Well, what would you do if you had figured out a way to do this? Explain your idea to everybody and spread the news everywhere? In that case bigger coins, which have much more funding, could implement the technique in a fraction of the time our developers could. And then when we're finally done, everyone would just ask "ok but why are you doing what coin XY already implemented 2 months ago"? It's in our own interest as Spectrecoin investors that the devs will keep this secret until everything is ready to go. Also, our software is already valuable on its own ... we're not an ICO any more that just wants to collect money. We have a working product and a coin that is valued around $100M USD, and a stealth transaction mechanism that works. Calling it a scam just because of one single feature that has been announced but not released yet, is a bit hypocritical.  Just wanted to write something like this. Nobody will tell you in details how that or this feature works because it's business and it's competitive. Even if they would like to tell you, how do you see this? Give you a bunch of code? 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. TBH, it would be better if they had made some less outrageous claim as it probably would fly under the radar. |
|
|
|
Spectrecoin claims to have anonymous staking, but no one has yet to explain how it achieves this miracle. I'm calling BS until someone can explain it.
Oh man, did you see official site? Why do you want to lie? https://spectreproject.io/roadmap/Version 2.0
Target Launch: Q2 2018
Stealth addresses and transactions become the default
Innovative stealth staking
Further features and improvements to be announced Ok man, this is my Spectrecoin (XSPEC) Stealth-Address: smYoRN5Kna3jo3eeAnrqoDECzG59WDajtsNZHMGZEaA9sxEYwtQDZUnGBCKM5BmXBVU4K6vKH7b6s4X oNiV7yJB8vDkhzq6HjsfMbpI sent my money from this Stealth-Address to the non-Stealth-Address, did non-stealth-staking, and sent my money back to this Stealth-Address. Just tell me something about me: my IP, amount of coins that participates in the non-stealth-staking, time when I did staking, just something  Do you want I tell you about users of other "privacy" coins? See below Recently, you said that integrated Tor is unimportant: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2471807.msg26774212#msg26774212Then TOR integration is pointless for those that choose to bake it in, not sure what your point is. Script to get IPs of peers in Monero: https://github.com/DotNetRussell/MoneroUserScraperFrom which we can get IP of wallets: https://dotnetrussell.com/index.php/2017/10/21/locating-monero-users-via-transaction-broadcasts/We can not relate Monero-addresses and IPs, monero is realy privacy: https://moneroexplorer.com/tx/84ea5936b2864709fe21ece3be8cb683d356f1f83cb5851ecbd4ee104012c583But the Government will easily find the home addresses of those people who use the Monero for more intimate tax control.For Verge: IP addresses, XVG-addresses and amounts: - Electrum Verge Wallet: http://xvg.keff.org/- Core Verge Wallet: http://xvg.keff.org/core.phpNow we can understand what your word is worth) Who wants to show their IP addresses - listen to "generalizethis" lol. Exhanges that uses KYC/AML knows your personal information, and knows how many privacy coins you bought (Monero, ZCash, Spectrecoin, ...). So you should use decentralized exchanges such as BISQ (without KYC/AML) using Tor. As soon as the money reaches the Stealth-Address and is sent to the next Stealth-Address using Ring-sig (Monero, Spectrecoin, ...) - the exchange does not know anything about it. Just compare current state of different privacy coins: Spectrecoin (XSPEC) with $100 M market cap at least much more privacy than PIVX (PoS) with $650 M. https://hsto.org/webt/e-/nf/pj/e-nfpjo17hhfeqtw1mefig0mlci.png IP data is not TX data. When you realize the difference you will know what keeps your funds from being tracked. Oh man, do you can trace TX data that uses Ring-Signatures that used in the (Monero, Spectrecoin, ...)? You are much more brilliant than the developers who would sometime possibly invent the stealth staking, lol. Ok man, this is my Spectrecoin (XSPEC) Stealth-Address: smYoRN5Kna3jo3eeAnrqoDECzG59WDajtsNZHMGZEaA9sxEYwtQDZUnGBCKM5BmXBVU4K6vKH7b6s4X oNiV7yJB8vDkhzq6HjsfMbp Just tell me something about me - TX-data: my transactions, amount of coins that participates in the non-stealth-staking, time when I did staking, just something. You can not. You can only speak in general words. What are you talking about? I was talking about the comment in reference to IP leakage--and yes it's unimportant if you use proper OPSEC (like not sending funds directly from an exchange to a wallet you don't want linked) and you are not in a country that bans Monero. I didn't mention OPSEC in the post that you linked--didn't think I needed to. The rest of your staements are convoluted, but if you are asking me to unravel a spectrecoin anonymous staked tx, I cant as it hasn't even been implemented yet. Not sure what you are on about honestly, but my contention is that the spectre dev isn't explaining how he plans to achive anonymous staking because it's a fake claim. Not sure why you want to take it down another road, but you can go down it alone. |
|
|
|
Spectrecoin claims to have anonymous staking, but no one has yet to explain how it achieves this miracle. I'm calling BS until someone can explain it.
Oh man, did you see official site? Why do you want to lie? https://spectreproject.io/roadmap/Version 2.0
Target Launch: Q2 2018
Stealth addresses and transactions become the default
Innovative stealth staking
Further features and improvements to be announced Ok man, this is my Spectrecoin (XSPEC) Stealth-Address: smYoRN5Kna3jo3eeAnrqoDECzG59WDajtsNZHMGZEaA9sxEYwtQDZUnGBCKM5BmXBVU4K6vKH7b6s4X oNiV7yJB8vDkhzq6HjsfMbpI sent my money from this Stealth-Address to the non-Stealth-Address, did non-stealth-staking, and sent my money back to this Stealth-Address. Just tell me something about me: my IP, amount of coins that participates in the non-stealth-staking, time when I did staking, just something Do you want I tell you about users of other "privacy" coins? See below Recently, you said that integrated Tor is unimportant: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2471807.msg26774212#msg26774212Then TOR integration is pointless for those that choose to bake it in, not sure what your point is. Script to get IPs of peers in Monero: https://github.com/DotNetRussell/MoneroUserScraperFrom which we can get IP of wallets: https://dotnetrussell.com/index.php/2017/10/21/locating-monero-users-via-transaction-broadcasts/We can not relate Monero-addresses and IPs, monero is realy privacy: https://moneroexplorer.com/tx/84ea5936b2864709fe21ece3be8cb683d356f1f83cb5851ecbd4ee104012c583But the Government will easily find the home addresses of those people who use the Monero for more intimate tax control.For Verge: IP addresses, XVG-addresses and amounts: - Electrum Verge Wallet: http://xvg.keff.org/- Core Verge Wallet: http://xvg.keff.org/core.phpNow we can understand what your word is worth) Who wants to show their IP addresses - listen to "generalizethis" lol. Exhanges that uses KYC/AML knows your personal information, and knows how many privacy coins you bought (Monero, ZCash, Spectrecoin, ...). So you should use decentralized exchanges such as BISQ (without KYC/AML) using Tor. As soon as the money reaches the Stealth-Address and is sent to the next Stealth-Address using Ring-sig (Monero, Spectrecoin, ...) - the exchange does not know anything about it. Just compare current state of different privacy coins: Spectrecoin (XSPEC) with $100 M market cap at least much more privacy than PIVX (PoS) with $650 M. https://hsto.org/webt/e-/nf/pj/e-nfpjo17hhfeqtw1mefig0mlci.pngIP 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. |
|
|
|
This thread is basically just OP hating on the fact that spectrecoin gonna have anonymous staking, which in his mind it's this ungodly impossible tech; good news man, nobody needs you to believe it's legit and nobody needs to prove anything to you - as you already saw in the replies yet refused to acknowledge, wait for the source code and for the tech to be implemented and if that wont satisfy you, then you can spam all you want about how bad this coin is
Hey noob. I just asked how it works--that should be an obvious question for any investor, but maybe you like losing money on vaporware. It was only escalated when specshills got mad that I kept asking and they implored me to ask a dev--well the dev answered with a promise and no explanation how it works. If it smells like a scam, walks like a scam, it probably is. But keep making sock puppets to cover up the obvious. |
|
|
|
Instead of arguing without any sense, you could have gotten an answer from the dev team, try @jbg on spectreproject.slack.com, who will provide you with an answer in a matter of minutes as the devs are very active and open for answering questions. I know many, many coins are being shilled without any underlying tech and many promises are being made in this cryptomarket, but what you are doing now is discussing matters with a person who cannot provide you with an answer, which does not get you anywhere but confirm your thoughts you already seem to have. It does not make any sense.
I was right, your dev won't (or more likely can't) answer to how it works. Hey generalizethis, we don't "claim to have anonymous staking". We've worked out a way to do it, and we will be launching it towards the end of Q2 this year. Nobody is asking you to believe it until we release the paper and source code, don't worry  Now stumble around for faith based rationalizing as to why he won't (can't) explain how it works. I'll wait until Q2 to tell you I was right--but my guess is you and your buddy will be hiding behind new usernames. |
|
|
|
Hey generalizethis, we don't "claim to have anonymous staking". We've worked out a way to do it, and we will be launching it towards the end of Q2 this year. Nobody is asking you to believe it until we release the paper and source code, don't worry So you don't know how to do it? Your shills have been saying otherwise. Read what your thread states. No one claimed we have anonymous staking. We claimed that there will be anonymous staking. Read the thread again: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2659097.msg27108855#msg27108855And I asked how this is achieved and no one has had an answer. This reeks of vaporware. Also, you and some other shills have been taking it for granted and acting like there is a 100% chance that it will work--based on nothing. |
|
|
|
Hey generalizethis, we don't "claim to have anonymous staking". We've worked out a way to do it, and we will be launching it towards the end of Q2 this year. Nobody is asking you to believe it until we release the paper and source code, don't worry So you don't know how to do it? Your shills have been saying otherwise. How is it that you quoted me and yet still managed to claim that I said the opposite of what I did? We know exactly how to do it, but as I said, just wait for the paper and source code and you won't need to trust my or anyone else's word. Sorry if I don't take you at your word. I believe anyone who does is getting ripped off. |
|
|
|
Hey generalizethis, we don't "claim to have anonymous staking". We've worked out a way to do it, and we will be launching it towards the end of Q2 this year. Nobody is asking you to believe it until we release the paper and source code, don't worry So you don't know how to do it? Your shills have been saying otherwise. |
|
|
|
Spectrecoin claims to have anonymous staking, but no one has yet to explain how it achieves this miracle. I'm calling BS until someone can explain it.
This was fuelled directly out of anger from this topic the OP and I had in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2381337.msg28204400#msg28204400Spectecoin cannot be a scam as it already has the OBFS4 feature no other cryptocurrency has. The question is if the means to make staking anonymous has been achieved--that's their claim to fame. But thanks for getting a head start on a distraction. |
|
|
|
Post how spectre achieves anonymous staking or stfu.
That's all that should matter to investors and if it's available, post it and end any debate.
I'm not apologizing for getting angry with people who waste my time. He could have just wrote, "I don't know how it works," and saved us both some time. Instead he tried to make it out like I was asking an unreasonable question and deflecting from the question.
As far as grammar, I'm not apologizing for expecting words to fall in line with their definitions and not to have to debate their meaning when there is only one definition--this goes back to my annoyance of having my time wasted. Instead of trying to make it about me versus spectre, you should focus on why people believe it can do something that's never been done before without a whitepaper or an explanation as to how it works.
It's simple--post how it works or expect me to call you out on it. I'm not jumping through hoops for you and it's customary to have a whitepaper to go along with a new claim. Expecting less is a much bigger problem than any personality conflict you have with me.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2311897.msg23455862#msg23455862If the coin you invest in can't explain how it works, you should be angry with devs, not me. You should be aiming your questions at them, not me. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, so constinue to hide in the shadows. Pretty sure no one will see your attempt at distraction as anything but the flimsy evasion of a scam. Thats the thing, for all you know the dev is my best friend, chooses to remain anonymous because of the illegalities surrounding this controversial cryptocurrency in some regions and that I know something you don't. You cannot relate to me as a person and tell me who and who not to direct my anger towards. If you think for a second any of your posts made me angry, you really need to get over yourself. I genuinely believe the poster above may be right, and I genuinely apologize if you have Aspergers syndrome. There are brilliant people who have such. And some people like gambling on the slight chance that there's a good reason not to reveal how a technology works. If you had just stated that early, the debate would have been over. If people want to do stupid things with their money, that's not my problem. Sorry that you feel the need to make it personal to distract from the fact that you can't explain how it works (whether safety or scam is irrelevant to my point as the fact that you are expecting others to gamble with no knowledge of how spectre works is the only point I need to make). |
|
|
|
|
Spectrecoin claims to have it will have anonymous staking, but no one has yet to explain how it achieves this miracle. I'm calling BS until someone can explain it.
|
|
|
|
Post how spectre achieves anonymous staking or stfu.
That's all that should matter to investors and if it's available, post it and end any debate.
I'm not apologizing for getting angry with people who waste my time. He could have just wrote, "I don't know how it works," and saved us both some time. Instead he tried to make it out like I was asking an unreasonable question and deflecting from the question.
As far as grammar, I'm not apologizing for expecting words to fall in line with their definitions and not to have to debate their meaning when there is only one definition--this goes back to my annoyance of having my time wasted. Instead of trying to make it about me versus spectre, you should focus on why people believe it can do something that's never been done before without a whitepaper or an explanation as to how it works.
It's simple--post how it works or expect me to call you out on it. I'm not jumping through hoops for you and it's customary to have a whitepaper to go along with a new claim. Expecting less is a much bigger problem than any personality conflict you have with me.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2311897.msg23455862#msg23455862If the coin you invest in can't explain how it works, you should be angry with devs, not me. You should be aiming your questions at them, not me. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, so constinue to hide in the shadows. Pretty sure no one will see your attempt at distraction as anything but the flimsy evasion of a scam. |
|
|
|
|
Post how spectre achieves anonymous staking or stfu.
That's all that should matter to investors and if it's available, post it and end any debate.
I'm not apologizing for getting angry with people who waste my time. He could have just wrote, "I don't know how it works," and saved us both some time. Instead he tried to make it out like I was asking an unreasonable question and deflecting from the question.
As far as grammar, I'm not apologizing for expecting words to fall in line with their definitions and not to have to debate their meaning when there is only one definition--this goes back to my annoyance of having my time wasted. Instead of trying to make it about me versus spectre, you should focus on why people believe it can do something that's never been done before without a whitepaper or an explanation as to how it works.
It's simple--post how it works or expect me to call you out on it. I'm not jumping through hoops for you and it's customary to have a whitepaper to go along with a new claim. Expecting less is a much bigger problem than any personality conflict you have with me.
|
|
|
|
@generalizethis
agree to disagree.
So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises? Sorry, I meant on the grammar lesson haha. The developers should offer proof only through open source release of the technology. I believe Monero should have done the same before collecting millions of dollars for Kovri. Kovri is open source and existed before Monero. So you agree that spectre should provide proof they solved anonymous staking? Also, so you disagree that we should use common usage as the deciding factor on how we interpret words? I'm just discussing day-to-day usage and disregarding special circumstances such as an academic or poet coining a new term or a new use for existing terms. Yes, but Kovri is not actually implemented. I am not having the grammar argument. I am not arguing that my BA and Law Degree weren't my worst investment either. You can have the grammar argument title too. I still have my massive bag of both Monero and Spectre. One of which has fast transactions, stakes out a nice pay daily and doesn't have even a fraction of the fee. If you don't want to argue word usage that's fine, but don't write, "agree to disagree" and expect me to disregard an inane argument. Just wanted clarification that that was the argument you were standing your ground at. As far as Kovri goes, the code is being developed on GitHub, so anyone can peruse it and look to see if it is as it should be. Funding work before there is a finished product is common and no one funding the work was under any impression that that wasn't the case. Nice side stepping, but let's repeat the question, and just "yes" or "no." No side stepping or getting frustrated with how language works or trying to focus attention on a project outside the scope of this thread. Do you think spectre coin should make available how they plan to make anonyous staking work? My point in all of this has been that usually when a project fails at providing proof, it's because it is vaporware and there is no proof. If you want to invest on hope, that's fine--but don't pretend it's reasonable for others to do the same. No, because nothing matters until it has been released and is running. Like I said, its backed merely through the world of development. But based on those facts, don't tell me that Monero has a superior approach by introducing Kovri without releasing wallet implementation. "No..." so you're a moron--that's all i was trying to figure out TX and IP data are two different things so what difference does it make to someone where using Monero is legal as to whether kovri is implemented at all? Monero works as advertised--it hides TX data. Hiding IP data on;ly matters if you are living inside a country where using that particular crypto is illegal. I just want to know how anonymous staking is achieved, shouldn't be that big a deal. Say you don't know and go about your day. Not sure why we have to circle around it and pretend that it doesn't matter or use faulty compaison that disregard how cryptocurrencies achieve anonymity. Well, you can't spell Monero without m-o-r-o-n either. Locking that comment in for when spectre fails to deliver--i suggest you get a new username now as this one will lose all credibility. No, I'll keep the comment so the public can see your fuelled anger you edited out of embarrassment. Like you say 'facts over fud.' Time will tell. Ill be holding my massive bags of Both Monero and Spectrecoin either way. Edited out of embarrassment? I edit a lot after I post--i'm a perfectionist. I thought explaining why you are a moron is better than just calling you a moron--doesn't change that I feel you are a moron and definatley not ashamed of calling you a moron. As much of my time as you've wasted, I'm surprised I didn't call you worse and earlier. My only comfort is that you will likely lose a lot of money when the devs dump their shitcoin. Prediction for spectre: date assigned for anonymous staking implementation, pump, date comes with delay or complete disappearance of the spectre devs. You hodling a bag of nothing and wishing you had listened to me instead of wasting my time. |
|
|
|
@generalizethis
agree to disagree.
So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises? Sorry, I meant on the grammar lesson haha. The developers should offer proof only through open source release of the technology. I believe Monero should have done the same before collecting millions of dollars for Kovri. Kovri is open source and existed before Monero. So you agree that spectre should provide proof they solved anonymous staking? Also, so you disagree that we should use common usage as the deciding factor on how we interpret words? I'm just discussing day-to-day usage and disregarding special circumstances such as an academic or poet coining a new term or a new use for existing terms. Yes, but Kovri is not actually implemented. I am not having the grammar argument. I am not arguing that my BA and Law Degree weren't my worst investment either. You can have the grammar argument title too. I still have my massive bag of both Monero and Spectre. One of which has fast transactions, stakes out a nice pay daily and doesn't have even a fraction of the fee. If you don't want to argue word usage that's fine, but don't write, "agree to disagree" and expect me to disregard an inane argument. Just wanted clarification that that was the argument you were standing your ground at. As far as Kovri goes, the code is being developed on GitHub, so anyone can peruse it and look to see if it is as it should be. Funding work before there is a finished product is common and no one funding the work was under any impression that that wasn't the case. Nice side stepping, but let's repeat the question, and just "yes" or "no." No side stepping or getting frustrated with how language works or trying to focus attention on a project outside the scope of this thread. Do you think spectre coin should make available how they plan to make anonyous staking work? My point in all of this has been that usually when a project fails at providing proof, it's because it is vaporware and there is no proof. If you want to invest on hope, that's fine--but don't pretend it's reasonable for others to do the same. No, because nothing matters until it has been released and is running. Like I said, its backed merely through the world of development. But based on those facts, don't tell me that Monero has a superior approach by introducing Kovri without releasing wallet implementation. "No..." so you're a moron--that's all i was trying to figure out TX and IP data are two different things so what difference does it make to someone where using Monero is legal as to whether kovri is implemented at all? Monero works as advertised--it hides TX data. Hiding IP data on;ly matters if you are living inside a country where using that particular crypto is illegal. I just want to know how anonymous staking is achieved, shouldn't be that big a deal. Say you don't know and go about your day. Not sure why we have to circle around it and pretend that it doesn't matter or use faulty compaison that disregard how cryptocurrencies achieve anonymity. Well, you can't spell Monero without m-o-r-o-n either. Locking that comment in for when spectre fails to deliver--i suggest you get a new username now as this one will lose all credibility. |
|
|
|
@generalizethis
agree to disagree.
So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises? Sorry, I meant on the grammar lesson haha. The developers should offer proof only through open source release of the technology. I believe Monero should have done the same before collecting millions of dollars for Kovri. Kovri is open source and existed before Monero. So you agree that spectre should provide proof they solved anonymous staking? Also, so you disagree that we should use common usage as the deciding factor on how we interpret words? I'm just discussing day-to-day usage and disregarding special circumstances such as an academic or poet coining a new term or a new use for existing terms. Yes, but Kovri is not actually implemented. I am not having the grammar argument. I am not arguing that my BA and Law Degree weren't my worst investment either. You can have the grammar argument title too. I still have my massive bag of both Monero and Spectre. One of which has fast transactions, stakes out a nice pay daily and doesn't have even a fraction of the fee. If you don't want to argue word usage that's fine, but don't write, "agree to disagree" and expect me to disregard an inane argument. Just wanted clarification that that was the argument you were standing your ground at. As far as Kovri goes, the code is being developed on GitHub, so anyone can peruse it and look to see if it is as it should be. Funding work before there is a finished product is common and no one funding the work was under any impression that that wasn't the case. Nice side stepping, but let's repeat the question, and just "yes" or "no." No side stepping or getting frustrated with how language works or trying to focus attention on a project outside the scope of this thread. Do you think spectre coin should make available how they plan to make anonyous staking work? My point in all of this has been that usually when a project fails at providing proof, it's because it is vaporware and there is no proof. If you want to invest on hope, that's fine--but don't pretend it's reasonable for others to do the same. No, because nothing matters until it has been released and is running. Like I said, its backed merely through the world of development. But based on those facts, don't tell me that Monero has a superior approach by introducing Kovri without releasing wallet implementation. "No..." so you are fine with betting blindly--I'm not. TX and IP data are two different things so what difference does it make to someone as to whether kovri is implemented at all? Monero works as advertised--it hides TX data. Hiding IP data only matters if you are living inside a country where using that particular crypto is illegal--and even then, it is trivial to use TOR or I2p with most cryptocurrencies--baking it in is a fool's errand meant to trick the naive into a false sense of privacy. I just want to know how anonymous staking is achieved, shouldn't be that big a deal. Say you don't know and go about your day. Not sure why we have to circle around it and pretend that it doesn't matter or use faulty compaison that disregard how cryptocurrencies achieve anonymity. |
|
|
|
@generalizethis
agree to disagree.
So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises? Sorry, I meant on the grammar lesson haha. The developers should offer proof only through open source release of the technology. I believe Monero should have done the same before collecting millions of dollars for Kovri. Kovri is open source and existed before Monero. So you agree that spectre should provide proof they solved anonymous staking? Also, so you disagree that we should use common usage as the deciding factor on how we interpret words? I'm just discussing day-to-day usage and disregarding special circumstances such as an academic or poet coining a new term or a new use for existing terms. Yes, but Kovri is not actually implemented. I am not having the grammar argument. I am not arguing that my BA and Law Degree weren't my worst investment either. You can have the grammar argument title too. I still have my massive bag of both Monero and Spectre. One of which has fast transactions, stakes out a nice pay daily and doesn't have even a fraction of the fee. If you don't want to argue word usage that's fine, but don't write, "agree to disagree" and expect me to disregard an inane argument. Just wanted clarification that that was the argument you were standing your ground at. As far as Kovri goes, the code is being developed on GitHub, so anyone can peruse it and look to see if it is as it should be. Funding work before there is a finished product is common and no one funding the work was under any impression that that wasn't the case. Nice side stepping, but let's repeat the question, and just "yes" or "no." Do you think spectre coin should make available how they plan to make anonyous staking work? My point in all of this has been that usually when a project fails at providing proof, it's because it is vaporware and there is no proof. If you want to invest on hope, that's fine--but don't pretend it's reasonable for others to do the same or that asking for proof is somehow asking too much. |
|
|
|
@generalizethis
agree to disagree.
So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises? Sorry, I meant on the grammar lesson haha. The developers should offer proof only through open source release of the technology. I believe Monero should have done the same before collecting millions of dollars for Kovri. Kovri is open source and existed before Monero. So you agree that spectre should provide proof they solved anonymous staking? Also, so you disagree that we should use common usage as the deciding factor on how we interpret words? I'm just discussing day-to-day usage and disregarding special circumstances such as an academic or poet coining a new term or a new use for existing terms. |
|
|
|
@generalizethis
agree to disagree.
So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises? |
|
|
|
Privacy is one pf the hardest things to achieve in computer security, so I'm amazed at how many claim it. Xspec needs to explain how they are going to achieve anonymous staking or be one more coin in a long line of vaporware.
I agree with above and at the moment I am not happy with available solutions. There isn't a single coin which is hitting all my sweet spots. That being said I believe that 2018 will be the year for privacy coins so I am expecting that new projects will emerge and existing ones will improve on their tech. This will be very competitive field inside crypto. Whatever proof he has can be posted here. This shouldn't require people going to slack to talk to a dev. And I suggest no one do this as they will likely try to talk around the issue with buzzwords. And frankly, the fact that you can't explain it yourself makes me think you do not understand how it's achieved, which means you are pimping based on the hopeful presumption that it will work. Be chimerical on your own dime. Those are only assumptions. Such a statement goes completely against your logic of facts over FUD. You have also generalized this based on your experiences perhaps. If I could tell you how this would be achieved, would you even understand? Look at a Spectrecoin chart and look at my post history, you'll find I've been very chimerical for this whole forum by only enforcing this currency. https://icostats.com/roi-since-icoShow me the code or stfu. A white paper or code would suffice as facts, absent that you are selling hopium. See how efficient I am? Also, you should look up chimerical. It means vainly or fantastically hopeful, so saying, "you'll find I've been very chimerical for this whole forum by only enforcing this currency." isn't a good thing and goes to my point. Depends on how you interpret it. I won't argue with that efficiency, but keep in mind Spectrecoin is more than hopium having been the only cryptocurrency with OBFS4. The 'Ghostpaper' is being released subsequent to the Q2 2018 release of stealth staking. This is merely a word backed my nothing other than your own interpretation of those behind it. Chimerical (a word that has never traveled beyond its root of chimera) is only used for being fantastically hopeful--there's no way to interpret it another way unless you disregard accepted usage and dictionaries--in which case, any word could mean whatever you felt like and we can use graceful to mean car and pidgeon to mean horseshit. There are many words that have many meanings that can cause confusion unless the context is clear--but luckily for us, chimerical is not one of those words. As for the rest, until they back up their claims with math, it's fantastically hopeful to think they can deliver. Or have you not been around long enough to understand most coins with tremendous claims are vaporware? The coins that actually deliver on their promises usually have white papers and code up for observation day-one. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
