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. |
|
|
|
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. My scenario above implies that a bad actor will have insufficient incentive. This is arguably ok. I am also awaiting the white paper. |
|
|
|
+1 really nice ideas there mate....everyone just forget the price, or trying to figure out why the price is were it is, this is the sort of stuff we need to be talking about, the more progress that is made the more people will notice it and the price will reflect this, so just forget about market statistics, and speculation, it really isn't important right now this is a long term hold and if people can't see that, they dn't deserve to make money on it who cares if the price drops below 100k, we should be focusing on making XC perfect instead of trying to work out the price, advertisement and making XC the top coin in alts and crypto in general is number 1..price comes latter, it's almost like getting added to all these exchanges was a curse, it's like people just think it will all come together, Our DEV can only do so much, lets help him as much as possible
Thanks man :-) |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
Nobody is concerned that basically all Gmaxwell's criticisms apply equally, if not more, to XC?
XC doesn't even purport to be trustless, and the overall implementation hasn't even been comprehensively described.
As he has said cryptonote and zerocash technology are the only novel and workable decentralised and trustless solutions thus far. A 'dynamic trust network' is neither trustless (the whole point of bitcoin and derivative technologies) nor decentralised since it relies on certain nominated nodes to provide specific tasks.
Everybody seems to be drinking a nice big cup of smug over the weaknesses of darkcoin (of which there are legion) while avoiding taking a look in their own back yard.
Yes, I think it would be valuable for the XC team to engage seriously (and respectfully) with Gmaxwell's post. In fact, we should invite him to review XC's tech when it's more fully developed. It would be a real opportunity to benefit from his expertise. I also think we should take his criticisms seriously when developing the coin. Is there a better model than the dynamic trust system? Can we come up with one? Perhaps, and we'd do well to consider it long and hard. that's a good idea. Gmaxwell is an expert on Anonymous technology.  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? Edit: Gmaxwell's post is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=641178.40 |
|
|
|
Nobody is concerned that basically all Gmaxwell's criticisms apply equally, if not more, to XC?
XC doesn't even purport to be trustless, and the overall implementation hasn't even been comprehensively described.
As he has said cryptonote and zerocash technology are the only novel and workable decentralised and trustless solutions thus far. A 'dynamic trust network' is neither trustless (the whole point of bitcoin and derivative technologies) nor decentralised since it relies on certain nominated nodes to provide specific tasks.
Everybody seems to be drinking a nice big cup of smug over the weaknesses of darkcoin (of which there are legion) while avoiding taking a look in their own back yard.
Yes, I think it would be valuable for the XC team to engage seriously (and respectfully) with Gmaxwell's post. In fact, we should invite him to review XC's tech when it's more fully developed. It would be a real opportunity to benefit from his expertise. I also think we should take his criticisms seriously when developing the coin. Is there a better model than the dynamic trust system? Can we come up with one? Perhaps, and we'd do well to consider it long and hard. |
|
|
|
Price is falling down like yesterday same time.. I think it will be another crash and panic sell soon
Don't think it will crash like yesterday. There is now much more buysupport around 100k then yesterday. Price has been following the 1 hour 30-period EMA since the breakout yesterday. Price broke through the 15-min and 30-min EMAs, and stopped short of the 1 hour one. I think there's a fair likelihood that the rising trendline from 0.001 yesterday will hold until it converges with the descending EMA. Then there'll be another breakout beyond the 1 hour EMA; if Elliot Wave theory is anything to go by, it'll be a fair bit bigger than yesterday's wave 1. |
|
|
|
Looks like someone just took that advice on mintpal! This may turn into a third attempt at a breakout from the 30-period EMA. If it succeeds and the next candle closes above it, get in there.
Frying pan bottom. Confirmation of uptrend would be a breakout close above the 30-period EMA. This is looking good. Yep, turning from bearish to neutral. Indecisive sellers. I certainly hope so - that or an uptrend. I've been staring at this chart waiting for a signal that my position is safe from further dumping for way too long. Next hurdle: line of resistance at 0.00115. I don't expect it to succeed first time around, but you never know. To give an indication of the strength of this bull run: - it broke the 15 minute 30-period EMA at first attempt. - then it broke the 30 minute 30-period EMA at first attempt. - it's now tackling the 30-period EMA on the 1 hour chart, and it's looking strong. Outlook: very positive. Pullback off the 30-period EMA on the 1 hour chart. I like it: it'll prevent too steep a climb. Anyone still interested in buying coins should probably do so round about now. Ha ha. I sincerely hope someone with that amount of money doesn't need my advice. |
|
|
|
This may turn into a third attempt at a breakout from the 30-period EMA. If it succeeds and the next candle closes above it, get in there.
Frying pan bottom. Confirmation of uptrend would be a breakout close above the 30-period EMA. This is looking good. Yep, turning from bearish to neutral. Indecisive sellers. I certainly hope so - that or an uptrend. I've been staring at this chart waiting for a signal that my position is safe from further dumping for way too long. Next hurdle: line of resistance at 0.00115. I don't expect it to succeed first time around, but you never know. To give an indication of the strength of this bull run: - it broke the 15 minute 30-period EMA at first attempt. - then it broke the 30 minute 30-period EMA at first attempt. - it's now tackling the 30-period EMA on the 1 hour chart, and it's looking strong. Outlook: very positive. Pullback off the 30-period EMA on the 1 hour chart. I like it: it'll prevent too steep a climb. Anyone still interested in buying coins should probably do so round about now. |
|
|
|
Thanks guys.
Thank you Mike. You're like the oracle of XC. Thanks to you I've got 60% 70% more coins than I had before. |
|
|
|
This may turn into a third attempt at a breakout from the 30-period EMA. If it succeeds and the next candle closes above it, get in there.
Frying pan bottom. Confirmation of uptrend would be a breakout close above the 30-period EMA. This is looking good. Yep, turning from bearish to neutral. Indecisive sellers. I certainly hope so - that or an uptrend. I've been staring at this chart waiting for a signal that my position is safe from further dumping for way too long. Next hurdle: line of resistance at 0.00115. I don't expect it to succeed first time around, but you never know. To give an indication of the strength of this bull run: - it broke the 15 minute 30-period EMA at first attempt. - then it broke the 30 minute 30-period EMA at first attempt. - it's now tackling the 30-period EMA on the 1 hour chart, and it's looking strong. Outlook: very positive. |
|
|
|
+1 Provenceday! Also 10m on my transaction CHEERS! Indeed. Well done folks. You spurred this breakout to new heights. The timing is uncannily good, in fact. |
|
|
|
This may turn into a third attempt at a breakout from the 30-period EMA. If it succeeds and the next candle closes above it, get in there.
Frying pan bottom. Confirmation of uptrend would be a breakout close above the 30-period EMA. This is looking good. Yep, turning from bearish to neutral. Indecisive sellers. I certainly hope so - that or an uptrend. I've been staring at this chart waiting for a signal that my position is safe from further dumping for way too long. Next hurdle: line of resistance at 0.00115. I don't expect it to succeed first time around, but you never know. |
|
|
|
This may turn into a third attempt at a breakout from the 30-period EMA. If it succeeds and the next candle closes above it, get in there.
Frying pan bottom. Confirmation of uptrend would be a breakout close above the 30-period EMA. This is looking good. Yep, turning from bearish to neutral. Indecisive sellers. I certainly hope so - that or an uptrend. I've been staring at this chart waiting for a signal that my position is safe from further dumping for way too long. |
|
|
|
This may turn into a third attempt at a breakout from the 30-period EMA. If it succeeds and the next candle closes above it, get in there.
Frying pan bottom. Confirmation of uptrend would be a breakout above the 30-period EMA. This is looking good. Flat, which is good . Means dust is settling. Eventually the investors will get bored and start pumping again. Nice thing is it did hit my low sell. Still lost a little bit where it sits now though :/ If this 15 minute candle closes above the 30-period EMA we could be onto something. |
|
|
|
This may turn into a third attempt at a breakout from the 30-period EMA. If it succeeds and the next candle closes above it, get in there.
Frying pan bottom. Confirmation of uptrend would be a breakout close above the 30-period EMA. This is looking good. Ha! Now look at that. |
|
|
|
This may turn into a third attempt at a breakout from the 30-period EMA. If it succeeds and the next candle closes above it, get in there.
Frying pan bottom. Confirmation of uptrend would be a breakout close above the 30-period EMA. This is looking good. |
|
|
|
|
This may turn into a third attempt at a breakout from the 30-period EMA. If it succeeds and the next candle closes above it, get in there.
|
|
|
|
[snip]
XC(xcoin) need to have currency identity and symbol..... X
as you can see bitcoin logo don't need to be creative/fancy and the WOW factor. bitcoin is simple.
I don't think it's a matter of having something sufficient; it's a matter of being excellent, always. |
|
|
|
...don't think there is an outstanding design in the submissions.
+1. I don't think it's a good idea to design a logo without first creating a brand identity and narrative. its 2014 only way to make a logo is make a bounty and whack it up at http://99designs.com/get the professionals to compete... i think solid and cryptodruti are at 99designs level, they just haven't put it in 3d or iron or something. but the arrangement is great Guys, is this not a cart-before-the-horse scenario? Getting a logo hastily and without a cohesive brand strategy will just come across as patchy and unprofessional. don't overthink this, its a cryptocurrency with a bad logo and it needs a nice new one , thats it, the brandof xc is beeing best in fundamentals and beeing visionary in new features imo, the logo just needs to look cool in webshops, ranking sites and merch. and it just needs to be up to standard I'm all for a bare-bones approach. Totally. What I mean though is that the role of branding, PR etc. is to clearly communicate the fundamentals. I'm sure you'd agree that they've been mostly obscured by FUD lately. We need good communication, and it's not hard to do properly. (In fact I've suggested to the Dev that I take it on.) Check my posts, me and some other guys have been begging for a professional approach to the brand identity so many times. I just gave up. I m holding because of dev, but the PR has been a total desaster and there is no willing to change it so far. It s just sad to see such great developement with such a shoddy marketing. Hope that changes soon. There is no real winner in this logocontest for me too. I have hope. Yesterday the dev posted something asking about ways of co-ordinating the community to get things done. It wasn't specifically concerned with branding or PR, but after the past two weeks I doubt anyone hasn't realised how important it is to get this stuff right. There is a professional group involved w/the branding, I should have more details later this afternoon Great news! Keen to hear more. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
