synechist, I am surprised at your low moral and ethics. You and your fud partners fud this thread and many others, only to show other people how stupid you are, it is disgusting the way you desperately argue and try to deny the facts.
Again, here are the facts:
XC does not have multisig tech [edit: under Timerland's definition] implemented. XC dev and its supporters did not even see an XC multisig address until some138 created 2 true XC multisig addresses for them.
They clearly mixed something else as the multig while they did not even realize it.
Again, this investigation is not on how good or bad XC is, or whether XC supported anonymous transfer. These subjects are not part of this investigation. The purpose of this investigation is simple and clear, it is stated clearly in the OP. And now the investigation is concluded with clear facts.
The fuds will never ever change the facts!
To repeat myself once again, you don't have a monopoly on terminology. Who do you think you are? God?
It's incredibly arrogant to call your terminological
preference a "fact". Our preference differs. Deal with it. (In fact, terms are never "facts". They only describe facts. So you're on very shaky ground there.)
XC uses the term "multisig" to refer to transactions that require multiple parties to sign in order to be valid. This is a common scenario with any new technology: what to call it? It's new, and so there are no words for it. In this case we decided that our tech is best termed a multisig transaction that is distinct from a multisig address.
If you don't like our usage, well you'll just have to accept it anyway.
You don't get to decide. Because you're not God.
P.S. You don't know what FUD is do you? It stands for "fear, uncertainty and doubt". To have a differing opinion to yours is not to spread FUD. Perhaps it's you who needs to use terms correctly.
Show Posts
