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

[bitjas]

  Buy or CRY. 

Haha, I like it, would be a good moto for this coin

[MsCollec]

I'm new to the cry. Can I get a preview of what's coming?  Seems like the dev missed 1 day of work

New type of ANON send is being worked on by @MINDFOX - elite developer. It is unlike any ANON currently being used/tested. It does not involve a Masternode and it is not something petty like a mixer. Very exciting time, we're only a few days out from the ANN.

halfcab123 if its the real mindfox that's huge, he's got tons of experience and is a pro. dev.
very interesting. gonna check CRY out some more.

God damn it. If you believe in a coin, making a new account to pump only makes it look bad. Unless you're intentionally trying to drop the price to buy more, I have no idea what you're trying to pull.

I'm not a noob account.  The dev is real.  The team is excited.  We're encryption enthusiasts that despise the NSA.  Buy or CRY.  Good things coming.

is the anon based on coinjoin or its just a new protocol.

[Paladin69]

I'm new to the cry. Can I get a preview of what's coming?  Seems like the dev missed 1 day of work

New type of ANON send is being worked on by @MINDFOX - elite developer. It is unlike any ANON currently being used/tested. It does not involve a Masternode and it is not something petty like a mixer. Very exciting time, we're only a few days out from the ANN.

halfcab123 if its the real mindfox that's huge, he's got tons of experience and is a pro. dev.
very interesting. gonna check CRY out some more.

God damn it. If you believe in a coin, making a new account to pump only makes it look bad. Unless you're intentionally trying to drop the price to buy more, I have no idea what you're trying to pull.

I'm not a noob account.  The dev is real.  The team is excited.  We're encryption enthusiasts that despise the NSA.  Buy or CRY.  Good things coming.

All the power to you.

I think the new account thing is a new elaborate FUD trick.

cab wasn't really supposed to post here yet.  But that is our news.  We'll have to move the more official information release faster.  Expect it soon.

[Paladin69]

I'm new to the cry. Can I get a preview of what's coming?  Seems like the dev missed 1 day of work

New type of ANON send is being worked on by @MINDFOX - elite developer. It is unlike any ANON currently being used/tested. It does not involve a Masternode and it is not something petty like a mixer. Very exciting time, we're only a few days out from the ANN.

halfcab123 if its the real mindfox that's huge, he's got tons of experience and is a pro. dev.
very interesting. gonna check CRY out some more.

God damn it. If you believe in a coin, making a new account to pump only makes it look bad. Unless you're intentionally trying to drop the price to buy more, I have no idea what you're trying to pull.

I'm not a noob account.  The dev is real.  The team is excited.  We're encryption enthusiasts that despise the NSA.  Buy or CRY.  Good things coming.

is the anon based on coinjoin or its just a new protocol.

It's new.  And we weren't planning on launching with this info for another few weeks because mindfox is working his magic and that was the time estimate given.  We have a couple other devs on the team that I can't disclose but are also very well known in crypto circles.

[MsCollec]

I'm new to the cry. Can I get a preview of what's coming?  Seems like the dev missed 1 day of work

New type of ANON send is being worked on by @MINDFOX - elite developer. It is unlike any ANON currently being used/tested. It does not involve a Masternode and it is not something petty like a mixer. Very exciting time, we're only a few days out from the ANN.

halfcab123 if its the real mindfox that's huge, he's got tons of experience and is a pro. dev.
very interesting. gonna check CRY out some more.

God damn it. If you believe in a coin, making a new account to pump only makes it look bad. Unless you're intentionally trying to drop the price to buy more, I have no idea what you're trying to pull.

I'm not a noob account.  The dev is real.  The team is excited.  We're encryption enthusiasts that despise the NSA.  Buy or CRY.  Good things coming.

is the anon based on coinjoin or its just a new protocol.

It's new.  And we weren't planning on launching with this info for another few weeks because mindfox is working his magic and the time estimate given.

Interesting..I will be on the sideline watching.

[Jacques de Molay]

I'm new to the cry. Can I get a preview of what's coming?  Seems like the dev missed 1 day of work

New type of ANON send is being worked on by @MINDFOX - elite developer. It is unlike any ANON currently being used/tested. It does not involve a Masternode and it is not something petty like a mixer. Very exciting time, we're only a few days out from the ANN.

halfcab123 if its the real mindfox that's huge, he's got tons of experience and is a pro. dev.
very interesting. gonna check CRY out some more.

God damn it. If you believe in a coin, making a new account to pump only makes it look bad. Unless you're intentionally trying to drop the price to buy more, I have no idea what you're trying to pull.

I'm not a noob account.  The dev is real.  The team is excited.  We're encryption enthusiasts that despise the NSA.  Buy or CRY.  Good things coming.

is the anon based on coinjoin or its just a new protocol.

It's new.  And we weren't planning on launching with this info for another few weeks because mindfox is working his magic and that was the time estimate given.  We have a couple other devs on the team that I can't disclose but are also very well known in crypto circles.

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

[LimLims]

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.

[cryptowest]

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.

From what I've read, they're testing to see how long the messages can stay in queue. Of course, its a work in progress, and more functionality will be added.

[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

Normally I do not reply to flame posts, but yours got my attention, I have to admit
Well, for the first claim, you should check with the owners of the coin. I'm pretty sure they will tell you how long it took me to release the wallet and why there was a delay in making it public. I hope you understand what it means to have a pure PoS coin (from day 0), with a non stopping blockchain, while coins were transferred to a wallet that had PoS minting off and not directly to their rightful owners.

For the second claim, I gave a helping hand to another coin (which I see you are pretty active) and this is your way to say thank you? Are you aware of the code I audited? Are you even aware of what I'm working on? But then again, you seem to be pretty sure of your claims so that means that it's true.

Now, on the other hand, I just noticed your last paragraph. I'm sure that you have many reasons for categorizing people (actually 99% as fools) while at the same time you put yourself for the 1% that are genuine new Einsteins! That really tells a lot about one's character and attitude.

[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.

[zkaraca]

I think that CRY will set new standards in the cryptoworld Won't be surprised if it hits $10 this year.

[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?

[Boomsling]

Nice leak, hope you dont get into any shit for posting that.

TY Mindfox for posting to clearing up further FUD. Looking forward to a release.

BUY & HODL

[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.

[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.