Synechist, please answer this satisfactorily and I will be done:
"Collaborations with Qibucks, for example, is completely different from the NHZ project. With NHZ, XC has routed Xander Shepherd (former dev for XC), and Pizpie (Marketing guy) to the NHZ project.
Xander has never purely worked for XC. Before he joined XC he was already involved in the Cypherfunks and several other coins. Why? Because this is how crypto works. Always. Go look up the Ethereum developers and see the other projects they contribute to. They're all over the place. And this is both normal and promotes innovation. It makes Xander's presence in XC enriching and energising. As for Pizpie, he is a social networking genius. He has incredible connections and this is a major feature of XC's (past and future) success. You know how he has such great connections? By being involved in lots of projects. The very worst thing for XC would be if he wasn't collaborating. But this is the case for everyone in crypto. So we'd all better get used to this. It's the most beneficial way of doing things. And what do you know, the NHZ project is working to build anon transfers, encrypted messaging, and a decentralized asset exchange. Look familiar? It should, because this is in large what XC is attempting to accomplish. This is partially incorrect: XC has not attempting to accomplish, it has already accomplished two of NHZ's three goals here. And it'll acquire the third due to NHZ having an asset exchange already, because Dan is working on its code. Are you starting to see the benefits of collaboration? Now, explain to me how dividing the XC team to work on a second coin (which will ONLY divide & dilute investments) will be beneficial to XC? The coins roadmaps are nearly PARALLEL. But now XC resources are split and working to accomplish the same goals on another coin."
Now do you see that XC has always, and always will be, "divided"? And contrary to your opinion, this is by far the most beneficial thing for XC and for all crypto. How do you think we have so much incredible tech, and develop it at such a rate? We collaborate, we gain code, we gain experience, we build relationships. This is what a healthy project looks like. Better get used to it. Thank you. I found this response to be satisfactory. Personally, I think XC should encourage people to submit difficult criticisms, if only for the possibility that there are probably other investors holding similar thoughts. Because now, sufficient answers have been brought forth and may act as a balm to those who are hesitant. |
|
|
|
|
Synechist, please address this satisfactorily and I will be done:
"Collaborations with Qibucks, for example, is completely different from the NHZ project. With NHZ, XC has routed Xander Shepherd (former dev for XC), and Pizpie (Marketing guy) to the NHZ project. And what do you know, the NHZ project is working to build anon transfers, encrypted messaging, and a decentralized asset exchange. Look familiar? It should, because this is in large what XC is attempting to accomplish.
Now, explain to me how dividing the XC team to work on a second coin (which will ONLY divide & dilute investments) will be beneficial to XC? The coins roadmaps are nearly PARALLEL. But now XC resources are split and working to accomplish the same goals on another coin."
|
|
|
|
Longenecker, the past 3 weeks have seen a continuous stream of developments from XC, and yet you manage to somehow lose faith in the XC team's commitment?
Your perspective is profoundly warped.
The effect of your presence over the past 2 days has been purely negative.
Please stop. You have no idea how bloody annoying it is for me to have to deal with this.
I work 50+ hour weeks on XC ONLY. Not that you need to know, and not that I'm obliged to indulge your conspiracy theorism. Now shut up so I can have a rest this weekend.
Do not cast doubt on a project with an unmatched pace of development. And damn you for having done so already.
1) Let's keep this professional. 2) I feel that I am expressing valid criticisms. As someone who is newer to the XC project (I became aware around a month ago), these are my thoughts and concerns. I express them only out of concern for my investment and the overall benefit of XC. And I think it would be prudent to agree that if even one person is having these concerns, then there is a good chance some outside investors (as well as inside) may be thinking the same thing. 3) Rather than attacking my person, why not attack the points that I make? |
|
|
|
lol u guys just now getting it? xc isn't paying off for the devs so they have to bring their technology / focus other places.
...
I feel like this talking point has been run into the ground. There has been a trend with working with other devs...each coin has a different facet that applies to XC. Qibucks and the distribution of ad content for Web 3.0, Key for the honing of the OS, NHZ for the asset exchange (XC's future decentralized exchange), ... a decentralized asset exchange ... Really, must have missed that one or is MemoryShock correct they wanna use the nhz exchange for the ito issuing. for those addidtional shares issued besides the ones for the XC holders. Dan is looking over that thing to work up to standard. Every coin will have some anon and chat in the future i guess. thats just part of the game and XC is leading that game regarding overall approach. Still easier to buy XC now to get free shares ratio 10/1. they totally fuck up to spread this news to people interested in ITOs though. I don't get the PR anymore but i'm sold on the Technologie and general direction of this project. The underlying platform to all the applications in development is just the best thought out and most comprehensive design. that beeing said they better bring some UI screenshots asap and the working thing short after. And what the fuck happened to the daily updates? Perhaps synechist has be re-routed to the NHZ project as well under a different alias. He has not been as active lately and the daily updates stopped around the same time NHZ stuff went public. Who knows at this point, its all speculation, and that's part of the problem. OHH fuck of with that conspiracy shit you sneeky bitch. that dude is super dedicated and always responsive. the fact that i don't share his PR philosophy doesn't mean i question his integrity towards this project . i don't wanna be interpreted in this direction. just to make this clear I don't question synechists past and even current dedication to XC. And I am not intending to paint him in a bad light. I'm just saying what is possible. They did the same with Xander and Pizpie, why not synechist? Synechist is brilliant and would be a great asset to any project. And the logical conclusion of your response would lead me to understand that you believe we should question the integrity of Xander and Pizpie towards the XC project. See? NHZ project has a negative impact on XC. |
|
|
|
Are you delusional?
Collaborations with Qibucks, for example, is completely different from the NHZ project.
I know. If you had read my post, you would have ascertained that. As for the rest of the post, which seems to be making an attempt to showcase how the XC team is flocking to a different platform, I contend that working solely on ones own project completely autonomous from other people would tend to lead to less ideas and slower development. It's a wide range of application that XC is attempting to put together...not just one. And who works for no money? Point is, I think collaboration is a good thing and working by alone is not as advantageous as working with others... You again are missing the point. I agree, collaboration is a good thing and working alone is not as advantageous as working with others. But again, that is completely different than what XC has done with NHZ. XC has divided its resources (Xander & Pizpie). XC has not added "other people" but "divided the people they already had." Big difference. Do you understand this? |
|
|
|
lol u guys just now getting it? xc isn't paying off for the devs so they have to bring their technology / focus other places.
...
I feel like this talking point has been run into the ground. There has been a trend with working with other devs...each coin has a different facet that applies to XC. Qibucks and the distribution of ad content for Web 3.0, Key for the honing of the OS, NHZ for the asset exchange (XC's future decentralized exchange), ... a decentralized asset exchange ... Really, must have missed that one or is MemoryShock correct they wanna use the nhz exchange for the ito issuing. for those addidtional shares issued besides the ones for the XC holders. Dan is looking over that thing to work up to standard. Every coin will have some anon and chat in the future i guess. thats just part of the game and XC is leading that game regarding overall approach. Still easier to buy XC now to get free shares ratio 10/1. they totally fuck up to spread this news to people interested in ITOs though. I don't get the PR anymore but i'm sold on the Technologie and general direction of this project. The underlying platform to all the applications in development is just the best thought out and most comprehensive design. that beeing said they better bring some UI screenshots asap and the working thing short after. And what the fuck happened to the daily updates? Perhaps synechist has be re-routed to the NHZ project as well under a different alias. He has not been as active lately and the daily updates stopped around the same time NHZ stuff went public. Who knows at this point, its all speculation, and that's part of the problem. |
|
|
|
can you name a coin that doesn't? nope cos they all do
i would rank xc as the highest for blind shildom. Probably litecoin & darkcoin as #2/#3. really does crack me up what your devs are doing to your investment and it's somehow all a good thing lol other coins at least don't have their developers pushing other projects that are pretty much in 100% competition and have their shills say it's a good thing lol To be fair, collaborations and code reviews can be good, within reason (keyword = REASON). But things like NHZ project, potential collaborations with utilitycoin (1 week old, anonymous dev, 11 page thread), and code reviews of Ruble (who touts competitor decentralized trustless anon) are absolute foolishness and only hurt XC's image alongside investor confidence. |
|
|
|
lol u guys just now getting it? xc isn't paying off for the devs so they have to bring their technology / focus other places.
like reviewing other anon coins / chat. like taking over nhz. etc, etc.
I feel like this talking point has been run into the ground. There has been a trend with working with other devs...each coin has a different facet that applies to XC. Qibucks and the distribution of ad content for Web 3.0, Key for the honing of the OS, NHZ for the asset exchange (XC's future decentralized exchange), Are you delusional? Collaborations with Qibucks, for example, is completely different from the NHZ project. With NHZ, XC has routed Xander Shepherd (former dev for XC), and Pizpie (Marketing guy) to the NHZ project. And what do you know, the NHZ project is working to build anon transfers, encrypted messaging, and a decentralized asset exchange. Look familiar? It should, because this is in large what XC is attempting to accomplish. Now, explain to me how dividing the XC team to work on a second coin (which will ONLY divide & dilute investments) will be beneficial to XC? The coins roadmaps are nearly PARALLEL. But now XC resources are split and working to accomplish the same goals on another coin. It's fucking stupid. If money is the reason, fine, I can understand that. But let's be adults and say that is the reason. Quit trying to make it seem like this is beneficial for XC, because its not. It would be MORE beneficial if those resources spent time developing and fine-tuning these features for XC. Quit being mindless fanboys and use your heads. |
|
|
|
|
Why is pizpie using his xc email for his nhz coin project? And have you looked at nhz roadmap? It parallels XC.
Seriously looks like a joke. No wonder XC is tanking. The project is confused as hell with team members "split" between two coins, code reviews praising the tech of competitors touting the same tech XC offers, collaborations with shit coins that have no credibility.
You all can keep blindly following Dan but to anyone on the outside these are major red flags.
|
|
|
|
Wow, how did I miss this?  |
|
|
|
...And if this is the stage that you are at, you should not be telling us that you are collaborating, or even potentially collaborating with them.
I really appreciate being kept in the loop personally, whether it happens or not. People need to stop cherry-picking my statements because the main point I was making is that XC has absolutely no business collaborating with a coin such as utilitycoin that is 1 week old, has an anonymous dev, and whose thread is only 10 pages long. Seriously people? Come on... |
|
|
|
If the dev of cloak/CINNI/CRYTPT and every other scam anon coin would actually stick to one coin he would make a very successful one, but he makes more money creating new coins all the time.
This isn't about the best anon coin It's about the best anon communication platform Communication platform? I would have to say none. Coins are a currency. If you want anon comms then its I2p or Tor. Anyways, do you really want your encrypted messages in a blockchain that lasts forever? I certainly would not. Current EM solutions implemented in XC and SDC operate outside of the blockchain. |
|
|
|
If the dev of cloak/CINNI/CRYTPT and every other scam anon coin would actually stick to one coin he would make a very successful one, but he makes more money creating new coins all the time.
This isn't about the best anon coin It's about the best anon communication platform Probably XC or SDC then. SDC's dev, rynomster, was the first in crypto to invent p2p encrypted messaging. However, XC is more established / reputable. At least for now, those are the two coins at the top. SDC & XC's EM solution is very similar, however XC just released testing for Group Chat EM. Then again, SDC just released the first-ever HTML5 wallet last night... and it looks pretty amazing. |
|
|
|
Yes, let's give competitor coins who are touting decentralized trustless anon a code review to help establish their credibility. The more credible decentralized trustless anon options there are, the more appealing XC's decentralized trustless anon looks. Wait a minute... |
|
|
|
Please add the type of communication tech a platform has if you want me to add it.
XC and sdc both have anon msg
Kore has anon VoIP
monero has? Could someone post tech don't have time to go through 1000 monero threads
NXtty has anon msg
Monero has blockchain bloat. Wait a minute... |
|
|
|
...blah, blah, blah...
Again, no commitments have been made to do anything, as far as I can see. Everyone knows Dan does code reviews and will collaborate with other coins. That isn't a secret. When he does, those coins get a pump on the market. the issue in the past is that other coins have announced the review/collaboration before they were officially announced here. When that happens, the XC Community misses out on the opportunity to ride the pump and make some money if they desired to speculate on that coin. All Dan did was give a heads up as to which coins have contacted him for reviews or collaboration in case people here may be interested in investing in those coins to try and make some money. That is it. Plain an simple. IMO. My point is in the foolishness of collaborating with coins such as utilitycoin (1 week old, anonymous dev, thread is 10 pages long...). What do you not understand? The fact that Dan is even considering it is the problem. |
|
|
|
@ Dan Didn't you say that we were not going to be part of supernet?
Yes he did. So the collaboration is likely of a different nature. We will have to wait and see. |
|
|
|
...And I see that you wrote on utility's thread basically asking "if the dev's are serious." Really? This stuff should be done through PM. What do you think the bagholders are going to tell you? And if this is the stage that you are at, you should not be telling us that you are collaborating, or even potentially collaborating with them.
And if he doesn't let the community know what is going on he gets blasted for not communicating well enough. There is no pleasing the needy here. As far as I can tell, utilitycoin is a shit coin with an anonymous dev that is 1 week old. Why the hell would XC collaborate with that? I don't care what they attempt to "sell" you. It's just plain stupid. Where in the quote below do you see where any commitment has been made by Dan?
On a side note, I've been contacted by several dev's on a various list of projects - just wanted to keep the community in the loop
* Ruble Code review
* Britcoin - license rev1 mixer code
* Utility Coin - collaboration
* Supernet - collaboration
Ruble code review - this is fine, Dan's code review service does not impact XC's image in a negative way. Britcoin - don't quite understand this but its probably fine. Utility Coin - Has no credibility and nothing to distinguish it from the 4-5 other shitcoins that are created weekly, and has an anonymous dev. Dan is "gathering information" by posting questions publicly on their bagholder thread, by which he will only receive biashed shill answers. Information gathering should be done via PM, and information should only be made public to us when a definitive decision has been made. IMO, XC should not even CONSIDER collaborating with a coin that is not established (by the test of time) or one that has an anonymous dev. What is XC going to do when the dev of utilitycoin jumps ship for his next coin? Now XC looks terrible. It's just not wise. supernet - this is potentially fine, because they are established, past their initial P&D, and do not have anonymous dev's |
|
|
|
...And I see that you wrote on utility's thread basically asking "if the dev's are serious." Really? This stuff should be done through PM. What do you think the bagholders are going to tell you? And if this is the stage that you are at, you should not be telling us that you are collaborating, or even potentially collaborating with them.
And if he doesn't let the community know what is going on he gets blasted for not communicating well enough. There is no pleasing the needy here. As far as I can tell, utilitycoin is a shit coin with an anonymous dev that is 1 week old. Why the hell would XC collaborate with that? I don't care what they attempt to "sell" you. It's just plain stupid. |
|
|
|
|
XC should really only be associating itself with coins that are established and have non-anonymous dev's (w/o new bct accounts). There needs to be some sort of strict filtering process... come on now. Just because a coin team asks does not mean XC should agree.
And I see that you wrote on utility's thread basically asking "if the dev's are serious." Really? This stuff should be done through PM. What do you think the bagholders are going to tell you? And if this is the stage that you are at, you should not be telling us that you are collaborating, or even potentially collaborating with them.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
