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

[holyprofit]

Team members joining another coins team looks bad no matter how you spin it.

That's precisely what I'm trying to suggest is a misperception.

I'll give an example from my own life:

- I do analytical philosophical research into sign action

- I have a music career

- I design gliders

All of these "spread my resources thinner". But this is not a problem. It's life.

The basic fact is that joining another team is an act of community. People join because their friends have a project that they're keen to help with. The perception that there is competition, scarce time-resources, and thus a "betrayal" in joining another team, is just the wrong paradigm. This is community. It's intertwined. It's close-nit. And it's superabundant in resources. There is no scarcity. There are only plentiful networks. When XC needs something, what do you know? Many people come forward to provide it. This will not change.

So I suppose the shareholders of Apple or Microsoft would cheer if Tim Cook or Satya Nadella were to "co-join" another company under the guise of "community."

Good point. The shareholders would be outraged.

So yes, the situations are not analogous:

- Crypto is fluid, communal, and not held together by legal contracts.

- This makes it vastly more innovative and flexible than corporations.

- It also makes it vastly less small-minded than the corporate scarcity-dominated mentality.

- Community fosters superabundance. Anything that does this is beautiful and should not be replaced by a dynamic that creates scarcity.

Big up for community!

Read and enjoy ..

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-microsoft-and-apple-work-together-2013-6?op=1

EDIT: yes the best do indeed work with the best

[battbot]

Team members joining another coins team looks bad no matter how you spin it.

That's precisely what I'm trying to suggest is a misperception.

I'll give an example from my own life:

- I do analytical philosophical research into sign action

- I have a music career

- I design gliders

All of these "spread my resources thinner". But this is not a problem. It's life.

The basic fact is that joining another team is an act of community. People join because their friends have a project that they're keen to help with. The perception that there is competition, scarce time-resources, and thus a "betrayal" in joining another team, is just the wrong paradigm. This is community. It's intertwined. It's close-nit. And it's superabundant in resources. There is no scarcity. There are only plentiful networks. When XC needs something, what do you know? Many people come forward to provide it. This will not change.

So I suppose the shareholders of Apple or Microsoft would cheer if Tim Cook or Satya Nadella were to "co-join" another company under the guise of "community."

Good point. The shareholders would be outraged.

So yes, the situations are not analogous:

- Crypto is fluid, communal, and not held together by legal contracts.

- This makes it vastly more innovative and flexible than corporations.

- It also makes it vastly less small-minded than the corporate scarcity-dominated mentality.

- Community fosters superabundance. Anything that does this is beautiful and should not be replaced by a dynamic that creates scarcity.

Big up for community!

The situations are analogous to a degree.  Are you telling me that if Dan (atcsecure) were to officially announce that he was coding (as an official dev) for another coin, that XC 's price would not crash?  And that XC holders would not be outraged?

[battbot]

Team members joining another coins team looks bad no matter how you spin it.

That's precisely what I'm trying to suggest is a misperception.

I'll give an example from my own life:

- I do analytical philosophical research into sign action

- I have a music career

- I design gliders

All of these "spread my resources thinner". But this is not a problem. It's life.

The basic fact is that joining another team is an act of community. People join because their friends have a project that they're keen to help with. The perception that there is competition, scarce time-resources, and thus a "betrayal" in joining another team, is just the wrong paradigm. This is community. It's intertwined. It's close-nit. And it's superabundant in resources. There is no scarcity. There are only plentiful networks. When XC needs something, what do you know? Many people come forward to provide it. This will not change.

So I suppose the shareholders of Apple or Microsoft would cheer if Tim Cook or Satya Nadella were to "co-join" another company under the guise of "community."

Good point. The shareholders would be outraged.

So yes, the situations are not analogous:

- Crypto is fluid, communal, and not held together by legal contracts.

- This makes it vastly more innovative and flexible than corporations.

- It also makes it vastly less small-minded than the corporate scarcity-dominated mentality.

- Community fosters superabundance. Anything that does this is beautiful and should not be replaced by a dynamic that creates scarcity.

Big up for community!

Read and enjoy ..

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-microsoft-and-apple-work-together-2013-6?op=1

That addresses collaboration -- which I support and think is a good thing for XC.  Right now, I am speaking to the fact that two core XC team members are now official team members of another coin.  This is not the same as collaboration.

[hoertest]

like i said i see the colaborations positive and i don't accuse anyone from "betrayal". but i can see why some are irritated as well. look at the track record:

cache: jasin threw it out there.
key review: well i don't wanna bring those feeling up again ( all reviews afterwards executed perfectly)
quibuck: their thread first
nhz: again they go first

i thinks thats what more gets on the nerves of some. some react totally inapropriate in my optinion but what i wanna say is the team, if it feels frustrated, should not forget that. regarding colaborations the track record of leaks stands and its bad luck that yet again it happened.

so again i understand both sides a little. seems to be my thing lately  

Anyway we have been through worse discussions in here. its healthy and always came out beneficial.
i'm looking forward to the actual details and more info tomorrow. it will be good i'm shure.

i hope some kind of review agreement from a public figure for XC is part of it.  

[jibble]

Team members joining another coins team looks bad no matter how you spin it.

That's precisely what I'm trying to suggest is a misperception.

I'll give an example from my own life:

- I do analytical philosophical research into sign action

- I have a music career

- I design gliders

All of these "spread my resources thinner". But this is not a problem. It's life.

The basic fact is that joining another team is an act of community. People join because their friends have a project that they're keen to help with. The perception that there is competition, scarce time-resources, and thus a "betrayal" in joining another team, is just the wrong paradigm. This is community. It's intertwined. It's close-nit. And it's superabundant in resources. There is no scarcity. There are only plentiful networks. When XC needs something, what do you know? Many people come forward to provide it. This will not change.

So I suppose the shareholders of Apple or Microsoft would cheer if Tim Cook or Satya Nadella were to "co-join" another company under the guise of "community."

Their contract would forbid it, also all creative rights when employed by those companies goes out the window, you come up with a million dollar idea, be sure that it will be ripped from you faster than a crack addict after a fix

That's exactly my point -- These elements are in place for a reason.  Their contract would forbid it and they surrender creative rights to help ensure the success of the company and protect shareholders.  

Your point would be more legitimate if the comparison was on 2 companies , highly centralized , highly competitive in a centralized format , constantly buying up or patent trolling anything that shows innovation. Not decentralized and has one of the main focuses centered in open sourcing everything.

You are not a shareholder when you buy a coin, you are buying into a currency, not a company.  You can agree with them and disagree with them, but if you are going to disagree and the reason for the disagreement is a broken logic comparing it to something that it is trying to become better than, something that has been brought up as a solution to the very things you are comparing it to, features and implementations that make it the complete opposite of what you are comparing them to. then don't expect people to actually take note.

[synechist]

Team members joining another coins team looks bad no matter how you spin it.

That's precisely what I'm trying to suggest is a misperception.

The basic fact is that joining another team is an act of community. People join because their friends have a project that they're keen to help with. The perception that there is competition, scarce time-resources, and thus a "betrayal" in joining another team, is just the wrong paradigm. This is community. It's intertwined. It's close-nit. And it's superabundant in resources. There is no scarcity. There are only plentiful networks. When XC needs something, what do you know? Many people come forward to provide it. This will not change.

So I suppose the shareholders of Apple or Microsoft would cheer if Tim Cook or Satya Nadella were to "co-join" another company under the guise of "community."

Good point. The shareholders would be outraged.

So yes, the situations are not analogous:

- Crypto is fluid, communal, and not held together by legal contracts.

- This makes it vastly more innovative and flexible than corporations.

- It also makes it vastly less small-minded than the corporate scarcity-dominated mentality.

- Community fosters superabundance. Anything that does this is beautiful and should not be replaced by a dynamic that creates scarcity.

Big up for community!

The situations are analogous to a degree.  Are you telling me that if Dan (atcsecure) were to officially announce that he was coding (as an official dev) for another coin, that XC 's price would not crash?  And that XC holders would not be outraged?

They'd dump if they adopted a scarcity-dominated paradigm.

If they adopted a communality-and-thus-superabundance paradigm, they'd see it as a sign of a healthy ecosystem that's benefitting them as much as others.

As an interesting aside here, it's still commonly thought that the biological realm is dominated by competition and evolutionary natural selection. Funnily enough this hasn't been the consensus since the 1980s, when biosemiotics took off as a field and people realised that symbiosis was both more fundamental and more prevalent than competition.

[battbot]

Team members joining another coins team looks bad no matter how you spin it.

That's precisely what I'm trying to suggest is a misperception.

I'll give an example from my own life:

- I do analytical philosophical research into sign action

- I have a music career

- I design gliders

All of these "spread my resources thinner". But this is not a problem. It's life.

The basic fact is that joining another team is an act of community. People join because their friends have a project that they're keen to help with. The perception that there is competition, scarce time-resources, and thus a "betrayal" in joining another team, is just the wrong paradigm. This is community. It's intertwined. It's close-nit. And it's superabundant in resources. There is no scarcity. There are only plentiful networks. When XC needs something, what do you know? Many people come forward to provide it. This will not change.

So I suppose the shareholders of Apple or Microsoft would cheer if Tim Cook or Satya Nadella were to "co-join" another company under the guise of "community."

Their contract would forbid it, also all creative rights when employed by those companies goes out the window, you come up with a million dollar idea, be sure that it will be ripped from you faster than a crack addict after a fix

That's exactly my point -- These elements are in place for a reason.  Their contract would forbid it and they surrender creative rights to help ensure the success of the company and protect shareholders.  

Your point would be more legitimate if the comparison was on 2 companies , highly centralized , highly competitive in a centralized format , constantly buying up or patent trolling anything that shows innovation. Not decentralized and has one of the main focuses centered in open sourcing everything.

You are not a shareholder when you buy a coin, you are buying into a currency, not a company.  You can agree with them and disagree with them, but if you are going to disagree and the reason for the disagreement is a broken logic comparing it to something that it is trying to become better than, something that has been brought up as a solution to the very things you are comparing it to, features and implementations that make it the complete opposite of what you are comparing them to. then don't expect people to actually take note.

All altcoins live or die on success of it's development team.  Are you telling me that is not a centralized element of XC, or any altcoin?  There are many ways in which XC is analogous to a company.  There are many ways in which buying into an altcoin is analogous to being a shareholder of a company.  So yes, I can point to these analogies.

[SouthernBTC]

Team members joining another coins team looks bad no matter how you spin it.

That's precisely what I'm trying to suggest is a misperception.

I'll give an example from my own life:

- I do analytical philosophical research into sign action

- I have a music career

- I design gliders

All of these "spread my resources thinner". But this is not a problem. It's life.

The basic fact is that joining another team is an act of community. People join because their friends have a project that they're keen to help with. The perception that there is competition, scarce time-resources, and thus a "betrayal" in joining another team, is just the wrong paradigm. This is community. It's intertwined. It's close-nit. And it's superabundant in resources. There is no scarcity. There are only plentiful networks. When XC needs something, what do you know? Many people come forward to provide it. This will not change.

So I suppose the shareholders of Apple or Microsoft would cheer if Tim Cook or Satya Nadella were to "co-join" another company under the guise of "community."

Good point. The shareholders would be outraged.

So yes, the situations are not analogous:

- Crypto is fluid, communal, and not held together by legal contracts.

- This makes it vastly more innovative and flexible than corporations.

- It also makes it vastly less small-minded than the corporate scarcity-dominated mentality.

- Community fosters superabundance. Anything that does this is beautiful and should not be replaced by a dynamic that creates scarcity.

Big up for community!

Read and enjoy ..

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-microsoft-and-apple-work-together-2013-6?op=1

EDIT: yes the best do indeed work with the best

Read and enjoy ..

http://www.informationweek.com/desktop/microsoft-sues-apple-over-app-store-trademark/d/d-id/1095392?

Just sayin...

[battbot]

/rant off

I have to step out of the house.  I still obviously support XC... I mean, just look at my posting history.

[cryptico]

Team members joining another coins team looks bad no matter how you spin it.

That's precisely what I'm trying to suggest is a misperception.

The basic fact is that joining another team is an act of community. People join because their friends have a project that they're keen to help with. The perception that there is competition, scarce time-resources, and thus a "betrayal" in joining another team, is just the wrong paradigm. This is community. It's intertwined. It's close-nit. And it's superabundant in resources. There is no scarcity. There are only plentiful networks. When XC needs something, what do you know? Many people come forward to provide it. This will not change.

So I suppose the shareholders of Apple or Microsoft would cheer if Tim Cook or Satya Nadella were to "co-join" another company under the guise of "community."

Good point. The shareholders would be outraged.

So yes, the situations are not analogous:

- Crypto is fluid, communal, and not held together by legal contracts.

- This makes it vastly more innovative and flexible than corporations.

- It also makes it vastly less small-minded than the corporate scarcity-dominated mentality.

- Community fosters superabundance. Anything that does this is beautiful and should not be replaced by a dynamic that creates scarcity.

Big up for community!

The situations are analogous to a degree.  Are you telling me that if Dan (atcsecure) were to officially announce that he was coding (as an official dev) for another coin, that XC 's price would not crash?  And that XC holders would not be outraged?

They'd dump if they adopted a scarcity-dominated paradigm.

If they adopted a communality-and-thus-superabundance paradigm, they'd see it as a sign of a healthy ecosystem that's benefitting them as much as others.

As an interesting aside here, it's still commonly thought that the biological realm is dominated by competition and evolutionary natural selection. Funnily enough this hasn't been the consensus since the 1980s, when biosemiotics took off as a field and people realised that symbiosis was both more fundamental and more prevalent than competition.

As well as the concept of Evolution is a complete and utter bullshit, that science is disproving day after day more and more. Scientists are afraid to speak against Evolution as they are afraid to loose their grants given to them by the state that with this Ideology wants to open us to full competition and full materialism for the New world order.. Natural selection is not evolution and works just for speciation, hence(micro-evolution)..Macro evolution is the religion that our modern and corrupted world found his world dominance from and it will dye soon. Symbiosis in nature is evident as design is

[pookielax31]

Team members joining another coins team looks bad no matter how you spin it.

That's precisely what I'm trying to suggest is a misperception.

I'll give an example from my own life:

- I do analytical philosophical research into sign action

- I have a music career

- I design gliders

All of these "spread my resources thinner". But this is not a problem. It's life.

The basic fact is that joining another team is an act of community. People join because their friends have a project that they're keen to help with. The perception that there is competition, scarce time-resources, and thus a "betrayal" in joining another team, is just the wrong paradigm. This is community. It's intertwined. It's close-nit. And it's superabundant in resources. There is no scarcity. There are only plentiful networks. When XC needs something, what do you know? Many people come forward to provide it. This will not change.

So I suppose the shareholders of Apple or Microsoft would cheer if Tim Cook or Satya Nadella were to "co-join" another company under the guise of "community."

Their contract would forbid it, also all creative rights when employed by those companies goes out the window, you come up with a million dollar idea, be sure that it will be ripped from you faster than a crack addict after a fix

That's exactly my point -- These elements are in place for a reason.  Their contract would forbid it and they surrender creative rights to help ensure the success of the company and protect shareholders.  

Your point would be more legitimate if the comparison was on 2 companies , highly centralized , highly competitive in a centralized format , constantly buying up or patent trolling anything that shows innovation. Not decentralized and has one of the main focuses centered in open sourcing everything.

You are not a shareholder when you buy a coin, you are buying into a currency, not a company.  You can agree with them and disagree with them, but if you are going to disagree and the reason for the disagreement is a broken logic comparing it to something that it is trying to become better than, something that has been brought up as a solution to the very things you are comparing it to, features and implementations that make it the complete opposite of what you are comparing them to. then don't expect people to actually take note.

All altcoins live or die on success of it's development team.  Are you telling me that is not a centralized element of XC, or any altcoin?  There are many ways in which XC is analogous to a company.  There are many ways in which buying into an altcoin is analogous to being a shareholder of a company.  So yes, I can point to these analogies.

FACT^^^^^ BUMP

[SouthernBTC]

Team members joining another coins team looks bad no matter how you spin it.

That's precisely what I'm trying to suggest is a misperception.

The basic fact is that joining another team is an act of community. People join because their friends have a project that they're keen to help with. The perception that there is competition, scarce time-resources, and thus a "betrayal" in joining another team, is just the wrong paradigm. This is community. It's intertwined. It's close-nit. And it's superabundant in resources. There is no scarcity. There are only plentiful networks. When XC needs something, what do you know? Many people come forward to provide it. This will not change.

So I suppose the shareholders of Apple or Microsoft would cheer if Tim Cook or Satya Nadella were to "co-join" another company under the guise of "community."

Good point. The shareholders would be outraged.

So yes, the situations are not analogous:

- Crypto is fluid, communal, and not held together by legal contracts.

- This makes it vastly more innovative and flexible than corporations.

- It also makes it vastly less small-minded than the corporate scarcity-dominated mentality.

- Community fosters superabundance. Anything that does this is beautiful and should not be replaced by a dynamic that creates scarcity.

Big up for community!

The situations are analogous to a degree.  Are you telling me that if Dan (atcsecure) were to officially announce that he was coding (as an official dev) for another coin, that XC 's price would not crash?  And that XC holders would not be outraged?

They'd dump if they adopted a scarcity-dominated paradigm.

If they adopted a communality-and-thus-superabundance paradigm, they'd see it as a sign of a healthy ecosystem that's benefitting them as much as others.

As an interesting aside here, it's still commonly thought that the biological realm is dominated by competition and evolutionary natural selection. Funnily enough this hasn't been the consensus since the 1980s, when biosemiotics took off as a field and people realised that symbiosis was both more fundamental and more prevalent than competition.

Dude...lol...you do know half of our community doesn't speak English as a first language right. I love ya man...that post just gave me an ear to ear grin.

[holyprofit]

[ snip]

I simply don't think your business analogy works - you need to think back to the early days of personal computers, or the internet or any of these revolutions - there were no companies and no question of "loyalty" - no-one knew how things would turn out - everyone was kicking around ideas to everyone else. It's more like the research community right now - people exchange ideas and lend a hand to their friends. They get credit for that and their own work gets more recognition because of it. (Plus we don't actually know what the news is that goes along with this.)  

[synechist]

Team members joining another coins team looks bad no matter how you spin it.

That's precisely what I'm trying to suggest is a misperception.

I'll give an example from my own life:

- I do analytical philosophical research into sign action

- I have a music career

- I design gliders

All of these "spread my resources thinner". But this is not a problem. It's life.

The basic fact is that joining another team is an act of community. People join because their friends have a project that they're keen to help with. The perception that there is competition, scarce time-resources, and thus a "betrayal" in joining another team, is just the wrong paradigm. This is community. It's intertwined. It's close-nit. And it's superabundant in resources. There is no scarcity. There are only plentiful networks. When XC needs something, what do you know? Many people come forward to provide it. This will not change.

So I suppose the shareholders of Apple or Microsoft would cheer if Tim Cook or Satya Nadella were to "co-join" another company under the guise of "community."

Their contract would forbid it, also all creative rights when employed by those companies goes out the window, you come up with a million dollar idea, be sure that it will be ripped from you faster than a crack addict after a fix

That's exactly my point -- These elements are in place for a reason.  Their contract would forbid it and they surrender creative rights to help ensure the success of the company and protect shareholders.  

Your point would be more legitimate if the comparison was on 2 companies , highly centralized , highly competitive in a centralized format , constantly buying up or patent trolling anything that shows innovation. Not decentralized and has one of the main focuses centered in open sourcing everything.

You are not a shareholder when you buy a coin, you are buying into a currency, not a company.  You can agree with them and disagree with them, but if you are going to disagree and the reason for the disagreement is a broken logic comparing it to something that it is trying to become better than, something that has been brought up as a solution to the very things you are comparing it to, features and implementations that make it the complete opposite of what you are comparing them to. then don't expect people to actually take note.

All altcoins live or die on success of it's development team.  Are you telling me that is not a centralized element of XC, or any altcoin?  There are many ways in which XC is analogous to a company.  There are many ways in which buying into an altcoin is analogous to being a shareholder of a company.  So yes, I can point to these analogies.

FACT^^^^^ BUMP

Look at ETH team / marketing guys‏
  
They have their hands in all the major projects.‏
  
Talented people want to work with other people who share the same vision / ideas.

This is what makes people brilliant: all that wonderful collaboration.

Hence, collaboration is what makes for successful coins.

Lastly and most importantly, XC's development team is not changing and neither are anyone's energies being "diluted".

Collaboration *does not* equal dilution. So even if altcoins live or die on the success of their development teams, this just isn't at stake here. It's not a relevant fact in this discussion. XC's team is solid, top-class, and deeply committed to (and invested in) XC.

[SouthernBTC]

I'm sure everything will be fine and we'll all be happy in a days time. I was just venting at the situation, primarily due to past events with other coin devs dropping news before us. Arlyn, you lend a lot to this community and I appreciate  everyone's contributions. I will bow out of the conversation as I've already had a great chuckle today and would like to turn my mood around. Thanks team.

[rdnkjdi]

Look at ETH team / marketing guys‏
 
They have their hands in all the major projects.‏
 
Talented people want to work with other people who share the same vision / ideas.

Ethereum is open source.

[holyprofit]

[ snip - something bout evolution]

wtf ?! anyway - what were we talking about again?

Oh yeah, can everyone relax please.

[jibble]

All altcoins live or die on success of it's development team.  Are you telling me that is not a centralized element of XC, or any altcoin?  There are many ways in which XC is analogous to a company.  There are many ways in which buying into an altcoin is analogous to being a shareholder of a company.  So yes, I can point to these analogies.

There are also many more ways that XC is not analogous to a company. Just because you can point out a few that makes it like a company doesn't make it a company.  I can use an analogy to make a car seem like a company, doesn't make the car a company.

Open source technology is one of the main positives for crypto currency , it contradicts most all current business models companies follow, so your analogy is completely contradictory. "I am comparing it to this when it is comprised of completely contradictory elements"

Yes you can point them out, but it doesn't change the fact that the analogy is full on contradictions when placing the comparison. you hit 4 out of 10 so therefore the analogy holds? great

[synechist]

Dude...lol...you do know half of our community doesn't speak English as a first language right. I love ya man...that post just gave me an ear to ear grin.

Heh. Sorry :-). I sometimes forget myself.

When the conversation turns to a point garnered from my academic work, it's hard not to express it in the style I read it in.

[georgeblair]

There sure is a lot of Fear about this collaboration/announcement. and a lot of Uncertainty. and a lot of Doubt....