|
I heard some rumor that atcsecure = EDwArd SNowden?
Dan, is it true? The evidence is pretty strong... see above.
|
|
|
|
Let's wait until Dan is awake before deciding whether to close this thread.
If you close this thread FUD will move to BlockNET thread. The last thing you want during an ITO is lack of information readily available to potential investors. |
|
|
|
|
Prometheus do yourself a favor and stop talking. Everyone can read the skype transcript, it's plain as day. You're making a bigger ass out of yourself than need be.
|
|
|
|
New FUD. 60 btc Buy support. Only in cryptoland.
+1 aint it the truth. Someone is just trying to keep the price from crashing on account of this new "FUD." I bet it is prometheus. |
|
|
|
All I see is a lying piece of shit pumper (Prometheus) trying to hype Dan's name to pump his own shitcoins. Prometheus is a piece of shit and should get kicked off of BlockNET. But if Dan continues to work with this trash, the entire project is suspect, Dan included. |
|
|
|
Hi all
I can now give some clarity on the status of XC's premine:
- The premine has been completely spent since mid September.
- Dan has been part-funding XC's development since day one (XChat and the multipool, among other things), and funding it entirely since Rev 2.
- Dan will continue to fund XC's development, and so nothing about the source of the funding or the pace of development will change.
- Specifically, XC's funding comes from Dan's corporation, which has pioneered IP over RF in marine environments.
- The premine was not dumped or traded for profit at any stage.
- The premine was used exclusively for paying for XC's project - that is, for Teka and I to work, for websites, PR expenses, the ATM deal, etc.
XC is, and will continue to be, Dan's baby. He has personally invested over 1000 hours of his time into it.
Since it's been developed at his own expense for some time, you have good reason to believe that he won't just lose interest.
His personal stake is significant, and this serves to increase his commitment.
Thanks synechist, but it would have been nice to hear this from Dan himself. What incentive does Dan have to continue this project now? If Dan has no investment in XC, this project is now a loss for him. What incentive does he have to put money into a project that he will not get a return on his investment from (because he has no investment, other than his "reputation")? Dan's incentive is his conviction about the value of XC's tech. Add this to the resources he's sunk into XC, and you've got a keeper. This is terrible reasoning. Conviction about the value of XC's tech is not adequate incentive if it is costing you thousands of dollars that you will not see a greater return on because you are not invested in the coin by holding XC. Unless Dan personally holds XC, there is no incentive to continue a project that will lose him money. He cannot make money from XC unless he holds XC, thus, he has no incentive to continue the project other than his "reputation" and "beliefs" which, as we all know, HOLD NO WATER. |
|
|
|
What happened with premine wallet?Current balance seems to be only 6073 XC and just yesterday 2 transactions happened with total of -12628 XC. Seems a bit bad that I've been holding if the "full transparency" premine address has been emptied and I'd like to see a clear answer on this from atcsecure. And XC Block explorer identifies quite a few of the transactions as exchange addresses, since start of august the wallet balance went down from 62776 to 18700 before yesterdays action. CryptsyMintpalMintpalBittrexMintpalMintpalMintpalMintpalI do recognize that development needs cash, but selling from the known premine address when PR department says "I can't believe these guys who are dumping" at the same time doesn't feel right at all. So Dan's sold all his XC... no wonder development has "refocused" to BlockNET... |
|
|
|
so, i see XC is now trying to take good coins down with them  , Hope SDC takes the bigger route and doesn't join in this Shitshow Fiasco from Dan Metcalf. Once SDC delivers ZK we have no need for any other coin, we will be the main annon coin, and this is why XC is trying to piggy back our success, cause their coin cant seem to gain any volume or positive price action in the last 3 months. Please Please Please, dont join this BS. If we wanted to join a pathetic group we could have joined supernet I don't like the way the whole thing's been presented, with XC at the centre and the other coins as secondary. Even at this stage for XC to present itself as superior to Shadow is pretty arrogant. After the next release it'll just look absurd. They rushed this announcement - not giving the devs time to consult with their teams and communities - because they wanted their asset launched before the gems ICO. That's not a very professional way to launch a project this large and ambitious. This is the bullshit im talking about XC has everything to Gain from this, They put them selves at the center of the process... Heres a quote from the XC lead PR guy Synechist  Fuck this blocknet bullshit, its a wanna be supernet, All it does is pump that crap coin XC(its actually had the reverse and caused a dump)...Btw Xchat sucks compared to Shadowchat so I dont see why people would want to use that over ours Pookie, you're a fucking troll. Once again you take shit out of context to push your bullshit agenda. If you continued the conversation in XC's thread you would see that synechist answered that xnodes and the nodes of any other coin are on equal setting as any coin's services are used on the blocknet. If SDC's tech was used, SDC nodes would get paid. If XC's tech was used, xnodes would get paid. Learn to fucking read before you run your mouth off. The incentive to use the Blocknet is the same as the incentive to use the internet: a massively larger userbase for your services.Every coin that joins the Blocknet does so in the hope that Blocknet users will use its technology and get paid via nodes. Secondly they improve their services offering by incorporating an XBridge and offering other coins' services - but in a way that benefits whoever provides the services. Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg9229993#msg9229993 |
|
|
|
|
I hope all the issues that I and several users have brought up are detailed in some proper pdf / FAQ. Because XC holders, participating coins, and potential BlockNET ITO investors need to understand the incentives. Thanks for your time synechist.
|
|
|
|
That is some nice incentive for XC holders, but would you mind laying out the incentives for participating coins? Because unless they own XC, they will not be collecting payments / fees. Is their incentive only that they will gain access to the features of all other participating coins on the BlockNET? Or are there other incentives that I am missing? (I suppose a 10% discount on BlockNET ITO is incentive as well)
The incentive to use the Blocknet is the same as the incentive to use the internet: a massively larger userbase for your services. Every coin that joins the Blocknet does so in the hope that Blocknet users will use its technology. Secondly they improve their services offering by incorporating an XBridge and offering other coins' services - but in a way that benefits whoever provides the services. I see. Thanks for the reply. But what would you say to my same argument above if XC was replaced with CoinX (representing any coin on the BlockNET)? Your previous reply to how it would benefit XC was unique to XC because XC is the one developing BlockNET and running it off of XC's xnodes. So it is easy to see how XC holders profit. How would you reply to a participant coin of BlockNET below?: "CoinX's unique & leading privacy tech is currently the primary element that gives CoinX value / marketcap, because it is a tech that only CoinX holders have access to. However, BlockNET will allow all other participants of it to gain access to CoinX's features, without purchasing CoinX. It seems like CoinX's biggest value-adding element, its tech, may lose or dilute (at least in part) some of it's ability to add value to CoinX." Is the increased user-base really worth it at the cost of the reasoning above? |
|
|
|
|
That is some nice incentive for XC holders, but would you mind laying out the incentives for participating coins? Because unless they own XC, they will not be collecting payments / fees. Is their incentive only that they will gain access to the features of all other participating coins on the BlockNET? Or are there other incentives that I am missing? (I suppose a 10% discount on BlockNET ITO is incentive as well)
|
|
|
|
Yeah I guess I understood this, but its not much of a service. At the moment we are the best at this, but soon it will be open source, and it wont take long for other coins to adopt this feature internally. So in the end we will own nothing. I thought that we would at least own the items on the roadmap like Xchat, but this is now looking doubtful and the ability to distribute content which now seems more plausibly done by Xblock. I think xBlock is becoming what we all had hoped XC would become.
I don't think it was fair to make xBlock an owned entity, it should have been a open not-for-profit entity. There will always be a tug-a-war between xblocks needs for profit and the coins. I cannot see it working. It will just implode. Sorry I feel this way. I would love to be proved otherwise.
Let's just keep things simple: - XC and the Blocknet are entirely distinct, and none of XC's features are porting over to the Blocknet. - Why not? - because that's like saying Google's features are going to port over to the internet. Huh? No. Doesn't make sense. Did you miss my post above about "ownership" of XChat? XC holders will get shares in XC Inc and will therefore effectively "own" (i.e. get paid for) XChat twice in the event that XC Inc sells the tech to a third party. What's xBlock? Did you read the PR? Nothing in there is called that. :-) I know they will be distinct but I am confused on what services will be offered by XC, or more importantly its niche. Is it just mixing or is there more, will it still be a "Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat" or are these niches now taken by Blocknet and XC Inc. The Blocknet isn't a "decentralised trustless privacy platform". It's a way of getting nodes to communicate. XChat is an XC feature. It will always be. As for the relation between XCurrency and XC Inc: - XC Inc develops tech for XCurrency. It's committed to XCurrency. - It is the legal entity that enables XCurrency to interface with the business world. As such it gains vitally important connections for XCurrency. - If XC Inc sells XChat, then: a) it'll still run on the XCurrency network b) XC users will still use it c) XChat will benefit from some enormous corporation's marketing d) XC Inc shareholders will earn big time from the sale. So nothing is being taken away from XC. Nothing at all. Not one feature. All that's happening is that the Blocknet gives XC a massively increased userbase. That's it. I think what Sabretooth is questioning is what incentive will investors & traders have to buy XCurrency in light of BlockNET? XC's unique & leading privacy tech is currently the primary element that gives XC value / marketcap, because it is a tech that only XC holders have access to. However, BlockNET will allow all other participants of it to gain access to XC's features, without purchasing XC. It seems like XCurrency's biggest value-adding element, its tech, may lose or dilute (at least in part) some of it's ability to add value to XC. Sabertooth, is this what you are questioning? Could it be the case that what is lost by compromise, is gained by collaboration? Other coins will be able to use these XC features through the Blocknet - by paying XC nodes for the service. Now how might this affect XC's value? - You've never had to buy XC coins to use XChat. It works without owning coins. So nothing has changed here. - Blocknet users will all use XChat. This makes XC a "household name" on the Blocknet and establishes its central value. - This is same way in which XChat relates to XC's price today. So nothing fundamental will change. XC will just get better known and more widely used. Secondly, the success of private payments on the Blocknet will simply mean more people buy 1000XC to set up Xmixers. This will drive up XC's price a whole lot. And finally, XC holders will get paid for their nodes' services - and the money for this comes from other coins being sold for XC, again putting up the price. So there's no way in which the Blocknet dilutes XC's value or puts the price down. It can only put it up. Hmm, this makes a lot of sense and could be quite lucrative if BlockNET becomes a success. Makes me a little excited! |
|
|
|
Yeah I guess I understood this, but its not much of a service. At the moment we are the best at this, but soon it will be open source, and it wont take long for other coins to adopt this feature internally. So in the end we will own nothing. I thought that we would at least own the items on the roadmap like Xchat, but this is now looking doubtful and the ability to distribute content which now seems more plausibly done by Xblock. I think xBlock is becoming what we all had hoped XC would become.
I don't think it was fair to make xBlock an owned entity, it should have been a open not-for-profit entity. There will always be a tug-a-war between xblocks needs for profit and the coins. I cannot see it working. It will just implode. Sorry I feel this way. I would love to be proved otherwise.
Let's just keep things simple: - XC and the Blocknet are entirely distinct, and none of XC's features are porting over to the Blocknet. - Why not? - because that's like saying Google's features are going to port over to the internet. Huh? No. Doesn't make sense. Did you miss my post above about "ownership" of XChat? XC holders will get shares in XC Inc and will therefore effectively "own" (i.e. get paid for) XChat twice in the event that XC Inc sells the tech to a third party. What's xBlock? Did you read the PR? Nothing in there is called that. :-) I know they will be distinct but I am confused on what services will be offered by XC, or more importantly its niche. Is it just mixing or is there more, will it still be a "Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat" or are these niches now taken by Blocknet and XC Inc. The Blocknet isn't a "decentralised trustless privacy platform". It's a way of getting nodes to communicate. XChat is an XC feature. It will always be. As for the relation between XCurrency and XC Inc: - XC Inc develops tech for XCurrency. It's committed to XCurrency. - It is the legal entity that enables XCurrency to interface with the business world. As such it gains vitally important connections for XCurrency. - If XC Inc sells XChat, then: a) it'll still run on the XCurrency network b) XC users will still use it c) XChat will benefit from some enormous corporation's marketing d) XC Inc shareholders will earn big time from the sale. So nothing is being taken away from XC. Nothing at all. Not one feature. All that's happening is that the Blocknet gives XC a massively increased userbase. That's it. I think what Sabretooth is questioning is what incentive will investors & traders have to buy XCurrency in light of BlockNET? XC's unique & leading privacy tech is currently the primary element that gives XC value / marketcap, because it is a tech that only XC holders have access to. However, BlockNET will allow all other participants of it to gain access to XC's features, without purchasing XC. It seems like XCurrency's biggest value-adding element, its tech, may lose or dilute (at least in part) some of it's ability to add value to XC. Sabertooth, is this what you are questioning? Could it be the case that what is lost by compromise, is gained by collaboration? |
|
|
|
My concern for the upcoming BlockNET ITO on October 29th is that there is no real clarity on how those who purchase into the ITO will benefit / profit. Unless this is clearly defined at length, I can tell you right now that hardly anyone will be buying into the ITO.
I hope providing clarity on incentives and exactly how buyers of the ITO will profit is a high priority right now.
It definitely is. We're working on a large number of details and will be publishing them widely very soon. |
|
|
|
My concern for the upcoming BlockNET ITO on October 29th is that there is no real clarity on how those who purchase into the ITO will benefit / profit. Unless this is clearly defined at length, I can tell you right now that hardly anyone will be buying into the ITO.
I hope providing clarity on incentives and exactly how buyers of the ITO will profit is a high priority right now.
It definitely is. We're working on a large number of details and will be publishing them widely very soon. That is excellent news. And I am sure it goes without saying, but the sooner the better, so XC can start facilitating questions to fill in the gaps people may have for anything that you do not cover at length. People need time well in advance to have a clear understanding of the potential risk vs reward before they consider investing. |
|
|
|
|
My concern for the upcoming BlockNET ITO on October 29th is that there is no real clarity on how those who purchase into the ITO will benefit / profit. Unless this is clearly defined at length, I can tell you right now that hardly anyone will be buying into the ITO.
I hope providing clarity on incentives and exactly how buyers of the ITO will profit is a high priority right now.
|
|
|
|
 BTCD: -25.6%
DRK: -9.8%
XC: +9.5% |
|
|
|
We are pleased to announce that currency developer Dan Metcalf has decided to take part in the effort to make Utility
the most advanced platform for block chain 2.0 functionality as outlined in our introduction document. but rather be a launching pad for advanced blockchain features through
collaboration of multiple and potentially unlimited development teams This sounds much like SuperNET. Now that you mention it, it does. But who is developing it? XC or Utility? From reading Utility's announcement, it sounds like they are developing it, and Dan is supporting it. |
|
|
|
innovation doesn't count in the crypto world
The opinions of women don't count in the real world. |
|
|
|
By the way, I've said all this already, several times.
If you'd done your research as I suggested before complaining, you'd have seen that in the three days before our announcing the NHZ collaboration, the points above were elaborately spelled out.
And I'll also be the first to say that I think it was me who drew those points out of you, haha. But I've since then seen the light!  I apologize if this exact issue has already been addressed. I likely missed some pages here and there, including the ITO announcement which I just saw for the first time last night. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
