rpietila Altcoin Observer

[synechist]

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.

Check out Yahoo Finance for a clear introduction to XC.

If you have more questions, ask away.

[Profetu]

In the past XC had other developers like mindfox take a look at the code. So either:

-take a look at the previous implementation of the coin that has open source and talk about that
-if you are a skilled important member of the community ask to review the closed source by yourself
-ignore the coin until it is 100% open source.

I just wanted an honest opinion on the released code. As far as I know it could be a gem or a banal implementation with no innovation.

[smooth]

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

Yes and no. It gets forked certainly, because it can, but only when there is something seriously wrong with the direction taken by the original developers (such as the example you gave) does the fork stand a chance of community support.

Unsuccessful forks, by contrast, make the original much stronger. By blocking forks you remove credible tests of your fitness, which makes the rational observer question your fitness.

[synechist]

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

Yes and no. It gets forked certainly, because it can, but only when there is something seriously wrong with the direction taken by the original developers (such as the example you gave) does the fork stand a chance of community support.

Unsuccessful forks, by contrast, make the original much stronger. By blocking forks you remove credible tests of your fitness, which makes the rational observer question your fitness.

I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part.

However there's a very strong additional motivation to fork:

Start a new blockchain, mine from the beginning and try make 10000% profit.


Therefore it doesn't make sense not to release code for currencies on a delayed timeline. Pure open source is great for a lot of scenarios, but not for a currency.

[binaryFate]

[...]

(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

I see your point too... maybe such a rule would be too strict, and we could miss interesting inputs on current developments.
This thread tends to be a heaven of nice discussions in an ocean of mainly greed-driven-promotions and scams (ie, the altcoin board). I probably tend to overreact when I see anything that looks like a shitcoin or even a technically fair attempt which is greed-driven...
The high-quality of this thread (I don't dare to say in absolute, but relatively to many others) is probably a benefit of self-moderation, even if it has its drawbacks. So I'm happy to leave the decision to Risto.

[HardwarePal]

XC was under the radar for several days with no mention on the pre-ann page about anon, it was a simple crappy wallet with no coin icon and a slight mention of some android app.


If I had rented 100mh/s in the first 2-3days I would have over 500BTC worth today.

I personally mined after the launch ( a few hours in) with 7 gpus for 6 hours ( at the current price that would be roughly 10BTC worth)

EDIT : Plus its coin supply was cut from roughly 16m coins to 5m after they mentioned anon

The initial ANN was scammy at best with no logo, no mention of anything other than a "andoid app" .

Do you really think this was not intentional by the developer and his friends to mine more and go under the radar ?

[smooth]

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

Yes and no. It gets forked certainly, because it can, but only when there is something seriously wrong with the direction taken by the original developers (such as the example you gave) does the fork stand a chance of community support.

Unsuccessful forks, by contrast, make the original much stronger. By blocking forks you remove credible tests of your fitness, which makes the rational observer question your fitness.

I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part.

However there's a very strong additional motivation to fork:

Start a new blockchain, mine from the beginning and try make 10000% profit.

There is no reason for the community to support such a fork, as described. It is just an imitation with some obvious scammer behind it, while the brand value of the original developer will be vastly stronger. Such as fork will go nowhere, and as explained above will serve as a test, which once passed, will make the original stronger.

If there are other differences, then in that case, the community might just have a reason.  

[nakaone]

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?

from a logical standpoint, cloners need a reason to clone: the only reason for a clone to become successful is that the initial distribution is horrible. if everyone agrees that the distribution is fine, the clone will never get support.

this argument even holds from an empirical standpoint: see nxt, which was closed source until the mid of january and had a horrible starting distribution, see drk, which is still in parts closed source due to bad distribution and the fear of clones.

see on the hand xcp, which is not cloned due to the consensus that the distribution is fair. see bytecoin which was cloned due to the distribution and which is now lacking success because of the market deciding that the clone is fairer.

if your coin does not have a bad distribution I see no reason why it should be cloned and therefore no reason why it shouldn't be open source.

[CryptoGretzky]

XC was under the radar for several days with no mention on the pre-ann page about anon, it was a simple crappy wallet with no coin icon and a slight mention of some android app.


If I had rented 100mh/s in the first 2-3days I would have over 500BTC worth today.

I personally mined after the launch ( a few hours in) with 7 gpus for 6 hours ( at the current price that would be roughly 10BTC worth)

EDIT : Plus its coin supply was cut from roughly 16m coins to 5m after they mentioned anon

The initial ANN was scammy at best with no logo, no mention of anything other than a "andoid app" .

Do you really think this was not intentional by the developer and his friends to mine more and go under the radar ?

I am proof that that didn't happen... I am not a friend of the dev, yet I had the top hashes for almost a week+.   All I used was my rigs (under 120 Mh X11) and rented some here and there.

[policymaker]

XC was under the radar for several days with no mention on the pre-ann page about anon, it was a simple crappy wallet with no coin icon and a slight mention of some android app.


If I had rented 100mh/s in the first 2-3days I would have over 500BTC worth today.

I personally mined after the launch ( a few hours in) with 7 gpus for 6 hours ( at the current price that would be roughly 10BTC worth)

EDIT : Plus its coin supply was cut from roughly 16m coins to 5m after they mentioned anon

The initial ANN was scammy at best with no logo, no mention of anything other than a "andoid app" .

Do you really think this was not intentional by the developer and his friends to mine more and go under the radar ?

So, by your definition, the next P&D altcoin with an eye catchy pre-ANN is bound to success and a great investment. Plz, do invest your BTC in the next altcoin pre-ann, ill be there to support you!

And just because you are either 1) ignorant or 2) just FUDing, let me tell you this: The original ANN, had anon in its title and OP and that's exactly why it caught my eye, I didnt have even 1 month's experience in the scene, I witnessed DKR skyrocket the very same days, and XC caught my eye because that, there were no other coins claiming anonimity(at least other than cryptonote) at the time, it was still the "X11" hype. And it was originally named X11 coin.

[CryptoGretzky]

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?

from a logical standpoint, cloners need a reason to clone: the only reason for a clone to become successful is that the initial distribution is horrible. if everyone agrees that the distribution is fine, the clone will never get support.

this argument even holds from an empirical standpoint: see nxt, which was closed source until the mid of january and had a horrible starting distribution, see drk, which is still in parts closed source due to bad distribution and the fear of clones.

see on the hand xcp, which is not cloned due to the consensus that the distribution is fair. see bytecoin which was cloned due to the distribution and which is now lacking success because of the market deciding that the clone is fairer.

if your coin does not have a bad distribution I see no reason why it should be cloned and therefore no reason why it shouldn't be open source.

By your argument, Bitcoin had terrible distribution... that's why we have so many forks of bitcoin and then alts now.

[synechist]

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

Yes and no. It gets forked certainly, because it can, but only when there is something seriously wrong with the direction taken by the original developers (such as the example you gave) does the fork stand a chance of community support.

Unsuccessful forks, by contrast, make the original much stronger. By blocking forks you remove credible tests of your fitness, which makes the rational observer question your fitness.

I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part.

However there's a very strong additional motivation to fork:

Start a new blockchain, mine from the beginning and try make 10000% profit.

There is no reason for the community to support such a fork, as described. It is just an imitation with some obvious scammer behind it, while the brand value of the original developer will be vastly stronger. Such as fork will go nowhere, and as explained above will serve as a test, which once passed, will make the original stronger.

If there are other differences, then in that case, the community might just have a reason. 

Good point. I personally wouldn't support such a fork.

However the reality is that a whole lot of people (and pump groups) do support such forks. It's unfortunately eminently practically feasible to pull these things off:

- the average newbie to crypto has trouble telling the difference between P&D scams and legit projects
- there's a general lack of clear information to guide newbies
- coins thus only rise to prominence by getting pumped
- the majority of speculators thus only hear about it 3/4 of the way to the top and get burned.


We really want to avoid contributing to this dynamic.

[HardwarePal]

XC was under the radar for several days with no mention on the pre-ann page about anon, it was a simple crappy wallet with no coin icon and a slight mention of some android app.


If I had rented 100mh/s in the first 2-3days I would have over 500BTC worth today.

I personally mined after the launch ( a few hours in) with 7 gpus for 6 hours ( at the current price that would be roughly 10BTC worth)

EDIT : Plus its coin supply was cut from roughly 16m coins to 5m after they mentioned anon

The initial ANN was scammy at best with no logo, no mention of anything other than a "andoid app" .

Do you really think this was not intentional by the developer and his friends to mine more and go under the radar ?

I am proof that that didn't happen... I am not a friend of the dev, yet I had the top hashes for almost a week+.   All I used was my rigs (under 120 Mh X11) and rented some here and there.

I was trying to find the initial cache of the page from webarchives but I couldnt. For this exact reason someone would jump in mention that the launch was fair.

Something smelled funny about the coins ann thats why I mined it.

Do your remember the diff on the first few days ?

60 day POW was the initial distro if I remember correctly (then people said cut the supply short etc etc)

[SushiChef]

Good point. I personally wouldn't support such a fork.

However the reality is that a whole lot of people (and pump groups) do support such forks. It's unfortunately eminently practically feasible to pull these things off:

- the average newbie to crypto has trouble telling the difference between P&D scams and legit projects
- there's a general lack of clear information to guide newbies
- coins thus only rise to prominence by getting pumped
- the majority of speculators thus only hear about it 3/4 of the way to the top and get burned.


We really want to avoid contributing to this dynamic.

My toughts exactly! Great to see my team defend this!

[CryptoGretzky]

XC was under the radar for several days with no mention on the pre-ann page about anon, it was a simple crappy wallet with no coin icon and a slight mention of some android app.


If I had rented 100mh/s in the first 2-3days I would have over 500BTC worth today.

I personally mined after the launch ( a few hours in) with 7 gpus for 6 hours ( at the current price that would be roughly 10BTC worth)

EDIT : Plus its coin supply was cut from roughly 16m coins to 5m after they mentioned anon

The initial ANN was scammy at best with no logo, no mention of anything other than a "andoid app" .

Do you really think this was not intentional by the developer and his friends to mine more and go under the radar ?

I am proof that that didn't happen... I am not a friend of the dev, yet I had the top hashes for almost a week+.   All I used was my rigs (under 120 Mh X11) and rented some here and there.

I was trying to find the initial cache of the page from webarchives but I couldnt. For this exact reason someone would jump in mention that the launch was fair.

Something smelled funny about the coins ann thats why I mined it.

Do your remember the diff on the first few days ?

60 day POW was the initial distro if I remember correctly (then people said cut the supply short etc etc)

You know, I was just discussing with my friend that mined along with me.   The funny thing was, during that time a LOT of coins came out that turned out to be scam.  I remember that XLB, summercoin, whitecoin, yellowcoin, asiacoin... all of them was during that time.   I just ignored it and mined XC because the ANN was by a non-newbie account (atcsecure).   That was one of the biggest reason why I mined it over the other crap coins.

The diff wasn't super high, it was actually really really low.  under 100 for like a week at least.     That's another reason why I kept mining it.   

I also liked that it wasn't on any exchange.  To me that was a sign of pump & dump by most other coins.    I just felt that the dev wasn't in a hurry to dump it on an exchange.

Fact is though, for sure there weren't many people mining it with major hash  early on.

[policymaker]

XC was under the radar for several days with no mention on the pre-ann page about anon, it was a simple crappy wallet with no coin icon and a slight mention of some android app.


If I had rented 100mh/s in the first 2-3days I would have over 500BTC worth today.

I personally mined after the launch ( a few hours in) with 7 gpus for 6 hours ( at the current price that would be roughly 10BTC worth)

EDIT : Plus its coin supply was cut from roughly 16m coins to 5m after they mentioned anon

The initial ANN was scammy at best with no logo, no mention of anything other than a "andoid app" .

Do you really think this was not intentional by the developer and his friends to mine more and go under the radar ?

I am proof that that didn't happen... I am not a friend of the dev, yet I had the top hashes for almost a week+.   All I used was my rigs (under 120 Mh X11) and rented some here and there.

I was trying to find the initial cache of the page from webarchives but I couldnt. For this exact reason someone would jump in mention that the launch was fair.

Something smelled funny about the coins ann thats why I mined it.

Do your remember the diff on the first few days ?

60 day POW was the initial distro if I remember correctly (then people said cut the supply short etc etc)

You know, I was just discussing with my friend that mined along with me.   The funny thing was, during that time a LOT of coins came out that turned out to be scam.  I remember that XLB, summercoin, whitecoin, yellowcoin, asiacoin... all of them was during that time.   I just ignored it and mined XC because the ANN was by a non-newbie account (atcsecure).   That was one of the biggest reason why I mined it over the other crap coins.

The diff wasn't super high, it was actually really really low.  under 100 for like a week at least.     That's another reason why I kept mining it.   

I also liked that it wasn't on any exchange.  To me that was a sign of pump & dump by most other coins.    I just felt that the dev wasn't in a hurry to dump it on an exchange.

Fact is though, for sure there weren't many people mining it with major hash  early on.

exactly, I mined with a 5850 and then traded my way up as much as I could.... hardware pal is clearly mistaking XC for another coin.

[smooth]

- the average newbie to crypto has trouble telling the difference between P&D scams and legit projects
- there's a general lack of clear information to guide newbies
- coins thus only rise to prominence by getting pumped
- the majority of speculators thus only hear about it 3/4 of the way to the top and get burned.

We really want to avoid contributing to this dynamic.

That all sounds very idealistic.

And, yet, you will be contributing to exactly this dynamic once you release your delayed open source.

[CryptoGretzky]

- the average newbie to crypto has trouble telling the difference between P&D scams and legit projects
- there's a general lack of clear information to guide newbies
- coins thus only rise to prominence by getting pumped
- the majority of speculators thus only hear about it 3/4 of the way to the top and get burned.

We really want to avoid contributing to this dynamic.

That all sounds very idealistic.

And, yet, you will be contributing to exactly this dynamic once you release your delayed open source.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.... so you want the source opened or not then?

[synechist]

- the average newbie to crypto has trouble telling the difference between P&D scams and legit projects
- there's a general lack of clear information to guide newbies
- coins thus only rise to prominence by getting pumped
- the majority of speculators thus only hear about it 3/4 of the way to the top and get burned.

We really want to avoid contributing to this dynamic.

That all sounds very idealistic.

And, yet, you will be contributing to exactly this dynamic once you release your delayed open source.

No we won't, because there'll be a clear differentiator between us and whoever clones us. It'll be obvious.

In all fairness, we'd avoid this dynamic even less by being completely closed source.

But then we'd not get to share our tech breakthroughs with the crypto community. And that would be worse.

[aminorex]

I understand where you guys come from but not sure what you expect of a coin that is work in progress. The code will eventually be all open source, as of now the code of the previous implementation is open source. So we could pretend the coin is at REV1 at there is the mixer open source. Any thoughts on it?

http://pastebin.com/G4mH4AxR

"Closed source can be everything and nothing." - you are free to make a transaction and find a link between sender and receiver in the blockchain. I think a bounty is still in effect for this.

I can't use the code if it is not open source.  It is a coin stealer, presumptively, and a key logger.

When the source is open and the coin is usable, then peer review will be effective.  Until then, it is a joke.

If you have an unreversible mixer, congratulations.  Bitcoin will almost certainly want to adopt it.  However,  it won't fix fungibility.