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

[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...

[synechist]

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?

We're looking at various ways to sell TOR Sticks. You'll have opportunity to order one before they ship at Rev. 3.

I don't see any reason to limit the number of TOR Sticks one can buy. Personally I want at least two - a card and the little stainless steel one. :-)

[brother3]

Left for a vacation and came back to this  



Almost 6 XCs staked!!!

[bitcad4u]

Why every day is there even mention of DarkCoin in here?  Please stop associating with dark coin and stop mentioning dark coin here.  We all know here XC is superior and time will tell which coin will prevail.

Next person to mention Dark Coin on this thread is a flaming homo...starting now.

[philipvdlinde]

Why every day is there even mention of DarkCoin in here?  Please stop associating with dark coin and stop mentioning dark coin here.  We all know here XC is superior and time will tell which coin will prevail.

Next person to mention Dark Coin on this thread is a flaming homo...starting now.

FUCK: DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK! DRK!

[Jacques de Molay]

Why every day is there even mention of DarkCoin in here?  Please stop associating with dark coin and stop mentioning dark coin here.  We all know here XC is superior and time will tell which coin will prevail.

Next person to mention Dark Coin on this thread is a flaming homo...starting now.

Yea its a good point you make, but from what I see is, when the XC community moves on and talks about XC, the dark trolls come in here and make it the order of business that we have to talk about drk. True story.

They cant accept we don't care for this shit anymore.  Some of you are still biting, just stop lol.

I want to see the Darkcoin equivalent of this:   Because we both know it WILL NOT STACK UP AGAINST XC AT ALL

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 a trustless design

• An earlier iteration of XC's design specified a dynamic trust system; this has been improved upon with a fully trustless design
• Rev 2 Xnodes will use trustless multi-path 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. See the roadmap: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7535822#msg7535822.
• 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

[leigh2k14]

Hi guys can you tell me if my wallet is the latest version: v0.9.1.33x11-coin-1.0

Thanks.