Best privacy coin?

[generalizethis]

Privacy is one pf the hardest things to achieve in computer security, so I'm amazed at how many claim it. Xspec needs to explain how they are going to achieve anonymous staking or be one more coin in a long line of vaporware.

I agree with above and at the moment I am not happy with available solutions. There isn't a single coin which is hitting all my sweet spots.
That being said I believe that 2018 will be the year for privacy coins so I am expecting that new projects will emerge and existing ones will improve on their tech.  This will be very competitive field inside crypto.

Whatever proof he has can be posted here. This shouldn't require people going to slack to talk to a dev. And I suggest no one do this as they will likely try to talk around the issue with buzzwords. And frankly, the fact that you can't explain it yourself makes me think you do not understand how it's achieved, which means you are pimping based on the hopeful presumption that it will work.

Be chimerical on your own dime.

Those are only assumptions. Such a statement goes completely against your logic of facts over FUD. You have also generalized this based on your experiences perhaps. If I could tell you how this would be achieved, would you even understand? Look at a Spectrecoin chart and look at my post history, you'll find I've been very chimerical for this whole forum by only enforcing this currency.

https://icostats.com/roi-since-ico

Show me the code or stfu.

A white paper or code would suffice as facts, absent that you are selling hopium.

See how efficient I am?

Also, you should look up chimerical. It means vainly or fantastically hopeful, so saying, "you'll find I've been very chimerical for this whole forum by only enforcing this currency." isn't a good thing and goes to my point.

Depends on how you interpret it.

I won't argue with that efficiency, but keep in mind Spectrecoin is more than hopium having been the only cryptocurrency with OBFS4.

The 'Ghostpaper' is being released subsequent to the Q2 2018 release of stealth staking. This is merely a word backed my nothing other than your own interpretation of those behind it.

Chimerical (a word that has never traveled beyond its root of chimera) is only used for being fantastically hopeful--there's no way to interpret it another way unless you disregard accepted usage and dictionaries--in which case, any word could mean whatever you felt like and we can use graceful to mean car and pidgeon to mean horseshit. There are many words that have many meanings that can cause confusion unless the context is clear--but luckily for us, chimerical is not one of those words.

As for the rest, until they back up their claims with math, it's fantastically hopeful to think they can deliver. Or have you not been around long enough to understand most coins with tremendous claims are vaporware? The coins that actually deliver on their promises usually have white papers and code up for observation day-one.

[1714017485]

1714017485

[1714017485]

1714017485

[1714017485]

1714017485

[1714017485]

1714017485

[1714017485]

1714017485

[fanten]

Check out Opal

http://www.opal-coin.com/

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/opal/



-Algo : X13 POS
-No Premine
-No Ico
-5% POS interest
-Supply aprox 15mil
-Stealth addresses (Opaque)
-Encrypted messaging

Only 0.14$ on Cryptopia  

Good price but inactive development team :/

I will be watching this coin, hopefully someone will takeover

I don't really trust any new coins except those that founded by reputable person. If not, they are dangerous and I could lose my investment in those coins any time.

For me, the best privacy coin still would be Monero and I am still holding it since monero was $50 per tokens.

[bobitza202]

I don't really trust any new coins

Opal dates back to 2014, so technically it's not new 

[sirsplashalot]

@generalizethis

agree to disagree.

[generalizethis]

@generalizethis

agree to disagree.

So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises?

[sirsplashalot]

@generalizethis

agree to disagree.

So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises?

Sorry, I meant on the grammar lesson haha.

The developers should offer proof only through open source release of the technology. I believe Monero should have done the same before collecting millions of dollars for Kovri.

I am in favour of both. If you read my thread.

[generalizethis]

@generalizethis

agree to disagree.

So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises?

Sorry, I meant on the grammar lesson haha.

The developers should offer proof only through open source release of the technology. I believe Monero should have done the same before collecting millions of dollars for Kovri.

Kovri is open source and existed before Monero.

So you agree that spectre should provide proof they solved anonymous staking?

Also, so you disagree that we should use common usage as the deciding factor on how we interpret words? I'm just discussing day-to-day usage and disregarding special circumstances such as an academic or poet coining a new term or a new use for existing terms.

[sirsplashalot]

@generalizethis

agree to disagree.

So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises?

Sorry, I meant on the grammar lesson haha.

The developers should offer proof only through open source release of the technology. I believe Monero should have done the same before collecting millions of dollars for Kovri.

Kovri is open source and existed before Monero.

So you agree that spectre should provide proof they solved anonymous staking?

Also, so you disagree that we should use common usage as the deciding factor on how we interpret words? I'm just discussing day-to-day usage and disregarding special circumstances such as an academic or poet coining a new term or a new use for existing terms.

Yes, but Kovri is not actually implemented.

I am not having the grammar argument. I am not arguing that my BA and Law Degree weren't my worst investment either. You can have the grammar argument title too. I still have my massive bag of both Monero and Spectre. One of which has fast transactions, stakes out a nice pay daily and doesn't have even a fraction of the fee.

Even here in Venezuela, Mining is hard to remain anonymous even with free electricity.

[generalizethis]

@generalizethis

agree to disagree.

So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises?

Sorry, I meant on the grammar lesson haha.

The developers should offer proof only through open source release of the technology. I believe Monero should have done the same before collecting millions of dollars for Kovri.

Kovri is open source and existed before Monero.

So you agree that spectre should provide proof they solved anonymous staking?

Also, so you disagree that we should use common usage as the deciding factor on how we interpret words? I'm just discussing day-to-day usage and disregarding special circumstances such as an academic or poet coining a new term or a new use for existing terms.

Yes, but Kovri is not actually implemented.

I am not having the grammar argument. I am not arguing that my BA and Law Degree weren't my worst investment either. You can have the grammar argument title too. I still have my massive bag of both Monero and Spectre. One of which has fast transactions, stakes out a nice pay daily and doesn't have even a fraction of the fee.

If you don't want to argue word usage that's fine, but don't write, "agree to disagree" and expect me to disregard an inane argument. Just wanted clarification that that was the argument you were standing your ground at.

As far as Kovri goes, the code is being developed on GitHub, so anyone can peruse it and look to see if it is as it should be. Funding work before there is a finished product is common and no one funding the work was under any impression that that wasn't the case.

Nice side stepping, but let's repeat the question, and just "yes" or "no."

Do you think spectre coin should make available how they plan to make anonyous staking work?

My point in all of this has been that usually when a project fails at providing proof, it's  because it is vaporware and there is no proof. If you want to invest on hope, that's fine--but don't pretend it's reasonable for others to do the same or that asking for proof is somehow asking too much.

[Inkognito222]

Spectrecoin (XSPEC) very good privacy coin, more better than another coin on market . And now very very undervalued

[sirsplashalot]

@generalizethis

agree to disagree.

So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises?

Sorry, I meant on the grammar lesson haha.

The developers should offer proof only through open source release of the technology. I believe Monero should have done the same before collecting millions of dollars for Kovri.

Kovri is open source and existed before Monero.

So you agree that spectre should provide proof they solved anonymous staking?

Also, so you disagree that we should use common usage as the deciding factor on how we interpret words? I'm just discussing day-to-day usage and disregarding special circumstances such as an academic or poet coining a new term or a new use for existing terms.

Yes, but Kovri is not actually implemented.

I am not having the grammar argument. I am not arguing that my BA and Law Degree weren't my worst investment either. You can have the grammar argument title too. I still have my massive bag of both Monero and Spectre. One of which has fast transactions, stakes out a nice pay daily and doesn't have even a fraction of the fee.

If you don't want to argue word usage that's fine, but don't write, "agree to disagree" and expect me to disregard an inane argument. Just wanted clarification that that was the argument you were standing your ground at.

As far as Kovri goes, the code is being developed on GitHub, so anyone can peruse it and look to see if it is as it should be. Funding work before there is a finished product is common and no one funding the work was under any impression that that wasn't the case.

Nice side stepping, but let's repeat the question, and just "yes" or "no." No side stepping or getting frustrated with how language works or trying to focus attention on a project outside the scope of this thread.

Do you think spectre coin should make available how they plan to make anonyous staking work?

My point in all of this has been that usually when a project fails at providing proof, it's  because it is vaporware and there is no proof. If you want to invest on hope, that's fine--but don't pretend it's reasonable for others to do the same.

No, because nothing matters until it has been released and is running. Like I said, its backed merely through the world of development. But based on those facts, don't tell me that Monero has a superior approach by introducing Kovri without releasing wallet implementation.

[generalizethis]

@generalizethis

agree to disagree.

So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises?

Sorry, I meant on the grammar lesson haha.

The developers should offer proof only through open source release of the technology. I believe Monero should have done the same before collecting millions of dollars for Kovri.

Kovri is open source and existed before Monero.

So you agree that spectre should provide proof they solved anonymous staking?

Also, so you disagree that we should use common usage as the deciding factor on how we interpret words? I'm just discussing day-to-day usage and disregarding special circumstances such as an academic or poet coining a new term or a new use for existing terms.

Yes, but Kovri is not actually implemented.

I am not having the grammar argument. I am not arguing that my BA and Law Degree weren't my worst investment either. You can have the grammar argument title too. I still have my massive bag of both Monero and Spectre. One of which has fast transactions, stakes out a nice pay daily and doesn't have even a fraction of the fee.

If you don't want to argue word usage that's fine, but don't write, "agree to disagree" and expect me to disregard an inane argument. Just wanted clarification that that was the argument you were standing your ground at.

As far as Kovri goes, the code is being developed on GitHub, so anyone can peruse it and look to see if it is as it should be. Funding work before there is a finished product is common and no one funding the work was under any impression that that wasn't the case.

Nice side stepping, but let's repeat the question, and just "yes" or "no." No side stepping or getting frustrated with how language works or trying to focus attention on a project outside the scope of this thread.

Do you think spectre coin should make available how they plan to make anonyous staking work?

My point in all of this has been that usually when a project fails at providing proof, it's  because it is vaporware and there is no proof. If you want to invest on hope, that's fine--but don't pretend it's reasonable for others to do the same.

No, because nothing matters until it has been released and is running. Like I said, its backed merely through the world of development. But based on those facts, don't tell me that Monero has a superior approach by introducing Kovri without releasing wallet implementation.

"No..." so you are fine with betting blindly--I'm not.

TX and IP data are two different things so what difference does it make to someone as to whether kovri is implemented at all?  Monero works as advertised--it hides TX data. Hiding IP data only matters if you are living inside a country where using that particular crypto is illegal--and even then, it is trivial to use TOR or I2p with most cryptocurrencies--baking it in is a fool's errand meant to trick the naive into a false sense of privacy.

I just want to know how anonymous staking is achieved, shouldn't be that big a deal. Say you don't know and go about your day. Not sure why we have to circle around it and pretend that it doesn't matter or use faulty compaison that disregard how cryptocurrencies achieve anonymity.

[sirsplashalot]

@generalizethis

agree to disagree.

So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises?

Sorry, I meant on the grammar lesson haha.

The developers should offer proof only through open source release of the technology. I believe Monero should have done the same before collecting millions of dollars for Kovri.

Kovri is open source and existed before Monero.

So you agree that spectre should provide proof they solved anonymous staking?

Also, so you disagree that we should use common usage as the deciding factor on how we interpret words? I'm just discussing day-to-day usage and disregarding special circumstances such as an academic or poet coining a new term or a new use for existing terms.

Yes, but Kovri is not actually implemented.

I am not having the grammar argument. I am not arguing that my BA and Law Degree weren't my worst investment either. You can have the grammar argument title too. I still have my massive bag of both Monero and Spectre. One of which has fast transactions, stakes out a nice pay daily and doesn't have even a fraction of the fee.

If you don't want to argue word usage that's fine, but don't write, "agree to disagree" and expect me to disregard an inane argument. Just wanted clarification that that was the argument you were standing your ground at.

As far as Kovri goes, the code is being developed on GitHub, so anyone can peruse it and look to see if it is as it should be. Funding work before there is a finished product is common and no one funding the work was under any impression that that wasn't the case.

Nice side stepping, but let's repeat the question, and just "yes" or "no." No side stepping or getting frustrated with how language works or trying to focus attention on a project outside the scope of this thread.

Do you think spectre coin should make available how they plan to make anonyous staking work?

My point in all of this has been that usually when a project fails at providing proof, it's  because it is vaporware and there is no proof. If you want to invest on hope, that's fine--but don't pretend it's reasonable for others to do the same.

No, because nothing matters until it has been released and is running. Like I said, its backed merely through the world of development. But based on those facts, don't tell me that Monero has a superior approach by introducing Kovri without releasing wallet implementation.

"No..." so you're a moron--that's all i was trying to figure out

TX and IP data are two different things so what difference does it make to someone where using Monero is legal as to whether kovri is implemented at all?  Monero works as advertised--it hides TX data. Hiding IP data on;ly matters if you are living inside a country where using that particular crypto is illegal.

I just want to know how anonymous staking is achieved, shouldn't be that big a deal. Say you don't know and go about your day. Not sure why we have to circle around it and pretend that it doesn't matter or use faulty compaison that disregard how cryptocurrencies achieve anonymity.

Well, you can't spell Monero without m-o-r-o-n either. 

[generalizethis]

@generalizethis

agree to disagree.

So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises?

Sorry, I meant on the grammar lesson haha.

The developers should offer proof only through open source release of the technology. I believe Monero should have done the same before collecting millions of dollars for Kovri.

Kovri is open source and existed before Monero.

So you agree that spectre should provide proof they solved anonymous staking?

Also, so you disagree that we should use common usage as the deciding factor on how we interpret words? I'm just discussing day-to-day usage and disregarding special circumstances such as an academic or poet coining a new term or a new use for existing terms.

Yes, but Kovri is not actually implemented.

I am not having the grammar argument. I am not arguing that my BA and Law Degree weren't my worst investment either. You can have the grammar argument title too. I still have my massive bag of both Monero and Spectre. One of which has fast transactions, stakes out a nice pay daily and doesn't have even a fraction of the fee.

If you don't want to argue word usage that's fine, but don't write, "agree to disagree" and expect me to disregard an inane argument. Just wanted clarification that that was the argument you were standing your ground at.

As far as Kovri goes, the code is being developed on GitHub, so anyone can peruse it and look to see if it is as it should be. Funding work before there is a finished product is common and no one funding the work was under any impression that that wasn't the case.

Nice side stepping, but let's repeat the question, and just "yes" or "no." No side stepping or getting frustrated with how language works or trying to focus attention on a project outside the scope of this thread.

Do you think spectre coin should make available how they plan to make anonyous staking work?

My point in all of this has been that usually when a project fails at providing proof, it's  because it is vaporware and there is no proof. If you want to invest on hope, that's fine--but don't pretend it's reasonable for others to do the same.

No, because nothing matters until it has been released and is running. Like I said, its backed merely through the world of development. But based on those facts, don't tell me that Monero has a superior approach by introducing Kovri without releasing wallet implementation.

"No..." so you're a moron--that's all i was trying to figure out

TX and IP data are two different things so what difference does it make to someone where using Monero is legal as to whether kovri is implemented at all?  Monero works as advertised--it hides TX data. Hiding IP data on;ly matters if you are living inside a country where using that particular crypto is illegal.

I just want to know how anonymous staking is achieved, shouldn't be that big a deal. Say you don't know and go about your day. Not sure why we have to circle around it and pretend that it doesn't matter or use faulty compaison that disregard how cryptocurrencies achieve anonymity.

Well, you can't spell Monero without m-o-r-o-n either. 

Locking that comment in for when spectre fails to deliver--i suggest you get a new username now as this one will lose all credibility.

[sirsplashalot]

@generalizethis

agree to disagree.

So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises?

Sorry, I meant on the grammar lesson haha.

The developers should offer proof only through open source release of the technology. I believe Monero should have done the same before collecting millions of dollars for Kovri.

Kovri is open source and existed before Monero.

So you agree that spectre should provide proof they solved anonymous staking?

Also, so you disagree that we should use common usage as the deciding factor on how we interpret words? I'm just discussing day-to-day usage and disregarding special circumstances such as an academic or poet coining a new term or a new use for existing terms.

Yes, but Kovri is not actually implemented.

I am not having the grammar argument. I am not arguing that my BA and Law Degree weren't my worst investment either. You can have the grammar argument title too. I still have my massive bag of both Monero and Spectre. One of which has fast transactions, stakes out a nice pay daily and doesn't have even a fraction of the fee.

If you don't want to argue word usage that's fine, but don't write, "agree to disagree" and expect me to disregard an inane argument. Just wanted clarification that that was the argument you were standing your ground at.

As far as Kovri goes, the code is being developed on GitHub, so anyone can peruse it and look to see if it is as it should be. Funding work before there is a finished product is common and no one funding the work was under any impression that that wasn't the case.

Nice side stepping, but let's repeat the question, and just "yes" or "no." No side stepping or getting frustrated with how language works or trying to focus attention on a project outside the scope of this thread.

Do you think spectre coin should make available how they plan to make anonyous staking work?

My point in all of this has been that usually when a project fails at providing proof, it's  because it is vaporware and there is no proof. If you want to invest on hope, that's fine--but don't pretend it's reasonable for others to do the same.

No, because nothing matters until it has been released and is running. Like I said, its backed merely through the world of development. But based on those facts, don't tell me that Monero has a superior approach by introducing Kovri without releasing wallet implementation.

"No..." so you're a moron--that's all i was trying to figure out

TX and IP data are two different things so what difference does it make to someone where using Monero is legal as to whether kovri is implemented at all?  Monero works as advertised--it hides TX data. Hiding IP data on;ly matters if you are living inside a country where using that particular crypto is illegal.

I just want to know how anonymous staking is achieved, shouldn't be that big a deal. Say you don't know and go about your day. Not sure why we have to circle around it and pretend that it doesn't matter or use faulty compaison that disregard how cryptocurrencies achieve anonymity.

Well, you can't spell Monero without m-o-r-o-n either. 

Locking that comment in for when spectre fails to deliver--i suggest you get a new username now as this one will lose all credibility.

No, I'll keep the comment so the public can see your fuelled anger you edited out of embarrassment. Like you say 'facts over fud.' Time will tell. Ill be holding my massive bags of Both Monero and Spectrecoin either way.

[generalizethis]

@generalizethis

agree to disagree.

So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises?

Sorry, I meant on the grammar lesson haha.

The developers should offer proof only through open source release of the technology. I believe Monero should have done the same before collecting millions of dollars for Kovri.

Kovri is open source and existed before Monero.

So you agree that spectre should provide proof they solved anonymous staking?

Also, so you disagree that we should use common usage as the deciding factor on how we interpret words? I'm just discussing day-to-day usage and disregarding special circumstances such as an academic or poet coining a new term or a new use for existing terms.

Yes, but Kovri is not actually implemented.

I am not having the grammar argument. I am not arguing that my BA and Law Degree weren't my worst investment either. You can have the grammar argument title too. I still have my massive bag of both Monero and Spectre. One of which has fast transactions, stakes out a nice pay daily and doesn't have even a fraction of the fee.

If you don't want to argue word usage that's fine, but don't write, "agree to disagree" and expect me to disregard an inane argument. Just wanted clarification that that was the argument you were standing your ground at.

As far as Kovri goes, the code is being developed on GitHub, so anyone can peruse it and look to see if it is as it should be. Funding work before there is a finished product is common and no one funding the work was under any impression that that wasn't the case.

Nice side stepping, but let's repeat the question, and just "yes" or "no." No side stepping or getting frustrated with how language works or trying to focus attention on a project outside the scope of this thread.

Do you think spectre coin should make available how they plan to make anonyous staking work?

My point in all of this has been that usually when a project fails at providing proof, it's  because it is vaporware and there is no proof. If you want to invest on hope, that's fine--but don't pretend it's reasonable for others to do the same.

No, because nothing matters until it has been released and is running. Like I said, its backed merely through the world of development. But based on those facts, don't tell me that Monero has a superior approach by introducing Kovri without releasing wallet implementation.

"No..." so you're a moron--that's all i was trying to figure out

TX and IP data are two different things so what difference does it make to someone where using Monero is legal as to whether kovri is implemented at all?  Monero works as advertised--it hides TX data. Hiding IP data on;ly matters if you are living inside a country where using that particular crypto is illegal.

I just want to know how anonymous staking is achieved, shouldn't be that big a deal. Say you don't know and go about your day. Not sure why we have to circle around it and pretend that it doesn't matter or use faulty compaison that disregard how cryptocurrencies achieve anonymity.

Well, you can't spell Monero without m-o-r-o-n either.  

Locking that comment in for when spectre fails to deliver--i suggest you get a new username now as this one will lose all credibility.

No, I'll keep the comment so the public can see your fuelled anger you edited out of embarrassment. Like you say 'facts over fud.' Time will tell. Ill be holding my massive bags of Both Monero and Spectrecoin either way.

Edited out of embarrassment? I edit a lot after I post--i'm a perfectionist. I thought explaining why you are a moron is better than just calling you a moron--doesn't change that I feel you are a moron and definatley not ashamed of calling you a moron. As much of my time as you've wasted, I'm surprised I didn't call you worse and earlier. My only comfort is that you will likely lose a lot of money when the devs dump their shitcoin.

Prediction for spectre: date assigned for anonymous staking implementation, pump, date comes with delay or complete disappearance of the spectre devs. You hodling a bag of nothing and wishing you had listened to me instead of wasting my time.

[sirsplashalot]

@generalizethis

agree to disagree.

So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises?

Sorry, I meant on the grammar lesson haha.

The developers should offer proof only through open source release of the technology. I believe Monero should have done the same before collecting millions of dollars for Kovri.

Kovri is open source and existed before Monero.

So you agree that spectre should provide proof they solved anonymous staking?

Also, so you disagree that we should use common usage as the deciding factor on how we interpret words? I'm just discussing day-to-day usage and disregarding special circumstances such as an academic or poet coining a new term or a new use for existing terms.

Yes, but Kovri is not actually implemented.

I am not having the grammar argument. I am not arguing that my BA and Law Degree weren't my worst investment either. You can have the grammar argument title too. I still have my massive bag of both Monero and Spectre. One of which has fast transactions, stakes out a nice pay daily and doesn't have even a fraction of the fee.

If you don't want to argue word usage that's fine, but don't write, "agree to disagree" and expect me to disregard an inane argument. Just wanted clarification that that was the argument you were standing your ground at.

As far as Kovri goes, the code is being developed on GitHub, so anyone can peruse it and look to see if it is as it should be. Funding work before there is a finished product is common and no one funding the work was under any impression that that wasn't the case.

Nice side stepping, but let's repeat the question, and just "yes" or "no." No side stepping or getting frustrated with how language works or trying to focus attention on a project outside the scope of this thread.

Do you think spectre coin should make available how they plan to make anonyous staking work?

My point in all of this has been that usually when a project fails at providing proof, it's  because it is vaporware and there is no proof. If you want to invest on hope, that's fine--but don't pretend it's reasonable for others to do the same.

No, because nothing matters until it has been released and is running. Like I said, its backed merely through the world of development. But based on those facts, don't tell me that Monero has a superior approach by introducing Kovri without releasing wallet implementation.

"No..." so you're a moron--that's all i was trying to figure out

TX and IP data are two different things so what difference does it make to someone where using Monero is legal as to whether kovri is implemented at all?  Monero works as advertised--it hides TX data. Hiding IP data on;ly matters if you are living inside a country where using that particular crypto is illegal.

I just want to know how anonymous staking is achieved, shouldn't be that big a deal. Say you don't know and go about your day. Not sure why we have to circle around it and pretend that it doesn't matter or use faulty compaison that disregard how cryptocurrencies achieve anonymity.

Well, you can't spell Monero without m-o-r-o-n either.  

Locking that comment in for when spectre fails to deliver--i suggest you get a new username now as this one will lose all credibility.

No, I'll keep the comment so the public can see your fuelled anger you edited out of embarrassment. Like you say 'facts over fud.' Time will tell. Ill be holding my massive bags of Both Monero and Spectrecoin either way.

Edited out of embarrassment? I edit a lot after I post--i'm a perfectionist. I thought explaining why you are a moron is better than just calling you a moron--doesn't change that I feel you are a moron and definatley not ashamed of calling you a moron. As much of my time as you've wasted, I'm surprised I didn't call you worse and earlier. My only comfort is that you will likely lose a lot of money when the devs dump their shitcoin.

Prediction for spectre: date assigned for anonymous staking implementation, pump, date comes with delay or complete disappearance of the spectre devs. You hodling a bag of nothing and wishing you had listened to me instead of wasting my time.

As a self-proclaimed perfectionist, you are best editing your prediction. And the math will only suit your comfort when Spectrecoin goes back to 86 satts. Don't get too comfortable.

[Trofo]

Check out Opal

http://www.opal-coin.com/

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/opal/



-Algo : X13 POS
-No Premine
-No Ico
-5% POS interest
-Supply aprox 15mil
-Stealth addresses (Opaque)
-Encrypted messaging

Only 0.14$ on Cryptopia  

I have just started checking the project and immediately noticed that the project currently has only two developers. Is this correct? If affirmative, it is very small number for a serious project and they will need long time implement new features.

Furthermore, I prefer for projects I take interest in to have real devs (meaning real names plus pictures, bios, etc)

[carlocolucci83]

@generalizethis

agree to disagree.

So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises?

Sorry, I meant on the grammar lesson haha.

The developers should offer proof only through open source release of the technology. I believe Monero should have done the same before collecting millions of dollars for Kovri.

Kovri is open source and existed before Monero.

So you agree that spectre should provide proof they solved anonymous staking?

Also, so you disagree that we should use common usage as the deciding factor on how we interpret words? I'm just discussing day-to-day usage and disregarding special circumstances such as an academic or poet coining a new term or a new use for existing terms.

Yes, but Kovri is not actually implemented.

I am not having the grammar argument. I am not arguing that my BA and Law Degree weren't my worst investment either. You can have the grammar argument title too. I still have my massive bag of both Monero and Spectre. One of which has fast transactions, stakes out a nice pay daily and doesn't have even a fraction of the fee.

If you don't want to argue word usage that's fine, but don't write, "agree to disagree" and expect me to disregard an inane argument. Just wanted clarification that that was the argument you were standing your ground at.

As far as Kovri goes, the code is being developed on GitHub, so anyone can peruse it and look to see if it is as it should be. Funding work before there is a finished product is common and no one funding the work was under any impression that that wasn't the case.

Nice side stepping, but let's repeat the question, and just "yes" or "no." No side stepping or getting frustrated with how language works or trying to focus attention on a project outside the scope of this thread.

Do you think spectre coin should make available how they plan to make anonyous staking work?

My point in all of this has been that usually when a project fails at providing proof, it's  because it is vaporware and there is no proof. If you want to invest on hope, that's fine--but don't pretend it's reasonable for others to do the same.

No, because nothing matters until it has been released and is running. Like I said, its backed merely through the world of development. But based on those facts, don't tell me that Monero has a superior approach by introducing Kovri without releasing wallet implementation.

"No..." so you're a moron--that's all i was trying to figure out

TX and IP data are two different things so what difference does it make to someone where using Monero is legal as to whether kovri is implemented at all?  Monero works as advertised--it hides TX data. Hiding IP data on;ly matters if you are living inside a country where using that particular crypto is illegal.

I just want to know how anonymous staking is achieved, shouldn't be that big a deal. Say you don't know and go about your day. Not sure why we have to circle around it and pretend that it doesn't matter or use faulty compaison that disregard how cryptocurrencies achieve anonymity.

Well, you can't spell Monero without m-o-r-o-n either.  

Locking that comment in for when spectre fails to deliver--i suggest you get a new username now as this one will lose all credibility.

No, I'll keep the comment so the public can see your fuelled anger you edited out of embarrassment. Like you say 'facts over fud.' Time will tell. Ill be holding my massive bags of Both Monero and Spectrecoin either way.

Edited out of embarrassment? I edit a lot after I post--i'm a perfectionist. I thought explaining why you are a moron is better than just calling you a moron--doesn't change that I feel you are a moron and definatley not ashamed of calling you a moron. As much of my time as you've wasted, I'm surprised I didn't call you worse and earlier. My only comfort is that you will likely lose a lot of money when the devs dump their shitcoin.

Prediction for spectre: date assigned for anonymous staking implementation, pump, date comes with delay or complete disappearance of the spectre devs. You hodling a bag of nothing and wishing you had listened to me instead of wasting my time.

Dude, instead of acting as if you all know it, why even bother spamming this post and just let it go? Please let's have a debate in a civilized manner instead of saying things as "stfu" and "moron" to people here and laughing on their grammer, that means you are either immature or not open for debate but merely here to confim what you already seem to regard as being the ultimate truth.

Instead of arguing without any sense, you could have gotten an answer from the dev team, try @jbg on spectreproject.slack.com, who will provide you with an answer in a matter of minutes as the devs are very active and open for answering questions. I know many, many coins are being shilled without any underlying tech and many promises are being made in this cryptomarket, but what you are doing now is discussing matters with a person who cannot provide you with an answer, which does not get you anywhere but confirm your thoughts you already seem to have. It does not make any sense.

That being said, it is not strange that new upcoming tech is not revealed in great detail. Why should they? Xspec has a very strong community of people who really believe in the coin and its underlying tech. If we would be your regular pump and dump coin, you would have seen 1000's of posts everywhere claiming we have the new next bext greatest thing ever (remember "Wraith"?). That is not happening here. In addition, I invite you to take a look at the 3 or 6 monthly chart. Do you see any pattern here of a pump and dump coin? The coin has been and is growing slowly but steadily. I invite you to join our slack, you will see a great community which is happily going to provide you with any questions you may have. If you are not interested, that would be your right of course, but please let's debate decently. Peace!

[generalizethis]

Post how spectre achieves anonymous staking or stfu.

That's all that should matter to investors and if it's available, post it and end any debate.

I'm not apologizing for getting angry with people who waste my time. He could have just wrote, "I don't know how it works," and saved us both some time. Instead he tried to make it out like I was asking an unreasonable question and deflecting from the question.

As far as grammar, I'm not apologizing for expecting words to fall in line with their definitions and not to have to debate their meaning when there is only one definition--this goes back to my annoyance of having my time wasted. Instead of trying to make it about me versus spectre, you should focus on why people believe it can do something that's never been done before without a whitepaper or an explanation as to how it works.

It's simple--post how it works or expect me to call you out on it. I'm not jumping through hoops for you and it's customary to have a whitepaper to go along with a new claim. Expecting less is a much bigger  problem than any personality conflict you have with me.