[XC][XCurrency] Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat / Pos

[life2you]

in my own opinion. XC is better than CLOAK,we still have opportunity to chase CLOAK!

[1715534838]

1715534838

[hoertest]

I think this review is to counteract that screeshot of Dan saying cloak is a scam. If he checks code and its not, its fair for him to take what he said back (give a good review)

he could just say he was talking about the old appraoch and he stands by that. there would be nothing wrong with that since he was talking in a private chat room, he wasn spamming their thread or even in here. it wasn't public.
There is no reason for apologetic feelings or actions, he has done nothing wrong.

Standing by your words about the cloaksend 1.0 and do no more until asked for. that would be the right thing to do.

Counteract a screenshot? We are not 14 year old school girls in here

[Artoodeetoo]

Quote from: synechist on July 31, 2014, 01:12:19 PM

***The XC Daily Update***


Hello all

It's been confirmed by the developers that XChat will include voice calling in post-Rev 3 editions, and video calling further into the future.

So basically we have a decentralised, private, Skype.
**********************************************************************
Massive!! The Devs keep shattering the mold with ground breaking tech! I am willing to bet that when XC releases the post-Rev 3 edition the price will drop. Everytime XCurrency releases something that no other Devs can imagine: the price drops. It happens with every single update. Surely I am not the only person to see this trend.

I keep buying, promoting and holding: eventually the lemmings will see the light.

Ditto, we are doing so well.... I think things are about to really start moving on ALL fronts now...

Re cloak and DRK and alike, I think its good to have competition, but if we want to break in and make it I think you need a coin like XC

One simple reason... We want authorities to not want to "shut us down" for want of a better word, I hope people understand what I mean here...

As a starting point, a coin called CLOAK or DARK is not exactly what some people will think is a good idea.. I think XC can deliver to people all of the valid privacy / anonymous features they should rightfully expect without shoving it in your face and saying this is somehow related to the dark web / dark side of society etc etc..

This is where i see XC finding it much easier to get widespread adoption....

[holyprofit]

Dan here is a little look into the glass bowl of "forum psychology" befor considering that review.

Since you offered to do it and havent been approached this are the two possible outcomes:

1: Your review is positive like the keycoin one, Cloak PR knows how to capitalise on this and cloak will outperform XC short term (long term is the summ from alot of short terms) Cloak will officilly be no P&D anymore cause of Dan Metcalf approval stamp.Ratio between positive effect on XC and Cloak: 1 to 10 ( like keycoin)

2: your review is negative. since you asked to do it and not been asked you look like an ass that just wants to sabotage the competition leading up to our REV3 release. i know thats not your intentions but this is how its gonna be made to look , and as of now our community while having quality members doesn't have the manpower to equal out the perception.

No matter what this review will not turn out positiv for your project I'm 100% shure, and I'm good at anticipating people/crowd reactions.
I know you mean good but not now . please , please, please

Did I miss something? Where did he say he was going to review cloak? If such a thing where to happen I agree it's risky either way. To be honest I think with key everyone was a bit
surprised at how influential his opinion would be.   

[synechist]

Dan here is a little look into the glass bowl of "forum psychology" befor considering that review.

Since you offered to do it and havent been approached this are the two possible outcomes:

1: Your review is positive like the keycoin one, Cloak PR knows how to capitalise on this and cloak will outperform XC short term (long term is the summ from alot of short terms) Cloak will officilly be no P&D anymore cause of Dan Metcalf approval stamp.Ratio between positive effect on XC and Cloak: 1 to 10 ( like keycoin)

2: your review is negative. since you asked to do it and not been asked you look like an ass that just wants to sabotage the competition leading up to our REV3 release. i know thats not your intentions but this is how its gonna be made to look , and as of now our community while having quality members doesn't have the manpower to equal out the perception.

No matter what this review will not turn out positiv for your project I'm 100% shure, and I'm good at anticipating people/crowd reactions.
I know you mean good but not now . please , please, please

Did I miss something? Where did he say he was going to review cloak? If such a thing where to happen I agree it's risky either way. To be honest I think with key everyone was a bit
surprised at how influential his opinion would be.   

Let's clear a few things up:

- Someone stole a private IRC conversation, allegedly in which Dan participated, and put it into pastebin.

- This does not amount to Dan (or anyone from XC) publicly saying anything against Cloak.

- So XC does not need to "make amends" or do anything of the sort.

- Dan further expressed interest in reviewing Cloak. I'm also interested, since I have a number of questions about how their approach could be feasible. But I agree that a review from Dan would be politically complex. And I doubt the Cloak devs will want one.

[G-Bert]

I think this review is to counteract that screeshot of Dan saying cloak is a scam. If he checks code and its not, its fair for him to take what he said back (give a good review)

he could just say he was talking about the old appraoch and he stands by that. there would be nothing wrong with that since he was talking in a private chat room, he wasn spamming their thread or even in here. it wasn't public.
There is no reason for apologetic feelings or actions, he has done nothing wrong.

Standing by your words about the cloaksend 1.0 and do no more until asked for. that would be the right thing to do.

Counteract a screenshot? We are not 14 year old school girls in here

Good point. The review should be for the code he was talking about at the time.

Not sure how it can help us reviewing our direct competition as you said, good or bad review, isn't going to look good.

[G-Bert]

Dan here is a little look into the glass bowl of "forum psychology" befor considering that review.

Since you offered to do it and havent been approached this are the two possible outcomes:

1: Your review is positive like the keycoin one, Cloak PR knows how to capitalise on this and cloak will outperform XC short term (long term is the summ from alot of short terms) Cloak will officilly be no P&D anymore cause of Dan Metcalf approval stamp.Ratio between positive effect on XC and Cloak: 1 to 10 ( like keycoin)

2: your review is negative. since you asked to do it and not been asked you look like an ass that just wants to sabotage the competition leading up to our REV3 release. i know thats not your intentions but this is how its gonna be made to look , and as of now our community while having quality members doesn't have the manpower to equal out the perception.

No matter what this review will not turn out positiv for your project I'm 100% shure, and I'm good at anticipating people/crowd reactions.
I know you mean good but not now . please , please, please

Did I miss something? Where did he say he was going to review cloak? If such a thing where to happen I agree it's risky either way. To be honest I think with key everyone was a bit
surprised at how influential his opinion would be.   

I agree that a review from Dan would be politically complex. And I doubt the Cloak devs will want one.

Didn't Dan accept and say he will review this weekend? Perhaps I misunderstood...?

[wevus]

Quote from: synechist on July 31, 2014, 01:12:19 PM

***The XC Daily Update***


Hello all

It's been confirmed by the developers that XChat will include voice calling in post-Rev 3 editions, and video calling further into the future.

So basically we have a decentralised, private, Skype.
**********************************************************************
Massive!! The Devs keep shattering the mold with ground breaking tech! I am willing to bet that when XC releases the post-Rev 3 edition the price will drop. Everytime XCurrency releases something that no other Devs can imagine: the price drops. It happens with every single update. Surely I am not the only person to see this trend.

I keep buying, promoting and holding: eventually the lemmings will see the light.

Ditto, we are doing so well.... I think things are about to really start moving on ALL fronts now...

Re cloak and DRK and alike, I think its good to have competition, but if we want to break in and make it I think you need a coin like XC

One simple reason... We want authorities to not want to "shut us down" for want of a better word, I hope people understand what I mean here...

As a starting point, a coin called CLOAK or DARK is not exactly what some people will think is a good idea.. I think XC can deliver to people all of the valid privacy / anonymous features they should rightfully expect without shoving it in your face and saying this is somehow related to the dark web / dark side of society etc etc..

This is where i see XC finding it much easier to get widespread adoption....

Well said. XC, DRK and CLOAK are already on the radars of the NSA and other intelligence agencies for having encrypted messaging. I feel like XC has a much greater chance of surviving. The main reason being that XCurrency is not prodominatly focused on blackmarket issues. Before someones screams out I am biased towards to XC: I have holdings in DRK, CLOAK, XMR and TOR just to name a few.

After all, this is the Crypto Currency world. IMO any coin that is developed should be based on encryption. Privacy is a VERY valuable commodity in this day of age.

[The-C-Word]

Dan strikes me as a fan of cryptocurrency in general and just wants to see this area of technology thrive through the sharing/critique of ideas.

Unfortunately many devs don't take this approach, maybe in spirit but not in action.

I'm hoping to see it work out for the best.

[SpringfieldM1A]

In my opinion reviewing other coins without their developer's explicit request will cause trouble. If the review is bad the angry mobs of other coins will come in here and start to spread massive unwarranted FUD and cause other problems. A good review might have a positive effect, but what if something crucial is overlooked ? or what if the other coin devs decide to alter the coin's specifications after the review? If the other coin turns out to be flawed or even a scam, it will still have the "XC dev stamp of approval", remember that after the review the coin is out of your control, it's a dangerous situation to be in because any (percieved) connection to another coin can be a base for FUD, should the other coin be in trouble.

Reviewing other coins can be a good strategy, as we have learned ATC's opinion is highly valued by the market. But we should stick to our own business in these early stages in development. I understand the reasoning behind a self initiated review of another coin, but without a fully established market reputation and matured technology it is a high risk endeavour, because the market is still highly dominated by emotions.

Take a look at Digibyte for example, they are the good guy Greg's of the altcoin world. They have helped numerous coins implementing Digishield, have a dedicated following and excellent developers. But all that altruism didn't help them in attaining (warranted) market recognition so far.

We are gradually establishing ourselves by superior technological advantages over our competition. We should remain focused at that, a positive market response should be due to our technical advantage itself and not because of a developer initiated comparison to other coins. Let investors do their own due diligence, they will come to the same conclusion without having to put XC's reputation on the line.

I am not saying we should stick our head in the sand and retreat to our ivory tower, but in these early stages of development we should focus on solidifying our own reputation and fundamentals. We should take the defensive instead of offensive role, after Rev 3 and after we are escaping this crazy crypto realm we could consider a more aggressive marketing approach.

[synechist]

Didn't Dan accept and say he will review this weekend? Perhaps I misunderstood...?

Well, he didn't "accept" because he wasn't offered a review. He just expressed an interest in being allowed to download the software and test it out (i.e. not to look at the source code).

[battbot]

How about Dan reviews XC code and publishes his findings... Hello?

If Dan publishes a review of cloak, I am speechless...

[GameStarter]

 Next PR campaign will attract a lot of attention with our EM working and our new futur project of anonymous voice call (and maybe video).
I can't wait to see the undisclosed anonymous feature!
Could it be possible to have an XC mail adress being able to communicate outside the XC network? For exemple sending a mail from XCwallet to xxx@hotmail.com adress.

[battbot]

In my opinion reviewing other coins without their developer's explicit request will cause trouble. If the review is bad the angry mobs of other coins will come in here and start to spread massive unwarranted FUD and cause other problems. A good review might have a positive effect, but what if something crucial is overlooked ? or what if the other coin devs decide to alter the coin's specifications after the review? If the other coin turns out to be flawed or even a scam, it will still have the "XC dev stamp of approval", remember that after the review the coin is out of your control, it's a dangerous situation to be in because any (percieved) connection to another coin can be a base for FUD, should the other coin be in trouble.

Reviewing other coins can be a good strategy, as we have learned ATC's opinion is highly valued by the market. But we should stick to our own business in these early stages in development. I understand the reasoning behind a self initiated review of another coin, but without a fully established market reputation and matured technology it is a high risk endeavour, because the market is still highly dominated by emotions.

Take a look at Digibyte for example, they are the good guy Greg's of the altcoin world. They have helped numerous coins implementing Digishield, have a dedicated following and excellent developers. But all that altruism didn't help them in attaining (warranted) market recognition so far.

We are gradually establishing ourselves by superior technological advantages over our competition. We should remain focused at that, a positive market response should be due to our technical advantage itself and not because of a developer initiated comparison to other coins. Let investors do their own due diligence, they will come to the same conclusion without having to put XC's reputation on the line.

I am not saying we should stick our head in the sand and retreat to our ivory tower, but in these early stages of development we should focus on solidifying our own reputation and fundamentals. We should take the defensive instead of offensive role, after Rev 3 and after we are escaping this crazy crypto realm we could consider a more aggressive marketing approach.

Well said.  I agree 100%

[qawzsx]

THAT'S NOT A FREAKING REVIEW OF THE CODE...
TESTING THE SOFTWARE MEANS NOTHING.

SO...STOP THAT NONSENSE WITH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE...

first of all, he cannot give a negative feedback about it, because the software have hes basic functions working.

it's not a review of the code, and it is pointless...

[battbot]

THAT'S NOT A FREAKING REVIEW OF THE CODE...
TESTING THE SOFTWARE MEANS NOTHING.

SO...STOP THAT NONSENSE WITH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE...

first of all, he cannot give a negative feedback about it, because the software have hes basic functions working.

it's not a review of the code, and it is pointless...

Says cloak bagholder.

[KimmyF]

I think this review is to counteract that screeshot of Dan saying cloak is a scam. If he checks code and its not, its fair for him to take what he said back (give a good review)

he could just say he was talking about the old appraoch and he stands by that. there would be nothing wrong with that since he was talking in a private chat room, he wasn spamming their thread or even in here. it wasn't public.
There is no reason for apologetic feelings or actions, he has done nothing wrong.

Standing by your words about the cloaksend 1.0 and do no more until asked for. that would be the right thing to do.

Counteract a screenshot? We are not 14 year old school girls in here

Anybody can make that screenshot, forgot the link but its somewhere in the cloak thread, a quick 'Viral<something>.com website to make a log like that. Hope Dan just stays quiet on this, say nothing, do nothing and keep working on XC. If they ask, just say you are busy with your own coin. Have to agree with Hoertest on this one, stay away from other coins! He, lets all do that, at least in this thread.
Also hope XC stays on track, the little detour from anon to Xchat is nice, the future extention to voice & video great but hope this team first finishes the anon part, including public bounty then focusses on the next thing.
A lot of teams are working on the same 'holy grail', lets be the first with unbreakable & stable anon, build from there

[qawzsx]

In my opinion reviewing other coins without their developer's explicit request will cause trouble. If the review is bad the angry mobs of other coins will come in here and start to spread massive unwarranted FUD and cause other problems. A good review might have a positive effect, but what if something crucial is overlooked ? or what if the other coin devs decide to alter the coin's specifications after the review? If the other coin turns out to be flawed or even a scam, it will still have the "XC dev stamp of approval", remember that after the review the coin is out of your control, it's a dangerous situation to be in because any (percieved) connection to another coin can be a base for FUD, should the other coin be in trouble.

Reviewing other coins can be a good strategy, as we have learned ATC's opinion is highly valued by the market. But we should stick to our own business in these early stages in development. I understand the reasoning behind a self initiated review of another coin, but without a fully established market reputation and matured technology it is a high risk endeavour, because the market is still highly dominated by emotions.

Take a look at Digibyte for example, they are the good guy Greg's of the altcoin world. They have helped numerous coins implementing Digishield, have a dedicated following and excellent developers. But all that altruism didn't help them in attaining (warranted) market recognition so far.

We are gradually establishing ourselves by superior technological advantages over our competition. We should remain focused at that, a positive market response should be due to our technical advantage itself and not because of a developer initiated comparison to other coins. Let investors do their own due diligence, they will come to the same conclusion without having to put XC's reputation on the line.

I am not saying we should stick our head in the sand and retreat to our ivory tower, but in these early stages of development we should focus on solidifying our own reputation and fundamentals. We should take the defensive instead of offensive role, after Rev 3 and after we are escaping this crazy crypto realm we could consider a more aggressive marketing approach.

Well said.  I agree 100%

If the review is bad?
Do you at least understand that he is reviewing the wallet itself, not the code.
If the review is bad, on a freaking wallet, that's a freaking public thing, which anybody can see...than anybody should dump that freaking coin...

As much as the wallet its working, it cannot be negative feedback.

On the other hand, a good review it shows nothing special either, it's just an wallet who can work...big deal.
That does not shows the code and if the code really does what the devs says.

[G-Bert]

Didn't Dan accept and say he will review this weekend? Perhaps I misunderstood...?

Well, he didn't "accept" because he wasn't offered a review. He just expressed an interest in being allowed to download the software and test it out (i.e. not to look at the source code).

OK, so I partly misunderstood. He's not getting the sourcecode, but is still doing a review.

I just don't understand why.  

please lets end this cloak discussion, I was just responding to numerous posts and pm's....until I do my own review, I have no official statement on cloak



Thank You,


Dan

Here's your PoSA Qt wallet.  Delivered from TheDagger.  

https://mega.co.nz/#!JMV1gQDC!Nm_b59BYUgNee9OKqXhw2VOHBY8jHQGVfjJsMFvpllo

Got it... will do up a review this weekend

[qawzsx]

THAT'S NOT A FREAKING REVIEW OF THE CODE...
TESTING THE SOFTWARE MEANS NOTHING.

SO...STOP THAT NONSENSE WITH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE...

first of all, he cannot give a negative feedback about it, because the software have hes basic functions working.

it's not a review of the code, and it is pointless...

Says cloak bagholder.

Dude, are you idiot? )) seems you are...
Read what I'm saying again, without reading only one sentence and shooting a reply...

I own lots of coins, and I own around 30 BTC in XC, but I dumped cloakcoin as soon as I saw that the dev used a freaking php script to hype their shit up...

"look, we have some imba feature... CloakSend and shit..."

Big hype for nothing, even a freaking coindesk page talking about that...in the end that was a freaking script...