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

[qawzsx]

I've been reading about the blockNET and I feel like superNET is being misrepresented in your marketing copy. I didn't want to bring this up in your blockNET topic or make a new post out of it but I'd like to hear your opinion on why you chose these three particular points:

1. The way you've represented it makes it sound like BTCD is somehow above all the other coins in superNET. BTCD is to superNET as XC is to blockNET. In superNET BTCD provides the Teleport technology and jl777 as developer. In blockNET XC provides the Xbridge technology and atcsecure as developer. Nothing other than BTCD providing an essential part of the anonymity tech of superNET makes BTCD special.

2. I'm also curious about the p2p claims that are written. Maybe I'm missing something here and if you could enlighten me I would appreciate it. But SuperNET is using an implementation of Kademlia for p2p nodes, which is the same technology that Bittorrent is built on and as far as I know using such a protocol would quality as 'true p2p'.

3. The intention of superNET isn't to have a single centralised enity holding 10% of each coins money supply. SuperNET is intended to be a decentralised organization controlled by shareholders, not one single person. And those coins are meant to be held indefinitely via multiple people using multisig technology. It should function in a similar way as I'm understanding your blockNET foundation to hold.

As an aside I'm not sure why the 10% holding are painted in a negative manner in general. The idea of removing 10% of each currencies money supply to add value to the asset is a fairly large benefit to both people who hold the member coins and asset holders. Since you already have established the blockNET foundation which like superNET is not going to be a centralised organization, a similar deal would appear to be in the best interests of everyone. Having 10% of coins bought at market value and then removed from circulation sounds like a win-win scenario for all parties. Applying the appropriate multisig and distributing the keys among the blockNET foundation would seem to eliminate the centralisation part of it. This  is just something to consider. I just feel like this arrangement is mutually beneficial and I was surprised that it was presented as a negative aspect of superNET.

I'm making this post just to make sure that there's no misunderstandings between blockNET and superNET and so that people don't get the wrong idea. I don't think you intentionally misrepresented those points so I figured just posting this here might persuade you to correct some of the factual errors in the blockNET literature so far.

I wish blockNET good luck. Networking coins is an interesting idea and seeing how someone else chooses to do an implementation of the technology will be interesting to see.

hi,

just for clarification . will two coins on the supernet be able to connect without a BTCD node taking part in the process?

Yes, most definitely.

ok thank you, so the supenet could theoreticlly function without BTCD. In theory XC could pull out of the blocknet and it would still be running for the rest of the coins. is that possible in supernet too?.

As far as I know, yes.

You know shit...
This is what James said...

"100,000+ nodes will do quite a lot of InstantDEX, Teleport, Privatebet, Tradebots, etc. Plus add in dozens of additional services from other coins. In the center of all this is BTCD. We are the center of the spiral. Let other coins make their money, everybody needs money. I think that is why it is called money.

BTCD is what allows all this to happen and even if just a small percentage of the overall commerce spills into BTCD revenue share it will be a giant boost to the value of BTCD. I have not worked out all the numbers, but with all this revenues being generated, we can definitely make it a cash positive decision for the other coins, while sharing in the business each coin adds."

SuperNET is just a centralized shit, controlled by James alone.


Bragging about how is Pumped BTCD, and dumped afterwards it seems if you take a look at the charts.

"BTCD was $100,000 marketcap when I joined it. Now it is about 60x more. 6 weeks, 60x. But it was “only” 6 million USD, which if BTC gained that much would be a gain of .001. So the same amount of marketcap is 6000% for BTCD and 0.1% for BTC. The next 60x for BTCD will certainly take a bit longer than 6 weeks"

Yea, go SuperNET

[1714750830]

1714750830

[1714750830]

1714750830

[1714750830]

1714750830

[SouthernBTC]

Dude...go relax. He presented his question politely; there's no reason for rude behavior. Let's treat people having legitimate questions and concerns with respect.

[Este Nuno]

I've been reading about the blockNET and I feel like superNET is being misrepresented in your marketing copy. I didn't want to bring this up in your blockNET topic or make a new post out of it but I'd like to hear your opinion on why you chose these three particular points:

1. The way you've represented it makes it sound like BTCD is somehow above all the other coins in superNET. BTCD is to superNET as XC is to blockNET. In superNET BTCD provides the Teleport technology and jl777 as developer. In blockNET XC provides the Xbridge technology and atcsecure as developer. Nothing other than BTCD providing an essential part of the anonymity tech of superNET makes BTCD special.

2. I'm also curious about the p2p claims that are written. Maybe I'm missing something here and if you could enlighten me I would appreciate it. But SuperNET is using an implementation of Kademlia for p2p nodes, which is the same technology that Bittorrent is built on and as far as I know using such a protocol would quality as 'true p2p'.

3. The intention of superNET isn't to have a single centralised enity holding 10% of each coins money supply. SuperNET is intended to be a decentralised organization controlled by shareholders, not one single person. And those coins are meant to be held indefinitely via multiple people using multisig technology. It should function in a similar way as I'm understanding your blockNET foundation to hold.

As an aside I'm not sure why the 10% holding are painted in a negative manner in general. The idea of removing 10% of each currencies money supply to add value to the asset is a fairly large benefit to both people who hold the member coins and asset holders. Since you already have established the blockNET foundation which like superNET is not going to be a centralised organization, a similar deal would appear to be in the best interests of everyone. Having 10% of coins bought at market value and then removed from circulation sounds like a win-win scenario for all parties. Applying the appropriate multisig and distributing the keys among the blockNET foundation would seem to eliminate the centralisation part of it. This  is just something to consider. I just feel like this arrangement is mutually beneficial and I was surprised that it was presented as a negative aspect of superNET.

I'm making this post just to make sure that there's no misunderstandings between blockNET and superNET and so that people don't get the wrong idea. I don't think you intentionally misrepresented those points so I figured just posting this here might persuade you to correct some of the factual errors in the blockNET literature so far.

I wish blockNET good luck. Networking coins is an interesting idea and seeing how someone else chooses to do an implementation of the technology will be interesting to see.

hi,

just for clarification . will two coins on the supernet be able to connect without a BTCD node taking part in the process?

Yes, most definitely.

ok thank you, so the supenet could theoreticlly function without BTCD. In theory XC could pull out of the blocknet and it would still be running for the rest of the coins. is that possible in supernet too?.

As far as I know, yes.

You know shit...
This is what James said...

"100,000+ nodes will do quite a lot of InstantDEX, Teleport, Privatebet, Tradebots, etc. Plus add in dozens of additional services from other coins. In the center of all this is BTCD. We are the center of the spiral. Let other coins make their money, everybody needs money. I think that is why it is called money.

BTCD is what allows all this to happen and even if just a small percentage of the overall commerce spills into BTCD revenue share it will be a giant boost to the value of BTCD. I have not worked out all the numbers, but with all this revenues being generated, we can definitely make it a cash positive decision for the other coins, while sharing in the business each coin adds."

SuperNET is just a centralized shit, controlled by James alone.


Bragging about how is Pumped BTCD, and dumped afterwards it seems if you take a look at the charts.

"BTCD was $100,000 marketcap when I joined it. Now it is about 60x more. 6 weeks, 60x. But it was “only” 6 million USD, which if BTC gained that much would be a gain of .001. So the same amount of marketcap is 6000% for BTCD and 0.1% for BTC. The next 60x for BTCD will certainly take a bit longer than 6 weeks"

Yea, go SuperNET

What he's saying there is essentialy the same thing that people have been saying in this thread. Mainly that the anonymity tech provided to the network is key. Just as XC plans to provide it's mixing for blockNET, BTCD will provide people with teleport.

And I'm not bragging about anything as I hold none of the core currencies involved with superNET. Not because I don't think they are good though. I'm just trying to look at it from a logical perspective. Perhaps there's something I'm missing and I'll see that it's in fact not as good as it sounds.

[Este Nuno]

Dude...go relax. He presented his question politely; there's no reason for rude behavior. Let's treat people having legitimate questions and concerns with respect.

Thank you. I just want the information itself to be clear and correct on both sides. I don't blame anyone for not understanding exactly how everything works.

[hrshak462]

Well when I bought at 156k I didn't expect it to get cut almost in half so quick.  Oops

edit: holding btw, have faith

[xxxgoodgirls]

Well when I bought at 156k I didn't expect it to get cut almost in half so quick.  Oops

Yeah, chart looks bad.

[Astroxjr]

Dude...go relax. He presented his question politely; there's no reason for rude behavior. Let's treat people having legitimate questions and concerns with respect.

Thank you. I just want the information itself to be clear and correct on both sides. I don't blame anyone for not understanding exactly how everything works.

So you DO have a vested interest in the other side.

The devil is in the detail 

[Este Nuno]

Dude...go relax. He presented his question politely; there's no reason for rude behavior. Let's treat people having legitimate questions and concerns with respect.

Thank you. I just want the information itself to be clear and correct on both sides. I don't blame anyone for not understanding exactly how everything works.

So you DO have a vested interest in the other side.

The devil is in the detail  

I don't have any financial interest in it. But I help out with some things where I can for fun.



Also, regarding my original post. We don't have to get in to the whole 10% thing as it's really just a personal preference and it's just my opinion that it adds value. In general there are still a lot of steps in that process that are centralised at the start, and I don't think there is a 'right' answer either way.

[crackfoo]

Dude...go relax. He presented his question politely; there's no reason for rude behavior. Let's treat people having legitimate questions and concerns with respect.

Thank you. I just want the information itself to be clear and correct on both sides. I don't blame anyone for not understanding exactly how everything works.

So you DO have a vested interest in the other side.

The devil is in the detail 

SuperNET was conceived and realized well before blocknet so some of us have an understanding of how it works is all and what's being presented doesn't match reality.

[synechist]

I've been reading about the blockNET and I feel like superNET is being misrepresented in your marketing copy. I didn't want to bring this up in your blockNET topic or make a new post out of it but I'd like to hear your opinion on why you chose these three particular points:

1. The way you've represented it makes it sound like BTCD is somehow above all the other coins in superNET. BTCD is to superNET as XC is to blockNET. In superNET BTCD provides the Teleport technology and jl777 as developer. In blockNET XC provides the Xbridge technology and atcsecure as developer. Nothing other than BTCD providing an essential part of the anonymity tech of superNET makes BTCD special.

2. I'm also curious about the p2p claims that are written. Maybe I'm missing something here and if you could enlighten me I would appreciate it. But SuperNET is using an implementation of Kademlia for p2p nodes, which is the same technology that Bittorrent is built on and as far as I know using such a protocol would quality as 'true p2p'.

3. The intention of superNET isn't to have a single centralised enity holding 10% of each coins money supply. SuperNET is intended to be a decentralised organization controlled by shareholders, not one single person. And those coins are meant to be held indefinitely via multiple people using multisig technology. It should function in a similar way as I'm understanding your blockNET foundation to hold.

As an aside I'm not sure why the 10% holding are painted in a negative manner in general. The idea of removing 10% of each currencies money supply to add value to the asset is a fairly large benefit to both people who hold the member coins and asset holders. Since you already have established the blockNET foundation which like superNET is not going to be a centralised organization, a similar deal would appear to be in the best interests of everyone. Having 10% of coins bought at market value and then removed from circulation sounds like a win-win scenario for all parties. Applying the appropriate multisig and distributing the keys among the blockNET foundation would seem to eliminate the centralisation part of it. This  is just something to consider. I just feel like this arrangement is mutually beneficial and I was surprised that it was presented as a negative aspect of superNET.

I'm making this post just to make sure that there's no misunderstandings between blockNET and superNET and so that people don't get the wrong idea. I don't think you intentionally misrepresented those points so I figured just posting this here might persuade you to correct some of the factual errors in the blockNET literature so far.

I wish blockNET good luck. Networking coins is an interesting idea and seeing how someone else chooses to do an implementation of the technology will be interesting to see.

hi,

just for clarification . will two coins on the supernet be able to connect without a BTCD node taking part in the process?

Yes, most definitely.

If someone wanted to use NXT for example and use BTCD's teleport then that would be different. But if they didn't want to use any of BTCD's technology then BTCD doesn't gain anything directly. That being said teleport is considered an essential part of the anon solution(similar to how I'm reading here that XC is with blockNET).

Thanks very much for the sustained clarification here. This is quality discussion.

To address your points in order:

1) The XBridge protocol is not part of XC and does not run inside XC.
    It's open source and will be integrated into all coins on the Blocknet.
    It's required for every Blocknet transaction, not just those involving XC.
    In contrast, BTCD and NXT are core technologies in the Supernet, and pretty much nothing can be done without them. Check out the following quotation from the SuperNET newsletter:

Imagine a new country, spread out in front of you. Scattered around the landscape is everything you might want or need. Stores, selling anything you could ever hope to buy. Exchanges, financial services and trading posts. Casinos and other entertainment centres. News and information outlets. These are like the services offered by SuperNET. Incredibly, although the cryptocurrency world offers so many remarkable businesses, no one has thought to link them before. They are just a set of isolated organisations, operating in their own niches, or competing with each other.

BTCD is like the highway that connects everything. The infrastructure it provides will enable communication between you and all of the different services, through what it shaping up to be one of the most secure comms links ever developed. It’s like a network of roads, tunnels and bridges that enables you to go anywhere and do anything – and do so in complete privacy.

To complete the analogy, Nxt is the sophisticated engine that gets you around this network of roads and to the services you can find there. It’s a 2.0 car that’s designed to do far more than drive from A to B. NXT doesn’t just allow you to transact; it houses the Asset Exchange and many of the other services that will allow you to interact meaningfully with others on your way around in SuperNET – the whole Super Network of integrated coins and innovative services

2) Kademlia... that's distributed hash tables, aka DHT. DHT uses servers to lookup and locate nodes. Therefore it's not truly distributed, thus not P2P.
    In contrast, the Xnode protocol, upon which the XBridge is based, is completely serverless in operation and truly distributed.


3) The idea of holding 10% of the money supply of any participating coin is, in my opinion (though I admit a debatable point), risky and centrist.
    Even if the controlling organisation is somewhat decentralised and the funds held in multisig addresses, it's still the case that it acts with its own mandate and is directed to its own ends
    And if it owns enough of the money supply to control the price of a currency, that's a problem.
    Given that it's not necessary for this arrangement to be in place, I don't see why the benefit of pumping a coin's price is worth the centralisation risk.
    Better to have Xmixers or something, which also reduce the amount of coins in circulation, but do so in a decentralised manner.

[prospect]

And by reading the above and my own conclusions (what i have tried to say the whole time). The blocknet is not a part of XC. It steals time from developers from XC as a currency. Its atcsecures choice to do this. They want 950 000 dollars in exchange for this tech. And all the hundreds of crypto currencys that does pretty much the same thing will be able to communicate/be a part of each others currencys tech.

XC has already uniq stuff, they do not need the others. Its a noble thing, this blocknet, and i great vision however.

// still holding my XC

[synechist]

Just copied the conversation on the Supernet to the Blocknet thread.

Thanks folks! I love a genuine and respectful discussion!

[hoertest]

And by reading the above and my own conclusions (what i have tried to say the whole time). The blocknet is not a part of XC. It steals time from developers from XC as a currency. Its atcsecures choice to do this. They want 950 000 dollars in exchange for this tech. And all the hundreds of crypto currencys that does pretty much the same thing will be able to communicate/be a part of each others currencys tech.

XC has already uniq stuff, they do not need the others. Its a noble thing, this blocknet, and i great vision however.

// still holding my XC

you don't get it fully but youre close  , xc is still unique on the blocknet like it is off the blocknet. so in order to benefit from the large user potential the blocknet brings XC has to be strong and ready for competition. the blocknet doesn't steal as much time as you think but on the other side makes up for it by putting much more pressure on the devs to stay leader in their field. thats good.

you say you still hold XC. good choice. and the blocknet makes it an even better choice wether you hold blocknet tokens or not. so its not so much noble but just out of XCs own interest to build and be part of this Network when they believe in the strength of their own product.

[Conurtrol]

I wish Supernet could somehow join Blocknet. JL777 is highly reputable and a dynamo of brilliant ideas and public relations. ATCSecure is also highly reputable and a brilliant dev who can actually pull this whole thing off in the best possible way. Together, and with all the other devs too, they would be unstoppable.

[synechist]

I wish Supernet could somehow join Blocknet. JL777 is highly reputable and a dynamo of brilliant ideas and public relations. ATCSecure is also highly reputable and a brilliant dev who can actually pull this whole thing off in the best possible way. Together, and with all the other devs too, they would be unstoppable.

Personally I would love that!

The two of them working together - and the two networks combining their strengths - would be incredible.

I wonder who's gonna start putting XBridges into wallets on the Supernet?

Anyone can.

[crackfoo]

Thanks very much for the sustained clarification here. This is quality discussion.

To address your points in order:

1) The XBridge protocol is not part of XC and does not run inside XC.
    It's open source and will be integrated into all coins on the Blocknet.
    It's required for every Blocknet transaction, not just those involving XC.
    In contrast, BTCD and NXT are core technologies in the Supernet, and pretty much nothing can be done without them.

As is the SAME for XBridge. Will XBridge work without your core coins? Nope.

I didn't know XBridge is opensource? Whats the link for it?

[Este Nuno]

I've been reading about the blockNET and I feel like superNET is being misrepresented in your marketing copy. I didn't want to bring this up in your blockNET topic or make a new post out of it but I'd like to hear your opinion on why you chose these three particular points:

1. The way you've represented it makes it sound like BTCD is somehow above all the other coins in superNET. BTCD is to superNET as XC is to blockNET. In superNET BTCD provides the Teleport technology and jl777 as developer. In blockNET XC provides the Xbridge technology and atcsecure as developer. Nothing other than BTCD providing an essential part of the anonymity tech of superNET makes BTCD special.

2. I'm also curious about the p2p claims that are written. Maybe I'm missing something here and if you could enlighten me I would appreciate it. But SuperNET is using an implementation of Kademlia for p2p nodes, which is the same technology that Bittorrent is built on and as far as I know using such a protocol would quality as 'true p2p'.

3. The intention of superNET isn't to have a single centralised enity holding 10% of each coins money supply. SuperNET is intended to be a decentralised organization controlled by shareholders, not one single person. And those coins are meant to be held indefinitely via multiple people using multisig technology. It should function in a similar way as I'm understanding your blockNET foundation to hold.

As an aside I'm not sure why the 10% holding are painted in a negative manner in general. The idea of removing 10% of each currencies money supply to add value to the asset is a fairly large benefit to both people who hold the member coins and asset holders. Since you already have established the blockNET foundation which like superNET is not going to be a centralised organization, a similar deal would appear to be in the best interests of everyone. Having 10% of coins bought at market value and then removed from circulation sounds like a win-win scenario for all parties. Applying the appropriate multisig and distributing the keys among the blockNET foundation would seem to eliminate the centralisation part of it. This  is just something to consider. I just feel like this arrangement is mutually beneficial and I was surprised that it was presented as a negative aspect of superNET.

I'm making this post just to make sure that there's no misunderstandings between blockNET and superNET and so that people don't get the wrong idea. I don't think you intentionally misrepresented those points so I figured just posting this here might persuade you to correct some of the factual errors in the blockNET literature so far.

I wish blockNET good luck. Networking coins is an interesting idea and seeing how someone else chooses to do an implementation of the technology will be interesting to see.

hi,

just for clarification . will two coins on the supernet be able to connect without a BTCD node taking part in the process?

Yes, most definitely.

If someone wanted to use NXT for example and use BTCD's teleport then that would be different. But if they didn't want to use any of BTCD's technology then BTCD doesn't gain anything directly. That being said teleport is considered an essential part of the anon solution(similar to how I'm reading here that XC is with blockNET).

Thanks very much for the sustained clarification here. This is quality discussion.

To address your points in order:

1) The XBridge protocol is not part of XC and does not run inside XC.
    It's open source and will be integrated into all coins on the Blocknet.
    It's required for every Blocknet transaction, not just those involving XC.
    In contrast, BTCD and NXT are core technologies in the Supernet, and pretty much nothing can be done without them. Check out the following quotation from the NXT newsletter:

Imagine a new country, spread out in front of you. Scattered around the landscape is everything you might want or need. Stores, selling anything you could ever hope to buy. Exchanges, financial services and trading posts. Casinos and other entertainment centres. News and information outlets. These are like the services offered by SuperNET. Incredibly, although the cryptocurrency world offers so many remarkable businesses, no one has thought to link them before. They are just a set of isolated organisations, operating in their own niches, or competing with each other.

BTCD is like the highway that connects everything. The infrastructure it provides will enable communication between you and all of the different services, through what it shaping up to be one of the most secure comms links ever developed. It’s like a network of roads, tunnels and bridges that enables you to go anywhere and do anything – and do so in complete privacy.

To complete the analogy, Nxt is the sophisticated engine that gets you around this network of roads and to the services you can find there. It’s a 2.0 car that’s designed to do far more than drive from A to B. NXT doesn’t just allow you to transact; it houses the Asset Exchange and many of the other services that will allow you to interact meaningfully with others on your way around in SuperNET – the whole Super Network of integrated coins and innovative services

2) Kademlia... that's distributed hash tables, aka DHT. DHT uses servers to lookup and locate nodes. Therefore it's not truly distributed, thus not P2P.
    In contrast, the Xnode protocol, upon which the XBridge is based, is completely serverless in operation and truly distributed.


3) The idea of holding 10% of the money supply of any participating coin is, in my opinion (though I admit a debatable point), risky and centrist.
    Even if the controlling organisation is somewhat decentralised and the funds held in multisig addresses, it's still the case that it acts with its own mandate and is directed to its own ends
    And if it owns enough of the money supply to control the price of a currency, that's a problem.
    Given that it's not necessary for this arrangement to be in place, I don't see why the benefit of pumping a coin's price is worth the centralisation risk.
    Better to have Xmixers or something, which also reduce the amount of coins in circulation, but do so in a decentralised manner.

Thanks for the reply.

With regard to the first point, as far as I know anyone can build a wallet that accesses superNET through it's public API. The first implementation is being built in to BTCD, but theoretically anyone could build their own wallet and use superNET. Similar to the way Blocknet is open as well. A lot of the features of superNET are built upon NXT and will use NXT in a similar manner that I assume people will be using NHZ in Blocknet. Since James is a developer for both superNET and BTCD I can see why he's doing all of the first implementations on BTCD, but at some point I believe people will still be able to do atomic cross chain transfers through another wallet implementation that isn't attached to BTCD. But the anonymity will still be through BTCD's teleport.

And the second, I'll have to see how it ends up working and learn more about both technologies. I understand a little better now what you meant by 'true p2p'.

And yeah, the 10% thing is just a different way to approaching things. There's trade offs with both approaches.

[synechist]

Thanks very much for the sustained clarification here. This is quality discussion.

To address your points in order:

1) The XBridge protocol is not part of XC and does not run inside XC.
    It's open source and will be integrated into all coins on the Blocknet.
    It's required for every Blocknet transaction, not just those involving XC.
    In contrast, BTCD and NXT are core technologies in the Supernet, and pretty much nothing can be done without them.

As is the SAME for XBridge. Will XBridge work without your core coins? Nope.

I didn't know XBridge is opensource? Whats the link for it?

It's not the same with the XBridge protocol. The whole point is that the XBridge protocol does not run on any particular coin.
Every coin in the Blocknet is a "core" coin, or at least has the same status.
No coin can be part of the Blocknet without having an XBridge.
From the above, the XBridge is not the same as BTCD and NXT. It's not even a coin!

The XBridge protocol hasn't been created yet. I hear part of it has been written though. If I get a Github repo from the team, I'll publish it widely.

[crackfoo]

Thanks very much for the sustained clarification here. This is quality discussion.

To address your points in order:

1) The XBridge protocol is not part of XC and does not run inside XC.
    It's open source and will be integrated into all coins on the Blocknet.
    It's required for every Blocknet transaction, not just those involving XC.
    In contrast, BTCD and NXT are core technologies in the Supernet, and pretty much nothing can be done without them.

As is the SAME for XBridge. Will XBridge work without your core coins? Nope.

I didn't know XBridge is opensource? Whats the link for it?

It's not the same with the XBridge protocol. The whole point is that the XBridge protocol does not run on any particular coin.
Every coin in the Blocknet is a "core" coin, or at least has the same status.
No coin can be part of the Blocknet without having an XBridge.
From the above, the XBridge is not the same as BTCD and NXT. It's not even a coin!

The XBridge protocol hasn't been created yet. I hear part of it has been written though. If I get a Github repo from the team, I'll publish it widely.

Thanks very much for the sustained clarification here. This is quality discussion.

To address your points in order:

1) The XBridge protocol is not part of XC and does not run inside XC.
    It's open source and will be integrated into all coins on the Blocknet.
    It's required for every Blocknet transaction, not just those involving XC.
    In contrast, BTCD and NXT are core technologies in the Supernet, and pretty much nothing can be done without them.

As is the SAME for XBridge. Will XBridge work without your core coins? Nope.

I didn't know XBridge is opensource? Whats the link for it?

It's not the same with the XBridge protocol. The whole point is that the XBridge protocol does not run on any particular coin.
Every coin in the Blocknet is a "core" coin, or at least has the same status.
No coin can be part of the Blocknet without having an XBridge.
From the above, the XBridge is not the same as BTCD and NXT. It's not even a coin!

The XBridge protocol hasn't been created yet. I hear part of it has been written though. If I get a Github repo from the team, I'll publish it widely.

SuperNET does not run on any particular coin either. It is dynamically linked into the approved core coins.

*le sigh*

Anyway, your circular arguments will obviously convince/fool the less informed and ill educated, but xbridge is offering nothing unique in it's implementation that SuperNET doesn't do.

[atcsecure]

*le sigh*

 xbridge is offering nothing unique in it's implementation that SuperNET doesn't do.

thats what microsoft said about apple