Bitcoin Forum
November 26, 2020, 04:30:26 PM *
News: Bitcointalk Community Awards
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3
1  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM on: March 22, 2018, 08:35:09 PM

The author of this topic and jbg (spectrecoin dev) are great lads, that synergistically created FUD and delayed release of a new version. This lowered the price to 60 cents, and made it possible to rally again to $ 6 (where the price has been recently), after the release of a wallet 1.4.
The author of this topic did not conduct a large study, he wrote exactly 4 points and for each of them there is an answer: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3055715.msg31812046#msg31812046
He did not write anything new - this was written in the official wiki half a year ago: about ring size = 1, the world's first coin with Tor hidden service (exit nodes are not involved), OBFS4...
Sept 11, 2017
Furthermore, this release was the first to include a binary for Apple MacOS. A change to the stealth transaction mechanism was introduced so that the wallet allows for non-anonymous ring signatures with only 1 or 2 members. The reason for this was that at that stage, the network often did not have enough participants for ring signatures to do a full ring signature transaction.
So Spectrecion has Stealth addresses, split/combining algorithm, Ring signatures, and still allows you to disable privacy if you do not want it - using ring size = 1 (will be removed). Or using Public addresses - as it is done in the PIVX, PARTICL - good privacy coins.
You mentioned deeponion, and if you are interested in its security, for comparison, then there is not even a ring_size = 1, because there isn't ring signatures. Deeponion isn't privacy at all at this moment, there aren't ring signatures, stealth addresses, split/combining algorithm - proof official roadmap, it's called Deepsend, Q2 2018 that isn't implemented yet. Deeponion uses Tor (exit nodes are involved) so it's not anonymous. Deeponion coin requires that you manually download and copy the OBFS4 executable file: https://github.com/deeponion/deeponion/blob/master/doc/setup-obfs4.md
It will also just run the executable file: https://github.com/deeponion/deeponion/blob/413090c51575690ea6697db35b8e3e1e544b32af/src/net.cpp#L633
if (stat("obfs4proxy.exe", sb) == 0 && (*sb).st_mode & S_IXUSR) {
Also I can write verifiable proofs about Verge address/ip/amount-leaks or about Monero IP-leaks, but this does not mean that they are scam.

I will expect more in-depth research and more reasonable criticism from you, I hope this will help the developer fix some really important things and will motivate the developer to release the new version faster.
fixed it for you Deeponion and XSPEC coins both require that you manually download and copy the OBFS4
XSPEC will also just run the obfs exe.
2  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM on: March 08, 2018, 12:29:07 AM
TLDR: its a scam, and you might have an IQ >80 if you bought it
IQ bigger than 80? So people with IQ 145 should consider it?
3  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM on: March 08, 2018, 12:25:21 AM
So I've sent mandica a private message to see if she has any control over the developer, but from what I'm hearing jbg is now the one fully in charge of XSPEC and if that's 100% the case and mandica can't get a new developer to take over, this project is as good as dust in my eyes.

I'll wait and see how her reply goes, so far her postings in here have cleared up nothing and appear to be more shilling, if she can clear things up about the development and what's being done about jbg I'll be honest in my approach and let the community know, for now though things still remain as you see in this thread.

While I agree that bad, or shady things had happen, and are maybe still happening, IMO you are implying, assuming few things, not sure why. For example you say you will follow github, as if github updates are some kind of mettrics one can use to estimate successfullness or usefullness of a project.

You are shilling, the above quote is utter bs, GitHub has 100% of the code for all released versions of XSPEC, simple as that.
Going forward, you would have to wait for a release to get a full picture of the release, it could be the developers are holding back on the commits etc, but on past releases this is not the case, the entire full source code is up there.

Also from an open source project that the community is buying in to, you SHOULD commit you work and not delay as long as he has on new releases, leaves people with no clue of progress, still though like I said above, the released versions give you a complete idea.

I am not shilling, but you are being an asshole, and you are doing same thing as mandica does. What you said has nothing to do with my post, and you have totally avoided all points I made.

I didn't avoid a single point, I cleared them all up.
What you are trying to do now is confuse people who don't have enough technical understanding to read what's being said.
My guess is this'll be less than 5% of people.

Sad sad person, to make a claim that a full version release on GitHub being observed is not a good measure is as stupid as it gets, I'm not here to be nice to shills, I'll keep my nice nature for honest people, you're not honest.

You're having 0 impact here, should just give it up, to sum up your argument, "The code on GitHub is not a good measure".
Does any one actually believe this?

Wow, you have edited your post because previous was obvious lies (Words you put in my mouth, I didn't say.), so you made another one which is more slimy btw. I am actually glad you did it because it sheds some light on what possibly your intentions/reasons are.
I have made meaningful comparison with other open source project, like Linux distributions and talked about practices which are common for many if not most of Open Source projects.

How you put things out of context, like this for example: "The code on GitHub is not a good measure" is unbelievable.
Adieu everyone.
4  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM on: March 07, 2018, 11:54:36 PM
Also, whatever happens with XSPEC, it has yet a long way to go to reach level of assholness of Verge and DO developers.
In their Slack channel Beachguy is complete jerk. 99% of time he is rude and just attacking peoples for their opinions.
And as I recall, jbg have called other users as cunts there.
I agree that guy is an asshole, but that's not exactly what I have meant with my statement.
5  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM on: March 07, 2018, 01:41:32 AM
Quote from: PaxtonFabian hould be updated frequently
[/quote
Could you please quote his whole post one more time, and then I will quote mine 27 times?
6  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM on: March 07, 2018, 01:38:50 AM
So I've sent mandica a private message to see if she has any control over the developer, but from what I'm hearing jbg is now the one fully in charge of XSPEC and if that's 100% the case and mandica can't get a new developer to take over, this project is as good as dust in my eyes.

I'll wait and see how her reply goes, so far her postings in here have cleared up nothing and appear to be more shilling, if she can clear things up about the development and what's being done about jbg I'll be honest in my approach and let the community know, for now though things still remain as you see in this thread.

Iím just quoting your last post instead of the one you quoted me on.

When calling something a scam, and calling out a specific person, yes I do deem it important to actually know what their name is.

We already knew V1.4 was late, what that guy tried to say was that on a Saturday JBG said V1.4 would be released within 48 hours when he actually said he would release an UPDATE within 48 hours. He did come on and give updates.

And to you, where in my post did I mention anything about Monero? I said Verge is shit. Never mentioned Monero once and I am of the crowd that XMR is by far the best privacy coin currently available. To say XVG is better technologically is a blatant lie. If youíre going to sit here and say XVG has better tech than XSPEC (not even counting whether from SDC inception or since XSPEC) then you clearly have an alterior motive. It took the XVG devs like 1 year with 3+ delays to release optional stealth addresses (Wraith protocol) which XSPEC has had since inception. Itís not natively integrated with TOR so it has exit node attack vectors. While you sit here and call out XSPEC, Iíd love to hear a rebuttal that proves XVG has better tech. Iím 99.9% sure it doesnít, but it does have a 40x higher market cap.

Wasn't 'Verge' previously called 'Dogecoin Dark' at some point? hmmmm... Grin - pls don't promote Verge as being something special - the marketcap is just due to John McAfee fake tweets and was Verge not in fact a DOGE clone? XMR was a clone of BCN using the same tech but then being successful in going their own way. I agree that XMR has very strong features but pls don't mention Verge.  Cheesy

First of all, i own a shit ton of spectrecoin, so it's in my best interest for it to succeed. However, you claim to be the founder of XSPEC and have yet to defend the coin from a technically standpoint. You just been jabbing at any irrelevant info you can find to deflect from the topic at hand.

 As much as i hate it, this guy laid out a claim filled with lots of verifiable proof and i just read thru the entire 6 pages and have yet to see one individual actually defending the platform with info that could be verified. The whole thread is made up of ppl claiming fud ( i guess stating your opinions with verifiable proofs is now considered fud)

 I do understand that all codes might not be available on github but it doesn't negate he fact that the op post is to the tee. No matter how much someone wants the sky to be yellow, it's not fud to state that the sky is blue. Simple as that. What he laid out is currently true.

  I bought my spectre stash of a shill from a friend, i did no investigation into the coin. honestly i invested cos i expected it's growth to emulate deep onions (and yes i know deep onion is prob shit too), so this is my first time really investigating the coin and it does not warrant the countless shill ( i never really paid it any mind but yes there has been a ton of shill on this forum)

 So Mr or Mrs founder, rather than averting from the topic at hand, you should admit that he is right and you can either retort with an improved tech or keep whinning/averting like a common shill


Hey, what's wrong, someone was yelling on you? No!  Let us stop talking about code not being available, and let us talk about code which is avaiable! Tor integration, supportes obfs4, has stealth addresses,
 and ring signatures, which will start being useful when stealth becomes default. Still better than Verge, no?


Otherwise I do think that XSPEC as a project started going same route as DO and Verge, which is using lies for the sake of popularity, and hype. If this doesn't change, and if they don't get their shit together it will be dust in my eyes too, not that it matters.

Also, whatever happens with XSPEC, it has yet a long way to go to reach level of assholness of Verge and DO developers.
7  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM on: March 07, 2018, 01:28:48 AM
So I've sent mandica a private message to see if she has any control over the developer, but from what I'm hearing jbg is now the one fully in charge of XSPEC and if that's 100% the case and mandica can't get a new developer to take over, this project is as good as dust in my eyes.

I'll wait and see how her reply goes, so far her postings in here have cleared up nothing and appear to be more shilling, if she can clear things up about the development and what's being done about jbg I'll be honest in my approach and let the community know, for now though things still remain as you see in this thread.

While I agree that bad, or shady things had happen, and are maybe still happening, IMO you are implying, assuming few things, not sure why. For example you say you will follow github, as if github updates are some kind of mettrics one can use to estimate successfullness or usefullness of a project.

You are shilling, the above quote is utter bs, GitHub has 100% of the code for all released versions of XSPEC, simple as that.
Going forward, you would have to wait for a release to get a full picture of the release, it could be the developers are holding back on the commits etc, but on past releases this is not the case, the entire full source code is up there.

Also from an open source project that the community is buying in to, you SHOULD commit you work and not delay as long as he has on new releases, leaves people with no clue of progress, still though like I said above, the released versions give you a complete idea.

I am not shilling, but you are being an asshole, and you are doing same thing as mandica does. What you said has nothing to do with my post, and you have totally avoided all points I made.
8  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM on: March 06, 2018, 09:43:43 PM
So I've sent mandica a private message to see if she has any control over the developer, but from what I'm hearing jbg is now the one fully in charge of XSPEC and if that's 100% the case and mandica can't get a new developer to take over, this project is as good as dust in my eyes.

I'll wait and see how her reply goes, so far her postings in here have cleared up nothing and appear to be more shilling, if she can clear things up about the development and what's being done about jbg I'll be honest in my approach and let the community know, for now though things still remain as you see in this thread.

While I agree that bad, or shady things had happen, and are maybe still happening, IMO you are implying, assuming few things, not sure why. For example you say you will follow github, as if github updates are some kind of mettrics one can use to estimate successfullness or usefullness of a project.

You said for example you will continue checking github (what is ok of course) to estimate how is XSPEC as a project doing (Not really ok). I say as long as there are no security issues, and as long as these don't remain unsolved for too long, IMO XSPEC is a solid, even unique product among crypto currencies.

Below explanation of my view, and argumnets or 'arguments' you decide.

Bare with my please for a moment, below is the explanation why am I mentioning the following again.

XSPEC is well rounded coin. It is the ONLY coin atm with full, proper Tor integration that I am aware of. ShadowCoin did not have this, Monero doesn't have this. Nodes communicate inside of Tor network as onion services, use no exit nodes, and no other currency with optional Tor can achive this. So it is not only about Tor being default or not. It is also very easy to enable Tor obfuscation, obfs4 which is still considered to be the best method at the moment.

It has stealth addresses, uses ring signatures, thus it hides sender and receiver infro, and to some extent if obfuscates trx amounts, but not as good as Monero.

Just maintaining this state by fixing security issues is a good job, and doesn't make this tech or XSPEC as a project less useless.

You implied things here, that successful project, or useful product has constantly do evolve by adding new features and code (What is not case and I have mentioned popular Open Source projects as examples below.), and also that ShadowCashe developers should be used to further develop 'their' tech because they are understanding it better. I am stressing here that you also implied that ShadowCoin/XSPEC is technology developed by ShadowCashe developers.

Let us now first consider what have they (ShadowCashe devs) actually done here, and later let us check how other Open Source project work, function, and what is common in world of open source.

ShadowCashe. Do you think ShadowCashe developers have written, and designed, developed all, or most of their code? First it is a BTC fork. They have added two features to it besides developing wallet GUI, which is pretty trivial task for average developer. Stealth addresses and Ring Signatures. Did they developed these? Ring Signatures are algorithms developed almost 20 years ago, Stealth Addresses and trx are much newer and IIRC these were developed by Peter Todd previous ByteCoin and Bitcoin developer (And just look now where the Bytecoin nowadays is. It could be easly considered scam by your criteria because situation is definitelly worse compared to XSPEC, no one is maintaining it AFAIK.).

 Ring Signatures implementation of ShadowCashe developers had serious security issue (Despite them having open source code to use as a reference, as is or however), which was discovered by Monero developer, who was later paid (by ShadowCoin) to help them fixing it, what he did.

But let us check other open source projects like Linux distibutions, and let us see who is considered to be developer, what are common practies etc. Ubuntu for example, is 95% Debian, and Debian is 99% upstream code. Very, very, small part of a Linux distribution is developed by distribution developers, yet anyone who accuses these people of not being developers doesn't actually understand the situation. Putting all these parts together, testing , maintenance, it requires skills.

Long term distributions are esspecially appreciated among developers yet these types of projects don't change much or at all over years, except for changes which are necesaary to deliver security updates. Is Ubuntu 16.04 LTS bad distribution because it is three years old, and runs even older software? It is capable of doing what is meant for, most serious bugs are fixed, it is stable. It is usefull, works, and people don't have to upgrade to new versions of software and libs what requires one very often one to goe trough different configuration files, changing things, learning new syntax etc. How is this different to XSPEC and his features/abilities?

Are developers who 'build' distributions and software, who 'just' compile, package, or develope ebuilds or compile scripts, than test that upstream software actually not developers?

Not important that much but let me mention jbg again. gunner for example suggested how all projects jbg has forked and contributed, are just hobby projects, and how easy it is to do such things. IMO it is not that easy. This is not only about writing 20 lines of code for some project. One actually must understand a project or at least a part of it one is interested in or one is going to contribute, play with or whatever.
Of course I am not trying to proof with this that he is a mathematition/cryptographer or something, he never claimed for him self something like that (At least not that I have seen.). But I do think he is capable for the same kind of work ShadowCashe developers did. You and gunner have raised their work/capabilities to completely different, higher level, which I can not agree with. When I said I think he is capable, this still doesn't mean I think he is doing it (e.g. working full time).

Point of typing all this wasn't to claim shit didn't happen, but to give people bit different perspecitve on what successful project is, or can be.


I would really like to hear your opinion about 'private' coin projects you consider to be inovative, developed by high skilled experts, and worth investing? Or just any other project you consider OK. Beside Monero of course, although I muss say it doesn't look like Monero developers are in a hurry with I2P implementation. There is also another project I follow, still in development 'MobielCoin.com' (I have mentioned the address because there is another project, possibly a scam also called mobilecoin mbccoin.com.). It has amazing crew, so it should be amazing. Beside these two I would really like to hear you opinion regarding this.
9  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM on: March 06, 2018, 08:23:03 AM
@preshpr1nce,

I have a question regarding your observation related to Tor pluggable transports. I mean you already knew what obfs4 is? What did you expect you will find jbg's implementation of obfs4 if you already knew what is it? You expected him to reinvent the wheel, or what did you exactly expect to find in code in this regard? Why wouldn't he use exe file, because you know it is how it is meant to be used with Tor.

I am disappointed he didn't improve the support for pluggable transports, and didn't added support for fronting and meek, but he never promised that, or claimed it has been implemented.

That coin already has a solid base, worth maintaining, and some unique features, no other coin (that I am aware) has
so even maintaining it, taking care of bugs and updating libraries is a good job one can do.

Which unique feature is that you might ask? Integration with Tor. All nodes/wallets are inside of Tor network as onion services, thus no exit nodes are used, which is very important, and what many coins ignore.

Ring signatures are known issue, known to most of the members of the community, which cannot be solved until stealth profile becomes default. Reasons is there are not enough stealth users in the network, and without them Ring signatures don't work. Because of this he implemented option in the wallet which sets Ring size to 1, what disables security feature of rings signatures, but it enables the usage of stealth addresses IIRC.  

I expected to see some code for obfs4, not taking ones executable and using it yourself, sure don't reinvent the wheel but at least take the effort of implementing it in to the code rather than calling an exe, I consider that lazy.

Also one of the key points in outlining this is it's part of the whole "so little work done" picture, the Tor work you mention came from Shadow Cash, not XSPEC.

Shadow Cash also had Ring signatures working with a ring size of 2, so this excuse of reducing size to 1 makes no sense, even more so if it was done due to a future change which isn't out yet, but would change the way ring signatures work, why make a network insecure prior to a release?

I don't think you've even looked at the work he's done, bug fixes? hardly, upgrading libraries you could do in your first year of uni, the work has been highlighted on page 1.

I have studied information technologies and telecommunications, in something similar to the university of applied science, and we had much more programming hours in different coirses compared to regular uni computer science student, but I met no person who learned to code there. Many students, almost all who didn't already have a job as software developers, or at least did it as a hobby remained unskilled coders.

What you said about ShadowCashe and ring signatures doesn't make sense. How do you know it worked for them? Ring signatures as technology require enough participants using them. Monero never had issues with it because all wallets are using it. This is the reason XSPEC has announced that stealth trx are becoming default with  version 2.

Tor, could you point me to the Tor implementation/code of the ShadowCashe? I wasn't aware ShadowCash has implemented Tor? Not that I would mind it, but everything I saw points to the XSPEC developers, not necessarily jbg.

Tor pluggable transports is Tor pluggable transport. Everyone who heard about these obfuscation methods knew what to expect here, and was aware jbg didn't develop obfs4. Making Tor, and xspec  wallet to work with obfs4 was the point, not demonstration of coding skills.
He could have automate/make it better, but this is also working. Despite his or project's shortcomings, there is a solid base, worth maintaining IMO, and it looks like some steps in the right direction are being made by the community (hiring new developers E.G.), so I don't think this is how scam necessarily looks like.
Most people exaggerate, or lie if you will. I met like two persons in my life who didn't lie in their CVs, yet that doesn't mean companies where these people who lied work are scam.

Things are not always black and white. One can in theory delude community in some things (like most of anon crypto currencies did at some point.) yet still deliver, with intentions to maintain the project long term. Basically as long as people are using, buying xspec, and are ready to support its development, project should be ok and prosper. I think that you have actually helped xspec as a project, because awareness that project needs more development and developers had been raised.

While I think you had some nice observations regarding the amount of work, I can just repeat that I consider ShadowCash code solid even nowadays and worth maintaining. With more and more developers interested in code, probability that new bugs/issues will be discovered is increasing, and as I already mentioned, it looks like xspec community decided to hire new developers.
10  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM on: March 06, 2018, 02:55:26 AM
@preshpr1nce,

I have a question regarding your observation related to Tor pluggable transports. I mean you already knew what obfs4 is? What did you expect you will find jbg's implementation of obfs4 if you already knew what is it? You expected him to reinvent the wheel, or what did you exactly expect to find in code in this regard? Why wouldn't he use exe file, because you know it is how it is meant to be used with Tor.

I am disappointed he didn't improve the support for pluggable transports, and didn't added support for fronting and meek, but he never promised that, or claimed it has been implemented.

That coin already has a solid base, worth maintaining, and some unique features, no other coin (that I am aware) has
so even maintaining it, taking care of bugs and updating libraries is a good job one can do.

Which unique feature is that you might ask? Integration with Tor. All nodes/wallets are inside of Tor network as onion services, thus no exit nodes are used, which is very important, and what many coins ignore.

Ring signatures are known issue, known to most of the members of the community, which cannot be solved until stealth profile becomes default. Reasons is there are not enough stealth users in the network, and without them Ring signatures don't work. Because of this he implemented option in the wallet which sets Ring size to 1, what disables security feature of rings signatures, but it enables the usage of stealth addresses IIRC.  
11  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Why I chose not to invest in SpectreCoin (XSPEC) now on: March 06, 2018, 01:27:40 AM
@gunner833,

nice observation regarding donation address, but IMO you ignored important aspect. Value of XSPEC significantly increased end of December. At the beginning of 2017 it was less than 2 cent, July - Aug 10-20 cent, beginning of December 30 Cent. So with this in mind 100k of coins don't look that much, but it still doesn have to be bad. It depends on time when did he or they (in case donations were meant for  the first crew who left the project.).

'Regular' community started paying jbg sometimes around start of this Year (staking donations.), and during this time approx 4k of coins have been collected IIRC.
Before it was mainly ICO holders who paid/donated I think, and they seem to be ok with it? So if whales don't mind giving him 100k of coins for fixing few bugs, library maintenance, why would we be against?

Also, as a software developer I know I wouldn't be ready to work for someone who is paying me regular salary e.g. 3k of EUR per month if my works is going to make my client filthy rich. I know many developers do this, I just said I wouldn't. But I would maybe work part time, bit less for the money (This is just me.). So I can understand such relationship.

Regarding address with million coins, could this be exchange?
12  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM on: March 05, 2018, 11:21:22 PM
His name is JBG, not JPG. The fact that you donít even know his correct handle can automatically discredit anything you have to say.

Oh, really?!)))  Maybe you're just another person trying to save the reputation of this coin? EVERYTHING I WRITTEN - OVERALL TRUTH! I know everything that happens with this coin and your community!



Just in case:




IT IS THE TRUTH!
Do not blame people for lying!

On Saturday they promised to run 1.4 version of the wallet within 48 hours.

Today JPG wrote that the update is postponed indefinitely, to which he can not say at the moment, and even can not say when he will be able to say when this will happen approximately) But, he mentioned that it is definitely not during this week he will say something, because he needs somewhere to fly on family business ... it remains to hope that this is really not just an excuse for "grandmother died."

BUT THIS IS NOT THE MOST SUSPICIOUS THING!

The most suspicious thing is that he bluntly stated - for the flight he will need money and, accordingly, HE IS FORCED TO SELL A PART OF COINS.

The sale may have happend when the XSPEC  updated a monthly minimum of 0.62$ (approximately)

But the question is different: if he has coins that can be used for personal purposes, for flights, vacations, etc. why all the time to refer to the fact that they do not have enough money and what they have collected through stacking - always not enough and the amount is ridiculous?

Maybe this is really SCAM?  I'm really scared of that...

Ok what you typed about coins makes no sense. These coins were his salary. He is free to do with it whatever he likes. He received those coins from donations between approx start of January, current date, and IIRC there were ~ 4k of coins on that address (Donated for him to spend as he like.).
13  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM on: March 05, 2018, 11:17:42 PM
If XSPEC is scam, DO is scam^10, else DO is scam^10. Seriously, DO is project where developer intentionally started project with vulnerable 4 year old code, and after community noticed it it took him 4 month to upgrade to another, again alpha (probably because it had the highest number at the time.) version of the Tor network. While blockchain was 100% public, and Tor the only 'security' feature, developer and community claimed it is the best 'anonym' coin in the world. Maybe we use different definitions of scam, so let me put it this way DO has been created with one and only one purpose, to make its founder rich. Or if we consider the issue with vulnerable Tor from 2014, maybe even something much worse. Really why choose vulnerable code from 2014 in year 2017?

Now back to topic.

For TLDR see below.

@mandica, @CommunityWhale you completely ignore OP's code analysis. Doesn't matter.

@mandica, you obviously didn't pay much, or enough. You thought this kind of project will be Ok with bit of initial work, and Moon is the next station? Software needs continued maintenance, with competition constant improvments, new features etc. Only one, poorly paid developer is not enough in this game.

I think it is somehow strange that everyone is talking about jbg here. He is just a developer, who works for breadcrumbs (Offical story, quite likely.). If he soon delivers 1.4, I would say he did a very nice job, considering circumstances.

What I think is more important than discussion about one developer is discussion about XSPEC as a project. Developer hired by whom? So let us talk about project self, its finances, organisation etc. jbg is officially the project leader, but his rolle seem to be quite symbolic. He self has no resources to maintain, support the project, except his time, few hours here and there he could spend, in case he is forced to find another, say full time job.

What this tells about the project self? IMO it tells that project is in deep shit, for whichever reason.
Community poor, not ready to invest, community small, whales care about quantity of coins more than their value? Doesn't matter, facts (slow development, lack or resources) stay.

Recently community started discussing possibility of hiring new developers. It took all this time, issues and NOW we are talking about possibilities of hiring new developers? I am not implying here that discussion about new developer is reaction to OP's post, because I am aware that the idea appeared bit earlier in discord channel, but it took really long time for this to happen.

TLDR

I for one actually think that things can improve, and that XSPEC has potential as a project, and hopefully good future, but ignoring facts won't help. Right people learn from mistakes and continue working/improving.

PS

Hey DO can improve too!
14  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM on: March 04, 2018, 09:33:58 PM
Just to clear up a few things. (I'm @mandica, the founder of XSPEC and still here for anyone new to this)

All the discussions about code snippets and code cloning and implementation of protocols is a bit stagnate. This is the nature of open source development. There is no secret (and never was) that XSPEC was build on SDC. XSPEC never claimed to be proprietary code and is based on Bitcoin in the end as many others are. This point has been laboured ad nauseam and if your objection to a crypto is based on it's Bitcoin / SDC / Monero code provenance then you will seek out other projects. The fact that XSPEC is open source and based on other open source code is not a basis on which to claim a scam if you are a thinking person.

@jbg and Bryce are working on the code and as you all know, not every update is shown on GitHub immediately. GitHub is a not a live window to follow updates. Nobody as forced anyone out and in fact Spectre has very dedicated community and in fact, I would suggest that a dedicated community is what will succeed in driving this forward. XSPEC now also have steady development funding and will hire. The community will make sure that XSPEC will last for years to come and with a solid dev fund we will have the resources to develop the project. The team is together and strong and nobody has left for anything else. I am working on something auxiliary that will benefit XSPEC in the long run but can't say anything right now.

XSPEC is not a scam, we are just trying to provide a quality functional privacy focused cryptocurrency against a tide of FUD and shit and we will succeed. I have nothing more to say and there is nothing to discuss. Adversity brings out the best in us. Discard XSPEC at your peril.

Glad you exumed a BTC account that wasn't active since December. And joined discord asking what's happening and then an hour later write an informed post here. You now only miss a brand new Bryce account and we can start the party. Grin

Do you suggest that this is a bought account? I haven't been active here for a while because it's of minimal benefit in the long run. I just wanted to say it's not a scam. Who you believe is up to you.


No I can assure you he was just glad to see you.

EDIT:
Sorry, I confused him for another account. That guy started another, first 'XSPEC is Scam' thread, where he accused jbg for not being quite honest with us.
15  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM on: March 04, 2018, 08:37:44 PM
How do you guys excpect something BIG from a project what has 1 anonymous developer , no white paper,no progress,no community(only some fanboyz), no marketing,no direction, don't keep promises and have no funds to move forward ?  Roll Eyes

How do you think this project ever get some REAL and big partneships to grow somewhere with these features?

Spectrecoin is a scam joke, we are not in 2016 or 2017 where all the projects with ''good tech'' just grow to 1 billion market cap like 2 years ago,theres a HUGE COMPETITION and spectre doesn't have anything else but promises and hope,it's invisible

Go and check some other competitors/ projects community's and you'll see how fast things are moving  ,trustful teams who's not anonymous and you can talk with them like with your friends,, always get answer very fast from team etc. If you go to spectre discord there's like a rainyday everyday.

I think XSPEC will fail very soon if these things are not changing now, if someone says only tech matters , then it shouldn't be there where it is at the moment.

Which other serious competitors? Those serious competitors are much worse, just for the fact they invest incredible amount of resource to mislead the people, instead of using the resources properly. That smells on high class professional scam, they understand human psychology an know what will bring amounts of money, in much shorter period of time.

Besides obvious scam projects there are also projects with serious issues. These are maybe not scam, but what you said about hope applies here. All Z* coins implemented zero knowledge proof and are now waiting on solution which won't require trusted setup.

Verge, DO? Give me a break.

I am aware of Monero, and can assume there is a project or two I somehow missed, so no the real competition almost don't exist.

XSPEC is the only project I am aware of with proper Tor implementation! No other project with optional Tor cannot provide this, because they are depended on exit nodes.
16  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM on: March 04, 2018, 08:24:59 PM
@mandica,

you have paid some nice amount of coins to the first group of developers for not really impressive amount of work. They forked code, changed name, disabled a feature or two in the GUI of the wallet. If we consider time needed to study the code, I would estimate one person, average developer didn't need more than 5 days (Time to squash a bug or two, and to fix some configurations issues with development tools included.). I have heard that approximate value of coins they received was around 20 000 $. Is this true? That are four - five excelent month salaries for a senior software eng. in western EU, for only  few days of work. Are developers in this branch of work so scarse (real question, no sarcasm.)?
17  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM on: March 04, 2018, 08:05:07 PM
Just to clear up a few things. (I'm @mandica, the founder of XSPEC and still here for anyone new to this)

All the discussions about code snippets and code cloning and implementation of protocols is a bit stagnate. This is the nature of open source development. There is no secret (and never was) that XSPEC was build on SDC. XSPEC never claimed to be proprietary code and is based on Bitcoin in the end as many others are. This point has been laboured ad nauseam and if your objection to a crypto is based on it's Bitcoin / SDC / Monero code provenance then you will seek out other projects. The fact that XSPEC is open source and based on other open source code is not a basis on which to claim a scam if you are a thinking person.

@jbg and Bryce are working on the code and as you all know, not every update is shown on GitHub immediately. GitHub is a not a live window to follow updates. Nobody as forced anyone out and in fact Spectre has very dedicated community and in fact, I would suggest that a dedicated community is what will succeed in driving this forward. XSPEC now also have steady development funding and will hire. The community will make sure that XSPEC will last for years to come and with a solid dev fund we will have the resources to develop the project. The team is together and strong and nobody has left for anything else. I am working on something auxiliary that will benefit XSPEC in the long run but can't say anything right now.

XSPEC is not a scam, we are just trying to provide a quality functional privacy focused cryptocurrency against a tide of FUD and shit and we will succeed. I have nothing more to say and there is nothing to discuss. Adversity brings out the best in us. Discard XSPEC at your peril.

Do you have anything to show us as evidence that two full time developers have actually implemented something besides those few lines of code? I would really love to see it because I stil hold my xspec.
 
Why have we been told that xspec wallet automatically checks for the Tor connection, and if doesn't find it it tries to use obfs4 obfuscation? One doesn't have to be C or C++ genius to implement this. It is very simple actually.
I could even accept KISS method here, but this would understand transparency, openness, documentation which  explains people how should they use the wallet and obfs4.

Even something in the lines of 'Guys try first if the Tor is working, if not, drop the obfs4 exe to that folder, copy this configuration file to another, restart the wallet and check again.' or even admitting,  telling people 'some issues have appeared, it doesn't work like we expected, and we are busy with implementation of 1.4 wallet.'

So:
obfs4 doesn't work as we have been told.
Automatically adjusted ring size was promised for 1.3.5 and on official site it is stayed that it has been implemented with 1.3.5.
1.4 code was supposed to be uploaded to github month ago.

I would be 100% ok with the project if jbg or someone address and fix these issues.

Under assumption 1.4 is far away from being implemented (bugs don't matter), I would stil be ok, but in this case you have to explain to the community why did you collect donations, and claimed two devs are working full time, because we don't see the results of this work? Please refer to the code they implemented?
18  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM on: March 04, 2018, 01:49:57 AM
I've known from the first time I read about XSPEC that it was a completly useless shitcoin. And not to talk about all the spamming going on here on bitcointalk. For ones and for all can we just let this shitcoin die.
As a matter of fact, even if it turns out that not everything has been done well, that people were manipulated or something, the tech is not useless, and it already has more to offer than other over hyped, still very popular coins.
19  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM on: March 04, 2018, 01:40:58 AM
I agree that some things are shady as you said, but you went too far IMO. First it was always clearly stated that the project is ShadowCashe fork. When I say always I mean since jbg over took the lead. First group of developers obviously took coins (approx. 20k $ IIRC) for few hours of work. Changed the name, not sure what else has happened, and what I find strange here is that despite that many ICO holders still defend these people and say 'they were paid to deliver the first wallet, or to do initial work'. Maybe they are just afraid of bad publicity?

Now, regarding jbg, he actually mentioned that the reason the project has no whitepaper is because not enough code changes have been implemented (compared to ShadowCashe code base) to justify new whitepaper, which is thus expected with version 2 of the wallet which should bring stealth staking.

Further I would like to stress the fact that writing code is not the only job for a developer, especialy in projects where security or reliability are so important. Code inspection is very, very important, and jbg also had to spend a lot of time to familiarize him self with the ShadowCashe project/code base. From my conversations with him, my personal, subjective estimation is that he is enough capable, and knowledgeable for this kind of work.

The fact that he updates libraries, such as the Tor network, is a good sign that he cares about security. If one compares it to other projects like DO and Verge, the situation with XSPEC is much better. DO run until recently on a very vulnerable Tor code from 2014.

How I see things is that exactly because project is in this particular phase/state, there could be much potential in it, and money is anyway the main reason most of people buy/hold coins. Big money usually comes with greater risk.

Monero was also called scam at the beginning, and who knows, maybe it was. But its founder recognized the potential the project had and decided to invest in it. I hope same will happen with XSPEC.

I also don't think that amount of money collected with donations has been spent wisely, or very well, but that is up to jbg and community to decide how much they want to give, and for what. XSPEC would definitely profit from new developers, and IMO this step is necessary for the project further advancement.
20  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Speculation (Altcoins) / Re: XSPEC SCAM on: January 23, 2018, 12:47:21 AM
we should all buy spec. it will moon and later after a few months we can all buy drugs v cheap Cheesy
lol
Well I would like to find a (legal of course) source for a good coke without levamisole and other shit they put inside nowadays.
Pages: [1] 2 3
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!