jbg, there is no point arguing with this paid Monero troll generalizethis. The paid trolls must be losing their minds over losing their income due to the market meltdown. He has no arguments other than offending the members of the XSPEC community, which grows by the hour. Please keep up the good work and ignore the paid whores  I'm a paid troll now? Good god you guys are desperate for a narrative. Here's a narrative: Spectrecoin Devs claim to have solved anonymous staking I ask for proof and get told the dev will explain, dev won't explain how it works. You can try to label me--whatever--but at the end of the day you have a major claim and no math to back up that claim, it's vaporware. And if the devs know they can't build it, it's a scam. Think of it this way, you are getting a reduced price on a world changing technology if the devs pull it off. Too bad you'll have to wait a few months to see if you are getting swindled or not. |
|
|
|
Is Monero mentioned in the OP? Thanks for trying to get offtopic. Optional privacy is the difference and why there can be linkage with spectrecoin--remove that before you claim to be a privacy coin. I understand that ALL addresses should be stealth addresses and the ones that aren't private create richlists and limit the anonymity set. But thanks for trying to read my mind. Back on topic: Does spectrecoin have a solution for anonymous staking? I'm betting, no, when they can't even figure out that all wallets should be stealth if your goal is privacy. |
|
|
|
As for spectrecoin's other features, who cares? That is not what the thread is asking--though I wonder how any coin calls itself private and has a richlist. See "RICH LIST" "LARGEST WALLETS" https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xspec/off the topic of the thread, but as I mentioned already (and as a tiny bit of research could have told you) xspec has both private and public balances. the largest wallets are definitely not accurate, as for any blockchain, and the richlist isn't either as it's impossible to determine private balances to take them into account. just because an (unofficial) block explorer decides to display something, doesn't make it accurate. Optional privacy isn't optimal privacy--even zcash figured that out...eventually. No offense, but if you couldn't figure that out to begin with, I really doubt that you are offering best in class privacy anytime soon. And especially not a major find like anonymous staking. Is there any cryptographer attached to the project? And is there proof they exist and are working with you? I don't trust anything you say atm, so pointless to just make another claim without evidence. |
|
|
|
@spectre_jbg
You have a major claim (anonymous staking) either back it up or continue to get scrutinized. I'm calling scam until your remove the claim or back it up. If what you say is true, then just remove it and get the benefit when you release it. Right now it looks like you want the investors without the scrutiny--sorry, that's not how it works. Big claims come with a lot of eyes watching you.
We're not going to remove a major feature that we're working on from the roadmap just because it makes people ask questions. It would be hard to explain to people what we're spending all our time doing, for one thing. The questions are no problem, neither are the eyes watching. They can keep watching for a few months and then have their questions answered; I don't see any problem with that. Incidentally, when did I ever say I wanted the investors without the scrutiny? If I were in your position, I'd certainly wait until I read the whitepaper before investing. But I wouldn't go around swinging wild accusations of "scam" at a coin that I know very little about. You never needed to say it--it's implied when you complain about it. If you don't like me calling it a scam, post proof and shut me up. I know enough to know anonymous staking is something only a genius could build, and the more you complain about scam accusations and the inability to control your shills, the less genius you sound. |
|
|
|
It is interesting to see that the defenders of Spectrecoin vary in the claim that:
1. Spectrecoin has already its anonymity features.
2. Spectrecoin will implement its anonymity features in Q2 2018.
Here are people who are not related to the Spectrecoin community, such as generalizethis, they say lies and then they themselves refute their lie  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2760432.msg28210253#msg28210253What has already been implemented, and what will be implemented clearly visible on the official website: https://spectreproject.io/roadmap/1. Spectrecoin has already its anonymity features: Ring-signatures, Stealth-addresses, Tor, OBFS4 2. Spectrecoin will implement its anonymity Innovative features that hasn't any other coins in Q2 2018: Stealth-staking I lied? Or you misread? I'm pretty sure you have a tenuous grasp of the English language. Anyway, my point in the OP stands. Whether you like it or not, the dev is promising moon-features without outlining how that moon-feature will work--that's vaporware. And if he's aware that he can't build it (and not just stupid or arogant) that's a scam. You lied that stealth staking is implemented: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2760432.msg28204155#msg28204155you could not even go to the site and see the roadmap, your just anthoughtless and emotional hater: https://spectreproject.io/roadmap/Spectrecoin already has features (Ring-signatures, Stealth-addresses, Tor, OBFS4) that much better than in other much more expensive coins. When the factory already produces a Mercedes S-class $150 K (analogy Ring-sig, Stealth-address, Tor, OBFS4), and promises in the future to release a Mercedes-Maybach S600 Pullman $1 Million (analogy Stealth-staking), following your logic a Mercedes S-class is scam - only very stupid people will listen to you. Why do you want stealth-staking if you can't even get any IP or TX data when I do conventional staking? I wrote you my address: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2760432.msg28208865#msg28208865 It is obvious that you do not possess the technical knowledge. I changed the OP--but thought that it would be read as a claim and not an implementation, but I can see how you misread it--though wonder why I would be questioning its existence, if it already existed? Seems a dumb thing to have to point out, but there you go--good luck misreading it and using that as an attack vector. As for spectrecoin's other features, who cares? That is not what the thread is asking--though I wonder how any coin calls itself private and has a richlist. See "RICH LIST" "LARGEST WALLETS" https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xspec/Meanwhile, the major point in all this, no one being able to explain how anonymous staking works, gets buried by shills talking around it. |
|
|
|
I would love the input of a firm believer of IOTA for this.
With coins like Request coming out that tackles what IOTA does, but does it faster and more efficiently, how can IOTA compete with these newer coins? I believe in this crypto, but I'm starting to wonder if the competition will limit its success.
More efficient than free? Speed is network dependent so if the network is large enough the tx are >1000tps. I believe that is the goal for this quarter. From the ANN page, request looks P2P, so not in direct competition with IOTA, though IOTA will gain P2P market share with better wallets--TBH, the P2P market is already saturated, so not really interested in another P2P solution, at least not as an investment. Hmm. Then in your opinion which coin would be a direct competitor with IOTA? And please don't say there's nothing like it, because if there were truly nothing like IOTA, its price would be much higher than it is. I'm a little less informed than you when it comes to this coin so just looking for your thoughts. There's nothing like it. Seriously, there's only one serious competitor and they are still in the early stages https://hdac.io/. Not sure why you presume price would be higher if there was no competition? Bitcoin's price was lowest when it had no competition--price follows awareness. |
|
|
|
|
@spectre_jbg
You have a major claim (anonymous staking) either back it up or continue to get scrutinized. I'm calling scam until your remove the claim or back it up. If what you say is true, then just remove it and get the benefit when you release it. Right now it looks like you want the investors without the scrutiny--sorry, that's not how it works. Big claims come with a lot of eyes watching you.
|
|
|
|
The dev said he won't explain how anonymous staking is supposed to work, so yeah, that's all the proof I need--this looks like another scam.
I guess we have different definitions of "proof". Once again you are casually claiming that I said things that I didn't. People only need to read the thread above to see me saying that not only will a paper be released describing the method, but the source code will be open just like the rest of XSPEC's source code, allowing anybody to see the implementation of the method. Until then, feel free to have all the skepticism you want, but talking about "proof" is a bit extreme. "won't explain right now because it would hand over the solution to much better-funded teams who can beat us to implementation" is a very different thing from "won't explain". How am I misrepresenting the situation? There's a claim that anonymous staking is possible. yes/no There's no math or white paper outlining how that is possible? yes/no You don't get a delay when your shills are advertising the feature as if it's a 100% certainty. Either remove it or continue to get asked about how it works--there's no middleground here. |
|
|
|
It is interesting to see that the defenders of Spectrecoin vary in the claim that:
1. Spectrecoin has already its anonymity features.
2. Spectrecoin will implement its anonymity features in Q2 2018.
Here are people who are not related to the Spectrecoin community, such as generalizethis, they say lies and then they themselves refute their lie https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2760432.msg28210253#msg28210253What has already been implemented, and what will be implemented clearly visible on the official website: https://spectreproject.io/roadmap/1. Spectrecoin has already its anonymity features: Ring-signatures, Stealth-addresses, Tor, OBFS4 2. Spectrecoin will implement its anonymity Innovative features that hasn't any other coins in Q2 2018: Stealth-staking I lied? Or you misread? I'm pretty sure you have a tenuous grasp of the English language. Anyway, my point in the OP stands. Whether you like it or not, the dev is promising moon-features without outlining how that moon-feature will work--that's vaporware. And if he's aware that he can't build it (and not just stupid or arogant) that's a scam. |
|
|
|
How can it be a scam? A scam means that the devs plan on taking off with the money or that the entire project is just air. It's clearly a real project. Perhaps there's doubt, legitimate or not, about whether they can deliver 100% on their plans. But that's pretty far away from it being a scam.
If they say they have a solution for anonymous staking and they don't, it's a scam. By using your logic, if you say that they don't have a solution but they do, you are a scam! Do you have the proof that they don't have a solution? If not, you shouldn't be accusing anyone. Everybody can make their own choice whether to believe them or not. The fact that that they don't have any of the premined coins as they took over this project and only rely on donations from staking already distinguishes the project from aĺl the other scam going on here. If they wanted to cheat, they could.have created a new ICO, take the profit and run. The dev said he won't explain how anonymous staking is supposed to work, so yeah, that's all the proof I need--this looks like another scam. |
|
|
|
It is interesting to see that the defenders of Spectrecoin vary in the claim that:
1. Spectrecoin has already its anonymity features.
2. Spectrecoin will implement its anonymity features in Q2 2018.
The fact that most defenders are having the banners of Spectrecoin and that they can't agree within themselves on the status brings some clear conclusions:
a. Bad communication of Spectrecoin.
b. Most of them are unable unable to understand what they are speaking about.
c. Probably one of them is right and we will now know for now.
Therefor, no information on wherever it is a scam but a negative outlook is clearly marking the behavior of its defending community.
generalizethis, there was no need to register new account to attack the coin again Obviously, 99% of the crypto world is a scam. And obviously, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But lets keep it civilized and argue based on facts, not on what other coins we hodl to try to bring the competition down. As for the people who claim 100x, maybe their posts are taken out of context? I guess what they are trying to say that the market cap it low for such a coin, and if the devs deliver, it can easily grow 100x. But yes, it won't happen tomorrow. And actually it might never happen they the market is melting now - it might be the end of the crypro world as well. Why would I need to create a new account? Or are you projecting? Seems there are only noob supporters for xspec, so.... Anyway, if people want to invest based on a feature that doesn't exist, doesn't have a whitepaper, and the dev refuses to ID what projects he worked on before, that's there problem. I only wanted an answer to the question and I got it--good luck with your hopium based investment. |
|
|
|
I would love the input of a firm believer of IOTA for this.
With coins like Request coming out that tackles what IOTA does, but does it faster and more efficiently, how can IOTA compete with these newer coins? I believe in this crypto, but I'm starting to wonder if the competition will limit its success.
More efficient than free? Speed is network dependent so if the network is large enough the tx are >1000tps. I believe that is the goal for this quarter. From the ANN page, request looks P2P, so not in direct competition with IOTA, though IOTA will gain P2P market share with better wallets--TBH, the P2P market is already saturated, so not really interested in another P2P solution, at least not as an investment. |
|
|
|
No, you shouldn't advertise it until there is something to validate the claim. Right now, it's your word and a claim--that's about as sketchy as it gets.
As a project, we just put something on our roadmap that we're working on. That's the extent of the "advertising" that we've done. (Please don't confuse random community members shilling on bitcointalk with something controlled or condoned by the project.) I think Gandalf86 put it quite well as to why we didn't simultaneously publish the full details of how it works when we listed it on our roadmap. To put things in perspective, we have many orders of magnitude less funding than Monero. If we publish the solution to a problem that everyone is interested in, we're almost certainly not going to be the first to successfully implement it in our currency. Well, you have eyes on you now, as the shills wanted, so people will trust you on your word or not--not much you can do about it now. This may be hindsight is 20/20, but making such a huge claim, you should have expected this kind of attention. And it seems naive on your part to believe shills wouldn't run with the story in an effort to pump their investment. |
|
|
|
How can it be a scam? A scam means that the devs plan on taking off with the money or that the entire project is just air. It's clearly a real project. Perhaps there's doubt, legitimate or not, about whether they can deliver 100% on their plans. But that's pretty far away from it being a scam.
If they say they have a solution for anonymous staking and they don't, it's a scam. |
|
|
|
It's trivial to use TOR or I2p with most cryptocurrencies, so baking it in is not needed--I believe Monero is waiting for Kovri because of some concern with network security. Apparently baking-in TOR or I2p has an effect on Monero's network security that Kovri doesn't have--you will have to pm one of the Monero devs for an in-depth answer.
This is a really common misconception, but it's not true. It is not trivial to just use Tor/I2P with any cryptocurrency, if you care at all about your privacy and security. If you're not using onion addresses (or the I2P equivalent) then your traffic is traveling unencrypted across exit nodes, who can view and even censor your transactions. It's well known that some of these exit nodes are operated by governments with an interest in doing exactly that sort of thing. The integration of Tor or I2P with a cryptocurrency requires thought and care, which is no doubt exactly why Monero is pursuing Kovri, and is also why Spectre integrates Tor and uses only onion addresses, rather than just pointing the SOCKS proxy at Tor like people suggest you can just do with any cryptocurrency. I also think it's trivial to write a sonnet, but that doesn't mean it's easy for most people. The main user here likely knows how to run TOR or I2p already. Or are you arguing that that is the one piece of OPSEC the casual user can't get right? I was arguing that TX data is the more important (and harder to achieve) of the two. Anyway, not sure why you are locked-in on that when the topic was created to address your claim that you've figured out how to do anonymous staking. What other projects have you worked on and do you have contact info? |
|
|
|
Pretty standard to release a whitepaper before you make a claim so other devs can look over the design. Something so big should have waited until there is an actual release (which would have likely been a quick rise into the top 20 if true), so it's very suspicious that they didn't and are making the claim months before they can let anyone look it over.
They should have waited or released a whitepaper with the anouncement if they didn't want the claim scrutinized--it's as simple as that. TBH.there's nothing in this coin's history to make me take such a claim at face value. Even if GMaxwell had made this claim, I'd want to see documentation and the required math.
I don't mind the claim being scrutinised - as I have already said, I am not asking you to believe anything until the design is public. I am very strongly against the shilling that I see on Bitcointalk but it's not as if I can prevent people from doing what they want. We don't pay for or incentivise this stuff at all (even if we wanted to, which we definitely don't, we have no budget to do so). If it were up to me, we would keep relatively quiet about the stealth staking until it was ready to go. But people want to know what we have planned to release in the future, and we've already worked out the math and validated it, so we put it on the roadmap, and then half the community wants to tell everyone on bitcointalk  TBH, it would be better if they had made some less outrageous claim as it probably would fly under the radar.
So, you're saying we should lie?  No, you shouldn't advertise it until there is something to validate the claim. Right now, it's your word and a claim--that's about as sketchy as it gets. |
|
|
|
IP data is not TX data. When you realize the difference you will know what keeps your funds from being tracked. This is like pointing out that I can see my neighbor login to TOR--you still can't see what sites they visited, which is the more important information.
If I'm a government with the ability to do dragnet-style surveillance, I simply need to find the peer that first relayed a given transaction. It's not a particularly difficult challenge once I'm already collecting all the data. As long as the transactions are being relayed over clearnet this vulnerability exists. This is why Spectre integrates Tor and only exchanges traffic between onion addresses. I understand that Monero is integrating I2P for a similar reason? It's trivial to use TOR or I2p with most cryptocurrencies, so baking it in is not needed--I believe Monero is waiting for Kovri because of some concern with network security. Apparently baking-in TOR or I2p has an effect on Monero's network security that Kovri doesn't have--you will have to pm one of the Monero devs for an in-depth answer. |
|
|
|
I think, SPECTRE is one best upcoming ICO’s from every aspect. I have read an article on SPECTRE, as I feel people overlook big opportunities in the early stage and regret later.and SPECTRE is uniquely different from any other blockchain projects that may have similar names such as ‘spectrecoin’ which are in no way associated or compete with SPECTRE.
Good example of how a currency lets cryptographers study its design BEFORE they release it. The Monero cryptographers are actually studying it and speaking to the SPECTRE team to see how secure it is--the results have been positive. This working across projects and sharing information is how opensource is supposed to work and is a benefit for everyone involved. Now spectrecoin is an entirely different story. Apparently were supposed to trust an unknown design and buy-in on ignorance. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
