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

[Driv3n]

We should really stop naming coins and just focus on XC.  It just draws the wrong kind of attention to the thread. 

Agreed, lets make an effort to do this going forward.

[1714941857]

1714941857

[ssmc2]

Some useful facts about XC:

1) Xnodes are fully decentralised

• Any wallet can run as an Xnode, not just a few semi-centralised clients
• Xnode setup is not complicated or time-consuming

2) Xnodes are trustless

• An earlier iteration of XC's design specified a dynamic trust system; this has been improved upon with a fully trustless system
• Xnodes will now use multisig

3) Xnodes work

• Early tests of Xnodes' mixing function (Rev. 1) have not resulted in any kind of flaw in this aspect of XC's anonymity solution.
• Our not-so-well-intentioned friend Chaeplin claimed to have found a "design flaw" in Rev 1. However he fails to apprehend (a) precisely what was being tested, (b) what would constitute XC failing the test, and (c) what his results actually show. For a summary, see https://www.google.com/url?q=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php%3Ftopic%3D630547.msg7310485
• Tests of Xnodes' initial multipath implementation (Rev. 1.5) have turned up no problems. In fact, no one was even able to mount a claim for the bounty.
• Multi-path is being fully implemented as we speak for Rev. 2. When it is released, there will be (a) a sizeable public bounty, and (b) consultations with several cryptographers and other experts.
• Given past progress, we're pretty optimistic that Rev. 2 will be delivered on time, and will compound the anonymity that is already working in XC.

4) XC is already anonymous, and working

• I can't stress this enough. It's working! It doesn't mysteriously fork. It was released on time. There have been no setbacks.
• XC is only 5 weeks old, and we're already at this level.
• XC is not a completed design. It anonymity will compound. Its user-friendliness will become a 1-click thing. Thorough, professional testing will render it bulletproof.
• Xnodes do not steal coins. But for the sake of historical accuracy, here's where this rumour started: Rev. 1 was released to test whether anyone could prove that a link exists on the blockchain between sender and receiver. Chaeplin misconstrued the purpose of the release and harped on about the fact that because mixers forward coins, coins could be stolen. This is true, but it's besides the point. All we were testing was whether anyone could provide a link on the blockchain. The rest of the build, including vulnerable transaction-forwarding, was just scaffolding so that the tests could be carried out. But, alas, Chaeplin appeared not to be amenable to realising this fact. Perhaps if his intention was to contribute constructively he would have avoided this lapse of comprehension.

At this stage it appears that there'll be ongoing FUD attacks from competitor(s). I'd advise saving a link to this post, and using it to clarify the nature of XC whenever a fudder makes claims to the contrary. Then they'd either have to substantiate their claims or wander off.

Arlyn

Thank you!!! This should be in the OP for sure.

[FoldingTime]

Some useful facts about XC:

1) Xnodes are fully decentralised

• Any wallet can run as an Xnode, not just a few semi-centralised clients
• Xnode setup is not complicated or time-consuming

2) Xnodes are trustless

• An earlier iteration of XC's design specified a dynamic trust system; this has been improved upon with a fully trustless system
• Xnodes will now use multisig

3) Xnodes work

• Early tests of Xnodes' mixing function (Rev. 1) have not resulted in any kind of flaw in this aspect of XC's anonymity solution.
• Our not-so-well-intentioned friend Chaeplin claimed to have found a "design flaw" in Rev 1. However he fails to apprehend (a) precisely what was being tested, (b) what would constitute XC failing the test, and (c) what his results actually show. For a summary, see https://www.google.com/url?q=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php%3Ftopic%3D630547.msg7310485
• Tests of Xnodes' initial multipath implementation (Rev. 1.5) have turned up no problems. In fact, no one was even able to mount a claim for the bounty.
• Multi-path is being fully implemented as we speak for Rev. 2. When it is released, there will be (a) a sizeable public bounty, and (b) consultations with several cryptographers and other experts.
• Given past progress, we're pretty optimistic that Rev. 2 will be delivered on time, and will compound the anonymity that is already working in XC.

4) XC is already anonymous, and working

• I can't stress this enough. It's working! It doesn't mysteriously fork. It was released on time. There have been no setbacks.
• XC is only 5 weeks old, and we're already at this level.
• XC is not a completed design. It anonymity will compound. Its user-friendliness will become a 1-click thing. Thorough, professional testing will render it bulletproof.
• Xnodes do not steal coins. But for the sake of historical accuracy, here's where this rumour started: Rev. 1 was released to test whether anyone could prove that a link exists on the blockchain between sender and receiver. Chaeplin misconstrued the purpose of the release and harped on about the fact that because mixers forward coins, coins could be stolen. This is true, but it's besides the point. All we were testing was whether anyone could provide a link on the blockchain. The rest of the build, including vulnerable transaction-forwarding, was just scaffolding so that the tests could be carried out. But, alas, Chaeplin appeared not to be amenable to realising this fact. Perhaps if his intention was to contribute constructively he would have avoided this lapse of comprehension.

At this stage it appears that there'll be ongoing FUD attacks from competitor(s). I'd advise saving a link to this post, and using it to clarify the nature of XC whenever a fudder makes claims to the contrary. Then they'd either have to substantiate their claims or wander off.

Arlyn

Thank you!!! This should be in the OP for sure.

I agree, additionally the Road Map should be in the OP and quoted in the thread on a regular basis.

[flashbit]

Some useful facts about XC:

1) Xnodes are fully decentralised

• Any wallet can run as an Xnode, not just a few semi-centralised clients
• Xnode setup is not complicated or time-consuming

2) Xnodes are trustless

• An earlier iteration of XC's design specified a dynamic trust system; this has been improved upon with a fully trustless system
• Xnodes will now use multisig

3) Xnodes work

• Early tests of Xnodes' mixing function (Rev. 1) have not resulted in any kind of flaw in this aspect of XC's anonymity solution.
• Our not-so-well-intentioned friend Chaeplin claimed to have found a "design flaw" in Rev 1. However he fails to apprehend (a) precisely what was being tested, (b) what would constitute XC failing the test, and (c) what his results actually show. For a summary, see https://www.google.com/url?q=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php%3Ftopic%3D630547.msg7310485
• Tests of Xnodes' initial multipath implementation (Rev. 1.5) have turned up no problems. In fact, no one was even able to mount a claim for the bounty.
• Multi-path is being fully implemented as we speak for Rev. 2. When it is released, there will be (a) a sizeable public bounty, and (b) consultations with several cryptographers and other experts.
• Given past progress, we're pretty optimistic that Rev. 2 will be delivered on time, and will compound the anonymity that is already working in XC.

4) XC is already anonymous, and working

• I can't stress this enough. It's working! It doesn't mysteriously fork. It was released on time. There have been no setbacks.
• XC is only 5 weeks old, and we're already at this level.
• XC is not a completed design. It anonymity will compound. Its user-friendliness will become a 1-click thing. Thorough, professional testing will render it bulletproof.
• Xnodes do not steal coins. But for the sake of historical accuracy, here's where this rumour started: Rev. 1 was released to test whether anyone could prove that a link exists on the blockchain between sender and receiver. Chaeplin misconstrued the purpose of the release and harped on about the fact that because mixers forward coins, coins could be stolen. This is true, but it's besides the point. All we were testing was whether anyone could provide a link on the blockchain. The rest of the build, including vulnerable transaction-forwarding, was just scaffolding so that the tests could be carried out. But, alas, Chaeplin appeared not to be amenable to realising this fact. Perhaps if his intention was to contribute constructively he would have avoided this lapse of comprehension.

At this stage it appears that there'll be ongoing FUD attacks from competitor(s). I'd advise saving a link to this post, and using it to clarify the nature of XC whenever a fudder makes claims to the contrary. Then they'd either have to substantiate their claims or wander off.

To factuality over frustration,

Arlyn

Fantastic response!

[Driv3n]

Some useful facts about XC:

1) Xnodes are fully decentralised

• Any wallet can run as an Xnode, not just a few semi-centralised clients
• Xnode setup is not complicated or time-consuming

2) Xnodes are trustless

• An earlier iteration of XC's design specified a dynamic trust system; this has been improved upon with a fully trustless system
• Xnodes will now use multisig

3) Xnodes work

• Early tests of Xnodes' mixing function (Rev. 1) have not resulted in any kind of flaw in this aspect of XC's anonymity solution.
• Our not-so-well-intentioned friend Chaeplin claimed to have found a "design flaw" in Rev 1. However he fails to apprehend (a) precisely what was being tested, (b) what would constitute XC failing the test, and (c) what his results actually show. For a summary, see https://www.google.com/url?q=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php%3Ftopic%3D630547.msg7310485
• Tests of Xnodes' initial multipath implementation (Rev. 1.5) have turned up no problems. In fact, no one was even able to mount a claim for the bounty.
• Multi-path is being fully implemented as we speak for Rev. 2. When it is released, there will be (a) a sizeable public bounty, and (b) consultations with several cryptographers and other experts.
• Given past progress, we're pretty optimistic that Rev. 2 will be delivered on time, and will compound the anonymity that is already working in XC.

4) XC is already anonymous, and working

• I can't stress this enough. It's working! It doesn't mysteriously fork. It was released on time. There have been no setbacks.
• XC is only 5 weeks old, and we're already at this level.
• XC is not a completed design. It anonymity will compound. Its user-friendliness will become a 1-click thing. Thorough, professional testing will render it bulletproof.
• Xnodes do not steal coins. But for the sake of historical accuracy, here's where this rumour started: Rev. 1 was released to test whether anyone could prove that a link exists on the blockchain between sender and receiver. Chaeplin misconstrued the purpose of the release and harped on about the fact that because mixers forward coins, coins could be stolen. This is true, but it's besides the point. All we were testing was whether anyone could provide a link on the blockchain. The rest of the build, including vulnerable transaction-forwarding, was just scaffolding so that the tests could be carried out. But, alas, Chaeplin appeared not to be amenable to realising this fact. Perhaps if his intention was to contribute constructively he would have avoided this lapse of comprehension.

At this stage it appears that there'll be ongoing FUD attacks from competitor(s). I'd advise saving a link to this post, and using it to clarify the nature of XC whenever a fudder makes claims to the contrary. Then they'd either have to substantiate their claims or wander off.

To factuality over frustration,

Arlyn

+1 thanks for posting the facts

[Jacques de Molay]

Some useful facts about XC:

1) Xnodes are fully decentralised

• Any wallet can run as an Xnode, not just a few semi-centralised clients
• Xnode setup is not complicated or time-consuming

2) Xnodes are trustless

• An earlier iteration of XC's design specified a dynamic trust system; this has been improved upon with a fully trustless system
• Xnodes will now use multisig

3) Xnodes work

• Early tests of Xnodes' mixing function (Rev. 1) have not resulted in any kind of flaw in this aspect of XC's anonymity solution.
• Our not-so-well-intentioned friend Chaeplin claimed to have found a "design flaw" in Rev 1. However he fails to apprehend (a) precisely what was being tested, (b) what would constitute XC failing the test, and (c) what his results actually show. For a summary, see https://www.google.com/url?q=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php%3Ftopic%3D630547.msg7310485
• Tests of Xnodes' initial multipath implementation (Rev. 1.5) have turned up no problems. In fact, no one was even able to mount a claim for the bounty.
• Multi-path is being fully implemented as we speak for Rev. 2. When it is released, there will be (a) a sizeable public bounty, and (b) consultations with several cryptographers and other experts.
• Given past progress, we're pretty optimistic that Rev. 2 will be delivered on time, and will compound the anonymity that is already working in XC.

4) XC is already anonymous, and working

• I can't stress this enough. It's working! It doesn't mysteriously fork. It was released on time. There have been no setbacks.
• XC is only 5 weeks old, and we're already at this level.
• XC is not a completed design. It anonymity will compound. Its user-friendliness will become a 1-click thing. Thorough, professional testing will render it bulletproof.
• Xnodes do not steal coins. But for the sake of historical accuracy, here's where this rumour started: Rev. 1 was released to test whether anyone could prove that a link exists on the blockchain between sender and receiver. Chaeplin misconstrued the purpose of the release and harped on about the fact that because mixers forward coins, coins could be stolen. This is true, but it's besides the point. All we were testing was whether anyone could provide a link on the blockchain. The rest of the build, including vulnerable transaction-forwarding, was just scaffolding so that the tests could be carried out. But, alas, Chaeplin appeared not to be amenable to realising this fact. Perhaps if his intention was to contribute constructively he would have avoided this lapse of comprehension.

At this stage it appears that there'll be ongoing FUD attacks from competitor(s). I'd advise saving a link to this post, and using it to clarify the nature of XC whenever a fudder makes claims to the contrary. Then they'd either have to substantiate their claims or wander off.

Arlyn

+1 thanks for this, the rest of this post is me in general with how things have been going lately on xc/drk threads.



The problem is, we already know this, everyone else already knows this.  We are excited for the future.

XC is far better then most of the coins out there, people are going to protect their investments and they will use every means possible.  If I was heavily invested in say World Cup Coin coin Id be upset if another coin came out with the same concept and did it better.  Wouldnt go the the lengths of darkcoin though, thats just a brat mentality.


I am starting to believe that darkcoin has nothing going for it in terms of developmental abilities, or they are paying someone else to take their sweet time to deliver..nothing.


Take ATC for example he is pumping out far more advancements at a steady pace and yet dark coin is doing what ?? Promising so much and delivering so little.  I lol at their claim at first anonymous coin in their ann title - when it isn't and it doesn't even work.

This is what I am saying, XC came out day 1 with this working and no one has disproved it not working, xnodes are working, this road map all bodes well for XC credibility as a software designer and has more potential of reaching mainstream world community because of it.

When are people going to think for themselves about the pump and dump scam coin dark when they see how little their "dev" team actually deliver ? Thats my point but always gets overlooked by dead shits of this forum.


In fact in protest at the scammy/bs nature of the darkcoin and the dark community I mined the shit out of LightCoin or LIT coin because it IS in everyway a darkcoin clone (minus the 40-50% insta mine) it was fair launch and from what I read will clone everything about dark coin = minus the fud, insta mine, unfair launch and shit community.  WIN

[pratico]

Some useful facts about XC:

1) Xnodes are fully decentralised

• Any wallet can run as an Xnode, not just a few semi-centralised clients
• Xnode setup is not complicated or time-consuming

2) Xnodes are trustless

• An earlier iteration of XC's design specified a dynamic trust system; this has been improved upon with a fully trustless system
• Xnodes will now use multisig

3) Xnodes work

• Early tests of Xnodes' mixing function (Rev. 1) have not resulted in any kind of flaw in this aspect of XC's anonymity solution.
• Our not-so-well-intentioned friend Chaeplin claimed to have found a "design flaw" in Rev 1. However he fails to apprehend (a) precisely what was being tested, (b) what would constitute XC failing the test, and (c) what his results actually show. For a summary, see https://www.google.com/url?q=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php%3Ftopic%3D630547.msg7310485
• Tests of Xnodes' initial multipath implementation (Rev. 1.5) have turned up no problems. In fact, no one was even able to mount a claim for the bounty.
• Multi-path is being fully implemented as we speak for Rev. 2. When it is released, there will be (a) a sizeable public bounty, and (b) consultations with several cryptographers and other experts.
• Given past progress, we're pretty optimistic that Rev. 2 will be delivered on time, and will compound the anonymity that is already working in XC.

4) XC is already anonymous, and working

• I can't stress this enough. It's working! It doesn't mysteriously fork. It was released on time. There have been no setbacks.
• XC is only 5 weeks old, and we're already at this level.
• XC is not a completed design. It anonymity will compound. Its user-friendliness will become a 1-click thing. Thorough, professional testing will render it bulletproof.
• Xnodes do not steal coins. But for the sake of historical accuracy, here's where this rumour started: Rev. 1 was released to test whether anyone could prove that a link exists on the blockchain between sender and receiver. Chaeplin misconstrued the purpose of the release and harped on about the fact that because mixers forward coins, coins could be stolen. This is true, but it's besides the point. All we were testing was whether anyone could provide a link on the blockchain. The rest of the build, including vulnerable transaction-forwarding, was just scaffolding so that the tests could be carried out. But, alas, Chaeplin appeared not to be amenable to realising this fact. Perhaps if his intention was to contribute constructively he would have avoided this lapse of comprehension.

At this stage it appears that there'll be ongoing FUD attacks from competitor(s). I'd advise saving a link to this post, and using it to clarify the nature of XC whenever a fudder makes claims to the contrary. Then they'd either have to substantiate their claims or wander off.

To factuality over frustration,

Arlyn

Thanks for this.  See red highlight above.  Is the wallet available for download trustless NOW? Or will it be trustless with REV2?  It was my understanding that REV2 would make XC's anon solution trustless.

[wooder]

one good idea would be for shure to implement a XC -> Bitcoin "tunnel" like VRC. This for shure will create a higher user acceptance as it allows a simpler handling as long as the currency is not adopted by the masses. imho this XX->BTC will soon be available for nearly every coin... i mean without using an exchange directly

[synechist]

Is the wallet available for download trustless NOW? Or will it be trustless with REV2?  It was my understanding that REV2 would make XC's anon solution trustless.

Yes, Rev 2 is the release of the full trustless multi-path architecture.

[pratico]

Is the wallet available for download trustless NOW? Or will it be trustless with REV2?  It was my understanding that REV2 would make XC's anon solution trustless.

Yes, Rev 2 is the release of the full trustless multi-path architecture.

Thanks for the response.  You should probably revise your original statement to make that clear.  Because it reads as if currently the method is trustless.

[synechist]

Is the wallet available for download trustless NOW? Or will it be trustless with REV2?  It was my understanding that REV2 would make XC's anon solution trustless.

Yes, Rev 2 is the release of the full trustless multi-path architecture.

Thanks for the response.  You should probably revise your original statement to make that clear.  Because it reads as if currently the method is trustless.

Fair point. I'll be clearer about the distinction between a design and its current partial implementation. It'll be updated in a sec...

[policymaker]

Some useful facts about XC:

1) Xnodes are fully decentralised

• Any wallet can run as an Xnode, not just a few semi-centralised clients
• Xnode setup is not complicated or time-consuming

2) Xnodes are trustless

• An earlier iteration of XC's design specified a dynamic trust system; this has been improved upon with a fully trustless system
• Xnodes will now use multisig

3) Xnodes work

• Early tests of Xnodes' mixing function (Rev. 1) have not resulted in any kind of flaw in this aspect of XC's anonymity solution.
• Our not-so-well-intentioned friend Chaeplin claimed to have found a "design flaw" in Rev 1. However he fails to apprehend (a) precisely what was being tested, (b) what would constitute XC failing the test, and (c) what his results actually show. For a summary, see https://www.google.com/url?q=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php%3Ftopic%3D630547.msg7310485
• Tests of Xnodes' initial multipath implementation (Rev. 1.5) have turned up no problems. In fact, no one was even able to mount a claim for the bounty.
• Multi-path is being fully implemented as we speak for Rev. 2. When it is released, there will be (a) a sizeable public bounty, and (b) consultations with several cryptographers and other experts.
• Given past progress, we're pretty optimistic that Rev. 2 will be delivered on time, and will compound the anonymity that is already working in XC.

4) XC is already anonymous, and working

• I can't stress this enough. It's working! It doesn't mysteriously fork. It was released on time. There have been no setbacks.
• XC is only 5 weeks old, and we're already at this level.
• XC is not a completed design. It anonymity will compound. Its user-friendliness will become a 1-click thing. Thorough, professional testing will render it bulletproof.
• Xnodes do not steal coins. But for the sake of historical accuracy, here's where this rumour started: Rev. 1 was released to test whether anyone could prove that a link exists on the blockchain between sender and receiver. Chaeplin misconstrued the purpose of the release and harped on about the fact that because mixers forward coins, coins could be stolen. This is true, but it's besides the point. All we were testing was whether anyone could provide a link on the blockchain. The rest of the build, including vulnerable transaction-forwarding, was just scaffolding so that the tests could be carried out. But, alas, Chaeplin appeared not to be amenable to realising this fact. Perhaps if his intention was to contribute constructively he would have avoided this lapse of comprehension.

At this stage it appears that there'll be ongoing FUD attacks from competitor(s). I'd advise saving a link to this post, and using it to clarify the nature of XC whenever a fudder makes claims to the contrary. Then they'd either have to substantiate their claims or wander off.

To factuality over frustration,

Arlyn

Have TEKA quote this in OP, ALONG with roadmap, PLZ. OP is like 80% of current XC promo campaign, we need this stuff to be presented without even a click more needed by a new investor.

[Artoodeetoo]

I think we will get a vertcoin wave coming over pretty soon, get in while it's cheap loyal holders! Don't let them have cheap coins

[philipvdlinde]

I think we will get a vertcoin wave coming over pretty soon, get in while it's cheap loyal holders! Don't let them have cheap coins

What do you mean with vertcoin wave?

[ssmc2]

I think we will get a vertcoin wave coming over pretty soon, get in while it's cheap loyal holders! Don't let them have cheap coins

What do you mean with vertcoin wave?

I think he means Veri

[Artoodeetoo]

It's going to crash in price / is crashing, there will be a fair few who played the wave with their XC I would imagine... Plus others looking for where to go next...

Edit and yes. Ty for correction I do mean veri

[synechist]

Updated my post on anti-FUD facts: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7568377#msg7568377

[NewWorldCoiner]

When are we gonna see an order form for the Tor Stick? I know we won't get them for a while, but I want put an order in.

Will there be a limit per person? How many can be run on one computer?

[Teka]

When are we gonna see an order form for the Tor Stick? I know we won't get them for a while, but I want put an order in.

Will there be a limit per person? How many can be run on one computer?

Well it's a bootable stick so you won't be able to run multiple unless you use a virtual machine but then your better of just grabbing the iso and ordering one.

[Artoodeetoo]

I imagine all of the focus is on getting rev 2 out at the moment as that's just over 1 week away, I would not expect too much on other items till that's out of the door...