Yeah, personally I don't doubt XC's legitimacy at all and I'm mainly just curious about it as I hadn't seen it comp up in conversation here recently.
Check out Yahoo Finance for a clear introduction to XC. If you have more questions, ask away. |
|
|
|
the main argument for closed source is that the distribution of the coins is non-optimal, otherwise you would not need to protect would you?  I don't follow your reasoning. How would a coin's distribution affect its policy on open source? |
|
|
|
- we'd avoid causing clones, which reduce the trustworthiness of the altcoin phenomenon
Whatever the other merits of your approach, this one is silly. There are hundreds of altcoin clones, with countless more released every single day. Whether or not your particular pet coin gets cloned or not makes no difference at all to the overall phenomenon. I disagree. It's not a problem to have boring old clones around; what's a problem is clones with some sort of copied breakthrough tech, but with devs who lack the ability to develop it further. The latter situation allows P&D scams that can seriously mislead investors, due to actually having some decent tech to start from. We want to avoid this. The regular ol' crapcoin is no real problem. |
|
|
|
Why would the code not be open sourced? That's a bit scary. Any reasonable explanation as to why they would choose this path?
So that its not copied before they're sure of their implementation and have gained a significant lead. Not reasonable in my opinion but its the argument of the closed source coin backers of which I am not one. Three reasons to go open source on a delayed timeline: - the community will still benefit from our work - we'd reduce the incentive for developers to flood the marketplace with clones that lack a long term future - we'd avoid causing clones, which reduce the trustworthiness of the altcoin phenomenon |
|
|
|
heres an excerpt from todays IRC
<theoretical> So if this coin goes to $10 You could make a extra 15 coins a day if you heavy stake some good blocks
Wouldn't these sorts of fees cause undue dilution of the money supply? |
|
|
|
They are all calling for discussion on coins without complete open source code to be banned now. *sigh* I don't think Risto would possibly take such action. We still need to get the word out. Agreed. I don't think discussion of XC will get banned. We have a fair and mutually beneficial policy on open sourcing our code. I've posted this on the thread, so they'll all appreciate it now. My hope is that fruitful discussion will ensue. |
|
|
|
[...]
Hi, here is the REV 1 trusted mixer implementation source code. The coin now has multi-path trustless mixing (still not open source though) and every wallet is a potential node.
Risto, I propose that you make a rule to forbid discussions about closed-source alts in this thread. These are really not worth our time. +1 on that Closed source can be everything and nothing. When and if they open source I think maybe someone can peer review it and then we can discuss it further. XC makes their code open source on a delayed timeline. For now, you can all review the mixer we released yesterday. Traders and investors can consider whether it's worth getting in early while the breakthrough tech is yet to be made public. When we launch Rev 3 there will be a big public bounty to provably break XC's anonymity. I have been in XC from the start , but sold on the bubble. I personally declare it vaporware like I have done with DRK until a peer review on the code has been done and it has been opensourced. Trustless mixing is currently working. The latest XC app is Rev 2.45. You can download it here and test out a "privacy mode" transaction yourself. Track the results in a block explorer. This is hardly vapourware. For the record, external testing, and public testing for a big bounty are happening around Rev 3. And, also for the record, here is our statement on open source:
XC is committed to the open source model. Open source code is vital for the health and advancement of cryptographic technologies, and it is a privilege to share our technical breakthroughs with a community such as this. We believe that XC's code embodies several world-firsts enabling anonymity that is scalable, mobile-friendly, POS-integrated, and is ultimately a platform upon which a broad range of Blockchain 2.0 technologies will be built. However we have been under severe attack from competing projects. Furthermore people’s faith in altcoins is significantly hindered by clones. Therefore we believe that the ethical way to engage with the community is to make code available on a delayed timeline. This way, the community will still benefit from our work, while we'd reduce the incentive for developers to flood the marketplace with clones that lack a long term future and reduce the trustworthiness of the altcoin phenomenon. XC represents several market-leading innovations, and we are honoured to make these available to the community in the near future. |
|
|
|
[...]
Hi, here is the REV 1 trusted mixer implementation source code. The coin now has multi-path trustless mixing (still not open source though) and every wallet is a potential node.
Risto, I propose that you make a rule to forbid discussions about closed-source alts in this thread. These are really not worth our time. +1 on that Closed source can be everything and nothing. When and if they open source I think maybe someone can peer review it and then we can discuss it further. XC makes their code open source on a delayed timeline. For now, you can all review the mixer we released yesterday. Traders and investors can consider whether it's worth getting in early while the breakthrough tech is yet to be made public. When we launch Rev 3 there will be a big public bounty to provably break XC's anonymity. I have been in XC from the start , but sold on the bubble. I personally declare it vaporware like I have done with DRK until a peer review on the code has been done and it has been opensourced. Trustless mixing is currently working. The latest XC app is Rev 2.45. You can download it here and test out a "privacy mode" transaction yourself. Track the results in a block explorer. This is hardly vapourware. For the record, external testing, and public testing for a big bounty are happening around Rev 3. |
|
|
|
They are all calling for discussion on coins without complete open source code to be banned now. *sigh* Let them. They don't have to invest in XC. But this would rule out most of the other coins too. Ha ha. |
|
|
|
They are all calling for discussion on coins without complete open source code to be banned now. *sigh* Let them. They don't have to invest in XC. |
|
|
|
[...]
Hi, here is the REV 1 trusted mixer implementation source code. The coin now has multi-path trustless mixing (still not open source though) and every wallet is a potential node.
Risto, I propose that you make a rule to forbid discussions about closed-source alts in this thread. These are really not worth our time. +1 on that Closed source can be everything and nothing. When and if they open source I think maybe someone can peer review it and then we can discuss it further. XC makes their code open source on a delayed timeline. For now, you can all review the mixer we released yesterday. Traders and investors can consider whether it's worth getting in early while the breakthrough tech is yet to be made public. When we launch Rev 3 there will be a big public bounty to provably break XC's anonymity. |
|
|
|
XC also has a premine.
It's "anonymity" is also coinjoin based and the mixers are the user's wallets, so if a malicious entity of agency decided to see through XC's anonymity, they would simply have to create a large amount of wallets for themselves, so that most coins would be redirected to their wallets, and theyll see transactions as clear as day.... along with the fact that in the beginning its "anonymity" was unraveled by Chaeplin (Read XC Unmoderated Thread, where XC's coin mixing wasnt working at all)
(a) Use end-to-end encryption to support transaction broadcasting, secure messaging, and true P2P anonymous transactions.
(b) Upon this is built an optional mixer that testing has shown to eliminate any record in the blockchain of a link between sender and receiver.
(c) This mixer is a revolutionary “multi-path” implementation that employs multi-sig to route fragments of transactions down separate paths through the network, compounding anonymity while adding redundancy and security.
(d) Communication between nodes is optionally via TOR, which obfuscates users’ IP addresses.
Emphasis mine. Legit new tech or same old CoinJoin? Mixers function is similar to DRK masternodes. To chip in here, XC doesn't employ a coinjoin strategy. XC also doesn't have anything akin to masternodes. XC is completely decentralised, and due to trustless mixing there is no need to have a hefty pile of coins to start a masternode. As Gregory Maxwell stated, this is a "security chokepoint" and we have no interest in such a strategy. It is also incorrect that Chaeplin unravelled XC's anonymity. In fact, he partially failed to understand what was being tested, and was unable to show any link on the blockchain between sender and receiver. Here's the post where all this happened. Now that this has been cleared up, here's how XC works:
1) user initiates a transaction 2) wallet requests to send fragments of the transaction to other nodes via end-to-end-encrypted tunnels. (The latter is the Xnode protocol, the former is known as multipath.) 3) multisig between each participating node is set up and passed around for signing 4) multisig enables trust-less transactions as any changes to the signed transaction (ie: a node trying to steal coins) makes the multi-signature invalid - it's not coinjoin, because it’s not centralised or semi-centralised. There's nothing akin to masternodes in XC either. - it's not a ring signature because it's multidirectional 5) if a bad node fails to forward a transaction, then several other paths exist and the tx is sent along one of them instead 6) fragments sent to nodes 7) nodes mix and forward fragments from different addresses to the ones they receive fragments on  recipient receives transaction This is a sketch of the world's first trustless mixer. In other words, henceforth you can pay someone through a third party without having to trust the third party. I'm sure you'll appreciate the magnitude of this development. |
|
|
|
hello, now i have wallet 2.42 in my computer and my coins in that wallet. now i see that wallet 2.45 is available, so what should i do to renew my wallet and dont lose my coins?
Yeah, get the latest version. It's not so much a matter of risk as a matter of reducing privacy mode transaction times from 30 min to 4 min. |
|
|
|
Hi people
Full disclosure: I do PR for XC and don't own Cloak.
However I'm not here to argue, or to tell you that XC is better than Cloak. We all know what an ill-advised idea that would be.
But I'm interested in PoSA. It's a new approach in crypto - which is rare and a signal that you're competent - and I'd like to understand it.
Is anyone online able to explain it to me (and not refer me to the white paper)? In particular, the part about mining an anonymising stake is confusing to me since normal mining faces the risk of orphaned blocks.
If an anonymising stake is mined and then orphaned, how do you prevent the transaction from getting lost?
Alternatively if you wait for the block to mature, how do you maintain fast transaction times?
Finally, if you have to send a whole lot of dust around, how do you avoid bloating the blockchain?
As you've probably guessed, this stuff is new to me. If PoSA works then no doubt you guys have done something very cool. I'd love to give you a chance to show me, and I have no intention of keeping a closed mind about it.
Thanks
Synechist
I think atm it would be better to ask that question in the IRC, where you can catch the devs faster to reply to you. Thanks, I'll try that too. Linked your post and asked if one the devs/testers that know the ins and outs of PoSA to help with your questions. Their currently busy with testing but will post once they are free. Thanks :-) |
|
|
|
Just to clarify my intentions in posting on Cloak's thread: - I want to be able to write about XC's leading tech without misrepresenting other coins' technologies. This will help make our PR more truthful and thus compelling. - I want to engage in respectful discussion with Cloak in order to bolster trust against whatever Pookielax might do to incite a reaction. - In fact, I'm going to continue to inquire about other coins because I consider it my duty to be truthful in my communication. The last thing I want is to misinform thousands of people about how XC differentiates itself from other tech. It's just unprofessional to not be properly informed about what defines XC's position against other projects. - Lastly, it remains possible that some people will interpret my post as if I was personally interested in buying Cloak. But if I was, I could just create a newbie account and find out about their tech without it affecting XC. So why would I do it publicly? My contacting them publicly and with my real username is so that everyone can see how XC treats others: respectfully and with an interest in genuinely understanding them. This goes hand in hand with our having made our mixer code open source yesterday. Crypto is ultimately a collective effort, and XC is only where it is because of the phenomenal achievements that came before it. We're proud to be part of this community, and have every intention of being of benefit to it. |
|
|
|
Hi all
Just to let you know I'm going to post on Cloak's thread. I'm interested to find out about PoSA and how the community members understand it.
I'm not there to tell them XC is superior. I only want to understand how PoSA works, since I don't see how it avoids the risk of transactions getting lost due to orphaned blocks. Let's see what they have to say...
Posted. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637704.msg7965556#msg7965556I hope its is not going to be like it was before the dark-truce Pookie definitely wants to start something.... Let's see how his investment in Cloak do... and how bulletproof Cloak is... Ah well, it takes more than one person, and few people are as volatile and offensive as pookie. Hey maybe that _evolution_ guy and him can join forces. Ha ha. Either way, we've got nothing to worry about. We're not offending Cloak, and they're not an incumbent coin hoping to squash upstarts. Actually I'd like to initiate some respectful conversation with the Cloak people. That'll be way healthier. PoSa itself sounds really interesting and might actually help advance PoS crypto coins in general. XC and Cloak are two coins out of a few that actually have innovation out of the recent coins. Yeah, you never know. I'll reserve judgement until there's a decent explanation of how PoSA works, but it might be legit. Even if it works, I don't see how it's a better approach than the layered one XC takes. Layers are powerful because they're flexible. In XC's case they also compound anonymity. |
|
|
|
Hi people
Full disclosure: I do PR for XC and don't own Cloak.
However I'm not here to argue, or to tell you that XC is better than Cloak. We all know what an ill-advised idea that would be.
But I'm interested in PoSA. It's a new approach in crypto - which is rare and a signal that you're competent - and I'd like to understand it.
Is anyone online able to explain it to me (and not refer me to the white paper)? In particular, the part about mining an anonymising stake is confusing to me since normal mining faces the risk of orphaned blocks.
If an anonymising stake is mined and then orphaned, how do you prevent the transaction from getting lost?
Alternatively if you wait for the block to mature, how do you maintain fast transaction times?
Finally, if you have to send a whole lot of dust around, how do you avoid bloating the blockchain?
As you've probably guessed, this stuff is new to me. If PoSA works then no doubt you guys have done something very cool. I'd love to give you a chance to show me, and I have no intention of keeping a closed mind about it.
Thanks
Synechist
I think atm it would be better to ask that question in the IRC, where you can catch the devs faster to reply to you. Thanks, I'll try that too. |
|
|
|
He doesn't represent the community. We tell people to stop doing that. No reason for coins to bash other coins.
I couldn't agree more. My number one hope is to engage in respectful, mutually enlightening conversation across projects. As you may know, we made our Rev 1 mixer tech open source yesterday. I hope this can serve as a gesture of goodwill toward projects other than XC. So yes, down with FUD and offensive behaviour; up with mutual respect. lol, n00b question here. What is "FUD"? I see everyone using it. Does it mean like non-sense or something? FUD stands for "fear, uncertainty and doubt". |
|
|
|
He doesn't represent the community. We tell people to stop doing that. No reason for coins to bash other coins.
I couldn't agree more. My number one hope is to engage in respectful, mutually enlightening conversation across projects. As you may know, we made our Rev 1 mixer tech open source yesterday. I hope this can serve as a gesture of goodwill toward projects other than XC. So yes, down with FUD and offensive behaviour; up with mutual respect. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
