Pls guys, don t quote these idiots. Keeps the thread clean. Just ignore.
+1. If you reply, remove the FUD from your post and carry on. |
|
|
|
Ignore button is busy tonight.. Probably a sign this is about to rise.
Yup. Why else did these lurkers appear all of a sudden? |
|
|
|
So this might be a good time for another remainder:
[snip]
Nice one. The site looks great. Any chance you can delete this Temrus fellow's FUD? What a wally. As I mentioned after the forum has launched this thread won't be moderated unless it's a must . That being said his FUD is looking more and more like a moderation must. I advise also users to press the ignore button and he has only spoken about trading speculation, no matter if the majority including myself think he's wrong, it's still speculation. I do think however that some of his comments could have been put together better. Fair point. Idiocy is more benign than rumours. All the same, I lament the average quality of discourse on this thread. C'mon people, let's talk about... currency design! |
|
|
|
So this might be a good time for another remainder:
[snip]
Nice one. The site looks great. Any chance you can delete this Temrus fellow's FUD? What a wally. As I mentioned after the forum has launched this thread won't be moderated unless it's a must . That being said his FUD is looking more and more like a moderation must. I advise also users to press the ignore button and he has only spoken about trading speculation, no matter if the majority including myself think he's wrong, it's still speculation. I do think however that some of his comments could have been put together better. Fair point. Idiocy is more benign than rumours. |
|
|
|
So this might be a good time for another remainder:
[snip]
Nice one. The site looks great. Any chance you can delete this Temrus fellow's FUD? What a wally. Ha ha dida too what a douche. ROFLMAO Heh. No, I don't mind Dida. He's being fairly witty. |
|
|
|
So this might be a good time for another remainder: Nice one. The site looks great. Any chance you can delete this Temrus fellow's FUD? What a wally. |
|
|
|
As I indicated, v1.36 was just for testing,
v1.37 will be released tonight, it will require 100 XC's to be an XNode
Also the Encrypted Messaging beta could be released for testing by the end of the week...stay tuned
ATCSECURE
**updated
OMFG +1. The pace of development here is incredible. |
|
|
|
Whats all this talk about the dev moving pre-mined coins out of wallets?
Has this been addressed/resolved?
Yes, he was testing aspects of the xnode feature. |
|
|
|
Mike x 3 - to you still own any XC? Seems like everyone is exiting..
66% of my funds are now in XC, I would have more but diversification is necessary for risk management. Anyways, I have no reason to exit, its near its bottom and its the perfect time to buy in. I couldn't really care less about these minor swings because I know what's going to happen in the long term, I'm sure most of you do too. plus, there is no other investments at the moment that I can guarantee with above 95% success it will return at least double my money within the next two months. I wouldn't be surprised if it quadruples or even more. Trust me, I wouldn't be here otherwise. The only other investment choice I have for the future that can guarantee this sort success is if LTCBTC breaks past the 0.02 barrier around late July time and continues on with its cycle. See below. If it passes 0.02 and holds its confirmation of a new cycle. This probably won't happen until late July, early August. This is my next investment after the next XC bubble if this confirmation is achieved. [snip] Mike are you on tradingview.com? If so, what's your username? - I'll follow your trading analysis. I'm not. I only browse for research purposes. Be skeptical about that place though, some of it is gold, allot of it is shit. Ha ha. Indeed. I've seen all manner of craziness there. I also doubt I'm experienced enough to reliably tell what's gold and what sort-of looks like gold but isn't. |
|
|
|
Mike x 3 - to you still own any XC? Seems like everyone is exiting..
66% of my funds are now in XC, I would have more but diversification is necessary for risk management. Anyways, I have no reason to exit, its near its bottom and its the perfect time to buy in. I couldn't really care less about these minor swings because I know what's going to happen in the long term, I'm sure most of you do too. plus, there is no other investments at the moment that I can guarantee with above 95% success it will return at least double my money within the next two months. I wouldn't be surprised if it quadruples or even more. Trust me, I wouldn't be here otherwise. The only other investment choice I have for the future that can guarantee this sort success is if LTCBTC breaks past the 0.02 barrier around late July time and continues on with its cycle. See below. If it passes 0.02 and holds its confirmation of a new cycle. This probably won't happen until late July, early August. This is my next investment after the next XC bubble if this confirmation is achieved. [snip] Mike are you on tradingview.com? If so, what's your username? - I'll follow your trading analysis. |
|
|
|
Has anyone noticed that mindfox (the guy atcsecure shared code with to be peer reviewed) is now the dev of an anon coin?
Maybe we shouldn't have listened to the DRK trolls who pushed for the code review.
Although it's the multi path stuff (atcsecure's speciality) which will really make XC do special things, which comes out in XC RC 2.
which one? btw, I loved Mike's post, yet again, and I am one more time out of fap tissue :/ Crypt. |
|
|
|
Reading Mike's posts I get the impression himself and his group are adding not selling.....
When then bullets are flying get buying...
Yeah, my bet is that it would take more than a low-volume VRC-related selloff to convince Mike that he didn't get cheap coins a couple of days ago. |
|
|
|
Seriously, allot of money has leaked out of XC in the last few hours into VTC, so much that the price dropped 20%, so you then come here and tell people to transfer their money over to VTC when the dump is commencing. Meaning, they would have to sell out at a 20% loss to get into a coin that's being dumped.
I can't put into words how stupid that is.
I didnt mean now and I didnt even mention buying VRC. I just said it is probably a good idea to diversify into more than one coin. I do like XC at this price but the volume is just too low. I will probably dump the rest of my XC at around 115k if VRC has a good buying oppurtunity like back to 11k. But that doesnt mean I hate XC. There is nothing stopping me buying back into XC in the future, like when they have some news and market volume. Between me and a friend we collectively missed out on around $80k profit by not selling XC near its high because we got too emotional yet I see the professional traders in here keep emotions out of it can easily short a coin in the short term while holding a positive outlook in the long term. edit: Just wanted to add, yes I was very stupid to sell LTC that low but thats because I didnt understand how the markets were being manipulated and I was believing too much in price. But now that I have started trading full time I will not make the same mistake. Firstly, your a bagholder, not people investing now. Smart people sold out ages ago and will begin rebuying now, not the other way around. Secondly, your last few posts on the XC thread, the XC thread, have mentioned VRC a load of times. To the point where I had to check your previous posts just to make sure you wern't some VRC shill promoting the coins pump and dump around the forum. Thirdly, you don't promote diversification when the price is well below its natural low, you promote it when it's climbing exponentially. And you definitely don't do it when the coins price is guaranteed to double in the next month. Fourthly, Its the weekend. Since when has volume not taken a huge dive on a weekend. Finally, if you think LTC's price has anything to do with manipulation then seriously stop trading now. Only people who don't understand how markets work claim the swings that they don't understand are because of manipulation. It's like the kids who don't get their favourite Christmas presents blaming it on Santa Claus. I'm going to use that quote about Santa Claus and manipulation. It's an excellent metaphor. Anyways, this seems like a non argument. If you haven't diversified originally then you shouldn't be investing. People who go 100% in on each investment arn't investors they are gamblers. Also, if you believe for a split second that trading is for everyone it isn't. It seems everyone with access to bitcoins and an exchange now thinks of themselves as some flash Wall Street day trader, and their not. Most people lose money trading. The best advice I can give is unless you know the ins and outs of everything related to trading, don't even bother. The smart people are the ones that know this and chose to be investors instead. They are the ones that skip from investment to investment every few months and make gains upon gains. instead of traders who make periodic gains here then periodic losses there, all the time while playing their emotions more than playing the markets, and 99% of the time, losing out on huge opportunities of exponential gains. Investors though will spend two months doubling their money just holding in a smart investment choice. They do that four times in a year they have 16x what they started with. No traders, apart from a very small amount of us, can beat those returns, and that's only because we have spent years and years doing this professionally. People who don't have that experience are ultimately in for a very bad time, just like the poster above. If he would have just sat back, worked out in and out numbers, and doubled up every few months instead of making trades here and there he wouldn't be sitting at the opportunity loss he is now. Urghhh. Point I'm making is don't become traders. Not in this game. Only a few percent of the people who think they are traders will ever beat investors. Investors are where the smart people are at, traders in this game are mostly wannabes who lose allot more than they could gain. Find two investments. buy at the bottom and hold then, sell at the top. Start again. Rinse repeat. To put this in perspective, I spent years as a professional trader, and I rarely have more than four trading sessions a month. Pretty much all of my time is spent doing research and evaluating my current and future investments. In crypto when you can double your money every two months just by making a smart investment choice, there is near zero need to trade apart from on news or to switch investments. +1 |
|
|
|
Hey, that 19000 ask is back on mintpal. Someone bag it quick.
Ha ha. Missed it folks. |
|
|
|
|
Hey, that 19000 ask is back on mintpal. Someone bag it quick.
|
|
|
|
Nice one Teka. These ideas look pretty useful. |
|
|
|
|
Massive VRC buy wall at 0.00015 just got smashed. Perchance some of that money will head our way.
(Now wouldn't it be convenient if that XC 19000 sell wall on mintpal came back?)
|
|
|
|
Yes you are correct about this. But I am not talking about the current code. I'm talking about the final implementation. There will be changes.
To get back to where I started, I asked you if you can think of ways to make XC work perfectly. Can you think of a way to resolve XC's challenges here?
Conceal sender : can Xnode : can't Please read this : https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_feesJust numbers are different. A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met:
It is smaller than 1,000 bytes.
All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)
Otherwise, the reference implementation will round up the transaction size to the next thousand bytes and add a fee of 0.1 mBTC (0.0001 BTC) per thousand bytes[1]. As an example, a fee of 0.1 mBTC (0.0001 BTC) would be added to a 746 byte transaction, and a fee of 0.2 mBTC (0.0002 BTC) would be added to a 1001 byte transaction. Users may increase the default 0.0001 BTC/kB fee setting, but cannot control transaction fees for each transaction. Bitcoin-Qt does prompt the user to accept the fee before the transaction is sent (they may cancel the transaction if they are not willing to pay the fee).
Note that a typical transaction is 500 bytes, so the typical transaction fee for low-priority transactions is 0.1 mBTC (0.0001 BTC), regardless of the number of bitcoins sent.
Thanks. Interesting. How would you conceal the sender? |
|
|
|
doesn't the network have to agree on what was the initial transaction? Therefore knowing that a bad xnode didn't do what was supposed to do?
xnode owner can change mind. xnode can suffer Windows crash. xnode can suffer power failure. xnode can suffer network interruption. if any one of this happen, coins are gone, belongs to xnode. Truth or FUD? Say. Chaeplin, thanks for your ongoing work on XC. However you appear to not be aware of some crucial details of how xnodes will work. I posted the following on the official thread: ATCsecure shall we discuss how Gmaxwell's post might apply to XC? I imagine it'd be a matter of whether the multi-path paradigm can be implemented without a dynamic trust system, while still preserving XC's ability to avoid blockchain bloat.
Multi-path has incredible possibilities; how about removing/reducing the need for trust with the following (which in all likelihood you've thought of already):
- your specification includes that each xnode only passes on fragments of transactions; this means each fragment will be a small (non-risky) amount.
- what if xnodes have to compete to relay a given fragment? This builds in redundancy, so that if one node attempts to steal the fragment, the others will pass it on. The fastest node gets the transaction fee.
- what if xnodes also can only pass on a single fragment at a time? This way a node would only ever have one fragment, and therefore could never amass enough money for it to be worth stealing.
- Xnodes would then compete for transaction fees by processing transactions faster than other nodes. This way the network would organically improve its capacity.
- At some cost to network speed, the protocol could also set a maximum fragment size to ensure the incentive to become a bad actor is always low regardless of the size of a given payment.
The effect of the above is that xnodes have two options:
- steal a fragment and (a) derive minimal reward, and (b) get booted off the network via the trust system
- or pass on (a) as many fragments as possible in the shortest time and (b) get multiple tiny rewards.
The second of these is prima facie preferable.
However this idea would still be vulnerable to the following attack:
- set up thousands of xnodes
- find a way to steal fragments (I understand this is only a speculative possibility and that there'll be a way of making this exceedingly difficult... however I can't think further about this without more information)
- steal thousands of fragments, delete nodes, create new ones, build up trust, steal more fragments.
I'm unsure whether this attack will be more profitable than just being an honest node; its feasibility will come down to the details. And, fortunately, you decide what the details are.
The security of the network could well depend on this balance of incentives, which is ok I suppose, but its precariousness is analogous to that of mining competition in bitcoin. A systemic solution to the problem would be preferable.
Any suggestions?
I'd like your opinion on this. Can you think of a way to make XC completely secure? ATCsecure said current design is single-path. What is the meaning of single-path ? One xnode recipient address ? If multiple recipient address is used(one xnode or multiple xnode), I can find who is sender, who is receiver. And possibility of bad actor still exist. I am waiting white paper. Yes, the current design is single-path. But I'm discussing the design as it will be when fully implemented.
Yes, single-path passes through only one xnode, if I'm not mistaken.
If a wallet sends fragments of a payment to multiple xnodes, which are all sending fragments to thousands of wallets, I do not think you will be able to find the receiver. But you are welcome to prove that you can.
Useless, thousands multiplied tx fee. Have to limit. Tx is written to blockchain. Have you heard dust threshold ? You said thousands of wallets, payment to payee should be consolidated. Payee will not tolerate with that. My scenario above implies that a bad actor will have insufficient incentive. This is arguably ok.
I am also awaiting the white paper.
Transaction fees will remain the same if they are a percentage of the amount transferred. However the fees would need to be sufficient to justify the expense of running a node, therefore the code would have to be very fast. Yes, transactions will be written to the blockchain. Bigger transactions will probably be split into more fragments; therefore more blockchain bloat for bigger payments. But the blockchain will still be prunable, and transaction size is much smaller than zerocoin. So XC is still a promising design. I meant thousands of wallets other than the recipient's wallet. Yes I know about the dust threshold. It's important to prevent blockchain bloat. I imagine XC will have a dust threshold. Nope. It don't work like that. Each tx should pay tx fee. tx fee is not related to xnode fee. There are two type of fees. 1) Transaction fees 2) Xnode fee https://github.com/atcsecure/X11COIN/blob/master/src/main.h#L32-L41static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/2;
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/50;
static const unsigned int MAX_ORPHAN_TRANSACTIONS = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/100;
static const unsigned int MAX_INV_SZ = 30000;
static const int64 MIN_TX_FEE = .00001 * COIN;
static const int64 MIN_RELAY_TX_FEE = .00001 * COIN;
static const int64 MAX_MONEY = 60000000 * COIN;
static const int64 MAX_MONEY2 = 60000000 * COIN; // 60 mil
static const int64 MAX_MINT_PROOF_OF_STAKE = 0.0333 * COIN; // 3.33% annual interest
Yes you are correct about this. But I am not talking about the current code. I'm talking about the final implementation. There will be changes. To get back to where I started, I asked you if you can think of ways to make XC work perfectly. Can you think of a way to resolve XC's challenges here? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
