging.
Im a little off put here. We had Mindfox review our code as he is a somewhat respected member of the BTCtalk community.
Now he has his own shit clone which is presenting falsified information about the source we recently opened up. He is claiming he has bettered our rev1 technology... not by actually doing anything with it but by lying and stating there were all sorts of issues that he and his PnD shit team have fixed. And now how they are moving ahead of our progression.
So why again are we opening source? I get all the high and mighty fucktards on reptiliea or w/e's thread stating they wont look twice at a coin that isnt open sourced fully but who gives a crap.
Those condescending "Coin analysts" will eventually see the light if they can get each others knob ends out of each others mouths long enough to say something constructive not talk about how much of a crypto hipster they are.
Just hold strong fellow XC'ers don't let the crypto hipsters get to you!
Now he has his own shit clone which is presenting falsified information about the source we recently opened up. He is claiming he has bettered our rev1 technology... not by actually doing anything with it but by lying and stating there were all sorts of issues that he and his PnD shit team have fixed. And now how they are moving ahead of our progression.
So why again are we opening source? I get all the high and mighty fucktards on reptiliea or w/e's thread stating they wont look twice at a coin that isnt open sourced fully but who gives a crap.
Those condescending "Coin analysts" will eventually see the light if they can get each others knob ends out of each others mouths long enough to say something constructive not talk about how much of a crypto hipster they are.
Just hold strong fellow XC'ers don't let the crypto hipsters get to you!
I did not know that Mindfox copied the XC code from Rev1. Supposedly he's a great programmer, so instead of stealing the code from XC, why not just create it yourself.
I hate to say it, but I hope there was something malicious/not working in the open source code that was released. Boy.....wouldn't that be a lesson to learn for those copy-fucks.
I wouldn't even bother making any future revs available for open source. Let this all be a lesson.
You don't trust closed-source? Fuck off, and invest elsewhere.
The fact is that this KeyCoin thing is free PR for XC.
And it's good PR because nothing spreads like contention. (In fact, it's my favourite sort of game.)
This is exactly what releasing code on a delayed timeline is good for: showing up stupid coins, helping XC rise to prominence, and providing valuable tech to real devs who want to study it and do some real work.
So all's well. Nothing to worry about. :-)
What? This is not good PR. Was the "contention" that occurred after the first big run up when a bunch of Dark coiners said XC tech didn't work good PR? No. This is a similar (although much lesser) situation.
XC is valuable because it is differentiated and has better functionality. Someone with an audience running around saying that the functionality is actually worse and poorly differentiated is not a good thing.
Also I agree with battbot's prior points about the whitepaper. At some point after all the Dark sniping the XC team appears to have decided that it doesn't want to compare itself to other coins and make a clear case for why it is the better solution. But if people do not think it is better, why would they invest in it on the expectation that it will be the market winner?
XC needs a well thought out whitepaper that clearly states why it is a superior solution, and why it will be adopted over competitors. I agree that there are some challenges doing so without revealing IP, but that is not a reason to avoid the issue until v3. Note the pretty large fall in price after the v2 launch, as many investors lose confidence that XC has the best solution... At some point constant investor losses irreparably damage your community (paging battbot to give a Cinni case study here, although I do think it's obvious that Dan is a vastly stronger developer and leader than the Cinni dev, no offense intended).
So strength of community matters, and it is being hurt by people not having a clear case to point to as to why XC is a superior solution. Pointing vaguely at "multipath" et al is evidently not sufficient. A real case for what that means in terms of security, reliability, privacy, etc. would be very valuable. Disagree?
The open source announcement on :
- Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/XCofficialreddit/comments/2bb1k2/xcs_mixer_tech_goes_open_source/
- Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/XCofficialreddit/comments/2bb1k2/xcs_mixer_tech_goes_open_source/
Just copy pasted this to /r/CryptoCurrency with a note saying originally posted by you.
should get a lot more views there.
edit - UPVOTE - http://uk.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/2bb69q/xcs_mixer_tech_goes_open_source/
Upvoted and commented
The potential is massive for this coin with encrypted/trustless messaging/skyping and now Snowden on
board too. "Trustless" is what he's talking about.
Well, I wouldn't say he's on board since we haven't heard from him. But hey, trustless is our game.
We'd love to talk with him over XChat though.
Bring it on!
We should totally reach out to Snowden. What a cool idea.
Anyone know how to contact the man?
Better to reach out to Wikileaks if you are actually planning on doing anything. 1) Might be an interesting conversation; 2) If they are interested, their brand is about as well known as Snowden himself; 3) Various members of Wikileaks do know how to contact Snowden, although I would think they wouldn't tell you
Might be interesting in general to think more about Wikileaks + EM / blockchain tech.
Re: PoS
I don't know what Dan's opinion is, but if a service is not interested in adopting BTC, they are almost certainly not going to use XC. I appreciate you agreeing with my post (and relatedly appreciate the work you do), but I'm not sure you read my post carefully as a central point is that PoS is a (nearly) complete waste of time. PoS is offered by large, slow moving corps to boring retailers and used by clueless consumers. It's pretty much the worst channel to target with a cutting edge CC.
Good targets are channels and services that have adopted BTC but would be significantly better off with an anonymous currency. This is dark markets, internet payment platforms, etc. Decision makers at these services get CCs, and are the most likely to be receptive to XC's value proposition.
By contrast, the brick and mortar world is filled with decision makers that aren't even interested in BTC! Anyone not interested in BTC is not interested in XC, full stop. The advantages of XC (anonymity, potentially other features) do not COME CLOSE to overshadowing the advantages of BTC (massive existing adoption and ecosystem, name recognition, higher price stability, etc.) such that if I am not interested in BTC I might be interested in XC.
The areas to target are areas where BTC is understood and adopted, and XC offers clear advantages or at least is an easy to offer alternative. I.e. existing internet payment platforms and any ecommerce services used by highly privacy focused users.
I don't know what Dan's opinion is, but if a service is not interested in adopting BTC, they are almost certainly not going to use XC. I appreciate you agreeing with my post (and relatedly appreciate the work you do), but I'm not sure you read my post carefully as a central point is that PoS is a (nearly) complete waste of time. PoS is offered by large, slow moving corps to boring retailers and used by clueless consumers. It's pretty much the worst channel to target with a cutting edge CC.
Good targets are channels and services that have adopted BTC but would be significantly better off with an anonymous currency. This is dark markets, internet payment platforms, etc. Decision makers at these services get CCs, and are the most likely to be receptive to XC's value proposition.
By contrast, the brick and mortar world is filled with decision makers that aren't even interested in BTC! Anyone not interested in BTC is not interested in XC, full stop. The advantages of XC (anonymity, potentially other features) do not COME CLOSE to overshadowing the advantages of BTC (massive existing adoption and ecosystem, name recognition, higher price stability, etc.) such that if I am not interested in BTC I might be interested in XC.
The areas to target are areas where BTC is understood and adopted, and XC offers clear advantages or at least is an easy to offer alternative. I.e. existing internet payment platforms and any ecommerce services used by highly privacy focused users.
Yes, you're right about the cluelessness of traditional POS markets.
The thing is, this only matters if you have to integrate new tech into the POS platform.
With NFC payments, an XC mastercard, and in-app XC purchases with fiat, there'll be no need for any backend integration. So it's an incredibly efficient way to get massive market penetration, and it'll lower the barrier to entry for normal non-techie people right down to the floor.
But to my broader point about the issues with PoS, that functionality doesn't have market demand and piggy-backing on existing payment networks doesn't solve the issue (and by the way, any piggy-backing service is centralized, which we are not supposed to like). So for example, if I am choosing between swiping my XC (mastercard) card and my normal mastercard at Target, what do I get out of using the former? The XC mastercard service presumably debits some XC account I have to fund the dollar payment it makes, which is fine, but why is that better than just debiting an account with dollars in it?
Is it because the XC mastercard service does not bother to confirm my identity before making dollar payments on my behalf? That seems like it would run afoul of anti-money laundering regulations. Even ignoring that (probably dealbreaker) issue, if I am so privacy conscious that I won't use BTC or Visa, why am I comfortable making purchases in XC in person at Target in front of a security camera? And shouldn't I just be using actual cash at this point?
I just can't think of any situation where a user wouldn't be comfortable using BTC or Visa on a PoS terminal but WOULD be comfortable using XC. So what is the value proposition of PoS?
All good points - and let me emphasise that we're certainly not going to ignore online marketplaces that accept cryptocurrencies. That idea is solid.
As for Mastercards and privacy, storing funds in XC is a great way to retain control over your privacy, and if you can then use it anywhere without disclosing your savings or accounts in general, it's a pretty good deal IMO. Surrendering some privacy in exchange for mainstream convenience is what will appeal to the average user.
Secondly, think about how this stuff comes together: mobile wallets + POS integration is what so many BTC users want but don't have. The "average" non-techie user isn't so fussed about privacy that (s)he won't use a mastercard. They just think Bitcoin is cool, interesting, cheap, and on the side of the individual vs. the authorities. With XC, this comes together even more powerfully. And if we're on mobile and are POS integrated then the value proposition seriously gets going.
P.S. Aha, I should've mentioned: privacy is not XC's mainstream marketing point. Useability, fast transaction times, mobile wallets, powerful apps, and real-world integration will be.
Edit: Having looked further into the issue, it looks like coinbase already offers PoS functionality for BTC. Coinbase has $30mm+ in VC funding from A16Z. I wouldn't want my differentiator to be that I can create a better app than them... I would want it to be that I have privacy features that they aren't even thinking about. And to get back to the original point, I don't think you can achieve those features at the PoS level because you still have to integrate with the dollar payment network, which is regulated. I also don't think PoS users have demand for better than BTC privacy, because after all I am in a store showing my face, but maybe we agree to disagree on that.