Seriously no one can explain to me why XC dev gave bitcoin to loljosh?
You know why. You know why when there is 12 minute block times. Seriously, ATCSecure hired him to do some of the leg work. It would make sense that arguably the best dev in the alt currency world wouldn't want to waste his time building the base when he needs to focus on the much more technical stuff. No doubt he has vetted it all and it's all fine. Now he's focusing on making this the most anonymous cryptocurrency. Nothing shows fear more than bashing the competition. Please, for the love of god, look at his CV. If you think someone like that lets loljosh near anything apart from the basics you have no idea how these people think. You don't get to where he has by paying other people to do the advanced stuff, you build that yourself. When you guys have world firsts in technology development and worked for companies such as IBM, come discredit his way of doing things then. loljosh's code underpins the entire coin - would you try and put a ferrari engine in a shitbox. No because the chassis, brakes, suspension would not be able to cope. You want quality - you start with quality. Doesnt matter what whiz bang features the dev promises. Bullshit. When you've worked in a string of Fortune 500 companies you'd understand. Aslong as the basics are there, people don't waste there time on shit like that, it's not worth their time. Loljosh's coding skills are excellent, and have been proven many and many times over. Arguing his coding is shit is absolute crap. Gotta hand it to you Mike, you do make sense Well I've been fortunate enough to work with people with CV's like ATCSecure's and trust me, you don't fucking argue with how they do things. People like that are the sort that build magic that revolutionises industries, you give them space and let them do what they do best. You start pegging them down with useless bullshit like building base code and your wasting their talent. I understand your point and you are right about the hierarchy that is needed to be innovative and the fastest but the way you are going leads to an ensuing loss of power of judgement for the people following the dev and for new investors. As you have been around in cryptoworld for quite some time i guess you should know better about the transparency needs of every new coin coming up. It s essential no matter what genius created it. Fuck transparency. Seriously. Who are we to argue about the details? Until anyone here knows even one tenth of what a person like that knows, they sit back and relax, and enjoy the fact people like this are working on a project like this. You name one other Dev in the crypto world apart from statoshi himself who has the credentials he does? You don't argue, you don't bicker, you sit back and relax. I couldn't care what he's done, all I look at is the results he is producing, and time after time he has delivered. In less than a month he has done what took darkcoin five, and trust me, in a months time imagine what he will accomplish. Sit back and relax. You don't argue with your CEO and you definitely don't need to know what he's doing when he produces results after results. +1. That's a pragmatic outlook; those who lack it most likely allow FUD to compound itself in their minds until they see all manner of scary possibilities in an obvious side-issue that can have no bearing on the value of XC's dev. Secondly, the dev has responded already. Why press him for another response? It would be more reasonable to stop being afraid of the dark and just enjoy the quality of the dev's work. |
|
|
|
Could this look any more perfect?
Going to break down this triangle Fair enough, but if I had any more BTC to spend on this coin, I'd be thrilled to have you trade on your opinion :-) |
|
|
|
Logo submission:  that links to your c drive. Hah. Sorry. Tiredness is getting to me. Give me a moment... [snip] This is a pretty rough mock-up, but the concept is that as the "x" and the "c" overlap each other, they cancel each other out, leaving nothing there. It's symbolic of the anonymity this coin will provide. (Also, it looks like the sort of logo a hifi manufacturer from the 1970s would use, which is my kind of retro.) Additional factors taken into consideration are that logos should be super-simple and clear, that current logo design tends toward minimalism and anti-skeuomorphism (i.e. logos not looking like fake versions of real-life stuff), and that the less 3D effects, textures, and tiny details you have, the better for these purposes. That said, I don't consider this logo to be done to my satisfaction, but deadlines are deadlines. If people like it, I'd be happy to continue working on it. |
|
|
|
Logo submission: that links to your c drive. Hah. Sorry. Tiredness is getting to me. Give me a moment...  This is a pretty rough mock-up, but the concept is that as the "x" and the "c" overlap each other, they cancel each other out, leaving nothing there. It's symbolic of the anonymity this coin will provide. (Also, it looks like the sort of logo a hifi manufacturer from the 1970s would use, which is my kind of retro.) |
|
|
|
Logo submission: that links to your c drive. Hah. Sorry. Tiredness is getting to me. Give me a moment... |
|
|
|
Logo submission: |
|
|
|
Would people need to be members before they can vote? (In which case, add me.) |
|
|
|
Has anyone else been watching the charts at Mintpal? There is some strange activity going on with the XC prices and the buys and sells. I kinda get the feeling that a lot are being bought up and the guy doing it is trying to be discreet. It's like the price just flatlined but very carefully, kinda like the calm before the storm.
Some would say that what's been going on is price discovery. Of course there's no basis to differentiate from price discovery and the skilful simulation of price discovery, but fortunately the effect will be the same (that is, breakout), since market participants perceive the same price action and act accordingly. |
|
|
|
|
Chaeplin may be a conceited gloater, but it remains an open question whether he does in fact have some clever trick to identify sending and receiving addresses. I'd say this is unlikely, but since it's imperative that this coin is bulletproof, it's necessary for us to see his method fail.
Let's just use his ego in future: come up with a new version and invite him to track transactions. It would, of course, be better if we got him to provide proof, but in the absence of that, he will still perform a useful function. Hell, he'll even do it for free.
So I'd vote for keeping the little dickhead around.
|
|
|
|
After sitting on this quite a bit last night, I really began to see exactly what the Developer has in mind so I will try to explain it the simplest and best that I know so others may begin to understand more. ATC, please comment whether this is on the right track or not as I am trying to clear some things up. The Xnode1. Every wallet on the network is capable of being an "Xnode" depending on the amount of coins that are held in that wallet - current suggested is 1000 minimum, but that may change. 2. The "Xnode" is essentially a decentralized mixer that passes the transactions through to the next "Xnode" until it is received by the intended target. 3. Keeping your wallet open without the "Xnode" option will pay the 3.33%/yr POS. 4. Keeping your wallet open with the "Xnode" option engaged will pay additional transaction fees on top of the POS. 5. Acting as an "Xnode" will incentive users to keep wallets open and active strengthening network security. A concern that was raised yesterday was that the pass through transactions are visible to users, and that a wallet modification would be able to intercept and steal the coins. This is where the muli path paradigm comes into play, along with the additional network layer or "XC Alpha". 1. According to the OSI Model - http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/OSI+model - There are 7 Layers to the Network stack. The currently titled "XC Alpha" will add an 8th layer that will essentially come in between layer 2 and 3. The initial request and encryption is initiated on this layer putting the transaction in motion. 2. Once the transaction is initiated, an on demand "Xtunnel" will be created connecting the requester to the Xnode pool. It is within this tunnel that transactions are transactions are submitted to the pool network where the coin mixing is processed and deliverd to the receiver. At the current time, The additional layer is not in place and that is why users can see transaction processed through their wallets, and they are currently unencrypted?? Once the "XC Alpha" has been fully integrated, users will not see the transaction as they currently do, but they will see it in a similar way that they see the current POS transaction. These transactions will be fully encrypted and the possibility of stealing the transaction as mentioned would be nullified. The transactions should be represented in the users wallet not as "mined" but as something simply like "X" (just a suggestion). In this manner, they will be able to see that the XNODE is actually working and paying out as promised. I hope I am on track here, and I hope this helps to understand more. once again, if ATC would care to comment, edit, or tell me I am full of shit, feel free. +1. Excellent summary. |
|
|
|
I'm enjoying the updated website guys. It'll serve as a good primer / FUD canceller for those new to the coin. That said, I think XC could be presented in far more compelling ways. For example, the multi-path paradigm is a major selling point and needs to be covered since (a) it's new, (b) it eliminates bloat, and (c) it represents the main credential that the dev is in a position to substantiate without revealing more of his personal identity. So I volunteer to write some professional copy for http://xc-official.com/. PM me and we can work on it. It's imperative to present XC as clearly as possible given the onslaught it's getting here. |
|
|
|
|
Nice one. This will be a relief. Thanks.
If you get an ETA for the next update from the dev, let us know.
|
|
|
|
Strangely I am having a problem to log in. Does anyone here has the similar problem?
---the details of the problem------
1. I can access bitfinex and surf the website.
2. when I click the buttons of log-in or sign-up, there are no pop-up showing up.
3. Then I try to click the button of open account, a pop-up window showed up.
Could anyone help and explain what is happening? Thanks
me too, login is broken using ie11. site works with firefox. Same with me. Login is broken on IE11. Works with Chrome. |
|
|
|
The guy behind bitplastic has a profile on this site: "Moriartybitcoin". https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=166158 Maybe contact him and link him to this topic. Bitcointalk can help to keep services accountable to the "community" here. Best of luck straightening this out. (And while you're at it, maybe ask him to reduce his crazy card issuance fee. 0.28 BTC! What for?) |
|
|
|
Heh. I must admit I laughed too, despite it being aimed at me.
Good comedy, HammerFist, though perhaps not the sort of thing that facilitates constructive discussion.
Way to go synechist - Three cheers for you. Too many wimps in the world run crying to grandma. At least you get it. I suppose it is easier to laugh when you don't really have red hair. lol Yeah, it can frustrate me too when people act as if the world should take liability for whatever they do. For anyone to actually support the idea - and the sort of bureaucratic nannying that results on a societal scale - is beyond me. It ends up limiting personal freedom way too much. Take the UK for example. So yes, let's all be responsible for our actions. You'll be surprised to know that I do have red-ish hair. And my wife is a redhead. But I make a point of trying to understand people from their perspective rather than just reacting and getting defensive about mine. Maybe if I was less sure of the truth of my position - or less secure in my identity - I'd have taken offense. But now that that's out of the way, let's discuss the facts openly. First off, I think learning the technical details of how Mastercoin works is not analogous to learning that hot coffee is hot. It's a whole lot more difficult and a whole lot less familiar to a mere bitcoin trader with no coding or computer science background. Secondly, this thread didn't actually say "don't use web wallets". It said "don't use web wallets like Mt. Gox, but the Blockchain wallet is ok." The situation was anything but black and white. So I don't think my error is a case of someone blaming the maker of hot coffee for it being hot. It's like a Kickstarter campaign where if you make a particular mistake in filling in the form, you're screwed. |
|
|
|
Are you out of your mind?!!! WTF? Did you blame your mother . . .
(abusive flame deleted)
HammerFist's flame made me laugh, but I still deleted it. If I ever need someone to write a flame for me, I'm coming to you, man. Heh. I must admit I laughed too, despite it being aimed at me. Good comedy, HammerFist, though perhaps not the sort of thing that facilitates constructive discussion. |
|
|
|
I don't want to express this in isolation from the fact that I love the work that Dacoinminster, you, and others are doing. It's fascinating and, I think, important. But this only makes me want to be part of it more. Now because of what's happened, I can't. And I think something ought to be done for people in my position.
You could have just asked if Coinbase would work, somebody would have been more then willing to look into that. Also I haven't heard any other reports of this issue. I am a bit annoyed that you are shifting the blame and won't take responsibility for your own errors. This is the last I will say about this since it's really not my place to 'defend' the way Mastercoin did it's fundraiser. If Coinbase will let you sign a transaction hit me up with a pm and I can probably create a raw transaction that they can sign for you that move the MSC to an other address you own. Thanks Tachikoma. That'll be hugely appreciated. I'll keep you posted. I do admit blame. Apologies if I did not give enough weight to this in the way I expressed things. (Incidentally, I couldn't ask about Coinbase because I was still a brand new member and wasn't allowed to post yet. To add irony to the situation, Blockchain wallets were down, and Armory was downloading the blockchain and wouldn't have finished before midnight on Aug 31st. Coinbase was my third of what I thought were the three viable options.) |
|
|
|
I was mistaken. But I think that there was a significant lack of clarity about what would and wouldn't work. A simple list of wallets that wouldn't work would've sufficed. I spent several hours trawling this thread for clarity, but ended up being misled.
I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting your words but; 'Being misled', you almost make it sound like you are blaming somebody else then yourself. I'll be more explicit. What I meant to imply is that while I admit blame, I also think there's a degree of responsibility on the part of those behind Mastercoin's funding initiative to make sure its initial supporters are clear on how not to shoot themselves in the foot. And I do not think there was enough clarity on this point. Mastercoin was launched by people taking on a severe level of risk to commit funds to the project. It ought to be clear how to properly make that commitment. I don't want to express this in isolation from the fact that I love the work that Dacoinminster, you, and others are doing. It's fascinating and, I think, important. But this only makes me want to be part of it more. Now because of what's happened, I can't. And I think something ought to be done for people in my position. |
|
|
|
You will have to get access to your private key in order for any of the other methods to work for you.
...There is no way to get the Mastercoin funds out of there without either a option to send multiple outputs in a transaction, getting the private key of your address or getting the public key and an option to sign a raw transaction at Coinbase.
Ok, from Coinbase's perspective, they'd have to implement these transaction classes for users, because they don't give users private keys. I'll relay this to Olaf from Coinbase, who's been sympathetic, though unfortunately unable to get me out of this mess. I think we should start a thread to address this issue. It would warn people about it, and help others who, like me, are victims of the decision to only support sendmany transactions - which was not made known until after the window period to initially buy Mastercoins came to an end. To have supported this project and subsequently found that the Mastercoins I bought are locked ad infinitum is a horrible thing. Something should be done about it. I'd just like to add that the problem here is NOT the sendmany requirement, but the requirement that you be able to send FROM a particular address, which coinbase doesn't give you. Even if coinbase added sendmany support, you would still be stuck. People who invested from Android wallets (which don't support sendmany) have reason to be annoyed, but they can still get their MSC by exporting their private keys. I've tried to make this requirement (to not use web wallets which don't give you access to private keys) clear any chance I get. I'm truly sorry that you invested without reading a bit more about MasterCoin's specific requirements. Thanks, Dacoinminster and Tachikoma, for your responses. Tachikoma, I've not known about the possibility of signing a raw transaction at Coinbase. I'll definitely try that one on Olaf, and report back. Dacoinminster, I'm no expert and so I'll be the first to admit to being mistaken about what one shouldn't do with Mastercoin. However I did read the majority of this thread before 31 August to try to understand what I was doing, but, as it turns out, I ended up with the wrong idea. I was clear that an Mt.Gox wallet wouldn't offer "full control" over my addresses and therefore wouldn't work. However a Blockchain wallet would work, even though it's a web wallet. Unfortunately I found no clear description of what "full control" constitutes, and so I made the mistake of assuming that because Coinbase supports address creation and retains a list of addresses used, that this was a sufficient level of control. This conclusion was based on the fact that Mt.Gox addresses associated with my account are not retained for me to access, whereas Coinbase addresses are. So yes, I was mistaken. But I think that there was a significant lack of clarity about what would and wouldn't work. A simple list of wallets that wouldn't work would've sufficed. I spent several hours trawling this thread for clarity, but ended up being misled. |
|
|
|
You will have to get access to your private key in order for any of the other methods to work for you.
Ok, from Coinbase's perspective, they'd have to implement these transaction classes for users, because they don't give users private keys. I'll relay this to Olaf from Coinbase, who's been sympathetic, though unfortunately unable to get me out of this mess. I think we should start a thread to address this issue. It would warn people about it, and help others who, like me, are victims of the decision to only support sendmany transactions - which was not made known until after the window period to initially buy Mastercoins came to an end. To have supported this project and subsequently found that the Mastercoins I bought are locked ad infinitum is a horrible thing. Something should be done about it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
