Are there any specific plans or goals for software release(s) before the 29th that will inspire investor and user confidence? It seems like we may of moved from XChat development on traditional systems to mobile development? I realize you are very busy with the upcoming release of BlockNet infrastructure. Thanks.
A stable release of XChat across all platforms. 2 days left. Been ready to test new builds and help discover bugs. I'm willing to work for free here. Haven't heard about XChat much lately though. Everything is still on track...right???  I was not able to follow along over the weekend, did the actual android app get released for testing (not just the UI sneak peak)? if i didnt missed anything, so we didnt see Dan here all weekend. it would be nice to know when devs are planning to realease test and final mobile wallet and rev2.5  I don't think another version was released yet. The UI sneak peek had some working functionality however. Take a step back though. XChat and the mixer still are not working for me and many others. I'm ready and available to provide details and testing. Seems like quite a bit of testing would need to be done if it's spanning across 3 platforms. Adding mobile to the eco-system before the 3 main platforms are solid seems odd. I've had multiple software Q&A jobs in my lifetime so I speak from some experience. Hey Ursay What problems are you having with XChat, and with private transactions? They're working fine for me. Keen to do some testing of the stable version? - http://downloads.xc-official.com/release/windows/XCurrency_2.49.08.exe |
|
|
|
I had a strange feeling from the start. It was just too good to be true. "The Internet of Blockchains" and other mantras spreading around. The reality is that there is nothing behind the blocknet , they do not even have a whitepaper. It is just a made up thing, that they claim they will develop after they get 2,500 BTC in funding.
Your post is spot on Spoetnik - and people who have been around know you are a legit person, one of the best known people on BTC talk, that's why your claim carries much more weight then if it was posted from a newbie account.
I was following the blocknet thread for the last couple of days, and multiple people were asking legit technical questions, and the "representative" was just dismissing these questions. Raised suspicion right there.
However - I never thought that somebody would be so bold to make a scam this big. We are not talking about Bitswift and it's 300 BTC IPO, this is something 10 times larger 10 million tokens selling for 25 K satoshi - 2,500 BTC , a nice little million USD.
The magnitude of this is getting scary, it seems that the scams are getting much more elaborate and are on a much larger scale. We are talking thousands of BTC here.
Jimmy Zed
I very confused now. Is this merely mongering? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=836324.0Ha ha. That thread's OP has some of the weirdest reasons for suspicion that I've ever seen. - We use pictures... and picture are scammy. Yes, totally. Never trust a picture. - The Blocknet is closed source? [well, no it isn't. It's open source, but anyway...] That sort of page makes me wonder whether it was created by a Blocknet supporter in order to make FUD look extra-silly. Ha ha. Moving on... |
|
|
|
ech.. i was happy all day when i didnt see any dumps, and price rising to 76k , and now i see that some fool dumped at 67k again.. how long it can continues.. very sad to see at it  wednesday could come faster and do the end to the dumps.. I don't think there's any need to be as negative as you've been lately. Today's price action was not "dumping". Look at the volume. Price never ascends without corrections. If it's on the ascent, this is a correction. |
|
|
|
Someone is dumping her mom down the window again.. at this point I can see just Moolah dumping
No, the volumes are not anything close to the dumping we've seen previously. Incidentally, the price has recently risen on minimal buy support. This is likely because of buy interest, plus no satisfying sell opportunities for bears. Potential strategy: keep chipping away at the asks instead of putting up large bids. |
|
|
|
i'd like to see a poll / further arguments weather blocknet is watering down the value of the participating coins or not ....
the faq is not satisfying
You should present an argument. Personally I think the FAQ is pretty satisfying. What do you think is left out of it? I'm very happy to discuss this and to update the FAQ with relevant details. |
|
|
|
Why no whitepaper this will bring confidence in Investors. Xbridge is open source
exactly, this is all i really want... The Blocknet does not have a "whitepaper". What we do have, which is better, is: - the Xnode protocol, which is already coded, live and functioning on XCurrency nodes. - Telehash v.3 documentation: https://github.com/telehash/telehash.org/tree/v3/v3- Serverless Telehash with DHT: see the above link, and also https://github.com/quartzjer/TeleHash/blob/master/org/proto/kademlia.mdP.S. Personally I would like it if there was a whitepaper, because it would set certain people's minds at rest. However a whitepaper by no means guarantees the success of a project. Spelling out a solution is not some sort of guarantee that the solution will work. Is there a link to the xbridge opensource? Only part of the XBridge protocol has been completed and this was not done in an open source way. However the XBridge will be open source. We're considering releasing the part-completed code to serve as proof-of-concept. do so. before the ito. it saves you a lot of stress and repeating arguments. makes everybodys lives easier. I couldn't agree more. :-) |
|
|
|
So the all coins in blocknet marketcap value goes up so does blocknet shares value goes up too?
No, Blocknet tokens are independent of the value of participating coins and are not asset-backed. (We feel that this avoids centralisation of altcoins' money supply.) The value of the Blocknet's funding will go up if participating altcoins go up, because part of its funds will be denominated in altcoins. |
|
|
|
Why no whitepaper this will bring confidence in Investors. Xbridge is open source
exactly, this is all i really want... The Blocknet does not have a "whitepaper". What we do have, which is better, is: - the Xnode protocol, which is already coded, live and functioning on XCurrency nodes. - Telehash v.3 documentation: https://github.com/telehash/telehash.org/tree/v3/v3- Serverless Telehash with DHT: see the above link, and also https://github.com/quartzjer/TeleHash/blob/master/org/proto/kademlia.mdP.S. Personally I would like it if there was a whitepaper, because it would set certain people's minds at rest. However a whitepaper by no means guarantees the success of a project. Spelling out a solution is not some sort of guarantee that the solution will work. Is there a link to the xbridge opensource? Only part of the XBridge protocol has been completed and this was not done in an open source way. However the XBridge will be open source. We're considering releasing the part-completed code to serve as proof-of-concept. |
|
|
|
Why no whitepaper this will bring confidence in Investors. Xbridge is open source
exactly, this is all i really want... The Blocknet does not have a "whitepaper". What we do have, which is better, is: - the Xnode protocol, which is already coded, live and functioning on XCurrency nodes. - Telehash v.3 documentation: https://github.com/telehash/telehash.org/tree/v3/v3- Serverless Telehash with DHT: see the above link, and also https://github.com/quartzjer/TeleHash/blob/master/org/proto/kademlia.mdP.S. Personally I would like it if there was a whitepaper, because it would set certain people's minds at rest. However a whitepaper by no means guarantees the success of a project. Spelling out a solution is not some sort of guarantee that the solution will work. |
|
|
|
OnemoreBTC, it is completely unethical to start a Blocknet FUD thread claiming that "Blocknet people don't give consistent answers" when the people answering your questions this morning aren't from the Blocknet (excepting me).
1) you claimed and described using other coins features for a little fee: i told you this wont work - We have not discussed slippage. I linked you to my last post about it, but you haven't referred to it yet. 2) now its about services: you fail to deliever ANY technical infos about how to implement, find and use them - Services aren't some new idea I've just introduced. Read the OP and the FAQ. It's not complicated. - I have not delivered "technical infos" on implementing services because the application platform has not been created yet. only thing left is the exchange between participating coins...
please provide technical infos (as you should have done weeks before your ipo start so people have a chance to check them) - refer to the post I linked earlier and we can discuss it. - the decentralised exchange has not been created yet, so the "technical infos" will not be code repos or something similar. so i really think you just want to scam. i am not unethical: proove me wrong and i will reedit my other thread - i dont have a problem to be wrong. - Starting a project with clear high-level information on what we're going to do, - stating that we need funding to create this tech, - and having am impressive track record of similar tech (XC's Xnode protocol, its ad hoc mesh networking, etc.), does not constitute a scam, it constitutes a project in its early stages. If you don't like the level of risk in our ITO, don't buy. The level of risk is clear. We're not hiding anything about the stage the project is at. for an ipo you need more than an idea saying "we want to join coins and have some kind of service marketplace" i dont ask for sourcecode I would like to see sourcecode, or at least some other proof that develop is in progress. Only fancy words and graphics so far, too little to ask $1m for it Yes, this is something we're considering seriously. Part of the XBridge code is completed already, and it would make sense for us to make it public. |
|
|
|
OnemoreBTC, it is completely unethical to start a Blocknet FUD thread claiming that "Blocknet people don't give consistent answers" when the people answering your questions this morning aren't from the Blocknet (excepting me).
1) you claimed and described using other coins features for a little fee: i told you this wont work - We have not discussed slippage. I linked you to my last post about it, but you haven't referred to it yet. 2) now its about services: you fail to deliever ANY technical infos about how to implement, find and use them - Services aren't some new idea I've just introduced. Read the OP and the FAQ. It's not complicated. - I have not delivered "technical infos" on implementing services because the application platform has not been created yet. only thing left is the exchange between participating coins...
please provide technical infos (as you should have done weeks before your ipo start so people have a chance to check them) - refer to the post I linked earlier and we can discuss it. - the decentralised exchange has not been created yet, so the "technical infos" will not be code repos or something similar. so i really think you just want to scam. i am not unethical: proove me wrong and i will reedit my other thread - i dont have a problem to be wrong. - Starting a project with clear high-level information on what we're going to do, - stating that we need funding to create this tech, - and having am impressive track record of similar tech (XC's Xnode protocol, its ad hoc mesh networking, etc.), does not constitute a scam, it constitutes a project in its early stages. If you don't like the level of risk in our ITO, don't buy. The level of risk is clear. We're not hiding anything about the stage the project is at. for an ipo you need more than an idea saying "we want to join coins and have some kind of service marketplace" i dont ask for sourcecode We have a provided whole lot more than that. Have you read this thread? I've provided fairly in-depth information on how the XBridge will work, what technologies it'll employ (telehash v.3 mesh, DHT, and the Xnode protocol), and how the technologies will work together. Furthermore we'll be releasing info today on the development timeline, budget, and accountability measures for the funding. |
|
|
|
OnemoreBTC, it is completely unethical to start a Blocknet FUD thread claiming that "Blocknet people don't give consistent answers" when the people answering your questions this morning aren't from the Blocknet (excepting me).
1) you claimed and described using other coins features for a little fee: i told you this wont work - We have not discussed slippage. I linked you to my last post about it, but you haven't referred to it yet. 2) now its about services: you fail to deliever ANY technical infos about how to implement, find and use them - Services aren't some new idea I've just introduced. Read the OP and the FAQ. It's not complicated. - I have not delivered "technical infos" on implementing services because the application platform has not been created yet. only thing left is the exchange between participating coins...
please provide technical infos (as you should have done weeks before your ipo start so people have a chance to check them) - refer to the post I linked earlier and we can discuss it. - the decentralised exchange has not been created yet, so the "technical infos" will not be code repos or something similar. so i really think you just want to scam. i am not unethical: proove me wrong and i will reedit my other thread - i dont have a problem to be wrong. - Starting a project with clear high-level information on what we're going to do, - stating that we need funding to create this tech, - and having am impressive track record of similar tech (XC's Xnode protocol, its ad hoc mesh networking, etc.), does not constitute a scam, it constitutes a project in its early stages. If you don't like the level of risk in our ITO, don't buy. The level of risk is clear. We're not hiding anything about the early stage the project is at. |
|
|
|
|
OnemoreBTC, I have deleted links to your FUD thread because, in my opinion, you have severely insufficient basis for starting that thread.
I ask you please to delete your thread and to discuss things respectfully here.
|
|
|
|
OnemoreBTC, it is completely unethical to start a Blocknet FUD thread claiming that "Blocknet people don't give consistent answers" when the people answering your questions this morning aren't from the Blocknet (excepting me).
You FUD thread claims there's an issue with slippage, but I've linked you to a post that in my opinion resolves any questions about slippage and shows that it's not an issue. Yet you have not discussed this with me at all. What's your problem? You've made a hasty and shabby case and now want to try spread FUD. Get out. |
|
|
|
|
OnemoreBTC, it is completely unethical to start a Blocknet FUD thread claiming that "Blocknet people don't give consistent answers" when the people answering your questions this morning aren't from the Blocknet (excepting me).
|
|
|
|
well btc is a special case . as i understand there are several third party btc wallets so one with the xbridge enabled could be build. regarding finding . the internet doesn't stop with blocknet arrival. this is getting started and a p2p google is a great vision btw but traditional vehicles of marketing your services available on the blocknet will still be used specially in the beginning.
let me rephrase that question: the internet has ip addresses and http as a well defined protocol to reach services. what has blocknet in this regard? i think its an easy question: blocknet is for services: so please tell me how i would implement one? is it also like coins that the blocknet foundation has a say if i am able to publish it? (thats a little like amazon is needed to allow a walmart onlone shop) You will need a blockchain service to be imbedded in the block-net , hence a new coin. It is not web 3.0 a new coin for every feature? we are back to exchange risks and slippage... for every service...? synechist said that services dont need an exchange to get used. which is true? No, an indefinite number of services can be offered by any one coin. Services can use a decentralised exchange if they want, but it's not compulsory. The question of slippage has been addressed already. |
|
|
|
well btc is a special case . as i understand there are several third party btc wallets so one with the xbridge enabled could be build. regarding finding . the internet doesn't stop with blocknet arrival. this is getting started and a p2p google is a great vision btw but traditional vehicles of marketing your services available on the blocknet will still be used specially in the beginning.
let me rephrase that question: the internet has ip addresses and http as a well defined protocol to reach services. what has blocknet in this regard? i think its an easy question: blocknet is for services: so please tell me how i would implement one? is it also like coins that the blocknet foundation has a say if i am able to publish it? (thats a little like amazon is needed to allow a walmart onlone shop) The protocol for Blocknet services is the XBridge protocol. There'll be an API, a generalised application platform, and a marketplace for finding services. Services will not need ratification by the foundation. Only coins will. |
|
|
|
its a big difference... this for example essential means that btc will never join and therefor MANY coins cannot be exchanged.
Anyone could create a Blocknet-enabled BTC wallet. |
|
|
|
They're certainly not an XBridge that can integrate every *existing* blockchain. What's a better plan: integrate every existing blockchain, or persuade every altcoin to scrap its blockchain, its community, and its market cap, rewrite itself as a sidechain, and play tag-along to the Bitcoin Foundation? Easy one, that.
is it true that blocknet can integrate every blockchain? i thought its the other way around: a coin has to join? The XBridge will be open source tech. Anyone can add it to their code. The plan is to create an internet of blockchains; therefore the architecture we create will be indefinitely extensible and not centrally controlled. However, at least initially (and potentially for the indefinite future) we also require that coins be ratified by the Blocknet Foundation. This is in order to exclude "scamcoins" and to make it unviable for them to compete against Blocknet-enabled coins. |
|
|
|
You should at least be honest - the fact that You removed this prediction does not mean it was not there before. Anyway, I canīt see any benefit in blocknet, as there already are few other players, including sidechains, which probably win. Be "honest"? Are you nuts? 1) With regard to questions that have nothing to do with this 900% gains stuff, I referred McHammer to the *current* FAQ. This has nothing to do with the content of previous FAQs. 2) In the one question where McHammer did refer to 900% gains I requoted my public apology for previously including that paragraph. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=829576.msg9335337#msg9335337. I'm not hiding anything. I'm being open about it. If you can't see any benefit to the Blocknet, you've probably not seen what the Blocknet actually is, having been blinded by your preconceptions. Sidechains are not an "internet of Blockchains." They're not even a decentralised exchange. They're certainly not an XBridge that can integrate every *existing* blockchain. What's a better plan: integrate every existing blockchain, or persuade every altcoin to scrap its blockchain, its community, and its market cap, rewrite itself as a sidechain, and play tag-along to the Bitcoin Foundation? Easy one, that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
