Could you please remind, what prevents malicious party from creating so many Xnodes that it would allow them to see the majority of private transactions? As far as I understand, there are no specific requirements (like 550 XCs before) so it's fairly easy for one party to have like 99% of the network nodes.
If doesn't matter how many Xnodes one person owns: trustless mixing makes it impossible to steal coins. |
|
|
|
Why not set a bounty for GUI design??? think about what we did for XC LOGO.
I think wallet UI inheriting from BTC is really ugly!!!
Current GUI just like a win95 application!!!! FUCK!
The UI for Rev 3 is going to be incredible. Work on this is already underway. You should get a preview of it sometime around Rev 2.5 as per the roadmap. ;-) |
|
|
|
there is very little to it and its unclear what was delivered.... Again just my opinion..
Fair enough. In that case I'll say it again and keep saying it: The full Rev 2 has been out since 7/7/14
The final Rev 2 will just be refinements and UI improvements
Rev 2 includes an unprecedented world-first: trustless mixing
Rev 2 is multinode multipath: transaction fragments are sent to multiple nodes and then mixed and forwarded trustlessly
Private transactions are multisig and nodes cannot steal coins
Every XC app is an Xnode
(You don't need 550XC to run an Xnode)
XC's anonymity level is ridiculously high. There's nothing like it. |
|
|
|
Its not what you say mate, its just that was what was posted by Dan and was basically the release message for REV 2..
I am well aware you have since added to that numerous times, but that was the REV2 release message that many people waited to see... And what I am saying is, this is the reason for the confusion.... This was read by a lot of people who came to see REV 2 released, and that is what Dan wrote...
This is why I would (personally) like a REV 2 statement out of Dan to say - yes its out, it does all of these things, as I cannot find that information from him as a formal announcement to update his initial REV 2 announcement....
Just my opinion but I think this is the root of the problem.
My opinion is that if Dan were to post here, stating that Rev 2 functionality has been out since 7/7/14, so few people would notice it that it would make no greater difference than my numerous posts. I also don't think that a statement from Dan will make people believe what I say. It's not as if anyone has a reason to mistrust me or anyone else on the team. It's just that too many people don't pay sufficient attention to the facts and then spread misinformation. |
|
|
|
I'm on about we were promised a fully working xnode anon on the 7th
Quote from: jasinlee on July 20, 2014, 12:27:21 PM
It has been tested and works, just be patient.
that was a reply from yesterday by jasinlee, where I asked when we were getting our "FULLY WORKING XNODE SYSTEM"
We were promised a fully working Xnode system by the 7th.
And so... what part of "it has been tested and works" suggests that it's not the full multipath tech we promised? It is the full multipath tech, plus an unprecedented addition: trustless mixing. Also this was ages ago. Since then I've told you personally several times that the full Rev 2 is working and downloadable. hello synechist, Committing a release date is not a good strategy for a new product, especially for a new technology. Just like scrum management is not fit for new software development, you should know if you are a software engineer, since there'll be a lot risk you cannot estimate. But that doesn't mean you guys could not report progress you have achieved on these working days. Actually I made a daily report of my task and send to my team everyday. We don't need tech details on how thing going, but a task title you've addressed today. I think it's not hard to do so. thanks. Yeah, that's a good idea. Thanks. I'll discuss it with the team. |
|
|
|
Dear XC Community,
We apologize for missing our deadline, but want to emphasize that the XC team is committed to delivering a world-class product.
The download link for the REV2 beta release, which is fully decentralized, will be posted shortly for testing.
Dan
Synechist - that is what was posted on the REV 2 release date - and this is the reason (IMO) why everyone is confused.. You are saying REV 2 is now out on main net and not beta etc etc etc... Im not sure ATC has ever confirmed it? I think the above is the reason why people think it is still in beta, or not released, or whatever else they think... Personally I think the whole REV 2 release has been handled badly... I still hold and I still support but I do think updates need to be more regular and clearer... Not just a token chart to satisfy us.. Its 2 weeks since the above, we have had loads of people join the team, with great CV's and we are just interested to know what is going on.... Also re timescales, I agree 100% you should not be nailing yourselves down too rigidly, but equally you need to give some idea of when things can be expected, even if it is just the month..... If XC is to be run like a business, which I think is a good idea, then it does need to be accountable, especially in cryptoland... I look forward to whatever is coming next and seeing XC do what I know it can do. Why are you quoting a message that gives virtually no information about what Rev 2's functionality? I've said countless times that the full Rev 2 functionality is out, and yet people seem to still not get it. You need updates to be more regular and clearer? I'm pretty much always on this thread and updates have been continuous. How much more do you want? As I said last night, personally I'm quite happy with broad timescales for updates, but in this case the dev team has been so overworked that they've not had time to even consider timescales. And as I said a couple of posts ago, I don't see how not giving dates reduces investor confidence in the slightest degree. It might reduce speculator confidence. And what it'll definitely do is allow that whale to keep dumping on our news. |
|
|
|
I'm on about we were promised a fully working xnode anon on the 7th
Quote from: jasinlee on July 20, 2014, 12:27:21 PM
It has been tested and works, just be patient.
that was a reply from yesterday by jasinlee, where I asked when we were getting our "FULLY WORKING XNODE SYSTEM"
We were promised a fully working Xnode system by the 7th.
And so... what part of "it has been tested and works" suggests that it's not the full multipath tech we promised? It is the full multipath tech, plus an unprecedented addition: trustless mixing. Also this was ages ago. Since then I've told you personally several times that the full Rev 2 is working and downloadable. |
|
|
|
stop saying "it will be released when it's ready and not before" this is a sucky attitude to have, and does not inspire investor confidence.
How, specifically, would this make people less confident that'll something will come out? I don't think it will decrease confidence in the slightest degree. What it will do is: - launch another series of accusations that we hype too much (see MikiMikeMike's comment last night - and refer to it when you discuss this topic because it's bad faith to just leave out views contrary to yours). - kickstart the pump & dump train leading up to the next release. What giving dates out won't do is stop some mysterious whale dumping on our news. This has happened with every piece of pre-announced news for weeks now, and is the real reason for what the price is doing. We haven't let anyone down; someone just wants to prevent good news from putting the price up. Solution to all three above? Stop giving dates for releases. End. |
|
|
|
any news on the "updated wallet with improvements to the private transactions feature"?
Rockstahh this came out a couple of days ago: Rev 2.45. Did you not download it? We reduced transaction times for private payments from 30 minutes to 4 minutes, along with a bunch of smaller technical improvements. Cmon, get the latest wallet and send people some private cash! |
|
|
|
We're currently at 140k  How many other people thought that we would get a fully working Xnode system on the 7/7? not just me? We have been confused for the last two weeks, quite a few people thought the Dev would deliver this last night, but nothing was delivered, did he even deliver the update for the Privacy UI? This is why the price is sucking right now. I'll be honest i'm on the fence with XC right now, this is why I sold half of my holdings, this may change either way over the next week or two. Leigh we spoke about this yesterday. What on earth is motivating you to persist in thinking that you don't have a fully working Rev 2?? For heaven's sake, Rev 2 Xnodes are FULLY WORKING. All that's happening now is refining, adding UI, etc. The final Rev 2 is more than the full Rev 2, it's a refined Rev 2. The full Rev 2 is out! Also what the hell would make you think that the "Privacy UI" was coming out last night? Dan's post refers to "improvements to the private transactions feature" which is what he released a couple of days ago, reducing private transactions from 30 minutes to 4 minutes. Please, please adjust your expectations to what we actually say. Otherwise you disappoint yourself, confuse others by propagating misinformation, and of course dump on the market for no reason other than your misperceptions, further depressing sentiment. Again, REV 2 XNODES ARE FULLY WORKING. Do you get it now? |
|
|
|
Re: PoS
I don't know what Dan's opinion is, but if a service is not interested in adopting BTC, they are almost certainly not going to use XC. I appreciate you agreeing with my post (and relatedly appreciate the work you do), but I'm not sure you read my post carefully as a central point is that PoS is a (nearly) complete waste of time. PoS is offered by large, slow moving corps to boring retailers and used by clueless consumers. It's pretty much the worst channel to target with a cutting edge CC.
Good targets are channels and services that have adopted BTC but would be significantly better off with an anonymous currency. This is dark markets, internet payment platforms, etc. Decision makers at these services get CCs, and are the most likely to be receptive to XC's value proposition.
By contrast, the brick and mortar world is filled with decision makers that aren't even interested in BTC! Anyone not interested in BTC is not interested in XC, full stop. The advantages of XC (anonymity, potentially other features) do not COME CLOSE to overshadowing the advantages of BTC (massive existing adoption and ecosystem, name recognition, higher price stability, etc.) such that if I am not interested in BTC I might be interested in XC.
The areas to target are areas where BTC is understood and adopted, and XC offers clear advantages or at least is an easy to offer alternative. I.e. existing internet payment platforms and any ecommerce services used by highly privacy focused users.
Yes, you're right about the cluelessness of traditional POS markets. The thing is, this only matters if you have to integrate new tech into the POS platform. With NFC payments, an XC mastercard, and in-app XC purchases with fiat, there'll be no need for any backend integration. So it's an incredibly efficient way to get massive market penetration, and it'll lower the barrier to entry for normal non-techie people right down to the floor. But to my broader point about the issues with PoS, that functionality doesn't have market demand and piggy-backing on existing payment networks doesn't solve the issue (and by the way, any piggy-backing service is centralized, which we are not supposed to like). So for example, if I am choosing between swiping my XC (mastercard) card and my normal mastercard at Target, what do I get out of using the former? The XC mastercard service presumably debits some XC account I have to fund the dollar payment it makes, which is fine, but why is that better than just debiting an account with dollars in it? Is it because the XC mastercard service does not bother to confirm my identity before making dollar payments on my behalf? That seems like it would run afoul of anti-money laundering regulations. Even ignoring that (probably dealbreaker) issue, if I am so privacy conscious that I won't use BTC or Visa, why am I comfortable making purchases in XC in person at Target in front of a security camera? And shouldn't I just be using actual cash at this point? I just can't think of any situation where a user wouldn't be comfortable using BTC or Visa on a PoS terminal but WOULD be comfortable using XC. So what is the value proposition of PoS? All good points - and let me emphasise that we're certainly not going to ignore online marketplaces that accept cryptocurrencies. That idea is solid. As for Mastercards and privacy, storing funds in XC is a great way to retain control over your privacy, and if you can then use it anywhere without disclosing your savings or accounts in general, it's a pretty good deal IMO. Surrendering some privacy in exchange for mainstream convenience is what will appeal to the average user. Secondly, think about how this stuff comes together: mobile wallets + POS integration is what so many BTC users want but don't have. The "average" non-techie user isn't so fussed about privacy that (s)he won't use a mastercard. They just think Bitcoin is cool, interesting, cheap, and on the side of the individual vs. the authorities. With XC, this comes together even more powerfully. And if we're on mobile and are POS integrated then the value proposition seriously gets going. P.S. Aha, I should've mentioned: privacy is not XC's mainstream marketing point. Useability, fast transaction times, mobile wallets, powerful apps, and real-world integration will be. |
|
|
|
Yes, you're right about the cluelessness of traditional POS markets.
The thing is, this only matters if you have to integrate new tech into the POS platform.
With NFC payments, an XC mastercard, and in-app XC purchases with fiat, there'll be no need for any backend integration. So it's an incredibly efficient way to get massive market penetration, and it'll lower the barrier to entry for normal non-techie people right down to the floor.
Exciting times ahead, those all sound amazing. Arlyn thanks for everything, I know we ask a lot out of you (some more than others lol). Thanks Driv3n. Heh. People have such high hopes for XC, and such battered trust from other altcoins, that it's not always feasible to make everyone happy. But hey, the future is bright. I've really got nothing to complain about. :-) |
|
|
|
The post-rev 3 era with mobile staking, interchains, and point-of-sale integration is gonna blow the scene apart.
can someone explain me what these are, sounds yummie  Let's just say that - as networks are to the internet - so are blockchains to interchains. - This is full-on Web 3.0. Interchains are Jasinlee's invention, currently being developed. It's my understanding that the concept is built upon PBoC. |
|
|
|
Re: PoS
I don't know what Dan's opinion is, but if a service is not interested in adopting BTC, they are almost certainly not going to use XC. I appreciate you agreeing with my post (and relatedly appreciate the work you do), but I'm not sure you read my post carefully as a central point is that PoS is a (nearly) complete waste of time. PoS is offered by large, slow moving corps to boring retailers and used by clueless consumers. It's pretty much the worst channel to target with a cutting edge CC.
Good targets are channels and services that have adopted BTC but would be significantly better off with an anonymous currency. This is dark markets, internet payment platforms, etc. Decision makers at these services get CCs, and are the most likely to be receptive to XC's value proposition.
By contrast, the brick and mortar world is filled with decision makers that aren't even interested in BTC! Anyone not interested in BTC is not interested in XC, full stop. The advantages of XC (anonymity, potentially other features) do not COME CLOSE to overshadowing the advantages of BTC (massive existing adoption and ecosystem, name recognition, higher price stability, etc.) such that if I am not interested in BTC I might be interested in XC.
The areas to target are areas where BTC is understood and adopted, and XC offers clear advantages or at least is an easy to offer alternative. I.e. existing internet payment platforms and any ecommerce services used by highly privacy focused users.
Yes, you're right about the cluelessness of traditional POS markets. The thing is, this only matters if you have to integrate new tech into the POS platform. With NFC payments, an XC mastercard, and in-app XC purchases with fiat, there'll be no need for any backend integration. So it's an incredibly efficient way to get massive market penetration, and it'll lower the barrier to entry for normal non-techie people right down to the floor. |
|
|
|
[real world adoption]
You've basically summarised our whole outlook. Real-world adoption is the key to XC's success, and this comes down to quality marketing and to effortlessness of use. At present our main thrust though is to make XC usable at any traditional point of sale system. That's pervasive real-world usability that will outdo Bitcoin's current penetration. +1 thanks, arlyn. watching you guys operate on this forum for the past weeks, i really don't need a roadmap ...let alone an eta. i'm just happy to ride your shirtails  Thank you! All I can say is: The post-rev 3 era with mobile staking, interchains, and point-of-sale integration is gonna blow the scene apart. |
|
|
|
Another opinion on the roadmap: We need to spend more time thinking about adoption as a payment platform. Right now we have an indeterminate timeline to the fully featured v3 release (which is mostly focused on technology), plus some hand-waving at ATMs and PoS. That statement is a bit brusque but it's also true.
No one should care about either ATM or PoS, and frankly no one on the XC team should be spending hardly any time or energy on it. What fraction of BTC usage is via either of those two channels? Less than 1%? The reason for that is because the idea that you can offer a solution remotely competitive with WF or Visa or whatever is a joke. What would be far more valuable is discussions about areas we can add value with e.g. the OpenBazaar guys, or various internet payment platforms that have real transaction volume and currently only offer BTC / LTC / etc. Are those discussions occurring? Are we waiting to have those discussions until we reach certain technology milestones? Whats the plan?
Basically, Dan is a smart guy, but so are plenty of others devs working on anon, and it's not reasonable to assume that XC technology will be so far superior that it will be adopted over other solutions just because it exists. And at some point you need actual adoption by non-miners / non-investors or we are just trading among ourselves which is not sustainable. I guess I'm kind of giving a betamax vs. VHS speech here, but it matters and getting a workable product that people are actually using for payments is not only a massive differentiator against other anon coins, but also at some point a requirement of success.
You've basically summarised our whole outlook. Real-world adoption is the key to XC's success, and this comes down to quality marketing and to effortlessness of use. At present our main thrust though is to make XC usable at any traditional point of sale system. That's pervasive real-world usability that will outdo Bitcoin's current penetration. |
|
|
|
No, please don't. Release dates create speculation bubbles, this in turn creates volatility and ultimately discontent. Lets just enjoy the fact we have an excellent team working on an excellent project and enjoy the steady rise in value.
Anyways, Keep up the great work synechist. It was a great idea to employ you and your doing an excellent job, as are the rest of the team. Im really looking forward to Rev 2.5 and then Rev 3. Current belief is a value of $25 million to coincide with the latter, this doesn't include any potential bitcoin bubble either.
Really happy with everything that's going on here. Hopefully once I'm done on my travels I can come meet you guys in person at one of the conferences to express our gratitude.
Take care guys, hope you all have a splendid week.
Hello Mike! Always a pleasure to have you drop in on the thread. Ha ha. Yes, I've even contemplated simply surprising people with news, with no warning or roadmap, so that the price is always driven by what's actually released. But that has its own problems, of course. Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm super-excited about the future too. P.S. Definitely come to the next conference we're at. That'll be great. I suppose we'll be letting the word out about our calendar at some point before Rev 3... |
|
|
|
they are making a new secure feature for anon that's yet to be announced, if its a new key feature, another world first for example, a public bounty would have allot more impact alongside its release, as well as with a PR campaign.
Business wise it makes perfect sense.
On a side note, keep up the excellent work synechist.
Thanks Mwalshe. Yeah, there's some smart stuff in development. Obviously we can't reveal anything until it's actually done, but it's a clever one. Also, for some perspective, Rev 3 is the foundation for XC. The stuff coming afterwards, like interchains, is much more significant. Web 3.0 significant.Just want to reiterate this aspect of the updated timeline because people seem missed what's significant: NEW TECH. |
|
|
|
they are making a new secure feature for anon that's yet to be announced, if its a new key feature, another world first for example, a public bounty would have allot more impact alongside its release, as well as with a PR campaign.
Business wise it makes perfect sense.
On a side note, keep up the excellent work synechist.
Thanks Mwalshe. Yeah, there's some smart stuff in development. Obviously we can't reveal anything until it's actually done, but it's a clever one. Also, for some perspective, Rev 3 is the foundation for XC. The stuff coming afterwards, like interchains, is much more significant. Web 3.0 significant. Just want to reiterate this aspect of the updated timeline because people seem to have wanted dates and thus missed what's much more significant: NEW TECH. |
|
|
|
Given the price now, it would appear many are not happy with this update?
Perhaps dates tied to milestones would help boost confidence Arlyn.
In any business, a project with dates tied to milestones always ensures success. Estimate dates with contingency added should be doable in any project. I understand your opinion on this but you should admit a roadmap is not really a roadmap if you don't know how long it would take to get there and when you will arrive?
I would be interested to know if Dan shares your same sentiment on this as I understand you speak for him and the team?
btw: thank you for your great communication today its been helpful.
Sure. I'm ok with broad estimates. The dev team have pushed themselves so hard of late that they haven't been in a position to assess timescales. Not that this matters. We're on Rev 2.45 already. And XC has always had an insane rate of development. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
