Hello, is on this coin Proof-of-Stack ? ...if itīs possible I want to let my coins work for me  Yes, we are only POS now. 3.3% per year. Stake starts at 8 hour to 30 days. THX, I istalled the walled,..bockchain is sync, ...the Coins are on the wallet confirmed (+1.000),..walled is unlocked,but if Iput the Courser on the right botton to the two hammers, I get the massege: "Not mining because you donīt have mature coin" Whatīs wrong ;( Welcome! Fortunately nothing's wrong. :-) Just wait - your coins will age until they're mature enough to stake. After than you can expect them to stake at time intervals between 8 hours and 30 days. You don't need to run your wallet continually. Just start it up once every few days. (The best strategy is to start using it to message people privately because then you'll be running it anyway.) For regular and consistent payments, send chunks of 50 - 500 coins to different addresses. Make sure you send each chunk in a single payment. For more info check out the how-to. |
|
|
|
And stealt addresses are comming:)
Great addition layer for anon but ....
If I pay someone anon. And not even the chain shows the coin's received how do you settle discussions between buyer and sender? What if that "whatever" seller claims they never received my payment?
Simply speaking, you can't verify anything with 100% anonymity. This makes sense though. I mean, if you want to verify something (trustlessly) then you have to make information public. If it's public it's not anonymous. My guess is that single-use publicly known addresses are the sorts of things that retailers will need to use. Stealth addresses are no good for both seller and buyer, since there's (generally) a mutual interest in payment confirmation or tracking. Ultimately the flexibility that XC will offer with its privacy solution will be something like: - separate control over disclosing amounts and addresses - either amounts or addresses (or both) can be made public, private, or known only to sender and receiver. This way we'll be able to provide appropriate solutions to any given use-case. Makes perfect sense to me. Otherwise it's monkey logic - how to make the impossible possible because everything is possible or the more popular interpretation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg. Indeed. Let's sketch a scenario here: - I want to pay someone - I don't want to publicly reveal my address - I don't want to publicly reveal the amount paid - I will need to prove to the recipient that the amount has been paid - If the product/service I'm paying for is not delivered I want the option of using this proof of payment to demand a refund or otherwise seek redress. - The recipient does not want to disclose his/her address - The recipient does not want to disclose the amount received - The recipient needs proof of payment before providing the product/service Solution: - Sender uses multipath to conceal the amount paid - Sender uses trustless mixing to conceal the address paid from - Sender sends to a single-use address that (s)he is in control of - Recipient provides a publicised address but will receive payment on a stealth address, thus concealing the address received on - Sender then makes a public payment to the recipient's publicised address that is recorded on the blockchain as successfully sent - In the event of a dispute, the sender can sign a message proving to be the owner of the public key associated with that address. This involves disclosing - at least to the recipient and possibly also publicly or to a mediator - the address and the amount. As such, users will be discouraged from engaging in illicit transactions due to inability to dispute publicly should products or services not be delivered. So that'll work pretty well - and I haven't even need to use XChat, which would come in handy for other scenarios. Secondly, when XC starts on smart contracts there'll be an additional tool at our disposal: escrow service nodes (which earn fees for forwarding/arbitrating multisig transactions). Now that'll be powerful. There'll be no conceivable situation we can't engineer optimally. |
|
|
|
And stealt addresses are comming:)
Great addition layer for anon but ....
If I pay someone anon. And not even the chain shows the coin's received how do you settle discussions between buyer and sender? What if that "whatever" seller claims they never received my payment?
Simply speaking, you can't verify anything with 100% anonymity. This makes sense though. I mean, if you want to verify something (trustlessly) then you have to make information public. If it's public it's not anonymous. My guess is that single-use publicly known addresses are the sorts of things that retailers will need to use. Stealth addresses are no good for both seller and buyer, since there's (generally) a mutual interest in payment confirmation or tracking. Ultimately the flexibility that XC will offer with its privacy solution will be something like: - separate control over disclosing amounts and addresses - either amounts or addresses (or both) can be made public, private, or known only to sender and receiver. This way we'll be able to provide appropriate solutions to any given use-case. |
|
|
|
|
Oblox you completely missed the thrust of my last post.
I'm NOT trying to open the floor to discussing your issue further.
In fact I was clarifying why your issue is not some sort of evidence that XC isn't at the stage it's supposed to be at.
The whole point is that pre-rev 2.5 these isolated issues are to expected.
So let's clarify, in the hope that you'll get the point and move on.
- XC is not claiming to be completed.
- XC's Privacy Mode is not in its final state.
-The first Rev 2 release was the initial, not final, implementation of multipath. Therefore it carries no implication that it's complete. How do you not get this?
- For XC's privacy solution to be implemented and working it is not required that it work in every scenario and for everyone. There's a large gulf between "working" and "100% working". Nobody ever gets to 100%. Nobody sane claims 100%. Even overambitious idiots would not claim 100% for a development phase that is still in progress.
We are where we want to be. Therefore you have insufficient warrant to harp on about this. Please just drop the issue, enjoy XChat, and wait like the rest of us for Rev 2 to be completed.
|
|
|
|
Oblox, what's your agenda?
You know full well that Privacy Mode is a Rev 2 thing, that XC's doing XChat now, and that we'll be finishing off Privacy Mode with the final Rev 2 update LATER.
So why do you persist with this?
For heaven's sake.
OK, so if privacy mode is not supposed to be working until Rev 2...what is Oblox saying Dan was going to help him with?  Rev 2 was released on 7/7/14. Dan's using Oblox to try identify whatever bug (or human error) is the culprit there. However Rev will only be finalised (that is, all features completed and bugs sorted out) at the final Rev 2 update which is yet to come. So Privacy Mode is working already. Just not for our insistent friend Oblox. And this is to be expected before XC moves on from Rev 2 to Rev 2.5. |
|
|
|
But i must also say that I thing we have to fix a lot of small problems and maybe bigger ones. I don't want to post it here because I am afraid that I really found a bigger problem. Would like to give a report to Dan or someone from the team.
I highly suggest you PM Teka or Synechist, they usually check and answer PMs, a simple reply in the thread is likely to remain unnoticed Yes, PM me or reach me on XChat using the details in my signature. |
|
|
|
|
Oblox, what's your agenda?
You know full well that Privacy Mode is a Rev 2 thing, that XC's doing XChat now, and that we'll be finishing off Privacy Mode with the final Rev 2 update LATER.
So why do you persist with this?
For heaven's sake.
|
|
|
|
About to get back onto social media and do my thing, I sent a couple emails to coindesk too. Great work! |
|
|
|
Hey xcoiners! (x-currers?)
I just saw an article on XChat. I was wondering if the XCurrency Devs released any whitepapers or logic diagrams detailing the whole process.
These will come around Rev 3. Here's a sketch for now though: - User A wants to send a message to user B - User A gets pub key of user B - User A encrypts a packet which has his own pubkey and sends to to user B - Only user B can decrypt, since the private key of user B is required to decode a message encrypted with user B's pubkey - Now user B has user A's pubkey, and can encrypt and send back a message. |
|
|
|
Hey guys, I would like to add something. A lot of times its been said that current price doesn't matter. I can tell you that statement is completely faulse. Current price and an upward trending price matter a lot. Any "investor" wants to see a continued return on investment. If they don't, they walk away. If they walk away, they don't usually come back. It becomes too risky because history says its a bad bet. Also, even though day traders and whales have a tendency to dictate the market, in the end without bitcoin we might as well be trading vegtables. If we want XC to overtake bitcoin one day, investors are key. They want to see innovation and development. They won't mind donating a few XC to a marketing campaign or what have you if it in turn helps put money in their pocket. I work for an investment firm, so I know what I'm talking about. You can't pitch something to an investor without showing them evidence that their investment will payoff. So...... Get out there and spread the word about XC. Anyone that has privileged information that is allowed to share should. If you let these forums go stale without any updates to intise people to jump on board, then you can kiss your investment goodbye!
Current price doesn't matter. Fullstop. I'm not going to go personal on this, but I very much doubt you understand this space in comparison to actual institutional investing. As you are someone who works for an investment fund, you must realise this space is completely different from traditional markets. This whole idea of a pump and dump philosophy can easily be paraphrased to cover short term investment decisions, something which this space I'd argue is 90% full of. While in comparison real world markets are completely the opposite. This completely changes the market dynamics to a point where actual price isn't reflective at all of actual value. The current price is more reflective of a lack of short term opportunity, rather than a reflection of actual innovation and value. The thing is, the innovation is what will set the long term price. The issue is that the innovation one isn't fully complete, and two hasn't been advertised. When Rev 3 comes out, and the system is fully functional, expect a huge amount of long term investors to get involved as the true value is realised. This will stabilise the price allot higher than it is now. Honestly, as an ex institutional investor myself, and working alongside institutional investors, we won't even consider setting a sell point until the price breaks 0.01, and until the long term investment arrives and the price is stabilised. We believe with near 100% confidence this rise will be extremely sharp, it just needs a catalyst. See DRKs rise for a prime example. As at now, even just based on Rev 2, XC outperforms DRK as an anonymous technology, it also, in our eyes, where extensive due diligence has been conducted, has a considerably more capable team. The fact XC built a better system in six weeks compared to DRKs six months is testament to this. On top of this, you have major innovations planned such as staking wallets, VISA cards and a revolutionary collaboration with PoBC. While we have very little understanding of what this entails, if it is what we think it is, it will change the entire alt coin space in a more significant way than PoS did. And these are just the innovations we understand, Web 3.0 and Blockchain 2.0 sound just as groundbreaking. Anyways, to all this dying crap. I can outright tell you this coin won't die. While all the short term investors might sell, long term investors like myself and the investors I am in contact with believe in this project far over any other as an investment decision. We know exacly where its going and exactly what sort of return we will get. To summarise, if we have to spend $3 million and outright buy the majority of the coins in circulation we will. We believe in this project 100%, and most importantly, we believe in the team 100%. Heres a warning for all the short term investors, I'm heading back to London in two weeks and ill be allot more active then. Ill also be sitting down with some very important people once i settle to discuss alternative investment strategies for their personal funds. All im going to say is be very careful. Buy while the price is low. Don't miss the boat. We don't want to build a monopoly on the coins in circulation but unless other people want to bite, we will. These are big fish. And we are most likely not the only big fish examining this space and watching the situation very closely. Ill end on this, how long do you think the competition can stay ahead of us when we innovate faster and better? There will be a day of reckoning, I gaurentee it. Media exposure or not, technology is black and white. Exposure will happen. Ill see you all when we hit 0.01 To the team, keep up the great work guys. Ill be seeing you all in person some time soon. Take care, Michael ^ Bump ^ - this great comment from mike x 3 still stands in my mind. Look forward to hearing from him soon. +1 |
|
|
|
Organiser, this issue's relevance to XC has been settled. Please acknowledge this and stop repeating yourself.
I've followed your remarks on the Litecoin thread and am not enamoured of your approach.
I'd appreciate it if you'd not transplant it here.
[Old-ish FUD] Turns out you were not even a customer of Jasin's ASIC project. And your allegations about Cache are neither substantiated here nor relevant to this thread. Substantiate them elsewhere and post a link here. In the meantime we'll continue to suspect your motives given you're not an affected party. |
|
|
|
any one pls send me a message:
Xchat Address: XD8zNqiufb7Tu4i3oQYZMwZBDZtYrumkxA
public key: dNCiZRSqtrAPJTzhSuWrdyMvhCwWWYCnDPJhqZmQF1pU
THANKS
Sent. |
|
|
|
I was a big critic of the keycoin review but i have to agree here . if done carefully reviews can be beneficial. Keycoin wasn't gold but this time could be different. As suggested before I hope you look over it in case Dan writes it and tweek it from a PR point of view.
Also as a passionate developer that Dan is its probably fun to look at other code . i understand that. in order to keep productivity up for your own project taking some off time for some brain candy is actually beneficial.
Its a bout timing and execution from a PR pov
Yes, I think this suggestion is valuable. I'll put it to Dan. Thanks Hoertest. |
|
|
|
if you can't see why someone in my position would be frustrated with extra time being devoted to outside projects, well, that just sucks.
I'm on a massive university network with some unknown sort of filtering, and privacy mode doesn't work for me. So I'm in your position! And a code review is not for the sake of other projects. It's for XC. Like I said, it's marketing gold. I hope this satisfies you. |
|
|
|
I think we should move on from this, gentlemen. It sounds like oblox and Dan will be able to take a look at things this afternoon, and until then there's not much discussion to be had. No sense in rehashing this over and over until there's something to discuss.
+1 |
|
|
|
And that would have been fine but now there is another code review happening. How the hell does that relate to XChat? That's my point. If the sole focus is XChat, then XChat it is, but if you have time to take on another issue/product, then you have time to look into the issue I am having.
You don't get to decide Dan's priority list. Not saying I should have to. The priorities should be obvious. What's obvious is the number of people here who don't consider your view obvious. IMO code reviews are marketing gold for XC. And I'm the PR person, so my view counts in this respect. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
