rip XST

Yes me too

This is the name of the game! They do that all the time thinking that they are "cutting losses". However there is always somebody buying
The one that does not panic and has patience, always wins. I've seen it before, I see it now, I'll see it in the future.

Finally a half decent response to all of this my concern still is hondos response was still citing a paper form 2006 and it still wont work..it is concurrent with the last issue of traceability he hasn't done his research properly yet when he does he will agree its not going to work!

My razorcoin reference was to frame the level of competence or lack of if you will that he has with things i later demonstrated with his whitepaper..oversight. It was a concern not only for you, me or the xst community.

Letting it go un talked about was an industry wide concern i wish to not to be abused and not attacked anymore so we can have a proper discussion about it and get it fixed for not only the sake of xst community and its investors but the image of this alt coin space and anon in general..

Treating people the way the majority of the xst crowd have has left a lot to be desired in this space and i wish only to remain here because of it! As i said it could have been handled in a much different way and has been done by many other communities in the past. xst not only has a dev level competency issue but also a community one which needs to be addressed. I wish to help with that by remaining here to demonstrate the contrast and hopefully bring about change!

I am not attacking hondos intentions so much because i have shown the proof but have nothing else to substantiate him to be a "scammer" but it certainly looks like it and the community reaction does not help its or his cause. Can you agree and level with any of that he does have a pretty good history seems like a really nice guy but all scammers are charming i just wish to hammer the facts?

I know they mean well and so do i but this is not the way you treat people it has not only become technical issue it is now personal can you level with that and or understand any of it? If so id like maybe if you could talk some sense into some of your members because i want nothing more then to put an end to all this and move on but cant as long as i'm being attacked and anyone else and their coin! My whole motives ads statements here are mischaracterized can you agree? so can we all put this to sleep its serving no one or nothing except allowing some to vent.

I would definitely say it's a step it the right direction. I didn't watch it in it's entirety. It's long & I have a headache. But yes... Skype, faces, people can't delete what they disagree with.

It's funny, Shadow has now opened their thread... probably to save face. I'm sure anything particularly threatening will vanish in a matter of time. They are playing a game & they're good at it.
Earlier this morning the Dev called out to put a stop to the FUDing & I thanked him for it. Guess what? He deleted both posts hours later (both mine & his own).
They are trying to pretending to be transparent now.
It appears they are letting criticism be posted for the moment, but they are cherrypicking older criticism one by one... as it's less noticeable. By morning I'm sure it'll all be gone.

Also, I noticed the FUD attack started as soon as Bobsurplus went on vacation; this was timed perfectly on their part as they probably assumed he would put up huge buy walls.

From the SDC thread

After receiving a lot of PMs about this subject, seeing a lot of reports of this kind and after one of the global mods PMed me with suggestions regarding this topic, I thought that I should cover it:

Possible (or real, not for me to judge) FUD, accusations or statements are not moderated.

Moderators don't moderate for truth. However, trolling isn't allowed. If a user is habitually posting obviously false nonsense just to stir up trouble, then it's considered trolling, which is prohibited. However, such cases should be thoroughly documented in the report (There are tons of reports that just say "trolling", but moderators don't have time to look through each user's post).

Possible (since we don't have the time or resources to check) insults are also allowed as long as they contain any kind of constructive opinion, info or something else substantial and aren't off-topic. For example, posting something like "you are dumb" will be deleted as it contains no meaningful content. However, if the post is somehwere along the lines of "You are dumb. This is wrong because this website/thread/etc. has explained it's not right", it's in most cases accepted.

Possible scams aren't moderated either due to the fact that's it's extremely hard to make an unbiased decision on a limited amount of evidence and time. Moderators don't have time to be investigators.

Legal note: This is forum policy, not mine.

Before addressing the criticisms raised in this thread, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for these criticisms. Although some believe the manner in which they have been introduced may not be optimal to promote civil discourse, they are valuable criticisms nevertheless, and help to strengthen crypto-currencies in general. It is far better to address weaknesses in crypto systems during implementation than it is to address attacks after deployment.

Chandran signatures [1] make use of a common reference string. The common reference string generator (CRSGen) is a necessity for a model in that does not require a random oracle, as described in [1]. CRSGen produces a string that is used as an input to a key generation function. The key generation function produces the the user's public-private key pair. This key pair has specific properties in that it is a member of a particular mathematical group. In principle, key generation can be replaced by a cryptographic one-way function if the random oracle assumption is introduced.

Admittedly a more difficult issue to address is one of "unlinkability/untraceability", which boils down to the potential for a double spend. In short, Chandran signatures require the generation of a secret random parameter, g, that serves as an input to a "commitment" to a specific key in the key ring. This commitment basically identifies the public key from which the money is spent. The problem is that any number of g can be produced, creating the potential for any number of commitments to the specific public key.

In reality, this same issue exists with CryptoNote ring signatures except that the CryptoNote system incorporates a key image, I, into signing and verification, such that I can only ever be used once. A similar approach can be taken with Chandran signatures. As presented in [1], a key image I can be incorporated into Step 3 of signing and appended to the final signature. In addition to other parameters, Step 3 commits to the public keys of a subset of the ring. Just as with CryptoNote ring signatures, such a modification would commit to the key image and prevent its use for double-spends.

[1] Chandran N., et al. Ring Signatures of Sub-linear Size Without Random Oracles. ICALP 2007, LNCS 4596, pp. 423–434, 2007.


-- Hondo