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

[GameStarter]

top 10 richest adress continue to buy , they had 29.74% of market yesteday and 30.54% today. i think it's a good sign.

[1715556236]

1715556236

[1715556236]

1715556236

[1715556236]

1715556236

[jly77]

price will recover when dev online.

yah,

[anva]

top 10 richest adress continue to buy , they had 29.74% of market yesteday and 30.54% today. i think it's a good sign.

sooner the top people dump its better right ?

[wevus]

top 10 richest adress continue to buy , they had 29.74% of market yesteday and 30.54% today. i think it's a good sign.

Agreed, Thanks for sharing.

[wevus]

top 10 richest adress continue to buy , they had 29.74% of market yesteday and 30.54% today. i think it's a good sign.

sooner the top people dump its better right ?

The way I read it: Is that the whales are shaking down the weak hands.

[GameStarter]

top 10 richest adress continue to buy , they had 29.74% of market yesteday and 30.54% today. i think it's a good sign.

sooner the top people dump its better right ?

The way I read it: Is that the whales are shaking down the weak hands.

Exactly, they create panic to increase their position. If big holders are confident it show the true potential of coin.
when people will understand 100k is a solid ground now, the price will rally to 200k sat next few days.
The timing was perfect to create a big panic moove  because the market grow too fast and next big news was far enought to accumulate lower safely.
Speculation will start again soon and buyers will run after paper.

[phosphorush]

only 28 BTC buy wall on MP. https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/mintpal/xcbtc

[hrt]

top 10 richest adress continue to buy , they had 29.74% of market yesteday and 30.54% today. i think it's a good sign.

sooner the top people dump its better right ?

The way I read it: Is that the whales are shaking down the weak hands.

The shaking process couldn't continue endless but its always over when price is at steady and sustainable floor. 100K floor was broken badly yesterday and that has been caused not by shaking the weak hands nor by whales trying to get more. Too much competitors advertising anon features are playing the nerve and much are about to run, although no one of them have yet delivered the stuff they are claiming to be depict. As time is going on XC becomes to look overdue and belated and ppl are getting out, 90% here for quick buck and will be selling in lower hesitation if the next broken floor dips behind the dump traces. The last downward momentum XC needs to crack is to broke the 80K threshold. Once just 200K from the top 10 wishes to exit, that provokes a huge avalanche to whatever lowest lows the mass effect can drown the panic to. Shaking the hands is over its just an awaiting a top bag decision. Average investors are hesitate to buy i doubt rev 2.0 ups the trend if 80-90k will be crashed again

[provenceday]

when dev online, everything will change.

[bangajie]

only 28 BTC buy wall on MP. https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/mintpal/xcbtc

hahahaha...but nothing people want to buy!!!  down..down..down = dead

[kewlya]

only 28 BTC buy wall on MP. https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/mintpal/xcbtc

hahahaha...but nothing people want to buy!!!  down..down..down = dead

go back to your legenday shitcoin grave  and leave us alone. thanks

[hrt]

only 28 BTC buy wall on MP. https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/mintpal/xcbtc

hahahaha...but nothing people want to buy!!!  down..down..down = dead

100k calm is trying to be rational they are doing small tradings looking forward

not sure its about to death just run-in on dangerously volatile market  

[synechist]

Nobody is concerned that basically all Gmaxwell's criticisms apply equally, if not more, to XC?

XC doesn't even purport to be trustless, and the overall implementation hasn't even been comprehensively described.

As he has said cryptonote and zerocash technology are the only novel and workable decentralised and trustless solutions thus far. A 'dynamic trust network' is neither trustless (the whole point of bitcoin and derivative technologies) nor decentralised since it relies on certain nominated nodes to provide specific tasks.

Everybody seems to be drinking a nice big cup of smug over the weaknesses of darkcoin (of which there are legion) while avoiding taking a look in their own back yard.

Yes, I think it would be valuable for the XC team to engage seriously (and respectfully) with Gmaxwell's post. In fact, we should invite him to review XC's tech when it's more fully developed. It would be a real opportunity to benefit from his expertise.

I also think we should take his criticisms seriously when developing the coin. Is there a better model than the dynamic trust system? Can we come up with one? Perhaps, and we'd do well to consider it long and hard.

that's a good idea.
Gmaxwell is an expert on Anonymous technology.

ATCsecure shall we discuss how Gmaxwell's post might apply to XC? I imagine it'd be a matter of whether the multi-path paradigm can be implemented without a dynamic trust system, while still preserving XC's ability to avoid blockchain bloat.

Multi-path has incredible possibilities; how about removing/reducing the need for trust with the following (which in all likelihood you've thought of already):

- your specification includes that each xnode only passes on fragments of transactions; this means each fragment will be a small (non-risky) amount.

- what if xnodes have to compete to relay a given fragment? This builds in redundancy, so that if one node attempts to steal the fragment, the others will pass it on. The fastest node gets the transaction fee.

- what if xnodes also can only pass on a single fragment at a time? This way a node would only ever have one fragment, and therefore could never amass enough money for it to be worth stealing.

- Xnodes would then compete for transaction fees by processing transactions faster than other nodes. This way the network would organically improve its capacity.

- At some cost to network speed, the protocol could also set a maximum fragment size to ensure the incentive to become a bad actor is always low regardless of the size of a given payment.


The effect of the above is that xnodes have two options:
- steal a fragment and (a) derive minimal reward, and (b) get booted off the network via the trust system
- or pass on (a) as many fragments as possible in the shortest time and (b) get multiple tiny rewards.
The second of these is prima facie preferable.


However this idea would still be vulnerable to the following attack:
- set up thousands of xnodes
- find a way to steal fragments (I understand this is only a speculative possibility and that there'll be a way of making this exceedingly difficult... however I can't think further about this without more information)
- steal thousands of fragments, delete nodes, create new ones, build up trust, steal more fragments.

I'm unsure whether this attack will be more profitable than just being an honest node; its feasibility will come down to the details. And, fortunately, you decide what the details are.

The security of the network could well depend on this balance of incentives, which is ok I suppose, but its precariousness is analogous to that of mining competition in bitcoin. A systemic solution to the problem would be preferable.

Any suggestions?



Edit: Gmaxwell's post is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=641178.40

[wevus]

top 10 richest adress continue to buy , they had 29.74% of market yesteday and 30.54% today. i think it's a good sign.

sooner the top people dump its better right ?

The way I read it: Is that the whales are shaking down the weak hands.

The shaking process couldn't continue endless but its always over when price is at steady and sustainable floor. 100K floor was broken badly yesterday and that has been caused not by shaking the weak hands nor by whales trying to get more. Too much competitors advertising anon features are playing the nerve and much are about to run, although no one of them have yet delivered the stuff they are claiming to be depict. As time is going on XC becomes to look overdue and belated and ppl are getting out, 90% here for quick buck and will be selling in lower hesitation if the next broken floor dips behind the dump traces. The last downward momentum XC needs to crack is to broke the 80K threshold. Once just 200K from the top 10 wishes to exit, that provokes a huge avalanche to whatever lowest lows the mass effect can drown the panic to. Shaking the hands is over its just an awaiting a top bag decision. Average investors are hesitate to buy i doubt rev 2.0 ups the trend if 80-90k will be crashed again

Great point about the other new Alts claiming anon features, but their claims will only slow XC's price until the average Joe figures out and realizes that 99.9999% of those coins will not deliver anon. Then we will see a price increase in XC IMHO.

Rev 2.0 block chain is kind of the Holy Grail for us right now. I believe the Dev will deliver as promised, but the eternal question for man has always been "How long?"

[hoertest]

top 10 richest adress continue to buy , they had 29.74% of market yesteday and 30.54% today. i think it's a good sign.

sooner the top people dump its better right ?

The way I read it: Is that the whales are shaking down the weak hands.

The shaking process couldn't continue endless but its always over when price is at steady and sustainable floor. 100K floor was broken badly yesterday and that has been caused not by shaking the weak hands nor by whales trying to get more. Too much competitors advertising anon features are playing the nerve and much are about to run, although no one of them have yet delivered the stuff they are claiming to be depict. As time is going on XC becomes to look overdue and belated and ppl are getting out, 90% here for quick buck and will be selling in lower hesitation if the next broken floor dips behind the dump traces. The last downward momentum XC needs to crack is to broke the 80K threshold. Once just 200K from the top 10 wishes to exit, that provokes a huge avalanche to whatever lowest lows the mass effect can drown the panic to. Shaking the hands is over its just an awaiting a top bag decision. Average investors are hesitate to buy i doubt rev 2.0 ups the trend if 80-90k will be crashed again

Great point about the other new Alts claiming anon features, but their claims will only slow XC's price until the average Joe figures out and realizes that 99.9999% of those coins will not deliver anon. Then we will see a price increase in XC IMHO.

Rev 2.0 block chain is kind of the Holy Grail for us right now. I believe the Dev will deliver as promised, but the eternal question for man has always been "How long?"

XC has zero promotion atm, some of the anon claiming coins get heavily promoted already, xc beeing so much talked about with no marketing already shows the potential

[JakeThePanda]

The chart is looking really ugly.  One positive is the red bars have very low volume, but that doesn't mean it can't change.  If people don't feel that 100k will hold, volume can easily pick up.  I see another break below 100K some time today.  Originally I thought we would have sideways motion for while between 90k to 130k.  I'm lowering the floor to 80k and the ceiling to 110k.  We couldn't stay above 120k on the second attempt yesterday.

Disclaimer:  It's very possible I'm wrong and this is just one persons opinion.  I'm nobody. I hold 13k XC.

[dadon]

Nobody is concerned that basically all Gmaxwell's criticisms apply equally, if not more, to XC?

XC doesn't even purport to be trustless, and the overall implementation hasn't even been comprehensively described.

As he has said cryptonote and zerocash technology are the only novel and workable decentralised and trustless solutions thus far. A 'dynamic trust network' is neither trustless (the whole point of bitcoin and derivative technologies) nor decentralised since it relies on certain nominated nodes to provide specific tasks.

Everybody seems to be drinking a nice big cup of smug over the weaknesses of darkcoin (of which there are legion) while avoiding taking a look in their own back yard.

Yes, I think it would be valuable for the XC team to engage seriously (and respectfully) with Gmaxwell's post. In fact, we should invite him to review XC's tech when it's more fully developed. It would be a real opportunity to benefit from his expertise.

I also think we should take his criticisms seriously when developing the coin. Is there a better model than the dynamic trust system? Can we come up with one? Perhaps, and we'd do well to consider it long and hard.

that's a good idea.
Gmaxwell is an expert on Anonymous technology.

ATCsecure shall we discuss how Gmaxwell's post might apply to XC? I imagine it'd be a matter of whether the multi-path paradigm can be implemented without a dynamic trust system, while still preserving XC's ability to avoid blockchain bloat.

Multi-path has incredible possibilities; how about removing/reducing the need for trust with the following (which in all likelihood you've thought of already):

- your specification includes that each xnode only passes on fragments of transactions; this means each fragment will be a small (non-risky) amount.

- what if xnodes have to compete to relay a given fragment? This builds in redundancy, so that if one node attempts to steal the fragment, the others will pass it on. The fastest node gets the transaction fee.

- what if xnodes also can only pass on a single fragment at a time? This way a node would only ever have one fragment, and therefore could never amass enough money for it to be worth stealing.

- Xnodes would then compete for transaction fees by processing transactions faster than other nodes. This way the network would organically improve its capacity.

- At some cost to network speed, the protocol could also set a maximum fragment size to ensure the incentive to become a bad actor is always low regardless of the size of a given payment.


The effect of the above is that xnodes have two options:
- steal a fragment and (a) derive minimal reward, and (b) get booted off the network via the trust system
- or pass on (a) as many fragments as possible in the shortest time and (b) get multiple tiny rewards.
The second of these is prima facie preferable.


However this idea would still be vulnerable to the following attack:
- set up thousands of xnodes
- find a way to steal fragments (I understand this is only a speculative possibility and that there'll be a way of making this exceedingly difficult... however I can't think further about this without more information)
- steal thousands of fragments, delete nodes, create new ones, build up trust, steal more fragments.

I'm unsure whether this attack will be more profitable than just being an honest node; its feasibility will come down to the details. And, fortunately, you decide what the details are.

The security of the network could well depend on this balance of incentives, which is ok I suppose, but its precariousness is analogous to that of mining competition in bitcoin. A systemic solution to the problem would be preferable.

Any suggestions?



Edit: Gmaxwell's post is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=641178.40

+1 really nice ideas there mate....everyone just forget the price, or trying to figure out why the price is were it is, this is the sort of stuff we need to be talking about, the more progress that is made the more people will notice it and the price will reflect this, so just forget about market statistics, and speculation, it really isn't important right now this is a long term hold and if people can't see that, they dn't deserve to make money on it who cares if the price drops below 100k, we should be focusing on making XC perfect instead of trying to work out the price, advertisement and making XC the top coin in alts and crypto in general is number 1..price comes latter, it's almost like getting added to all these exchanges was a curse, it's like people just think it will all come together, Our DEV can only do so much, lets help him as much as possible  

[battbot]

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

Anyone know the answer to this ^

[the_game1224]

The chart is looking really ugly.  One positive is the red bars have very low volume, but that doesn't mean it can't change.  If people don't feel that 100k will hold, volume can easily pick up.  I see another break below 100K some time today.  Originally I thought we would have sideways motion for while between 90k to 130k.  I'm lowering the floor to 80k and the ceiling to 110k.  We couldn't stay above 120k on the second attempt yesterday.

Disclaimer:  It's very possible I'm wrong and this is just one persons opinion.  I'm nobody. I hold 13k XC.

Unfortunately I can't disagree

[the_game1224]

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

Anyone know the answer to this ^

Isnt today 06/06?