[ANN][CRYPT] CryptCoin x11 + PoS | P2P Anonymity | 0% Premine | Commander

[mindfox]

Pfft what a laugh why bite the hand that feeds you ?

Let me guess, mindfox had no idea how to implement anon - as lets be real here it took this guy 3 weeks to make a replacement wallet for XBC when the real dev up and left.  Probably took longer. Either way its still a true fact.

Also, where did he get this idea ? I dare say he is using his intimate knowledge of "previewing" the (at the time might still be) closed XC anon source because of all the muppets on here needing proof and validation (and to steal/copy and clone)

You may fool 99% of the people but that 1% will always cut through the bs

Mindfox confirmed that the recipient wallet needs to be online to receive coins. Evidently people don't seem to realise the implications of this, and how it puts this coin an a different category to other cryptos. IMO it makes the coin virtually worthless in practice. I wonder how many people actually read the whitepaper with a basic level of comprehension. It's either complete incompetence from the devs or an intentional pump & dump. I would guess it's the former.

Personally I would have loved to see a new approach to anon transactions to liven up the competition. Unfortunately this isn't it, it's hamstrung by the fact that the recipient wallet needs to be online to receive funds, and I don't see a way around this with the proposed architecture. But that won't stop people buying up cheap & pumping it with spurious claims and sycophantic bullshit.

This is not accurate. I didn't confirm that wallet needs to be online to receive coins. I said that it must be online to give delivery instructions. This is not the same.

Do you see any disadvantages to this implementation?

Of course there are. I do not believe in any "magic" implementation that concentrates all the advantages. There is balance with every choice. There are pros and cons to everything.
The disadvantage I see, is that there will be some delay in a "force with anonymity" transaction, as the wallet would have to wait to receive instructions on how to proceed. But this is only v1 of the design. We will work right after that into finding a smart way of avoiding this, without compromising coin security ( which is top priority for wallets, wouldn't you agree? )
A project is constantly evolving, expanding, becoming better, as long as there is required support and the need for it.

[1532077434]

1532077434

[1532077434]

1532077434

[1532077434]

1532077434

[Kruemmelmonster]

keep up the good work! i believe in Cryptcoin 

[zkaraca]

Pfft what a laugh why bite the hand that feeds you ?

Let me guess, mindfox had no idea how to implement anon - as lets be real here it took this guy 3 weeks to make a replacement wallet for XBC when the real dev up and left.  Probably took longer. Either way its still a true fact.

Also, where did he get this idea ? I dare say he is using his intimate knowledge of "previewing" the (at the time might still be) closed XC anon source because of all the muppets on here needing proof and validation (and to steal/copy and clone)

You may fool 99% of the people but that 1% will always cut through the bs

Mindfox confirmed that the recipient wallet needs to be online to receive coins. Evidently people don't seem to realise the implications of this, and how it puts this coin an a different category to other cryptos. IMO it makes the coin virtually worthless in practice. I wonder how many people actually read the whitepaper with a basic level of comprehension. It's either complete incompetence from the devs or an intentional pump & dump. I would guess it's the former.

Personally I would have loved to see a new approach to anon transactions to liven up the competition. Unfortunately this isn't it, it's hamstrung by the fact that the recipient wallet needs to be online to receive funds, and I don't see a way around this with the proposed architecture. But that won't stop people buying up cheap & pumping it with spurious claims and sycophantic bullshit.

This is not accurate. I didn't confirm that wallet needs to be online to receive coins. I said that it must be online to give delivery instructions. This is not the same.

Do you see any disadvantages to this implementation?

Of course there are. I do not believe in any "magic" implementation that concentrates all the advantages. There is balance with every choice. There are pros and cons to everything.
The disadvantage I see, is that there will be some delay in a "force with anonymity" transaction, as the wallet would have to wait to receive instructions on how to proceed. But this is only v1 of the design. We will work right after that into finding a smart way of avoiding this, without compromising coin security ( which is top priority for wallets, wouldn't you agree? )
A project is constantly evolving, expanding, becoming better, as long as there is required support and the need for it.

And this is what I would expect from a sincere developer. Thanks for your view on this matter. I believe that CRY has great potential. Good luck. Holding my bag for the long term.

[WheresMyWallet]

Nice to hear a competent developer putting down FUD in a calm and well explained manner.
Just shows the right people are working on the right coin for the future.

[LimLims]

This is not accurate. I didn't confirm that wallet needs to be online to receive coins. I said that it must be online to give delivery instructions. This is not the same.

Could you please clarify that distinction for me? What happens to the transaction if the recipient wallet doesn't respond with any delivery instructions? From my read of the whitepaper, the sender can't send anonymously unless the recipient is online and sends the appropriate response. If the recipient wallet is offline, the anon tx fails. Correct?

[mindfox]

This is not accurate. I didn't confirm that wallet needs to be online to receive coins. I said that it must be online to give delivery instructions. This is not the same.

Could you please clarify that distinction for me? What happens to the transaction if the recipient wallet doesn't respond with any delivery instructions? From my read of the whitepaper, the sender can't send anonymously unless the recipient is online and sends the appropriate response. If the recipient wallet is offline, the anon tx fails. Correct?

First of all, please first let me apologize for being so strict with wording. Since we are describing a process, wording is very critical to avoid misunderstandings and misconceptions.

Honestly, it would take a lot of writing for the details and this is not the time. Remember, this is still work in progress. But I like to discuss with people that have ideas and do constructive criticism, so feel free to stop by irc and we can discuss it if you're so interested.

Also, I feel obligated to notice that you mention nothing regarding other implementations where the existence of intermediates introduces the possibility of having a security breach there and have your coins lost or even stolen. As I already mentioned, I don't have a problem with constructive criticism, but in your posts (I could be wrong of course since English is not my native and perhaps I misunderstood) it's like you say that it's impractical to use this implementation. Perhaps all the other implementations are in a perfect state and I'm blind. Besides, what I offer is another alternative. I didn't say I invented teleportation or a way to change the global economy.
I had an idea and I'm implementing it, just like others did with their projects. If other projects made it with version 1, bravo to them. I believe there's always room for improvement, no matter how perfect I think something is, but that's only me, the imperfect one

[LimLims]

This is not accurate. I didn't confirm that wallet needs to be online to receive coins. I said that it must be online to give delivery instructions. This is not the same.

Could you please clarify that distinction for me? What happens to the transaction if the recipient wallet doesn't respond with any delivery instructions? From my read of the whitepaper, the sender can't send anonymously unless the recipient is online and sends the appropriate response. If the recipient wallet is offline, the anon tx fails. Correct?

First of all, please first let me apologize for being so strict with wording. Since we are describing a process, wording is very critical to avoid misunderstandings and misconceptions.

Honestly, it would take a lot of writing for the details and this is not the time. Remember, this is still work in progress. But I like to discuss with people that have ideas and do constructive criticism, so feel free to stop by irc and we can discuss it if you're so interested.

Also, I feel obligated to notice that you mention nothing regarding other implementations where the existence of intermediates introduces the possibility of having a security breach there and have your coins lost or even stolen. As I already mentioned, I don't have a problem with constructive criticism, but in your posts (I could be wrong of course since English is not my native and perhaps I misunderstood) it's like you say that it's impractical to use this implementation. Perhaps all the other implementations are in a perfect state and I'm blind. Besides, what I offer is another alternative. I didn't say I invented teleportation or a way to change the global economy.
I had an idea and I'm implementing it, just like others did with their projects. If other projects made it with version 1, bravo to them. I believe there's always room for improvement, no matter how perfect I think something is, but that's only me, the imperfect one

Thanks for the response, mindfox. I agree that there's currently no ideal implementation of anonymous transactions in cryptos. I applaud any attempt to overcome the drawbacks of existing coins (such as those you mention), and I'm particularly interested in understanding & talking through the pros & cons of such attempts. So, kudos to you, and I'll be interested to see how the project progresses.

At this point I was just after clarification on whether the recipient wallet needs to be online to receive coins anonymously. The whitepaper seems to indicate that it does, however you made a distinction that I needed clarification on, and you haven't clarified that point yet.

To clarify my position: there's nothing inherently wrong with an anon coin that requires recipient wallets to be online to give delivery instructions in order to receive anon transactions. But it will make the coin rather a different beast to (all) other cryptocurriencies that do not require this. There are practical ramifications that you may wish to carefully think through before proceeding too far with the proposed implementation. If you can find a way to do this without requiring the recipient wallet to be online at any point, that would be far more useful.

[zeca pagodinho]

Any updates for the next days?

[zkaraca]

Any updates for the next days?

Why the image?

[zeca pagodinho]

Any updates for the next days?

Why the image?

I'm looking at this coin!
I like to observe how things are being developed!

[litebtc]

This is not accurate. I didn't confirm that wallet needs to be online to receive coins. I said that it must be online to give delivery instructions. This is not the same.

Could you please clarify that distinction for me? What happens to the transaction if the recipient wallet doesn't respond with any delivery instructions? From my read of the whitepaper, the sender can't send anonymously unless the recipient is online and sends the appropriate response. If the recipient wallet is offline, the anon tx fails. Correct?

First of all, please first let me apologize for being so strict with wording. Since we are describing a process, wording is very critical to avoid misunderstandings and misconceptions.

Honestly, it would take a lot of writing for the details and this is not the time. Remember, this is still work in progress. But I like to discuss with people that have ideas and do constructive criticism, so feel free to stop by irc and we can discuss it if you're so interested.

Also, I feel obligated to notice that you mention nothing regarding other implementations where the existence of intermediates introduces the possibility of having a security breach there and have your coins lost or even stolen. As I already mentioned, I don't have a problem with constructive criticism, but in your posts (I could be wrong of course since English is not my native and perhaps I misunderstood) it's like you say that it's impractical to use this implementation. Perhaps all the other implementations are in a perfect state and I'm blind. Besides, what I offer is another alternative. I didn't say I invented teleportation or a way to change the global economy.
I had an idea and I'm implementing it, just like others did with their projects. If other projects made it with version 1, bravo to them. I believe there's always room for improvement, no matter how perfect I think something is, but that's only me, the imperfect one

Mindfox, I personally do not know you but from what I've read on the Internet and discussed with others, the community has faith in you and your work. I am a CRY investor at this point and seeing you are so into this project just makes me happy. I know that if WE succeed as a community to support it, it will get to places where we didn't even hoped.

Thank you again for your contribution.

[zkaraca]

Same here. Don't know Mindfox, but I do believe he is up to great things. I also invested in CRY and will hold a few months to see where this is headed.

[zmeddy]

I saw quite a few sessions with mindfox, also on previous projects and I noticed from the start that he is very carefully choosing his words. This helps the community to have realistic expectations and avoids misunderstanding. Bravo

[blueangel01]

Is this better than darkcoin in terms of anonymity?

[tristartek]

Is this better than darkcoin in terms of anonymity?

It is in essence a different approach without a masternode..or middleman.  In this instance everything happens between the wallets.

[ebliever]

Is this better than darkcoin in terms of anonymity?

I think so, if it works. (Of course, Dark is not a finished work either.) I read an article yesterday indicating CRY would not have transfer fees with this anonymity wallet-to-wallet system. That would be another plus in my book, though I need to think the implications through a bit more.

I made a lot of $ on the rise of DARK because I realized early on that anonymity would be a critical feature for crypto to meet corporate needs (keeping competition, vendors, etc. from seeing your financial transfers), so it wasn't just a niche feature for drug dealers. I therefore predicted that "all serious alts" would soon be working on anonymity as a standard feature. Looks like that's come true even faster than I dreamt.

The implication of that, though, is that if everyone has anonymity then having it provides no premium to a coins value. I think DARK is dangerously overvalued as a result, and have bailed on it and my other anon coins. But a best-in-class anonymity system, and things like free transfers could still be worth quite a bit to a market leader. So investing in some CRY here in the quiet trough its in (which I've done) could be a very smart bet down the road.

[ReRunRod]

Is this better than darkcoin in terms of anonymity?

I think so, if it works. (Of course, Dark is not a finished work either.) I read an article yesterday indicating CRY would not have transfer fees with this anonymity wallet-to-wallet system. That would be another plus in my book, though I need to think the implications through a bit more.

I made a lot of $ on the rise of DARK because I realized early on that anonymity would be a critical feature for crypto to meet corporate needs (keeping competition, vendors, etc. from seeing your financial transfers), so it wasn't just a niche feature for drug dealers. I therefore predicted that "all serious alts" would soon be working on anonymity as a standard feature. Looks like that's come true even faster than I dreamt.

The implication of that, though, is that if everyone has anonymity then having it provides no premium to a coins value. I think DARK is dangerously overvalued as a result, and have bailed on it and my other anon coins. But a best-in-class anonymity system, and things like free transfers could still be worth quite a bit to a market leader. So investing in some CRY here in the quiet trough its in (which I've done) could be a very smart bet down the road.

Thank you for the pointers

[droop]

The buys are stacking up in CRY. Any whiff of good news and it will be on! 

[TenaciousC]

price is increasing in a very healthy way, everyday a little bit higher...
And once the Developers deliver we might get a serious price explosion, good times are coming!

[zkaraca]

I am just holding my CRY for the long term. Hope it will be fine