rpietila Altcoin Observer

[Este Nuno]

Why would the code not be open sourced? That's a bit scary. Any reasonable explanation as to why they would choose this path?

[1714803881]

1714803881

[1714803881]

1714803881

[1714803881]

1714803881

[CryptoGretzky]

Why would the code not be open sourced? That's a bit scary. Any reasonable explanation as to why they would choose this path?

Why?  How many crappy clone coins do you think will be released the same day the source is released based on the anon tech?

[dreamspark]

Why would the code not be open sourced? That's a bit scary. Any reasonable explanation as to why they would choose this path?

So that its not copied before they're sure of their implementation and have gained a significant lead. Not reasonable in my opinion but its the argument of the closed source coin backers of which I am not one.

[Its About Sharing]

[...]

Hi, here is the REV 1 trusted mixer implementation source code. The coin now has multi-path trustless mixing (still not open source though) and every wallet is a potential node.

Risto, I propose that you make a rule to forbid discussions about closed-source alts in this thread. These are really not worth our time.

And what happens when something special comes along? Are we not allowed to talk about it?
Are we going to have a list of rules here? Let's keep things as open as we can, yeah, ironic I know.
The fewer the rules the better.

[synechist]

Why would the code not be open sourced? That's a bit scary. Any reasonable explanation as to why they would choose this path?

So that its not copied before they're sure of their implementation and have gained a significant lead. Not reasonable in my opinion but its the argument of the closed source coin backers of which I am not one.

Three reasons to go open source on a delayed timeline:

- the community will still benefit from our work

- we'd reduce the incentive for developers to flood the marketplace with clones that lack a long term future

- we'd avoid causing clones, which reduce the trustworthiness of the altcoin phenomenon

[smooth]

- we'd avoid causing clones, which reduce the trustworthiness of the altcoin phenomenon

Whatever the other merits of your approach, this one is silly. There are hundreds of altcoin clones, with countless more released every single day. Whether or not your particular pet coin gets cloned or not makes no difference at all to the overall phenomenon.

[policymaker]

Why would the code not be open sourced? That's a bit scary. Any reasonable explanation as to why they would choose this path?

hey nuno, thanx for taking interest in XC. Im just a small holder, like many others, but ive been in XC thread since day 1. If you have the time and want to search the topic for clues, you will see for yourself that it is no regular P&D alt. It does not follow altcoins trading rules(parties have been manipulating from the start, probably big holders), and there is a a talented team behind it(you can check official XC team .pdf). Synechist is a part of it, and he's been doing a great deal of work.

There is no concern of their legitimacy(there are actual photos of the bitcoinbeltway in DC where they promoted XC) and there appears to be a significant amount of work being done backstage. They work by a real business plan, not P&D promises.

Most importantly, the things being developed are not limited to privacy-anonimity per se, but a lot of other groundbreaking stuff, which were NOT announced because of "anon" trend fading away, but were included in core development since the get-go.


ps: I realise most guys here have a good programming or tech related background and despise closed source, but I respect one's right to protect one's -possibly- life's work.

[the_game1224]

- we'd avoid causing clones, which reduce the trustworthiness of the altcoin phenomenon

Whatever the other merits of your approach, this one is silly. There are hundreds of altcoin clones, with countless more released every single day. Whether or not your particular pet coin gets cloned or not makes no difference at all to the overall phenomenon.

You say that like its a good thing.  Whether or not you agree with XC only open sourcing the previous version or not the hundreds of clones/scams/p&ds being released on a daily basis is greatly damaging to the altcoin world.

[binaryFate]

Risto, I propose that you make a rule to forbid discussions about closed-source alts in this thread. These are really not worth our time.

And what happens when something special comes along? Are we not allowed to talk about it?
Are we going to have a list of rules here?

The problem is to define "special". I personally make it a rule that something closed-source is not special enough for me to spend time going through it. Even if it's "temporary" closed-source.
The fact that developers worry of other coins copying their code right away is in fact revealing a lot of their personal motives, if you ask me.

We are not going to have a list of rules, there is already one

The rules of this thread are very strict, as always in my threads:

- There is no freedom of speech. The topic is altcoins, but I also want that it stays in a level that is possible and interesting to read for a busy Bitcoin holder that does not care about alts. I know how it feels to be a busy Bitcoin holder, so I steer the discussion to the maximum benefit for me, and for my readers.

- Which alts can be discussed, is up to me. Mentioning an alt after that specific alt has been banned from a thread results in a ban for you. If you do not obey my ban from the thread, historically you have had 100% chance to be banned from the forum as a result. Don't try your luck.

- Posts may be deleted for whatever reason. Deletion does not necessarily mean that the post was offensive. It may also have been too long quote (in which case either the original, or the reply may be pruned), repetition of yours or somebody else's point, or anything else.

- Moderating actions are written in red. Others are not allowed to use red.

[CryptoGretzky]

- we'd avoid causing clones, which reduce the trustworthiness of the altcoin phenomenon

Whatever the other merits of your approach, this one is silly. There are hundreds of altcoin clones, with countless more released every single day. Whether or not your particular pet coin gets cloned or not makes no difference at all to the overall phenomenon.

If your objective is to completely destroy altcoins, yes then that would be the approach.

I would definitely say it makes a world of a difference to the people that have invested in the coin to not have their premium feature released before it reaches its prime and have hundreds of different coin clone the one thing that separate it from all the other coins....

[CryptoGretzky]

Risto, I propose that you make a rule to forbid discussions about closed-source alts in this thread. These are really not worth our time.

And what happens when something special comes along? Are we not allowed to talk about it?
Are we going to have a list of rules here?

The problem is to define "special". I personally make it a rule that something closed-source is not special enough for me to spend time going through it. Even if it's "temporary" closed-source.
The fact that developers worry of other coins copying their code right away is in fact revealing a lot of their personal motives, if you ask me.

We are not going to have a list of rules, there is already one

The rules of this thread are very strict, as always in my threads:

- There is no freedom of speech. The topic is altcoins, but I also want that it stays in a level that is possible and interesting to read for a busy Bitcoin holder that does not care about alts. I know how it feels to be a busy Bitcoin holder, so I steer the discussion to the maximum benefit for me, and for my readers.

- Which alts can be discussed, is up to me. Mentioning an alt after that specific alt has been banned from a thread results in a ban for you. If you do not obey my ban from the thread, historically you have had 100% chance to be banned from the forum as a result. Don't try your luck.

- Posts may be deleted for whatever reason. Deletion does not necessarily mean that the post was offensive. It may also have been too long quote (in which case either the original, or the reply may be pruned), repetition of yours or somebody else's point, or anything else.

- Moderating actions are written in red. Others are not allowed to use red.

I guess your suggestion is to just discuss about Monero then?

[Este Nuno]

Well, in CrypoNote's case it actually helped that Monero was a clone of Bytecoin.

I see the point of not wanting clones but it's inevitable that good open source tech will be forked.

So the anon tech is currently in use and working but not fully open source yet? Am I understanding that correctly?

If there wasn't a demand by the community to see open source code I guess in theory projects could keep parts like this closed indefinitely to keep some competitive advantage. But I think having closed source parts alienates a large part of the community. Hell, I run all the open source stuff on a vm anyway just because I know it's not impossible that people slip malicious code into these things. And I don't mean to imply that XC is doing anything malicious at all and I'm sure they're not. Just that there have been many issues over the years.

[onemorebtc]

- we'd avoid causing clones, which reduce the trustworthiness of the altcoin phenomenon

Whatever the other merits of your approach, this one is silly. There are hundreds of altcoin clones, with countless more released every single day. Whether or not your particular pet coin gets cloned or not makes no difference at all to the overall phenomenon.

You say that like its a good thing.  Whether or not you agree with XC only open sourcing the previous version or not the hundreds of clones/scams/p&ds being released on a daily basis is greatly damaging to the altcoin world.

yes it is a good thing:
 - you see your new idea behaving in the wild
 - more developers are interested to help you
 - more code reviews

i cant imagine a better foundation for a new coin with a real invention.

of course: if you dont have a real innovation you'll get called out before release...tobad

(risto: i'd recommend removing all this discussion about closed source... it seems utterly pointless: this includes my post of course)

[binaryFate]

Risto, I propose that you make a rule to forbid discussions about closed-source alts in this thread. These are really not worth our time.

And what happens when something special comes along? Are we not allowed to talk about it?
Are we going to have a list of rules here?

The problem is to define "special". I personally make it a rule that something closed-source is not special enough for me to spend time going through it. Even if it's "temporary" closed-source.
The fact that developers worry of other coins copying their code right away is in fact revealing a lot of their personal motives, if you ask me.

We are not going to have a list of rules, there is already one

The rules of this thread are very strict, as always in my threads:

- There is no freedom of speech. The topic is altcoins, but I also want that it stays in a level that is possible and interesting to read for a busy Bitcoin holder that does not care about alts. I know how it feels to be a busy Bitcoin holder, so I steer the discussion to the maximum benefit for me, and for my readers.

- Which alts can be discussed, is up to me. Mentioning an alt after that specific alt has been banned from a thread results in a ban for you. If you do not obey my ban from the thread, historically you have had 100% chance to be banned from the forum as a result. Don't try your luck.

- Posts may be deleted for whatever reason. Deletion does not necessarily mean that the post was offensive. It may also have been too long quote (in which case either the original, or the reply may be pruned), repetition of yours or somebody else's point, or anything else.

- Moderating actions are written in red. Others are not allowed to use red.

I guess your suggestion is to just discuss about Monero then?

Nice try, but no. Just any coin that is open source and worth discussing. But you're almost right in that it actually excludes 99% of the coins.

[nakaone]

- we'd avoid causing clones, which reduce the trustworthiness of the altcoin phenomenon

Whatever the other merits of your approach, this one is silly. There are hundreds of altcoin clones, with countless more released every single day. Whether or not your particular pet coin gets cloned or not makes no difference at all to the overall phenomenon.

If your objective is to completely destroy altcoins, yes then that would be the approach.

I would definitely say it makes a world of a difference to the people that have invested in the coin to not have their premium feature released before it reaches its prime and have hundreds of different coin clone the one thing that separate it from all the other coins....

by all we know about market this argument does not make sense at all - the market ALWAYS benefits the main innovation, regardless of how many shitclones are existent. I think the arguments for protection are on a multidimensional level stupid.

the main argument for closed source is that the distribution of the coins is non-optimal, otherwise you would not need to protect would you?

[synechist]

- we'd avoid causing clones, which reduce the trustworthiness of the altcoin phenomenon

Whatever the other merits of your approach, this one is silly. There are hundreds of altcoin clones, with countless more released every single day. Whether or not your particular pet coin gets cloned or not makes no difference at all to the overall phenomenon.

I disagree. It's not a problem to have boring old clones around; what's a problem is clones with some sort of copied breakthrough tech, but with devs who lack the ability to develop it further.

The latter situation allows P&D scams that can seriously mislead investors, due to actually having some decent tech to start from.

We want to avoid this.

The regular ol' crapcoin is no real problem.

[Este Nuno]

Why would the code not be open sourced? That's a bit scary. Any reasonable explanation as to why they would choose this path?

hey nuno, thanx for taking interest in XC. Im just a small holder, like many others, but ive been in XC thread since day 1. If you have the time and want to search the topic for clues, you will see for yourself that it is no regular P&D alt. It does not follow altcoins trading rules(parties have been manipulating from the start, probably big holders), and there is a a talented team behind it(you can check official XC team .pdf). Synechist is a part of it, and he's been doing a great deal of work.

There is no concern of their legitimacy(there are actual photos of the bitcoinbeltway in DC where they promoted XC) and there appears to be a significant amount of work being done backstage. They work by a real business plan, not P&D promises.

Most importantly, the things being developed are not limited to privacy-anonimity per se, but a lot of other groundbreaking stuff, which were NOT announced because of "anon" trend fading away, but were included in core development since the get-go.


ps: I realise most guys here have a good programming or tech related background and despise closed source, but I respect one's right to protect one's -possibly- life's work.

Yeah, personally I don't doubt XC's legitimacy at all and I'm mainly just curious about it as I hadn't seen it comp up in conversation here recently.

[policymaker]

Well, in CrypoNote's case it actually helped that Monero was a clone of Bytecoin.

I see the point of not wanting clones but it's inevitable that good open source tech will be forked.

So the anon tech is currently in use and working but not fully open source yet? Am I understanding that correctly?

If there wasn't a demand by the community to see open source code I guess in theory projects could keep parts like this closed indefinitely to keep some competitive advantage. But I think having closed source parts alienates a large part of the community. Hell, I run all the open source stuff on a vm anyway just because I know it's not impossible that people slip malicious code into these things. And I don't mean to imply that XC is doing anything malicious at all and I'm sure they're not. Just that there have been many issues over the years.

Having people like you closely monitoring things so reasonably, is really encouraging, because it just assures me that when projects like XC finalise their plans and give the public what they really expect(working features with open source, in our situation) they will indeed get noticed and flourish, which is really OK.

Our community is quite commited to the cause and keeps a rather low profile, we let the team's efforts do the real talk, until the official roadmap is executed at least

[Its About Sharing]

Risto, I propose that you make a rule to forbid discussions about closed-source alts in this thread. These are really not worth our time.

And what happens when something special comes along? Are we not allowed to talk about it?
Are we going to have a list of rules here?

The problem is to define "special". I personally make it a rule that something closed-source is not special enough for me to spend time going through it. Even if it's "temporary" closed-source.
The fact that developers worry of other coins copying their code right away is in fact revealing a lot of their personal motives, if you ask me.

We are not going to have a list of rules, there is already one

The rules of this thread are very strict, as always in my threads:

- There is no freedom of speech. The topic is altcoins, but I also want that it stays in a level that is possible and interesting to read for a busy Bitcoin holder that does not care about alts. I know how it feels to be a busy Bitcoin holder, so I steer the discussion to the maximum benefit for me, and for my readers.

- Which alts can be discussed, is up to me. Mentioning an alt after that specific alt has been banned from a thread results in a ban for you. If you do not obey my ban from the thread, historically you have had 100% chance to be banned from the forum as a result. Don't try your luck.

- Posts may be deleted for whatever reason. Deletion does not necessarily mean that the post was offensive. It may also have been too long quote (in which case either the original, or the reply may be pruned), repetition of yours or somebody else's point, or anything else.

- Moderating actions are written in red. Others are not allowed to use red.

(For sake of clarity - I currently don't have any XC, did have a few in the past, but rolled them into XMR.)

I'm not into closed source, but in the case of XC, not all of it is closed right? So, we can't even talk about the potentially beneficial aspects of it then, according to your new rule.

Perhaps, in certain situations (e.g. Spammers coming on here) Risto can do what he will, but exclusionary rules sound a bit dangerous to me, especially when what you are excluding is not clear (e.g. partial closed source.)

Now, on the other hand, I do see a bit of your point, in that why should we let others come here and promote their coin if they don't let us look at the code? Share is as share does.
Fair enough. Just sharing my worry...

IAS

[synechist]

the main argument for closed source is that the distribution of the coins is non-optimal, otherwise you would not need to protect would you?

I don't follow your reasoning. How would a coin's distribution affect its policy on open source?