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

[provenceday]

Thread title says mandatory wallet update tomorrow 1/6.  Was it announced what would be included in this update? Thanks

Anyone??

we are waiting for the V2 now!
2 weeks later.
it will change everything.

[1715527756]

1715527756

[provenceday]

so we are on bter now.

next step  here:
http://www.btc38.com/

 

Future bright ...

time will reward people who Choose believe.

[provenceday]

XC has been added to Bter.com 's BTC market at

https://bter.com/trade/xc_btc

You can deposit at

https://bter.com/myaccount/deposit/XC

You will get a 1% bonus when deposit and 1% fee when withdraw.

all hard work has been reward now.

more promotions will come soon in china.

are you ready guys?

[brother3]

XC has been added to Bter.com 's BTC market at

https://bter.com/trade/xc_btc

You can deposit at

https://bter.com/myaccount/deposit/XC

You will get a 1% bonus when deposit and 1% fee when withdraw.

all hard work has been reward now.

more promotions will come soon in china.

are you ready guys?

I am!

I know that XC investors and believers really need this!

[provenceday]

Chinese XC  Weibo Account（similar as twitter）

XC 匿名币  
http://weibo.com/u/5166901440

fellow us Chinese friends

[Teka]

Thread title says mandatory wallet update tomorrow 1/6.  Was it announced what would be included in this update? Thanks

I understand the misunderstanding, I use UK dates.

[4420866]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=641178.40
Here is some words  from a bitcoin core dev

http://img03.taobaocdn.com/imgextra/i3/888367355/TB2po2SXXXXXXbWXFXXXXXXXXXX_!!888367355.png

Ozziecoin, Your pump and dump dance would probably be more effective if you were less transparently dishonest in your approach.  I'm normally happy to ignore the nonsense in the altcoin subform, but since you saw fit to go distrupt the coinjoin thread with some offtopic insult hurling I thought I'd bring the extensive response back here where its topical.

CoinJoin is trustless— which is orthogonal with centralized or decentralized, it could be implemented several ways (though trustlessness is usually a prerequisite to a decenteralized implementation). Post 5 in the CoinJoin thread writes in depth about implementing it in a decenteralized way, none of which appears to have been implemented by the darkcoin developers as far as I can tell— from what I've heard it seems that they're not even able to understand it. (This is a disappointment to me, since I was trying to describe these ideas clearly so others could understand them.)

More amusingly, what DarkCoin does is highly centralized because the software is closed— you can't get more centralized than closed source. What the actual behavior is, is anyone's guess— it's impossible to review due to it being closed— though "masternodes" does not sound like something decenteralized, it sounds like something that creates a small chokepoint which could be used to deanonymize its users, like a server based CoinJoin but worse since you have to hold a huge pile of coins to run a server.

As I've said before CoinJoin is interesting because it's inherently part of Bitcoin already— it just needed better tools (and now there are some, e.g. darkwallet) to make it available to people.  It's a privacy improvement over not having it, but it isn't perfect, but it also didn't require any changes to Bitcoin (much less a whole altcoin) to deploy it.  In an incompatible system much better is possible as is proposed by ZeroCash and much better is actually _realized_ by Bytecoin (and its forks... Monero, Fantomcoin, etc.), the later are actually working (if immature, due reinventing many wheels) implementations of much stronger privacy, decenteralized in their implementation, all released under a good open source license.

From what I can tell the only purpose DarkCoin serves is to depress me about the state of humanity.

Now who is doing the pumping for his coin?

I haven't promoted anything here, except arguably the Bytecoin/etc. ones which aren't mine by any means.

As I see it coinjoin as it stands is highly centralised and subject to being co-opted.

You're asserting this but you haven't justified it. I can't counter an assertion because I don't even know what you're saying is centeralized or how you believe it could be co-opted.

Why would you attack Darkcoin?

Because it's closed source stuff of dubious quality which appears to being deceptively marketed.

Afterall, the devs themselves have said they will make the code available soon.

This isn't how cryptosystem development works. History supports taking the position that is closed should be automatically assumed to be snake-oil if not an outright trojan until proven otherwise. It's highly suspect. Systems which are good do not need to hide their operation, not if you're going to ask other people to use it.

It seems to me you are prejudiced against Darkcoin.  Why? I cannot fathom nor am I interested.

Why do you ask why and then claim disinterest? I am prejudiced against vaporware, closed source, and pump and dump nonsense. I am prejudice against things which exploit the technical work I've done, trade on it's name (as Darkcoin did at first, until I started blasting it it), to the apparent purpose of extracting funds from people who are less technically sophisticated. Beyond the basic immorality of it, I worry that this fundraising style will remove people's willingness to support real improvements that aren't scams, since its hard for them to tell them apart.

than your 1 centralised coinmixing server.

What are you talking about here?  Nothing I've ever described involved a singular "coinmixing" server.

As for you saying that CoinJoin is inherently part of Bitcoin; how so? It is not part of the protocol.  I do not see many people use it on a day to day basis. It is not part of computer wallets. Which part of it is actually "inherent".  Why cannot Litecoin use it "inherently" tomorrow if they wanted to? I see nothing inherent about it at all.

I'm now suspecting that you've never read the CoinJoin post at all— pointing out that it was part of the protocol was the point. It's also inherently a part of Litecoin or anything else that copied the bitcoin code slavishly. It's a result of how signatures work in Bitcoin. Getting wallet interfaces and such developed for it was the motivation for the CoinJoin post, and now there has been good movement on that front.

Please, Zerocash is totally closed source right now so how would you know it is better?

Closed source? It's not actually implemented yet, but unlike "DarkCoin" they've extensively described their approach in their academic publications and subjected it to extensive peer review. I'm not a fan of the security assumptions it makes, but the privacy properties the system should achieve are basically perfect.

And bytecoin and its various forks have problems with blockchain bloat.

All cryptographically strongly-private decenteralized cryptocurrencies are going to be unprunable to some degree, which is an unfortunate scalability tradeoff— but considering that no Bitcoin implementation in production today implements pruning anyways, it's hardly a fatal one— at least in the medium term. The tradeoff here is fundamental: if you don't know what coin has been spent, you can't forget any of them.  Of course, a system could have less privacy and things forever out of the anonymity set could be forgotten but thats the tradeoff you get.

[mav137]

Good read, although some of the points he makes (closed source) also apply to XC. I could be wise to have a date of opening the source in our roadmap.
This gives us the benefit of gaining some speed and adoption while also taking away the closed source ciritique

[Teka]

Good read, although some of the points he makes (closed source) also apply to XC. I could be wise to have a date of opening the source in our roadmap.
This gives us the benefit of gaining some speed and adoption while also taking away the closed source ciritique

We have however had our code reviewed by a peer developer. I will talk to atc about adding open source to roadmap.

[phosphorush]

Good read, although some of the points he makes (closed source) also apply to XC. I could be wise to have a date of opening the source in our roadmap.
This gives us the benefit of gaining some speed and adoption while also taking away the closed source ciritique

I didn't see yet a clear and detailed explanation of the dynamic trust network... and if you want to gain trust from all of us open source is a must

[madmanbts]

Is there any way to place a limit order on mintpal? What software do you recommend for trading?

[pinkman12345]

Was hoping to see at least a small rise in price this morning when i woke... but no XC has dropped back to 110k again. I see so much potential in this coin (have been following since release) and was hoping for some interest from the Chinese market. Is this normal when a coin of this calibre is added to an Asian exchange?
 

[mojun7982]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=641178.40
Here is some words  from a bitcoin core dev

Ozziecoin, Your pump and dump dance would probably be more effective if you were less transparently dishonest in your approach.  I'm normally happy to ignore the nonsense in the altcoin subform, but since you saw fit to go distrupt the coinjoin thread with some offtopic insult hurling I thought I'd bring the extensive response back here where its topical.

CoinJoin is trustless— which is orthogonal with centralized or decentralized, it could be implemented several ways (though trustlessness is usually a prerequisite to a decenteralized implementation). Post 5 in the CoinJoin thread writes in depth about implementing it in a decenteralized way, none of which appears to have been implemented by the darkcoin developers as far as I can tell— from what I've heard it seems that they're not even able to understand it. (This is a disappointment to me, since I was trying to describe these ideas clearly so others could understand them.)

More amusingly, what DarkCoin does is highly centralized because the software is closed— you can't get more centralized than closed source. What the actual behavior is, is anyone's guess— it's impossible to review due to it being closed— though "masternodes" does not sound like something decenteralized, it sounds like something that creates a small chokepoint which could be used to deanonymize its users, like a server based CoinJoin but worse since you have to hold a huge pile of coins to run a server.

As I've said before CoinJoin is interesting because it's inherently part of Bitcoin already— it just needed better tools (and now there are some, e.g. darkwallet) to make it available to people.  It's a privacy improvement over not having it, but it isn't perfect, but it also didn't require any changes to Bitcoin (much less a whole altcoin) to deploy it.  In an incompatible system much better is possible as is proposed by ZeroCash and much better is actually _realized_ by Bytecoin (and its forks... Monero, Fantomcoin, etc.), the later are actually working (if immature, due reinventing many wheels) implementations of much stronger privacy, decenteralized in their implementation, all released under a good open source license.

From what I can tell the only purpose DarkCoin serves is to depress me about the state of humanity.

Now who is doing the pumping for his coin?

I haven't promoted anything here, except arguably the Bytecoin/etc. ones which aren't mine by any means.

As I see it coinjoin as it stands is highly centralised and subject to being co-opted.

You're asserting this but you haven't justified it. I can't counter an assertion because I don't even know what you're saying is centeralized or how you believe it could be co-opted.

Why would you attack Darkcoin?

Because it's closed source stuff of dubious quality which appears to being deceptively marketed.

Afterall, the devs themselves have said they will make the code available soon.

This isn't how cryptosystem development works. History supports taking the position that is closed should be automatically assumed to be snake-oil if not an outright trojan until proven otherwise. It's highly suspect. Systems which are good do not need to hide their operation, not if you're going to ask other people to use it.

It seems to me you are prejudiced against Darkcoin.  Why? I cannot fathom nor am I interested.

Why do you ask why and then claim disinterest? I am prejudiced against vaporware, closed source, and pump and dump nonsense. I am prejudice against things which exploit the technical work I've done, trade on it's name (as Darkcoin did at first, until I started blasting it it), to the apparent purpose of extracting funds from people who are less technically sophisticated. Beyond the basic immorality of it, I worry that this fundraising style will remove people's willingness to support real improvements that aren't scams, since its hard for them to tell them apart.

than your 1 centralised coinmixing server.

What are you talking about here?  Nothing I've ever described involved a singular "coinmixing" server.

As for you saying that CoinJoin is inherently part of Bitcoin; how so? It is not part of the protocol.  I do not see many people use it on a day to day basis. It is not part of computer wallets. Which part of it is actually "inherent".  Why cannot Litecoin use it "inherently" tomorrow if they wanted to? I see nothing inherent about it at all.

I'm now suspecting that you've never read the CoinJoin post at all— pointing out that it was part of the protocol was the point. It's also inherently a part of Litecoin or anything else that copied the bitcoin code slavishly. It's a result of how signatures work in Bitcoin. Getting wallet interfaces and such developed for it was the motivation for the CoinJoin post, and now there has been good movement on that front.

Please, Zerocash is totally closed source right now so how would you know it is better?

Closed source? It's not actually implemented yet, but unlike "DarkCoin" they've extensively described their approach in their academic publications and subjected it to extensive peer review. I'm not a fan of the security assumptions it makes, but the privacy properties the system should achieve are basically perfect.

And bytecoin and its various forks have problems with blockchain bloat.

All cryptographically strongly-private decenteralized cryptocurrencies are going to be unprunable to some degree, which is an unfortunate scalability tradeoff— but considering that no Bitcoin implementation in production today implements pruning anyways, it's hardly a fatal one— at least in the medium term. The tradeoff here is fundamental: if you don't know what coin has been spent, you can't forget any of them.  Of course, a system could have less privacy and things forever out of the anonymity set could be forgotten but thats the tradeoff you get.

[520Bit]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=641178.40
Here is some words  from a bitcoin core dev

Ozziecoin, Your pump and dump dance would probably be more effective if you were less transparently dishonest in your approach.  I'm normally happy to ignore the nonsense in the altcoin subform, but since you saw fit to go distrupt the coinjoin thread with some offtopic insult hurling I thought I'd bring the extensive response back here where its topical.

CoinJoin is trustless— which is orthogonal with centralized or decentralized, it could be implemented several ways (though trustlessness is usually a prerequisite to a decenteralized implementation). Post 5 in the CoinJoin thread writes in depth about implementing it in a decenteralized way, none of which appears to have been implemented by the darkcoin developers as far as I can tell— from what I've heard it seems that they're not even able to understand it. (This is a disappointment to me, since I was trying to describe these ideas clearly so others could understand them.)

More amusingly, what DarkCoin does is highly centralized because the software is closed— you can't get more centralized than closed source. What the actual behavior is, is anyone's guess— it's impossible to review due to it being closed— though "masternodes" does not sound like something decenteralized, it sounds like something that creates a small chokepoint which could be used to deanonymize its users, like a server based CoinJoin but worse since you have to hold a huge pile of coins to run a server.

As I've said before CoinJoin is interesting because it's inherently part of Bitcoin already— it just needed better tools (and now there are some, e.g. darkwallet) to make it available to people.  It's a privacy improvement over not having it, but it isn't perfect, but it also didn't require any changes to Bitcoin (much less a whole altcoin) to deploy it.  In an incompatible system much better is possible as is proposed by ZeroCash and much better is actually _realized_ by Bytecoin (and its forks... Monero, Fantomcoin, etc.), the later are actually working (if immature, due reinventing many wheels) implementations of much stronger privacy, decenteralized in their implementation, all released under a good open source license.

From what I can tell the only purpose DarkCoin serves is to depress me about the state of humanity.

Now who is doing the pumping for his coin?

I haven't promoted anything here, except arguably the Bytecoin/etc. ones which aren't mine by any means.

As I see it coinjoin as it stands is highly centralised and subject to being co-opted.

You're asserting this but you haven't justified it. I can't counter an assertion because I don't even know what you're saying is centeralized or how you believe it could be co-opted.

Why would you attack Darkcoin?

Because it's closed source stuff of dubious quality which appears to being deceptively marketed.

Afterall, the devs themselves have said they will make the code available soon.

This isn't how cryptosystem development works. History supports taking the position that is closed should be automatically assumed to be snake-oil if not an outright trojan until proven otherwise. It's highly suspect. Systems which are good do not need to hide their operation, not if you're going to ask other people to use it.

It seems to me you are prejudiced against Darkcoin.  Why? I cannot fathom nor am I interested.

Why do you ask why and then claim disinterest? I am prejudiced against vaporware, closed source, and pump and dump nonsense. I am prejudice against things which exploit the technical work I've done, trade on it's name (as Darkcoin did at first, until I started blasting it it), to the apparent purpose of extracting funds from people who are less technically sophisticated. Beyond the basic immorality of it, I worry that this fundraising style will remove people's willingness to support real improvements that aren't scams, since its hard for them to tell them apart.

than your 1 centralised coinmixing server.

What are you talking about here?  Nothing I've ever described involved a singular "coinmixing" server.

As for you saying that CoinJoin is inherently part of Bitcoin; how so? It is not part of the protocol.  I do not see many people use it on a day to day basis. It is not part of computer wallets. Which part of it is actually "inherent".  Why cannot Litecoin use it "inherently" tomorrow if they wanted to? I see nothing inherent about it at all.

I'm now suspecting that you've never read the CoinJoin post at all— pointing out that it was part of the protocol was the point. It's also inherently a part of Litecoin or anything else that copied the bitcoin code slavishly. It's a result of how signatures work in Bitcoin. Getting wallet interfaces and such developed for it was the motivation for the CoinJoin post, and now there has been good movement on that front.

Please, Zerocash is totally closed source right now so how would you know it is better?

Closed source? It's not actually implemented yet, but unlike "DarkCoin" they've extensively described their approach in their academic publications and subjected it to extensive peer review. I'm not a fan of the security assumptions it makes, but the privacy properties the system should achieve are basically perfect.

And bytecoin and its various forks have problems with blockchain bloat.

All cryptographically strongly-private decenteralized cryptocurrencies are going to be unprunable to some degree, which is an unfortunate scalability tradeoff— but considering that no Bitcoin implementation in production today implements pruning anyways, it's hardly a fatal one— at least in the medium term. The tradeoff here is fundamental: if you don't know what coin has been spent, you can't forget any of them.  Of course, a system could have less privacy and things forever out of the anonymity set could be forgotten but thats the tradeoff you get.

It seems DRK is a SCAM?

[addergebroed]

Good read, although some of the points he makes (closed source) also apply to XC. I could be wise to have a date of opening the source in our roadmap.
This gives us the benefit of gaining some speed and adoption while also taking away the closed source ciritique

We have however had our code reviewed by a peer developer. I will talk to atc about adding open source to roadmap.

Just wanted to say I appreciate your quick response back to the community, making clear statements.

[4420866]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=641178.40
Here is some words  from a bitcoin core dev

http://img03.taobaocdn.com/imgextra/i3/888367355/TB2po2SXXXXXXbWXFXXXXXXXXXX_!!888367355.png

Ozziecoin, Your pump and dump dance would probably be more effective if you were less transparently dishonest in your approach.  I'm normally happy to ignore the nonsense in the altcoin subform, but since you saw fit to go distrupt the coinjoin thread with some offtopic insult hurling I thought I'd bring the extensive response back here where its topical.

CoinJoin is trustless— which is orthogonal with centralized or decentralized, it could be implemented several ways (though trustlessness is usually a prerequisite to a decenteralized implementation). Post 5 in the CoinJoin thread writes in depth about implementing it in a decenteralized way, none of which appears to have been implemented by the darkcoin developers as far as I can tell— from what I've heard it seems that they're not even able to understand it. (This is a disappointment to me, since I was trying to describe these ideas clearly so others could understand them.)

More amusingly, what DarkCoin does is highly centralized because the software is closed— you can't get more centralized than closed source. What the actual behavior is, is anyone's guess— it's impossible to review due to it being closed— though "masternodes" does not sound like something decenteralized, it sounds like something that creates a small chokepoint which could be used to deanonymize its users, like a server based CoinJoin but worse since you have to hold a huge pile of coins to run a server.

As I've said before CoinJoin is interesting because it's inherently part of Bitcoin already— it just needed better tools (and now there are some, e.g. darkwallet) to make it available to people.  It's a privacy improvement over not having it, but it isn't perfect, but it also didn't require any changes to Bitcoin (much less a whole altcoin) to deploy it.  In an incompatible system much better is possible as is proposed by ZeroCash and much better is actually _realized_ by Bytecoin (and its forks... Monero, Fantomcoin, etc.), the later are actually working (if immature, due reinventing many wheels) implementations of much stronger privacy, decenteralized in their implementation, all released under a good open source license.

From what I can tell the only purpose DarkCoin serves is to depress me about the state of humanity.

Now who is doing the pumping for his coin?

I haven't promoted anything here, except arguably the Bytecoin/etc. ones which aren't mine by any means.

As I see it coinjoin as it stands is highly centralised and subject to being co-opted.

You're asserting this but you haven't justified it. I can't counter an assertion because I don't even know what you're saying is centeralized or how you believe it could be co-opted.

Why would you attack Darkcoin?

Because it's closed source stuff of dubious quality which appears to being deceptively marketed.

Afterall, the devs themselves have said they will make the code available soon.

This isn't how cryptosystem development works. History supports taking the position that is closed should be automatically assumed to be snake-oil if not an outright trojan until proven otherwise. It's highly suspect. Systems which are good do not need to hide their operation, not if you're going to ask other people to use it.

It seems to me you are prejudiced against Darkcoin.  Why? I cannot fathom nor am I interested.

Why do you ask why and then claim disinterest? I am prejudiced against vaporware, closed source, and pump and dump nonsense. I am prejudice against things which exploit the technical work I've done, trade on it's name (as Darkcoin did at first, until I started blasting it it), to the apparent purpose of extracting funds from people who are less technically sophisticated. Beyond the basic immorality of it, I worry that this fundraising style will remove people's willingness to support real improvements that aren't scams, since its hard for them to tell them apart.

than your 1 centralised coinmixing server.

What are you talking about here?  Nothing I've ever described involved a singular "coinmixing" server.

As for you saying that CoinJoin is inherently part of Bitcoin; how so? It is not part of the protocol.  I do not see many people use it on a day to day basis. It is not part of computer wallets. Which part of it is actually "inherent".  Why cannot Litecoin use it "inherently" tomorrow if they wanted to? I see nothing inherent about it at all.

I'm now suspecting that you've never read the CoinJoin post at all— pointing out that it was part of the protocol was the point. It's also inherently a part of Litecoin or anything else that copied the bitcoin code slavishly. It's a result of how signatures work in Bitcoin. Getting wallet interfaces and such developed for it was the motivation for the CoinJoin post, and now there has been good movement on that front.

Please, Zerocash is totally closed source right now so how would you know it is better?

Closed source? It's not actually implemented yet, but unlike "DarkCoin" they've extensively described their approach in their academic publications and subjected it to extensive peer review. I'm not a fan of the security assumptions it makes, but the privacy properties the system should achieve are basically perfect.

And bytecoin and its various forks have problems with blockchain bloat.

All cryptographically strongly-private decenteralized cryptocurrencies are going to be unprunable to some degree, which is an unfortunate scalability tradeoff— but considering that no Bitcoin implementation in production today implements pruning anyways, it's hardly a fatal one— at least in the medium term. The tradeoff here is fundamental: if you don't know what coin has been spent, you can't forget any of them.  Of course, a system could have less privacy and things forever out of the anonymity set could be forgotten but thats the tradeoff you get.

maybe you should read this article:


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=641178.0

Here is a article:

http://cryptolife.net/darkcoin-the-next-big-thing-or-just-another-pump-and-dump/

DarkCoin – The Next Big Thing, or Just Another Pump and Dump?

Released just shy of 5 months ago, darkcoin has quickly ascended the ranks of the cryptocurrency world, securing the #4 spot on coinmarketcap. Boasting what appears to be an impressive suite of anonymity features, darkcoin has successfully marketed itself as the rare breed of substantive altcoin. Is it, though? Peer beyond the surface, and you’ll quickly discover that darkcoin is not dark in name only.

Darksend Drama


Overhyped and misunderstood, darksend is touted as the killer feature that’ll send darkcoin’s price to the moon. What is darksend? In short, a protocol that groups transactions in such a way that the source and destination of the coins are muddied. As previously mentioned http://cryptolife.net/breakdown-anonymizing-cryptocurrencies/, darksend is not a comprehensive anonymity solution. At best, it provides pseudonymity. In spite of that, the people promoting this coin still use misleading buzzwords like anonymous payments and hailing the feature as something totally unique and groundbreaking, and perhaps the greatest thing since bitcoin itself. The reality of it all couldn’t be farther from that.

Darksend itself is not even a unique feature, nor was it created by Evan Duffield, Darkcoin’s lead developer. Darksend is merely an implementation of the CoinJoin specification https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0  originally created by Greg Maxwell, one of the bitcoin core developers. Still, Duffield does his best to avoid giving any credit to Maxwell. Take a look through his posts, you’ll not see a mention of CoinJoin or Maxwell.

To make matters worse, darksend is closed source. Take a moment to reflect upon how ridiculous it is to take open source software (bitcoin), layer an open source specification on top of it (coinjoin), and then keep the result (darksend) closed source. It goes against the fundamental principles of the cryptocurrency movement, and is reflective of the motives of the developer.

Amusingly enough, Maxwell himself is on the record  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.msg6804719#msg6804719  stating that CoinJoin is inferior to other anonymizing protocols that are already available. Put simply, Darksend does not live up to the hype that surrounds it. It can not ensure anonymization of payments.

Darkcoin makes use of so-called ‘masternodes’ that assist with darksend transactions. Last week, a bug in the code unleashed havoc upon the network, causing it to continually fork and putting the coin into a nonfunctional state. A hardfork had to be issued to fix the issue.

Having said all that, Duffield is no idiot. He knows the limitations of darksend. But he’s not concerned about it. Why, you ask? Darksend is very good at generating hype. Hype leads to price apprecation. And who benefits from price appreciation? Coin holders, of course. Which brings me to my next point…

Huge instamine and subsidy reduction

Since I’m writing about it, it should come as no surprise that this coin has an instamine associated with it. This one went unnoticed for quite some time, but by taking a quick look at blockchain data we can see what went on. During the first 15 hours, between block 1  http://chainz.cryptoid.info/drk/block.dws?000007d91d1254d60e2dd1ae580383070a4ddffa4c64c2eeb4a2f9ecc0414343.htm and block 4000 http://chainz.cryptoid.info/drk/block.dws?00000000fc0ee07e47609bae8d5fe5d774193c71d518c56dfe8faaf7d780a03f.htm   , approximately 1.75m darkcoins were generated.

Immediately after this period, Duffield claimed that there was a ‘bug’ in the block reward calculations, and issued a hardfork to address it. After this fork, the block reward quickly dwindled down to an insignificant amount. Right now, it sits at a pitiful 5 DRK. A farcry from the 500 that it used to be.

The result? Darkcoin is currently at 80,000 blocks, but there’s only 4.3m DRK out there. Five months later, the 1.75m generated during those first 4200 blocks still represents 40% of all DRK in existence.

Dark beginnings

Darkcoin was initially released as XCoin, and didn’t attract much fanfare. This is partially because it was released without a working windows client, one of the obvious marks of a scam,  http://cryptolife.net/the-anatomy-of-a-scamcoin-7-things-to-know-before-investing-in-an-altcoin/   making mining it very difficult.

Who, then, was in the best position to mine the initial 4200 blocks? None other than Duffield and his buddies. The truth of the matter is that the aforementioned block reward ‘bug’ was intentional and allowed him to mine a large number of coins for himself, in an attempt to avoid the negative stigma associated with obvious premining/instamining… and it seems to have worked.

With a current market cap of just over $50m, Duffield has no doubt profited quite handsomely off of this scam. The real question is, how many of these coins have been dumped on the market? How many are in the process of being dumped? Hard to say without deep blockchain analysis, but it’s irrelevant either way. The price of altcoins are held up largely by people’s reluctance to sell. When one person, or a group of people, control a majority of coins, this creates a situation where the price of the coin is either artificially inflated, or gets pounded into the ground. A poor investment to be sure, made even poorer when you take a look at the 30 day price history. If you think growth like this is sustainable, history would like to have a word with you.

http://img01.taobaocdn.com/imgextra/i1/888367355/TB2uodDXpXXXXXFXFXXXXXXXXXX_!!888367355.png

Conclusion

All hype and no substance, darkcoin is far from a serious contender in the altcoin world. Its suite of ‘anonymity’ features are falsely advertised, offering pseudonymity at best. At the end of the day, darkcoin offers nothing of true value over other coins. Couple this with shady release tactics, a sizable instamine, and unsustainable price increases, only a fool would dare ‘invest’ in this coin right now.

[Mineotaur]

hoping for some interest from the Chinese market.

Has the FUD been properly explained? Without explanation, XC charts might look a little repellent.

[Teka]

Was hoping to see at least a small rise in price this morning when i woke... but no XC has dropped back to 110k again. I see so much potential in this coin (have been following since release) and was hoping for some interest from the Chinese market. Is this normal when a coin of this calibre is added to an Asian exchange?
 

I normally don't comment on trading but I personally think that they are just trying to get more coins. However I could be wrong.

[heartastack]

Was hoping to see at least a small rise in price this morning when i woke... but no XC has dropped back to 110k again. I see so much potential in this coin (have been following since release) and was hoping for some interest from the Chinese market. Is this normal when a coin of this calibre is added to an Asian exchange?
 

I normally don't comment on trading but I personally think that they are just trying to get more coins. However I could be wrong.

A pro trader I follow put it quite simply.
The bitcoin space is full of stupid money following basic human psychology. Thus we get higher highs than should exist, and lower lows. It's exaggerated selling and buying due to herd mentality

[braxx]

we are still a top 15 coin (coinmarketcap).

mining on multipool to get my loss average down...