Synechist, please answer this satisfactorily and I will be done:
"Collaborations with Qibucks, for example, is completely different from the NHZ project. With NHZ, XC has routed Xander Shepherd (former dev for XC), and Pizpie (Marketing guy) to the NHZ project.
Xander has never purely worked for XC. Before he joined XC he was already involved in the Cypherfunks and several other coins. Why? Because this is how crypto works. Always. Go look up the Ethereum developers and see the other projects they contribute to. They're all over the place. And this is both normal and promotes innovation. It makes Xander's presence in XC enriching and energising. As for Pizpie, he is a social networking genius. He has incredible connections and this is a major feature of XC's (past and future) success. You know how he has such great connections? By being involved in lots of projects. The very worst thing for XC would be if he wasn't collaborating. But this is the case for everyone in crypto. So we'd all better get used to this. It's the most beneficial way of doing things. And what do you know, the NHZ project is working to build anon transfers, encrypted messaging, and a decentralized asset exchange. Look familiar? It should, because this is in large what XC is attempting to accomplish. This is partially incorrect: XC has not attempting to accomplish, it has already accomplished two of NHZ's three goals here. And it'll acquire the third due to NHZ having an asset exchange already, because Dan is working on its code. Are you starting to see the benefits of collaboration? Now, explain to me how dividing the XC team to work on a second coin (which will ONLY divide & dilute investments) will be beneficial to XC? The coins roadmaps are nearly PARALLEL. But now XC resources are split and working to accomplish the same goals on another coin."
Now do you see that XC has always, and always will be, "divided"? And contrary to your opinion, this is by far the most beneficial thing for XC and for all crypto. How do you think we have so much incredible tech, and develop it at such a rate? We collaborate, we gain code, we gain experience, we build relationships. This is what a healthy project looks like. Better get used to it. By the way, I've said all this already, several times. If you'd done your research as I suggested before complaining, you'd have seen that in the three days before our announcing the NHZ collaboration, the points above were elaborately spelled out. |
|
|
|
Synechist, please answer this satisfactorily and I will be done:
"Collaborations with Qibucks, for example, is completely different from the NHZ project. With NHZ, XC has routed Xander Shepherd (former dev for XC), and Pizpie (Marketing guy) to the NHZ project.
Xander has never purely worked for XC. Before he joined XC he was already involved in the Cypherfunks and several other coins. Why? Because this is how crypto works. Always. Go look up the Ethereum developers and see the other projects they contribute to. They're all over the place. And this is both normal and promotes innovation. It makes Xander's presence in XC enriching and energising. As for Pizpie, he is a social networking genius. He has incredible connections and this is a major feature of XC's (past and future) success. You know how he has such great connections? By being involved in lots of projects. The very worst thing for XC would be if he wasn't collaborating. But this is the case for everyone in crypto. So we'd all better get used to this. It's the most beneficial way of doing things. And what do you know, the NHZ project is working to build anon transfers, encrypted messaging, and a decentralized asset exchange. Look familiar? It should, because this is in large what XC is attempting to accomplish. This is partially incorrect: XC has not attempting to accomplish, it has already accomplished two of NHZ's three goals here. And it'll acquire the third due to NHZ having an asset exchange already, because Dan is working on its code. Are you starting to see the benefits of collaboration? Now, explain to me how dividing the XC team to work on a second coin (which will ONLY divide & dilute investments) will be beneficial to XC? The coins roadmaps are nearly PARALLEL. But now XC resources are split and working to accomplish the same goals on another coin."
Now do you see that XC has always, and always will be, "divided"? And contrary to your opinion, this is by far the most beneficial thing for XC and for all crypto. How do you think we have so much incredible tech, and develop it at such a rate? We collaborate, we gain code, we gain experience, we build relationships. This is what a healthy project looks like. Better get used to it. |
|
|
|
Longenecker, the past 3 weeks have seen a continuous stream of developments from XC, and yet you manage to somehow lose faith in the XC team's commitment?
Your perspective is profoundly warped.
The effect of your presence over the past 2 days has been purely negative.
Please stop. You have no idea how bloody annoying it is for me to have to deal with this.
I work 50+ hour weeks on XC ONLY. Not that you need to know, and not that I'm obliged to indulge your conspiracy theorism. Now shut up so I can have a rest this weekend.
Do not cast doubt on a project with an unmatched pace of development. And damn you for having done so already.
1) Let's keep this professional. 2) I feel that I am expressing valid criticisms. As someone who is newer to the XC project (I became aware around a month ago), these are my thoughts and concerns. I express them only out of concern for my investment and the overall benefit of XC. And I think it would be prudent to agree that if even one person is having these concerns, then there is a good chance some outside investors (as well as inside) may be thinking the same thing. 3) Rather than attacking my person, why not attack the points that I make? You don't have valid criticisms. You have a lack of information. If you are new to XC, then you really need to research XC's history of collaboration before forming a realistic opinion on it. Go read every single one. Look up the previous collaborations we've done and see how, in every case, there was at least one frustrating person in this thread making the sorts of complaints you have here. And in every case, these complaints have turned out to be profoundly misplaced, and XC's tech has been strengthened beyond doubt and without cost to the project. So for heaven's sake, research your investment properly before complaining. And then think twice before shooting yourself in the foot by casting doubt on a project you have a stake in (!). P.S. I did attack your points, rather than your person. I said: "do not cast doubt on a project with an unmatched pace of development." |
|
|
|
|
Longenecker, the past 3 weeks have seen a continuous stream of developments from XC, and yet you manage to somehow lose faith in the XC team's commitment?
Your perspective is profoundly warped.
The effect of your presence over the past 2 days has been purely negative.
Please stop. You have no idea how bloody annoying it is for me to have to deal with this.
I work 50+ hour weeks on XC ONLY. Not that you need to know, and not that I'm obliged to indulge your conspiracy theorism. Now shut up so I can have a rest this weekend.
Do not cast doubt on a project with an unmatched pace of development. And damn you for having done so already.
|
|
|
|
I laugh in their general direction.
As soon as XC integrates VOIP with Video, "Game over man, game over."
And if "VOIP with Video" is deemed a useful and desired feature that absolutely for some reason has to be implemented within a crypto coin, is there a reason Darkcoin couldn't implement it (or to follow the suit of XC, add it to their roadmap)? If you really need that feature now, these are just the couple of the first google hits I got - why would someone go through the trouble of buying coins so they can make VOIP calls when they can use already existing free software? http://zfoneproject.com/http://www.ibtimes.com/what-tox-hackers-develop-secure-private-skype-alternative-1675704Who says you'll need to buy coins? But thanks for the links. That Zfone thing might be legit, though Tox isn't truly distributed (it uses DHT). It's a desirable feature for a distributed privacy-centric web 3.0 platform. It's not a particularly desirable feature for a currency. (Yes, XC isn't a "coin".) |
|
|
|
Nice one. Replied. Let's all pile in! |
|
|
|
Also, put it this way. XC is not affected by the Bash shell bug. I wonder how many of those coins that have centralized masternode sitting on those Amazon EC2 center have already been infected by NSA... hmmm makes you wonder doesn't it?  Nice! |
|
|
|
from the eyes of a bully believe me there is nothing more fun than bullying XC because of our community code. Assholes like that look for victims not opponents and we are way to fucking nice with this assholes and let them pull us into their unwinnable arguments while they sit there laughing their asses of.
I hope this atlas review comes asap and is positiv. would shut this fuckers up for good.
I agree the community code is difficult to stick to when the same few assholes come round again and again, but it does seem to work - they kind of drift away (for therapy or something) when no-one rises to the bait. The saying of "Don't feed the troll" comes to mind. Hoertest, our community code does not make victims out of anyone. Constructive and respectful discussion is clearly apparent to onlookers, who will have no trouble identifying who's a troll and who is worthy of respect. So I think you're mistaken about that. And yes, not feeding trolls is an integral part of this. :-) |
|
|
|
Concerns about more DRK FUD. Let's continue to be respectful to them. I thought I was. I was being very diplomatic but I was just saying what Ive seen in the last 24hours or so on many forums. Doesn't matter in the end I amended my post to be respectful and moved on from this and continue pushing the glorious works of XC around and let the other coins fight for the scraps. Thanks for being diplomatic. That's great. All I mean is that if we come under attack again, we should all remember the XC community code and continue to treat even "enemies" respectfully. |
|
|
|
Concerns about more DRK FUD. Let's continue to be respectful to them. |
|
|
|
Man, do we love that troll. :-) Welcome, Propulsion. By all means, get involved. |
|
|
|
Synechist, people are starting to ask some good questions... Do your thing!  Edit - you beat me to it There is another question on web 3.0 not answered yet. Done :-) |
|
|
|
And commented. Nice one Battbot :-) |
|
|
|
Nice one! Thanks for that. Gonna tweet it... |
|
|
|
Yes I did. The videos you sent me are not really about numbers though, they're about physics. Nassim Haramein is not a reputable physicist. I haven't had time to look up Marko Rodin though because he doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Woah, woah....woah. Hold your horses, synechist. I don't think you want to open up this can of worms in this thread. I've taken several workshops on Nassim's theories. Why might you say that Nassim is not a reputable physicist? Because he doesn't have a university physics degree by which his mind would have been conditioned to fall in line with the asinine assumptions of the world's university-educated physicists? A degree is not necessary to qualify one as a reputable physicist, good sir. Nassim has some quite novel ideas that make more sense than anything I ever studied in my university physics classes. Heh. Yes I agree that a university physics degree isn't necessary to be a good physicist. I find his ideas interesting myself actually. I'm not a physicist and don't claim to have a well-founded opinion on Haramein - and so I don't take my opinion seriously. But for what it's worth, what led me to this (tentative) view is that Haramein posits that protons orbit each other. This is not how protons work; they don't "orbit" because they're spatially too indeterminate to do that sort of thing. So from this I assumed that while his ideas are appealing, in this respect - which is a key component of his theory - they've gone pretty drastically wrong. I'm open to correction of course. But let's chat about this elsewhere. It's not relevant to this thread. PM me? |
|
|
|
Yes I did. The videos you sent me are not really about numbers though, they're about physics. Nassim Haramein is not a reputable physicist. I haven't had time to look up Marko Rodin though because he doesn't have a Wikipedia page. |
|
|
|
You wanna skip the crypto-community and jump right to those stupid instagramm hipsters? That couldn't be further from the truth. Have you seen the sheer amount of crypto-specific press XC is getting? We pretty much ONLY focus on the crypto-community. Furthermore, the official launch will be as much focussed on the crypto community as it always has been, PLUS mainstream marketing. I'm sympathetic to your view and have given my reasons why the approach I've taken has been focussed on the crypto-community for now. I know you're frustrated but please stop ranting about this. I get your view. I agree with you that simplifying communications will appeal to a broader audience. I agree that some crypto-people are not technically minded. And I've tried to explain why XC was not in a position to do that before now. You're welcome to continue to disagree but I don't think there's anything in this that we haven't already discussed here. |
|
|
|
The node would have been an XMIXER
XMIXER requires 1000 XC, XNODE requires 0? Correct What is the default? I have 1001 XC but the mining icon is green and it says "Minting" (and the elusive reward is *always* 15-20 hours way). Is it necessary to have "-distmix-autonode" to be XNODE? I remember that was suggested 2-3 weeks ago, but I don't know which mode is better now. -distmix-autonode is to be an Xmixer. Every node (including Xmixers) are Xnodes, since they all use the end-to-end encrypted, serverless Xnode protocol. For a normal node, you need no minimum balance and you shouldn't run -distmix-autonode. For staking, don't run an Xmixer. For transaction fees, run an XMixer. All right, thank you. Now I do not have -distmix-autonode but I'm mining. That's something I don't understand. My shortcut has a few addnode + one maxconnections parameter, that's all. I'm on v0.9.2.49.08.XCurrency-REV2. Sounds perfect. You'll stake from time to time with no problems. Open your wallet about once every four days, if not more often. Enjoy! |
|
|
|
It would have gone up way more with a little normal/friendly "buy our product" mixed in. I sometimes have the impression you guys think you can just put on a switch and "maintream" adoption will kick in. If you can pull that of . Respect. would be a first timer.
How do you define the mainstream. people that are not into crypto yet? bitcoin only users? I'm not frsutrated with the price so much as with the lack of community growth.
You know who knows XC as the tech leader right now. the same ten dudes in here writing back and forth about how great XC is wondering why nobody seems to realise.
What product? There are no mobile apps, XChat's group chat is in testing, Privacy Mode's backend tech has only just been completed. We haven't even launched yet. "Mainstream" is people who use phones and computers. 99% of them have no idea what crypto even is. As for your thinking that the prior releases should've been worded more simply, I refer back to my earlier comments: (a) we needed to establish XC's credibility, not its saleability, and (b) we were explaining technical stuff. The style of those releases was tailored for that. Actual, mature products that people can use will be marketed accordingly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
