Is spectrecoin a scam?

[generalizethis]

Well, what would you do if you had figured out a way to do this? Explain your idea to everybody and spread the news everywhere? In that case bigger coins, which have much more funding, could implement the technique in a fraction of the time our developers could. And then when we're finally done, everyone would just ask "ok but why are you doing what coin XY already implemented 2 months ago"? It's in our own interest as Spectrecoin investors that the devs will keep this secret until everything is ready to go.

Also, our software is already valuable on its own ... we're not an ICO any more that just wants to collect money. We have a working product and a coin that is valued around $100M USD, and a stealth transaction mechanism that works. Calling it a scam just because of one single feature that has been announced but not released yet, is a bit hypocritical.

Just wanted to write something like this.
Nobody will tell you in details how that or this feature works because it's business and it's competitive.
Even if they would like to tell you, how do you see this? Give you a bunch of code?

Pretty standard to release a whitepaper before you make a claim so other devs can look over the design. Something so big should have waited until there is an actual release (which would have likely been a quick rise into the top 20 if true), so it's very suspicious that they didn't and are making the claim months before they can let anyone look it over.

They should have waited or released a whitepaper with the anouncement  if they didn't want the claim scrutinized--it's as simple as that. TBH.there's nothing in this coin's history to make me take such a claim at face value. Even if GMaxwell had made this claim, I'd want to see documentation and the required math.

TBH, it would be better if they had made some less outrageous claim as it probably would fly under the radar.

[SriNr]

I think, SPECTRE is one best upcoming ICO’s from every aspect. I have read an article on SPECTRE, as I feel people overlook big opportunities in the early stage and regret later.and SPECTRE is uniquely different from any other blockchain projects that may have similar names such as ‘spectrecoin’ which are in no way associated or compete with SPECTRE.

[johncro_]

I think, SPECTRE is one best upcoming ICO’s from every aspect. I have read an article on SPECTRE, as I feel people overlook big opportunities in the early stage and regret later.and SPECTRE is uniquely different from any other blockchain projects that may have similar names such as ‘spectrecoin’ which are in no way associated or compete with SPECTRE.

wrong thread

[sirsplashalot]

I think, SPECTRE is one best upcoming ICO’s from every aspect. I have read an article on SPECTRE, as I feel people overlook big opportunities in the early stage and regret later.and SPECTRE is uniquely different from any other blockchain projects that may have similar names such as ‘spectrecoin’ which are in no way associated or compete with SPECTRE.

The thread title says Spectrecoin lol.

[generalizethis]

I think, SPECTRE is one best upcoming ICO’s from every aspect. I have read an article on SPECTRE, as I feel people overlook big opportunities in the early stage and regret later.and SPECTRE is uniquely different from any other blockchain projects that may have similar names such as ‘spectrecoin’ which are in no way associated or compete with SPECTRE.

Good example of how a currency lets cryptographers study its design BEFORE they release it. The Monero cryptographers are actually studying it and speaking to the SPECTRE team to see how secure it is--the results have been positive. This working across projects and sharing information is how opensource is supposed to work and is a benefit for everyone involved.

Now spectrecoin is an entirely different story. Apparently were supposed to trust an unknown design and buy-in on ignorance.

[sirsplashalot]

I think, SPECTRE is one best upcoming ICO’s from every aspect. I have read an article on SPECTRE, as I feel people overlook big opportunities in the early stage and regret later.and SPECTRE is uniquely different from any other blockchain projects that may have similar names such as ‘spectrecoin’ which are in no way associated or compete with SPECTRE.

Good example of how a currency lets cryptographers study its design BEFORE they release it. The Monero cryptographers are actually studying it and speaking to the SPECTRE team to see how secure it is--the results have been positive. This working across projects and sharing information is how opensource is supposed to work and is a benefit for everyone involved.

Now spectrecoin is an entirely different story. Apparently were supposed to trust an unknown design and buy-in on ignorance.

'Spectre' is not a currency, its a trading platform, and I have no idea why someone would give monetary value to a trading platform as if it were a cryptocurrency.

[spectre_jbg]

IP data is not TX data. When you realize the difference you will know what keeps your funds from being tracked. This is like pointing out that I can see my neighbor login to TOR--you still can't see what sites they visited, which is the more important information.

If I'm a government with the ability to do dragnet-style surveillance, I simply need to find the peer that first relayed a given transaction. It's not a particularly difficult challenge once I'm already collecting all the data. As long as the transactions are being relayed over clearnet this vulnerability exists. This is why Spectre integrates Tor and only exchanges traffic between onion addresses. I understand that Monero is integrating I2P for a similar reason?

[momo_213]

It's just strange seeing it mentioned so often here...especially when compared to other crypto communities that I'm looking at.

[spectre_jbg]

Pretty standard to release a whitepaper before you make a claim so other devs can look over the design. Something so big should have waited until there is an actual release (which would have likely been a quick rise into the top 20 if true), so it's very suspicious that they didn't and are making the claim months before they can let anyone look it over.

They should have waited or released a whitepaper with the anouncement  if they didn't want the claim scrutinized--it's as simple as that. TBH.there's nothing in this coin's history to make me take such a claim at face value. Even if GMaxwell had made this claim, I'd want to see documentation and the required math.

I don't mind the claim being scrutinised - as I have already said, I am not asking you to believe anything until the design is public. I am very strongly against the shilling that I see on Bitcointalk but it's not as if I can prevent people from doing what they want. We don't pay for or incentivise this stuff at all (even if we wanted to, which we definitely don't, we have no budget to do so). If it were up to me, we would keep relatively quiet about the stealth staking until it was ready to go. But people want to know what we have planned to release in the future, and we've already worked out the math and validated it, so we put it on the roadmap, and then half the community wants to tell everyone on bitcointalk 

TBH, it would be better if they had made some less outrageous claim as it probably would fly under the radar.

So, you're saying we should lie? 

[generalizethis]

IP data is not TX data. When you realize the difference you will know what keeps your funds from being tracked. This is like pointing out that I can see my neighbor login to TOR--you still can't see what sites they visited, which is the more important information.

If I'm a government with the ability to do dragnet-style surveillance, I simply need to find the peer that first relayed a given transaction. It's not a particularly difficult challenge once I'm already collecting all the data. As long as the transactions are being relayed over clearnet this vulnerability exists. This is why Spectre integrates Tor and only exchanges traffic between onion addresses. I understand that Monero is integrating I2P for a similar reason?

It's trivial to use TOR or I2p with most cryptocurrencies, so baking it in is not needed--I believe Monero is waiting for Kovri because of some concern with network security. Apparently baking-in TOR or I2p has an effect on Monero's network security that Kovri doesn't have--you will have to pm one of the Monero devs for an in-depth answer.

[generalizethis]

Pretty standard to release a whitepaper before you make a claim so other devs can look over the design. Something so big should have waited until there is an actual release (which would have likely been a quick rise into the top 20 if true), so it's very suspicious that they didn't and are making the claim months before they can let anyone look it over.

They should have waited or released a whitepaper with the anouncement  if they didn't want the claim scrutinized--it's as simple as that. TBH.there's nothing in this coin's history to make me take such a claim at face value. Even if GMaxwell had made this claim, I'd want to see documentation and the required math.

I don't mind the claim being scrutinised - as I have already said, I am not asking you to believe anything until the design is public. I am very strongly against the shilling that I see on Bitcointalk but it's not as if I can prevent people from doing what they want. We don't pay for or incentivise this stuff at all (even if we wanted to, which we definitely don't, we have no budget to do so). If it were up to me, we would keep relatively quiet about the stealth staking until it was ready to go. But people want to know what we have planned to release in the future, and we've already worked out the math and validated it, so we put it on the roadmap, and then half the community wants to tell everyone on bitcointalk 

TBH, it would be better if they had made some less outrageous claim as it probably would fly under the radar.

So, you're saying we should lie? 

No, you shouldn't advertise it until there is something to validate the claim. Right now, it's your word and a claim--that's about as sketchy as it gets.

[spectre_jbg]

It's trivial to use TOR or I2p with most cryptocurrencies, so baking it in is not needed--I believe Monero is waiting for Kovri because of some concern with network security. Apparently baking-in TOR or I2p has an effect on Monero's network security that Kovri doesn't have--you will have to pm one of the Monero devs for an in-depth answer.

This is a really common misconception, but it's not true. It is not trivial to just use Tor/I2P with any cryptocurrency, if you care at all about your privacy and security. If you're not using onion addresses (or the I2P equivalent) then your traffic is traveling unencrypted across exit nodes, who can view and even censor your transactions. It's well known that some of these exit nodes are operated by governments with an interest in doing exactly that sort of thing.

The integration of Tor or I2P with a cryptocurrency requires thought and care, which is no doubt exactly why Monero is pursuing Kovri, and is also why Spectre integrates Tor and uses only onion addresses, rather than just pointing the SOCKS proxy at Tor like people suggest you can just do with any cryptocurrency.

[spectre_jbg]

No, you shouldn't advertise it until there is something to validate the claim. Right now, it's your word and a claim--that's about as sketchy as it gets.

As a project, we just put something on our roadmap that we're working on. That's the extent of the "advertising" that we've done. (Please don't confuse random community members shilling on bitcointalk with something controlled or condoned by the project.)

I think Gandalf86 put it quite well as to why we didn't simultaneously publish the full details of how it works when we listed it on our roadmap. To put things in perspective, we have many orders of magnitude less funding than Monero. If we publish the solution to a problem that everyone is interested in, we're almost certainly not going to be the first to successfully implement it in our currency.

[iwillhodl]

I think that yes, it is a scam, but only due to the stupid marketing almost everywhere on bitcointalk where I can see posts "xspec is best!!!!111!" and subjective ads. When we think about idea it seems ok, but let's see if this really delivers

[monkfishy]

How can it be a scam? A scam means that the devs plan on taking off with the money or that the entire project is just air. It's clearly a real project. Perhaps there's doubt, legitimate or not, about whether they can deliver 100% on their plans. But that's pretty far away from it being a scam.

[generalizethis]

It's trivial to use TOR or I2p with most cryptocurrencies, so baking it in is not needed--I believe Monero is waiting for Kovri because of some concern with network security. Apparently baking-in TOR or I2p has an effect on Monero's network security that Kovri doesn't have--you will have to pm one of the Monero devs for an in-depth answer.

This is a really common misconception, but it's not true. It is not trivial to just use Tor/I2P with any cryptocurrency, if you care at all about your privacy and security. If you're not using onion addresses (or the I2P equivalent) then your traffic is traveling unencrypted across exit nodes, who can view and even censor your transactions. It's well known that some of these exit nodes are operated by governments with an interest in doing exactly that sort of thing.

The integration of Tor or I2P with a cryptocurrency requires thought and care, which is no doubt exactly why Monero is pursuing Kovri, and is also why Spectre integrates Tor and uses only onion addresses, rather than just pointing the SOCKS proxy at Tor like people suggest you can just do with any cryptocurrency.

I also think it's trivial to write a sonnet, but that doesn't mean it's easy for most people. The main user here likely knows how to run TOR or I2p already. Or are you arguing that that is the one piece of OPSEC the casual user can't get right? I was arguing that TX data is the more important (and harder to achieve) of the two.

Anyway, not sure why you are locked-in on that when the topic was created to address your claim that you've figured out how to do anonymous staking.

What other projects have you worked on and do you have contact info?

[generalizethis]

How can it be a scam? A scam means that the devs plan on taking off with the money or that the entire project is just air. It's clearly a real project. Perhaps there's doubt, legitimate or not, about whether they can deliver 100% on their plans. But that's pretty far away from it being a scam.

If they say they have a solution for anonymous staking and they don't, it's a scam.

[spectre_jbg]

I also think it's trivial to write a sonnet, but that doesn't mean it's easy for most people. The main user here likely knows how to run TOR or I2p already. Or are you arguing that that is the one piece of OPSEC the casual user can't get right? I was arguing that TX data is the more important (and harder to achieve) of the two.

Even if they run Tor and I2P perfectly, their traffic is still going over exit nodes unless the currency they're using supports advertising .onion (/I2P equiv) peers. Very few do. Bitcoin actually does, but there are vanishingly few such peers advertised, which obviously brings its own problems.

Anyway, not sure why you are locked-in on that when the topic was created to address your claim that you've figured out how to do anonymous staking.

Not locked-in on anything. Was just addressing the misconception that you were (and still seem to be) repeating.

What other projects have you worked on and do you have contact info?

Sorry, I prefer to let results speak for themselves. Check back in a few months for that

[generalizethis]

No, you shouldn't advertise it until there is something to validate the claim. Right now, it's your word and a claim--that's about as sketchy as it gets.

As a project, we just put something on our roadmap that we're working on. That's the extent of the "advertising" that we've done. (Please don't confuse random community members shilling on bitcointalk with something controlled or condoned by the project.)

I think Gandalf86 put it quite well as to why we didn't simultaneously publish the full details of how it works when we listed it on our roadmap. To put things in perspective, we have many orders of magnitude less funding than Monero. If we publish the solution to a problem that everyone is interested in, we're almost certainly not going to be the first to successfully implement it in our currency.

Well, you have eyes on you now, as the shills wanted, so people will trust you on your word or not--not much you can do about it now.

This may be hindsight is 20/20, but making such a huge claim, you should have expected this kind of attention. And it seems naive on your part to believe shills wouldn't run with the story in an effort to pump their investment.

[spectre_jbg]

And no, I don't think it's scam - however it would be interesting if this spammers are paid or if they're doing it on their own.

I know I can't prove this, so there's probably no point in saying it - but we don't have a cent for marketing. The two developers we have (Bryce and I) are funded entirely by community donations, which don't amount to a lot at the moment, and we're not big holders of XSPEC. After funding the two of us there's nothing left to spend on marketing. And honestly, even if we had money for marketing, it wouldn't be given to people to shill here. I hate that kind of thing.