Hey folks... Before I head to sleep, here's a tweet you might want to spread: "Most #altcoins down 40% or more; #XCurrency stable. Do you think #XC will be the season's safe harbour?"
https://twitter.com/XCurrency/status/498965441419943937Let's provide all those weary other-coin supporters some secure lodgings. ;-) |
|
|
|
well that's why i started this thread to bring awareness and spark conversation on all things XC related, it just went way off topic, i just don't understand what that guy was saying about POS VS POW?
Since some degree of mutual respect has returned to this thread, I'll venture a response to that POS vs POW post. |
|
|
|
Synechist, please let us know once the OS X XChat issue is fixed. I am impatient to use the first secure communication, that's the reason to ask.
Sure. Dan is working on Privacy Mode today, so you can expect that to be sorted shortly. :-) |
|
|
|
TEKA i appreciate it but not here to make friends i know what Ive said and done... could careless i troll to get cheap coins DEAL With it...
I'll be your friend...if ya wanna be  for those who don't know pookie check out his posting history and find out yourself. coin A to coin B, troll coin A make profit on B. => from coin B to C, troll coin B and make profit on C, ... (now apparently from C back to A?) be carefull with this guy (or girl)... He will stab you in the back when you least expect it. Don't tell you've not been warned Let's not forget pookie & mrboh were the ones faking IRC logs to spread FUD about Dan, Teka, Synechist, and myself. Thats fucking bullshit!!! i didnt do those!!! i have no problem to ownign up to my work or fudding from my account.... some Rando android irc ip planted them in IRC and people just took it and ran Bullshit. If you didn't do it, mrboh did (and I suspect you two are the same person). The fake logs (idiotically) misspelled my name "battbott" instead of "battbot." And when I went to cloak's IRC channel to refute the fake logs, mrboh addressed me as "battbott." You think that's a coincidence? Get real. Proof: Started promoting it outside of Alt world that day  .. im am very tricky troll... alll while i was in here slandering XC and buying more  The plausibility of your statement about having no problem owning up to your own work will be tempered by your assertion (in the tweet screenshot above) that you put out an article that Yahoo Finance picked up. That was PRweb, on my behalf. Your credibility: zero. |
|
|
|
If somebody is unable to differentiate between PoS vs PoW or sees no difference. I understand the difference well. The former secures the network by finding valid hashes of a block that are also low numbers. Since there's no predictable way to find a hash that's a low number, it requires (on average) a lot of computations to find one, therefore a lot of work. Hence "proof of work". In contrast proof-of-stake solves blocks by randomly selecting addresses referring to coins of sufficient age and accruing new coins to those addresses. Both systems achieve consensus in the same sense. And if someone is unable to differentiate between being sold to (XC website) and consensus (BTC website). I differentiate sharply between the two. Consensus is either (a) price discovery in a market, or (b) agreement on the temporal ordering of transactions. In contrast, marketing is how market actors become aware of something. Since you think a website is part of "consensus" rather than about how people find out about a currency, it appears that you don't differentiate the two terms here. Or unable to comprehend what I'm trying to say - then even if I went to the trouble of putting together what you ("XC PR guy") would accept as proper proof that what you are trying to sell is a bad investment (which is probably not possible as it would be a conflict of interest). It would change nothing. Well if you're not trying to convince your readers (which aren't just me), then what are you here for? Go on, convince us. I promise to respond respectfully and to consider your arguments with due seriousness, as I hope this post demonstrates. But until you (or anyone else) can supply a rationale to explain how PoS does not achieve consensus, you have no case. |
|
|
|
What nfc and web 3.0 has to do with a cryptocurrency?
I mean a mobile wallet that supports nfc, while it's nice, isn't a core aspect of a currency right?
Correct, these features are not core aspects of the currency. XC was created for the mainstream, and therefore usability and integration with existing payment infrastructure are necessary. (Now that I think about it, "Bitcoin 2.0" technologies like web 3.0 are kind-of core to the currency...) |
|
|
|
-desperation and nonsense snipped-
Come talk to me in 12 months when you've grown up and the market has taught you how wrong you are. Come to me as soon as you like, just provide argumentation. Predictions of that nature are groundless without argumentation. |
|
|
|
Consensus. Consensus needs a whitepaper. Consensus needs a community (not shills & hype). Consensus needs open source (XC is delayed - I admit ...). Consensus needs proper distribution (not PoS). Consensus needs a simple (and not horrific) website. Consensus needs simplicity - both in product and in communication. Not shiny things that re-invent the wheel "better"
"XC is a currency that you can skype on and the NSA can't find you plus you can buy a USB key. But mostly it's a currency"
wtf?
Consensus ... consensus is why XC is guaranteed to fail. Interesting point... mostly because it's ambiguous. If "consensus" applies to all those diverse attributes, then what do you mean by consensus? In what sense is PoS not fair distribution? In what sense is having a website (whether good or not) related to consensus? Weird post. It's not weird at all. There is a huge difference between SELLING something to somebody (pump). And consensus (currency). Look at bitcoin's website. https://bitcoin.org/en/Look at XC's website. http://www.xc-official.com/Look at all the XC posters. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the difference between salesmanship and consensus. Monroe & Bytecoin are a great example of consensus. (Although Bytecoin did a lot less salesmanship than your coin does.) Monroe fixed the consensus problem. PoS (which is why IMO it will ultimately fail) distributes the coin based on those who hold it. I can understand why "mining" is waste of resources. But (again IMO) it's a necessary one. The idea of energy cannot be created - only transferred is partially at work. Whereas with PoS - any "energy" created is done so by purely by innovation. Look at litecion. Almost no innovation. But tons and tons of wasteful energy behind it give it value (for now anyway). Monroe & Bytecoin are a good example of a coin with consensus caused by distribution problems (Bytecoin). Look at the market caps - the market punishes lack of proper distribution in the long run. Are you are aware of XC's actual distribution of wealth? It's pretty healthy. As for your purported opposition between marketing and consensus, that's a category error. The latter pertains to how value is agreed upon; the former pertains to the discovery of how value is agreed upon. I find the view that PoS does not achieve consensus and thus is punished by the market intriguing. However I've yet to see any actual argumentation for this view. Empirical claims of its truth are incoherent without an intelligible hypothesis as to their connection. Can you supply a hypothesis? |
|
|
|
Nonsense - Satoshi released the whitepaper and received commentary on it before he released the code. Specifically, he released the whitepaper on 2008-11-01, and then he released Bitcoin 0.1 on 2009-01-09. I have no doubt he had a large portion of the code completed by the time he released the whitepaper, but those 2 months gave him time to refine things after discussions on the cryptography mailing list. This is important, especially with a cryptocurrency or other cryptography related projects, because you cannot have knowledge of all pitfalls a priori, and discussions with cryptographers and a peer review process at least allows the major ones to be removed. About the only occurrence I've ever seen of cryptographically sound software being released before the whitepaper was BitMessage where they were both made available within days of each other in November, 2012. The difference is that he knew that no great amount of users were going to have their messages at risk initially, so there was time to fix major pitfalls. Additionally, nobody that got in to BitMessage early had any sort of financial advantage over those that got in later. Doing things the other way round when you are dealing with people's money is not only grossly irresponsible, but incredibly dangerous. That there is closed-source code not even being made available for review is unconscionable. You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that this is a good idea. Satoshi did that before an entire ecosystem grew up around Bitcoin and its many offshoots. To do the same now would, as stated, be obviously unethical. I don't need to reiterate why. As for your remark about releasing closed source code, those who consider it a risk and still invest in XC stand to benefit, and those who don't, do not stand to benefit should XC succeed. That's all it comes down to. "Dangerous"? Of course, insofar as dangerous" implies "risky". Unethical? By no means. But to assert that releasing closed source code is "dangerous" also implies, as far as I can see, that developers should take responsibility for the risks that their investors make. This is just silly. We've been completely open about our policy on open source and any investor would factor this in when they do their due diligence. Come on. What sort of libertarian-paternalist black swan does this position make you? You realise that you just agreed with me that releasing the cryptocurrency before releasing a whitepaper is unethical? Because you did. No I didn't. Perchance you fail to distinguish statements from (your) interpretations of statements? Releasing a whitepaper detailing the cryptography will NOT get your idea stolen. If that were the case, ZeroCoin would have been implemented by someone else. Their whitepaper was released in May 2013, after all. XC is not innovating in cryptography. It's innovating in privacy, scalability, flexibility, and mainstream-friendliness. We released our Rev 1 mixer code recently. Within two days' time it was copied and implemented in another project. So your claim is empirically on weak grounds, and depends for its defence on a unique case (Zerocoin) where the cryptography is (a) so complex that most people can't understand it, disincentivising cloning, and (b) not working anyway, further disincentivising cloning. XC's scenario is closer to the opposite: tech that works is highly valued. While our trustless multipath mixing isn't simple, it's not as hard to understand as a zero-knowledge proof system. Therefore the incentive to clone will be very high. I'm aware of that writeup. It's as badly researched as using the name "X11coin" to refer to XC might suggest. Concerning XC it omits most of the picture and distorts what part it claims to portray. Next. |
|
|
|
Consensus. Consensus needs a whitepaper. Consensus needs a community (not shills & hype). Consensus needs open source (XC is delayed - I admit ...). Consensus needs proper distribution (not PoS). Consensus needs a simple (and not horrific) website. Consensus needs simplicity - both in product and in communication. Not shiny things that re-invent the wheel "better"
"XC is a currency that you can skype on and the NSA can't find you plus you can buy a USB key. But mostly it's a currency"
wtf?
Consensus ... consensus is why XC is guaranteed to fail. Interesting point... mostly because it's ambiguous. If "consensus" applies to all those diverse attributes, then what do you mean by consensus? In what sense is PoS not fair distribution? In what sense is having a website (whether good or not) related to consensus? Weird post. |
|
|
|
First you plan, then you talk, then you publish a whitepaper, then you write code, then you release. Not the other way around.
Nope. First you research, then you code, then you explain it to everyone (via a scholarly paper and other means). Invert this order and you'll facilitate the creation of innumerable P&D coins that the general public will have a hard time distinguishing from the quality projects. And this hinders the entire altcoin phenomenon. To not lend support to XC's way of doing things is, in effect, to lend support to an awfully unethical environment composed mostly of scams. Nonsense - Satoshi released the whitepaper and received commentary on it before he released the code. Specifically, he released the whitepaper on 2008-11-01, and then he released Bitcoin 0.1 on 2009-01-09. I have no doubt he had a large portion of the code completed by the time he released the whitepaper, but those 2 months gave him time to refine things after discussions on the cryptography mailing list. This is important, especially with a cryptocurrency or other cryptography related projects, because you cannot have knowledge of all pitfalls a priori, and discussions with cryptographers and a peer review process at least allows the major ones to be removed. About the only occurrence I've ever seen of cryptographically sound software being released before the whitepaper was BitMessage where they were both made available within days of each other in November, 2012. The difference is that he knew that no great amount of users were going to have their messages at risk initially, so there was time to fix major pitfalls. Additionally, nobody that got in to BitMessage early had any sort of financial advantage over those that got in later. Doing things the other way round when you are dealing with people's money is not only grossly irresponsible, but incredibly dangerous. That there is closed-source code not even being made available for review is unconscionable. You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that this is a good idea. Satoshi did that before an entire ecosystem grew up around Bitcoin and its many offshoots. To do the same now would, as stated, be obviously unethical. I don't need to reiterate why. As for your remark about releasing closed source code, those who consider it a risk and still invest in XC stand to benefit, and those who don't, do not stand to benefit should XC succeed. That's all it comes down to. "Dangerous"? Of course, insofar as dangerous" implies "risky". Unethical? By no means. But to assert that releasing closed source code is "dangerous" also implies, as far as I can see, that developers should take responsibility for the risks that their investors make. This is just silly. We've been completely open about our policy on open source and any investor would factor this in when they do their due diligence. Come on. What sort of libertarian-paternalist black swan does this position make of you? |
|
|
|
Brilliant news! I was going to suggest a few of Tails features be added to the TOR stick, now i presume they are already there. Will deffo check that out later. I was wondering if Tails might integrate XC into their updates in the future? Imagine what exposure this would give XC given how many people use tails for privacy. up until now its only had PGP messaging avaiable. what do you think? Well that would be great. Anyone know the people involved? I dont know the people involved but on this page https://tails.boum.org/support/index.en.html there is a "request a feature" , email address, ICR chat which says users and contributors, so Im sure they could be contacted there. On a side note, is the mobile wallet actually being worked on yet? I know its later in the timeline, but im starting to see staking wallets coming out. was hoping we'd be a first with this  Emailed the TAILS people. |
|
|
|
Well your website makes him look like #2. Whatever ...
Goodluck to you guys. Tired of seeing this shill / marketing thread everywhere. Your thread reminds me of reddit doders. Getting irritating. Pay somebody to redesign your website. It would do your coin good.
Shill? Full disclosure: I'm XC's PR and media liaison. Thus no shilling here. Marketing? Ask me some real questions then. You're very welcome to improve the quality of discourse on XC if it doesn't suit your tastes. |
|
|
|
First you plan, then you talk, then you publish a whitepaper, then you write code, then you release. Not the other way around.
Nope. First you research, then you code, then you explain it to everyone (via a scholarly paper and other means). Invert this order and you'll facilitate the creation of innumerable P&D coins that the general public will have a hard time distinguishing from the quality projects. And this hinders the entire altcoin phenomenon. To not lend support to XC's way of doing things is, in effect, to lend support to an awfully unethical environment composed mostly of scams. |
|
|
|
Brilliant news! I was going to suggest a few of Tails features be added to the TOR stick, now i presume they are already there. Will deffo check that out later. I was wondering if Tails might integrate XC into their updates in the future? Imagine what exposure this would give XC given how many people use tails for privacy. up until now its only had PGP messaging avaiable. what do you think? Well that would be great. Anyone know the people involved? |
|
|
|
i wasnt online for a few days and now again 145k... i cant believe in this low price...
Me2 at first, but have the blockchain in sql, also identified almost 4100 MP addresses (where used in single inputs) Did some queries and Current trading seems an improved me for me. There is a lot more withdrawn in the last two weeks than deposit. Most transfers end in single wallets and stay there for staking. If i have to guess i say that at the moment coins and moving from traders to long term holders. Graph is to big for upload and my plane leaves in a couple of hours. But when im back i have a site online where you all can build queries and visualize the result. That's very positive information! If you post that graph, I'll publicise it hard. A single graph seems nothing compared to an interactive website. It's working in local mode but not hardened jet. Know people that will pentest before going public. Not feel sure enough to open it and go away for three weeks. But had a great time last couple of days clicking away:) How big holders use the XC? did they mine or buy? Do exchanges stake? What adoption rate is/had XC at some moment? Stake small inputs sooner or later than large ones? What % of XC is stable/not moving? Also see a possibility to, in some circumstances identify the change address. That will greatly improve the exchange wallet identification. But first .... im going to a beautiful Thai beach, still 100% in XC and no Internet there, no worries! Hehe. Great idea! But would you post us that graph first? We'll enjoy the website upon your return :-) |
|
|
|
i wasnt online for a few days and now again 145k... i cant believe in this low price...
Me2 at first, but have the blockchain in sql, also identified almost 4100 MP addresses (where used in single inputs) Did some queries and Current trading seems an improved me for me. There is a lot more withdrawn in the last two weeks than deposit. Most transfers end in single wallets and stay there for staking. If i have to guess i say that at the moment coins and moving from traders to long term holders. Graph is to big for upload and my plane leaves in a couple of hours. But when im back i have a site online where you all can build queries and visualize the result. That's very positive information! If you post that graph, I'll publicise it hard. |
|
|
|
I started a thread today on XC anyone who want's to come over and keep it from sinking to the abyss, fell free, a lot of hate for XC it seams...scared competitors i gather, XC is in a league of it's own. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=733254.0Thanks. Give me a shout if you want me to respond to anything on that thread. :-) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
