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

[battbot]

So I guess I don't really understand how one Twitter post by someone on the DRK team that isn't even true can cause XC to crash, yet DRK is CONFIRMING that they're technology isn't working right, and they might not be able to get it fixed fully until July?  Yet DRK's price continues to rise and XC's doesn't, even though our anon is working.  Just doesn't make sense.

Dark's anonymous transactions are working now. Same for master nodes. What isn't is the payment of the master nodes.
XC's anon is not working yet, it is apparently working on tesnet, but not released so far (as planned by the dev, not an issue).
Just get your facts straight.

My question is why there so much criticism of XC not being fully developed when DRK is not fully developed?

It's because the moment XC started to rise, DRK started to fall.  So, people with thousands invested in DRK will criticize XC with extreme bias and often blatant lies in order to protect their DRK investments.

But XC's anon tech validity and Dan Metcalf's credibility and qualifications have been repeatedly proven.  FUD can only damage an image so much.  Expect a rebound

It is amazing how all of that died once they watched the video was posted.  

XC decentralized anon proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uTgnZAFuNU&feature=youtu.be

For any who missed it

[CrazyLeoW]

For those who still haven't get on board now, i recommend youto buy now, at least to get your hands wet. The coins are cheap now, and I am buying in more at 200 k sat.

Don't need ask people to buy XC, if they don't wanna get money.
If always advertising, people might think someone wanna dump his coins. LOL

[provenceday]

So I guess I don't really understand how one Twitter post by someone on the DRK team that isn't even true can cause XC to crash, yet DRK is CONFIRMING that they're technology isn't working right, and they might not be able to get it fixed fully until July?  Yet DRK's price continues to rise and XC's doesn't, even though our anon is working.  Just doesn't make sense.

Dark's anonymous transactions are working now. Same for master nodes. What isn't is the payment of the master nodes.
XC's anon is not working yet, it is apparently working on tesnet, but not released so far (as planned by the dev, not an issue).
Just get your facts straight.

My question is why there so much criticism of XC not being fully developed when DRK is not fully developed?

It's because the moment XC started to rise, DRK started to fall.  So, people with thousands invested in DRK will criticize XC with extreme bias and often blatant lies in order to protect their DRK investments.

But XC's anon tech validity and Dan Metcalf's credibility and qualifications have been repeatedly proven.  FUD can only damage an image so much.  Expect a rebound

It is amazing how all of that died once they watched the video was posted.  

XC decentralized anon proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uTgnZAFuNU&feature=youtu.be

For any who missed it

thanks for that, maybe should put this on XC twitter?

[provenceday]

For those who still haven't get on board now, i recommend youto buy now, at least to get your hands wet. The coins are cheap now, and I am buying in more at 200 k sat.

Don't need ask people to buy XC, if they don't wanna get money.
If always advertising, people might think someone wanna dump his coins. LOL

that's true.

time will reward the people who choose believe.

[Pizpie]

Can we get Mintpal to change the coin name from X11 coin to XCoin? Or just XC?

They have been contacted about this and it was requested to be changed.

-XC Community Mod

[520Bit]

So I guess I don't really understand how one Twitter post by someone on the DRK team that isn't even true can cause XC to crash, yet DRK is CONFIRMING that they're technology isn't working right, and they might not be able to get it fixed fully until July?  Yet DRK's price continues to rise and XC's doesn't, even though our anon is working.  Just doesn't make sense.

Dark's anonymous transactions are working now. Same for master nodes. What isn't is the payment of the master nodes.
XC's anon is not working yet, it is apparently working on tesnet, but not released so far (as planned by the dev, not an issue).
Just get your facts straight.

My question is why there so much criticism of XC not being fully developed when DRK is not fully developed?

It's because the moment XC started to rise, DRK started to fall.  So, people with thousands invested in DRK will criticize XC with extreme bias and often blatant lies in order to protect their DRK investments.

But XC's anon tech validity and Dan Metcalf's credibility and qualifications have been repeatedly proven.  FUD can only damage an image so much.  Expect a rebound

It is amazing how all of that died once they watched the video was posted.  

XC decentralized anon proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uTgnZAFuNU&feature=youtu.be

For any who missed it

thanks for that, maybe should put this on XC twitter?

Exactly, I twittered it this morning, follow me here: https://twitter.com/520Bit

[SkyValeey]

New analysis XC :



https://twitter.com/AphexTwin4ever/status/472776599038070784

 

[synechist]

After sitting on this quite a bit last night, I really began to see exactly what the Developer has in mind so I will try to explain it the simplest and best that I know so others may begin to understand more.  
ATC, please comment whether this is on the right track or not as I am trying to clear some things up.

The Xnode
1. Every wallet on the network is capable of being an "Xnode" depending on the amount of coins that are held in that wallet - current suggested is 1000 minimum, but that may change.  
2. The "Xnode" is essentially a decentralized mixer that passes the transactions through to the next "Xnode" until it is received by the intended target.
3. Keeping your wallet open without the "Xnode" option will pay the 3.33%/yr POS.
4. Keeping your wallet open with the "Xnode" option engaged will pay additional transaction fees on top of the POS.
5. Acting as an "Xnode" will incentive users to keep wallets open and active strengthening network security.

A concern that was raised yesterday was that the pass through transactions are visible to users, and that a wallet modification would be able to intercept and steal the coins.  This is where the muli path paradigm comes into play, along with the additional network layer or "XC Alpha".

1. According to the OSI Model - http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/OSI+model - There are 7 Layers to the Network stack.  The currently titled "XC Alpha" will add an 8th layer that will essentially come in between layer 2 and 3. The initial request and encryption is initiated on this layer putting the transaction in motion.
2. Once the transaction is initiated, an on demand  "Xtunnel" will be created connecting the requester to the Xnode pool. It is within this tunnel that transactions are transactions are submitted to the pool network where the coin mixing is processed and deliverd to the receiver.

At the current time, The additional layer is not in place and that is why users can see transaction processed through their wallets, and they are currently unencrypted??  Once the "XC Alpha" has been fully integrated, users will not see the transaction as they currently do, but they will see it in a similar way that they see the current POS transaction.  These transactions will be fully encrypted and the possibility of stealing the transaction as mentioned would be nullified.  
The transactions should be represented in the users wallet not as "mined" but as something simply like "X" (just a suggestion).  In this manner, they will be able to see that the XNODE is actually working and paying out as promised.

I hope I am on track here, and I hope this helps to understand more.  once again, if ATC would care to comment, edit, or tell me I am full of shit, feel free.

+1. Excellent summary.

[provenceday]

New analysis XC :



https://twitter.com/AphexTwin4ever/status/472776599038070784

 

nobody want to sell their XC now, because we all know the price will hit 0.01BTC or higher 3 weeks later after the dev release the V2.

[520Bit]

After sitting on this quite a bit last night, I really began to see exactly what the Developer has in mind so I will try to explain it the simplest and best that I know so others may begin to understand more.  
ATC, please comment whether this is on the right track or not as I am trying to clear some things up.

The Xnode
1. Every wallet on the network is capable of being an "Xnode" depending on the amount of coins that are held in that wallet - current suggested is 1000 minimum, but that may change.  
2. The "Xnode" is essentially a decentralized mixer that passes the transactions through to the next "Xnode" until it is received by the intended target.
3. Keeping your wallet open without the "Xnode" option will pay the 3.33%/yr POS.
4. Keeping your wallet open with the "Xnode" option engaged will pay additional transaction fees on top of the POS.
5. Acting as an "Xnode" will incentive users to keep wallets open and active strengthening network security.

A concern that was raised yesterday was that the pass through transactions are visible to users, and that a wallet modification would be able to intercept and steal the coins.  This is where the muli path paradigm comes into play, along with the additional network layer or "XC Alpha".

1. According to the OSI Model - http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/OSI+model - There are 7 Layers to the Network stack.  The currently titled "XC Alpha" will add an 8th layer that will essentially come in between layer 2 and 3. The initial request and encryption is initiated on this layer putting the transaction in motion.
2. Once the transaction is initiated, an on demand  "Xtunnel" will be created connecting the requester to the Xnode pool. It is within this tunnel that transactions are transactions are submitted to the pool network where the coin mixing is processed and deliverd to the receiver.

At the current time, The additional layer is not in place and that is why users can see transaction processed through their wallets, and they are currently unencrypted??  Once the "XC Alpha" has been fully integrated, users will not see the transaction as they currently do, but they will see it in a similar way that they see the current POS transaction.  These transactions will be fully encrypted and the possibility of stealing the transaction as mentioned would be nullified.  
The transactions should be represented in the users wallet not as "mined" but as something simply like "X" (just a suggestion).  In this manner, they will be able to see that the XNODE is actually working and paying out as promised.

I hope I am on track here, and I hope this helps to understand more.  once again, if ATC would care to comment, edit, or tell me I am full of shit, feel free.

+1. Excellent summary.

+1, great news, the more I know XC, the longer I will hold it.

[BKCrypto]

New analysis XC :



https://twitter.com/AphexTwin4ever/status/472776599038070784

 

nobody want to sell their XC now, because we all know the price will hit 0.01BTC or higher 3 weeks later after the dev release the V2.

 

[shockstar]

Does anyone know the ETA on new wallet?

A bottle of Dom Perignon is in the fridge... Getting ready to pop it off!!!

[evtrmm]

Does anyone know the ETA on new wallet?

A bottle of Dom Perignon is in the fridge... Getting ready to pop it off!!!

new wallet tomorrow, but not fully implemented.

[almond]

For those wondering where these huge hashrates cone from its very simple.  Sites such as nicehash are becoming very popular and it is incredibly simple to transfer in bitcoin to them and rent out huge hashrates. If you don't know how they work miners point their rigs to the site, renters pay the site to point the miners to a pool with the renters credentials.  The miners get paid in BTC, the sites takes a cut of the renters BTC and the renters get whatever coins were mined.

also, since x11 is a cpu friendly algorithm cheap server rentals may have been profitable at the time.

[jakecrow]

Question 1: Supposing there is time lag, if, say, you can shutdown your pc or disconnect your internet connection at the exact point when you, as a node/mixer, receive the money (but these hadn't the opportunity to be forwarded further), don't you get to keep the money even if you can't hack the encryption? If the money from someone else arrive at my address it's over if I am not "forced" to re-forward them.

Question 2: If the transfer is instantaneous then what prevents a timing analysis of the blockchain in which address A was reduced by 10.423 XCs and address B had a sum of +10.423 one or two blocks later.

Would also like to hear about these.

[megges]

Question 1: Supposing there is time lag, if, say, you can shutdown your pc or disconnect your internet connection at the exact point when you, as a node/mixer, receive the money (but these hadn't the opportunity to be forwarded further), don't you get to keep the money even if you can't hack the encryption? If the money from someone else arrive at my address it's over if I am not "forced" to re-forward them.

Question 2: If the transfer is instantaneous then what prevents a timing analysis of the blockchain in which address A was reduced by 10.423 XCs and address B had a sum of +10.423 one or two blocks later.

Would also like to hear about these.

here the answer from atcsecure for question 1:

this must be fud - that can't be true, if it is, it will be so easyto patch the wallet and comment out the sending, in conclusion i'll recieve the coins from the one whos mixing but i will not send them to the destination and keep them -> easy stealing ...

the protocol will handle this, it won't be "Easy stealing"  and yes there are  bugs ,this is a test release

[CryptoGretzky]

Question 1: Supposing there is time lag, if, say, you can shutdown your pc or disconnect your internet connection at the exact point when you, as a node/mixer, receive the money (but these hadn't the opportunity to be forwarded further), don't you get to keep the money even if you can't hack the encryption? If the money from someone else arrive at my address it's over if I am not "forced" to re-forward them.

Question 2: If the transfer is instantaneous then what prevents a timing analysis of the blockchain in which address A was reduced by 10.423 XCs and address B had a sum of +10.423 one or two blocks later.

Would also like to hear about these.

This is how I understand it:

1. It's multi-path, not a single point failure.   If you have one xnode that's down, doesn't matter, other xnode also has it.    

2. It's probably only instantaneous now because well it's on testnet with max 5 users during the test.  

[battbot]

Check this logo out (taken from this tweet - https://twitter.com/CoinRocket/status/472790874024595456/photo/1), pretty sick:

[JesstersDead]

Check this logo out (taken from this tweet - https://twitter.com/CoinRocket/status/472790874024595456/photo/1), pretty sick:
snip

Okay, I really like that one.

[milkyway]

Check this logo out (taken from this tweet - https://twitter.com/CoinRocket/status/472790874024595456/photo/1), pretty sick:

This really suits the image of the coin. The background and the shadowy features around the letters gives the "anonymous" feel.
+1