This happened when a load of ppl, including atcsecure were in IRC testing various functions, mainly xchat across platforms. I was running as a node to assist this. Whoever asked how I just noticed this, the amount has only just recently disappeared off my wallet balance, with no action taken by me, as you can see below there were all kinds of fruity weird transactions flying around:  I assumed this was part of the 'normal' workings of a node, now it appears I am out of pocket big time. Maybe I've done something stupid, maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I'm totally baffled and as I'm sure you can imagine my confidence in XC has been dented big time. The coins moved into another address on your wallet, otherwise they would have disappeared off your balance at that immediately ** edit ** and you can follow that amount as it gets processed & mixed did you have any additional transactions AFTER that one? also you continue to stake the same amount before and after it appears |
|
|
|
ohhh??? Kademlia You may have failed to notice that the post that you quoted does not assert that DHT isn't true P2P; it asserts that Kademlia - and whatever else Bittorrent uses - isn't. If I happened not to add, for completeness of expression, that some DHT is serverless, that doesn't mean we're now using a method that isn't true P2P. With respect to DHT, being serverless is what counts as far as I'm aware. With respect to inter-node communication, using a P2P protocol and not RPC calls is what counts. Lastly, it'll benefit you to recall that Dan has proposed a hybrid DHT-mesh. Oh my bad, this was the part I think you think you thought it wasn't, I think?
Kademlia... that's distributed hash tables, aka DHT. DHT uses servers to lookup and locate nodes. Therefore it's not truly distributed, thus not P2P.
I think the benefit here, for you, is that what you're doing is done so you can do what you do best which is twisty fluff like the best of them. Thats not the intent at all, we are working at getting some stable p2p code available for testing, the exact FINAL spec's are not decided yet. |
|
|
|
We have our blocks and not looking to profit any time soon.
"not looking to profit any time soon"...or ever for that matter... See what happens when you involve Bobsurplus in your plans, Dan? More lies from a troll shillaccount!!! Bobsurplus isn't involved any of my plans or any plans related to any project I'm involved with.. The truth of the matter is that I protected Blocknet from Bobsurplus and his pump scheme that he was attempting. ** Numerous people came out of the wood work when I launched Blocknet, trying to get involved either for greed or to scam or to FUD ** |
|
|
|
We have our blocks and not looking to profit any time soon.
"not looking to profit any time soon"...or ever for that matter... See what happens when you involve Bobsurplus in your plans, Dan? More lies from a troll shillaccount!!! Bobsurplus isn't involved any of my plans or any plans related to any project I'm involved with.. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the updates Dan. I guess the new website which is currently being worked on by Teka launches around the same time or a bit later with the UI update? Would be very nice to see uniformity between the platforms and website  Dan, could these daily updates be posted on all XC sites too? These updates would gather more eyes if they get posted on twitter, facebook, reddit, xctalk and bitcointalk at the same time and no-one would miss the updates and news I think that the website will be ahead of the UI updates based on current projects, I agree uniformity would be nice, but I'm not sure delaying one for the other is a good choice. For the status updates, yes I will work on keeping everything in sync Dan |
|
|
|
yeah the fud is strong in this one. Am i guessing right that you wanna start the new thread with the b2b news? can't wait . Also how far is the ui company you hired with the graphix? The updated UI is coming along as seen w/ the mobile app, however before the next release the XChat UI needs a complete revamp as well as some other items I'm working on. I wasn't happy with the progress between the test release's so I want a major upgrade completed before the next release Dan i agree that the next update should be a big one. The next update involves forking for Group Chat and stealth encrypted transactions, so that needs to be scheduled out, and it may/may not have the new UI, only if the UI is ready |
|
|
|
yeah the fud is strong in this one. Am i guessing right that you wanna start the new thread with the b2b news? can't wait . Also how far is the ui company you hired with the graphix? The updated UI is coming along as seen w/ the mobile app, however before the next release the XChat UI needs a complete revamp as well as some other items I'm working on. I wasn't happy with the progress between the test release's so I want a major upgrade completed before the next release Dan |
|
|
|
Is the dev team behind this project publically known (with their real world ids)?
Is there a whitepaper or some other more specific documentation about the technology that is part of this?
Dan Metcalf and I have made our identities public. There's no whitepaper, but there is Dan's (and XC's) reputation of delivering the goods, on schedule, since its inception. How is the XC project related to this one? And what base technology / code you want to use? Do you fork some other project or will it be entirely new code? If it is new code what security algo do you use (pow, pos) how does it differ from others? The Blocknet will be largely new code, since it's for a rather different purpose to what XC is for. However at present the plan is to adapt XC's Xnode protocol (end-to-end encrypted P2P protocol) for the XBridge. It'll be used in conjunction with Telehash in a hybrid DHT-mesh architecture - and it will be completely serverless. The interim wallet is PoS. I'm currently unaware of how often the final tech will actually need its own blockchain, since the idea is to network nodes of different blockchains together. These chains are a resource and it makes no sense to either duplicate them in the Blocknet's own chain, or to use a new chain when the old ones may suffice. However if it needs its own chain for anything, it'll almost certainly be a PoS chain. Thanks for your answer so far. You have used a lot of terms that are unknown to me: Xnode protocol, XBridge, Telehash, hybrid DHT-mesh architecture, interim wallet. If I would want to invest I would need two things: 1) A document that explains a) what specific / consumer oriented end-product you want to achieve - b) how you want to achieve it technically: Explained as detailed but at the same time as easily as possible (NO hiding behind fancy words) 2) A presentation of the whole team where all relevant team members are publically known. Do you have such documents yet? Have the marketing material / and marketing terms been prepared before the technology / concept has been prepared? Do we have a specific document answer those questions at this time? NO, we do not, however blocknet's team is formed and being finalized now, and the market we are going after is monetized nodes via a decentralized application platform, using a P2P network based off of DHT All of this is being finalized now and the information you requested will be released once it is 100% finalized Dan |
|
|
|
|
Hello all,
just wanted to provide an update, due to the amount of noise from the trolls creating FUD to lower the market price, its hard to communicate directly with real blocknet enthusiasts.
As I stated, we will have a test/prototype p2p daemon by the end of the month, if not sooner and with that a clear roadmap and other details regarding this project.
While things may seem to be in a lull currently, it is just part of the process of putting everything in order
I'm available via PM for any questions as its hard to keep up w/ all the noise from trolls.
Dan
|
|
|
|
XC Daily update posted @ http://xctalk.com/index.php?/topic/242-daily-update/#entry1642It has become quite clear that there is a motivated FUD campaign to drive down the price of both XC and Blocknet using multiple fake troll accounts For the TOR_Sticks, they should be shipping today or tomorrow to my office and then I will send them out, and if anybody wants a refund, then I will honor that just PM me. Dan |
|
|
|
Why don't you settle down, as no specific date was stated for compiling and releasing the information |
|
|
|
I still don't understand why people are stupid enough to sell for less. I can excuse the sell wall @ 0.00025 BTC - its the group who got their block for 10% discount and want a quick fix. But selling for less of original price  Yes why take the loss this early in the game? Regardless, before the end of this month we will have a functional p2p network for blocknet, and later today an updated Blocknet Wallet Dan |
|
|
|
Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.
That's ridiculous.
That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned? Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously? AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet.. No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way. Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util. This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins: - Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding. - Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins. - Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet. My understanding was that funds were solely for the development of the Blocknet. This, to me, includes; development of the X-bridge protocol, and development of blocknet specific services like file storage, an exchange etc. From what you're saying it sounds like participating coins will be entitled to funds to develop their own coins features. This to me doesn't sound right as the blocknet's success doesn't depend on any one coin so why should its funds be used this way? As I understand it, if a coin has innovative and legit features it can join the blocknet. If it doesn't, it can't. Why should coins be entitled to funds to develop these features? Has it already been mentioned that participating coins are potentially entitled to funds for their own development because I think I must've missed that? Yes it has been mentioned, in the FAQ (see the link in the new OP), and on the wiki. Ah, I stand corrected! I still disagree that funds should be spent this way. I personally believe that the people behind the coin should fund their own project. I, as an XC investor, don't believe that XC should be entitled to the Blocknet's funds to fund their development. But alas, if it was in the terms of the ITO then it's my own fault. It's more important than ever that it is fully transparent how all the funds will be spent as I'm sure you know! The intent isn't to have XC use blocknet funds for its own [non-blocknet-related] development, blocknet funding is for blocknet related tech/services/features |
|
|
|
Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.
That's ridiculous.
That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned? Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously? AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet.. No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way. Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util. This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins: - Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding. - Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins. - Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet. My understanding was that funds were solely for the development of the Blocknet. This, to me, includes; development of the X-bridge protocol, and development of blocknet specific services like file storage, an exchange etc. From what you're saying it sounds like participating coins will be entitled to funds to develop their own coins features. This to me doesn't sound right as the blocknet's success doesn't depend on any one coin so why should its funds be used this way? As I understand it, if a coin has innovative and legit features it can join the blocknet. If it doesn't, it can't. Why should coins be entitled to funds to develop these features? Has it already been mentioned that participating coins are potentially entitled to funds for their own development because I think I must've missed that? Only approved projects get funded, approval is required from the board, and the intention is to fund blocknet related services/projects/tech |
|
|
|
Who has the private key of this address(wallet)? These coins can't be redeemed, there is no private key Each wallet has it's private key, how did you destroy it? Checkout the pubscript - the address was created from this code - https://gist.github.com/Earlz/fa942122ce27c90ea9a6 - and more details - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=831042.0"value": 2384622.1052488, "n": 1, "scriptPubKey": { "asm": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG", "reqSigs": 1, "type": "pubkeyhash", "addresses": [ "BTngbpkVTh3nGGdFdufHcG5TN7hXYuX31z" |
|
|
|
Who has the private key of this address(wallet)? These coins can't be redeemed, there is no private key |
|
|
|
Yes I see that most have been sent but who has the rest of them and why haven't they sent yet? Coingateway and BTER still have not sent, Coingateway is still working some manual transactions related to the delayed 10% discount which should be finished tomorrow. BTER is expected to send them shortly (sometime tonight). Dan |
|
|
|
I'm not sure why Dan should have to answer that? Why don't you ask the company in question??
Next you will be asking why so many companies have their head office in Hong Kong?
You guy's will probably never learn from scams. I've asked a legit question. It's our money what we have invested so i would like to know why Dan is trusting coingateway. So far Coingateway has met or exceeded expectations, and ultimately it is BitGo I am putting my trust in, more so than coingateway based on how the multi-sig wallet is setup. Dan |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
