|
SushiChef
|
 |
August 08, 2014, 02:54:32 PM |
|
A good thing in my opinion. Hope to have the same kind of colaboration in the future |
|
|
|
|
|
atcsecure
|
|
August 08, 2014, 02:54:48 PM |
|
* offline Message retrieval code adjustment |
Join the revolution - XC - Decentralized Trustless Multi-Node Private Transactions
|
|
|
CoinCartel
Full Member
 Offline
Activity: 122
Merit: 100
☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
|
|
August 08, 2014, 03:02:19 PM |
|
 90-Day Chart for XC |
|
|
|
|
|
mav137
|
|
August 08, 2014, 03:03:22 PM |
|
rocksolid
|
|
|
|
|
Splatters
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1000
★YoBit.Net★ 1400+ Coins Exchange
|
|
August 08, 2014, 03:07:19 PM |
|
* offline Message retrieval code adjustment I just wrote a message with the old wallet, thinking about could be great to sent a message pushing enter instead of the SEND botton, and here you are in the new wallet you send with enter. Good one! |
I know why your pray will never be answered!
|
|
|
|
KimmyF
|
|
August 08, 2014, 03:11:35 PM |
|
A good thing in my opinion. Hope to have the same kind of colaboration in the future A good thing in my opinion, hope to have the same profit % as with another coin he reviewed |
|
|
|
|
oblox
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1018
|
|
August 08, 2014, 03:12:13 PM |
|
I'd still rather see him focus on making private transfers work for everyone first as it's a core feature of XC before further reviewing other coin's code. But my bias is obvious being that it doesn't work for me. Dan and I are going to do some testing later this afternoon so hopefully we narrow down why it's not working the way it should. |
|
|
|
|
|
Youghoor
|
|
August 08, 2014, 03:12:48 PM |
|
rocksolid
like a mountain. |
|
|
|
|
rockstahh
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
August 08, 2014, 03:19:07 PM |
|
Hey, thank you legoman! You're welcome to donate to: The XC PR Fund: XULwYMBDXEfkQAmD8N9Hb95kGkCnKrRSQx The XC DeFUD Fund: XN77DGRr2ZhEeojQkft9eJXJMq4HxoJTCD I'm not trying to make waves but I remember the word was that the money needed for a proper advertising and marketing campaign was coming from the pre-mine. Or, maybe that's to advertise and market rev 3? At the moment the pre-mine is paying all our devs. And there are several. Every little bit helps. Wow! I'm sure it does. I remember you writing that you had a significant amount of pre-mine set aside for PR and marketing. It's new news to me if that is not the case. I don't know if you will be able to raise enough funding through donations alone to launch a proper advertising campaign. (As highlighted on the latest road map). I am trusting that you have a plan and know what your doing. ;-) |
1MKvsb5ULZrJqX9UjBpgESvfn5ftSg85qH
|
|
|
ssmc2
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2002
Merit: 1040
|
|
August 08, 2014, 03:23:20 PM |
|
90-Day Chart for XC Support and resistance gonna converge not too long from now  |
|
|
|
|
|
hoertest
|
|
August 08, 2014, 03:25:08 PM |
|
I'd still rather see him focus on making private transfers work for everyone first as it's a core feature of XC before further reviewing other coin's code. But my bias is obvious being that it doesn't work for me. Dan and I are going to do some testing later this afternoon so hopefully we narrow down why it's not working the way it should. I think he learned from keycoin and will execute it a little differently. also not all devs are as shady as keycoin and don't give credit. Perhaps finally people will realise that its a wise idea to buy the coin of the dev everybody is running to for validation. Arlyn should look over it since its a public statement and he really knows how to find a middle ground of objective review and still showing superiority of the own project without sounding arrogant. |
|
|
|
|
oblox
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1018
|
|
August 08, 2014, 03:29:20 PM |
|
I'd still rather see him focus on making private transfers work for everyone first as it's a core feature of XC before further reviewing other coin's code. But my bias is obvious being that it doesn't work for me. Dan and I are going to do some testing later this afternoon so hopefully we narrow down why it's not working the way it should. I think he learned from keycoin and will execute it a little differently. also not all devs are as shady as keycoin and don't give credit. Perhaps finally people will realise that its a wise idea to buy the coin of the dev everybody is running to for validation. Arlyn should look over it since its a public statement and he really knows how to find a middle ground of objective review and still showing superiority of the own project without sounding arrogant. I'm not talking about previous execution with keycoin, I'm talking about making our coin work 100% before peer-reviewing other coins. If there is available time to help others, great, but it shouldn't come at the expense of neglecting existing bugs with our own coin. |
|
|
|
|
sfc
Member
Offline
Activity: 133
Merit: 10
|
|
August 08, 2014, 03:37:58 PM |
|
I'd still rather see him focus on making private transfers work for everyone first as it's a core feature of XC before further reviewing other coin's code. But my bias is obvious being that it doesn't work for me. Dan and I are going to do some testing later this afternoon so hopefully we narrow down why it's not working the way it should. I think he learned from keycoin and will execute it a little differently. also not all devs are as shady as keycoin and don't give credit. Perhaps finally people will realise that its a wise idea to buy the coin of the dev everybody is running to for validation. Arlyn should look over it since its a public statement and he really knows how to find a middle ground of objective review and still showing superiority of the own project without sounding arrogant. I'm not talking about previous execution with keycoin, I'm talking about making our coin work 100% before peer-reviewing other coins. If there is available time to help others, great, but it shouldn't come at the expense of neglecting existing bugs with our own coin. There should be some things that are up to the dev to decide, don t you think? Let s not become too demanding, neither concerning Dan nor the market situation. |
|
|
|
|
oblox
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1018
|
|
August 08, 2014, 03:40:32 PM |
|
I'd still rather see him focus on making private transfers work for everyone first as it's a core feature of XC before further reviewing other coin's code. But my bias is obvious being that it doesn't work for me. Dan and I are going to do some testing later this afternoon so hopefully we narrow down why it's not working the way it should. I think he learned from keycoin and will execute it a little differently. also not all devs are as shady as keycoin and don't give credit. Perhaps finally people will realise that its a wise idea to buy the coin of the dev everybody is running to for validation. Arlyn should look over it since its a public statement and he really knows how to find a middle ground of objective review and still showing superiority of the own project without sounding arrogant. I'm not talking about previous execution with keycoin, I'm talking about making our coin work 100% before peer-reviewing other coins. If there is available time to help others, great, but it shouldn't come at the expense of neglecting existing bugs with our own coin. There should be some things that are up to the dev to decide, don t you think? Let s not become too demanding, neither concerning Dan nor the market situation. Considering on multiple occasions of previous testing attempts with Dan he has had to delay or push back our testing period because he didn't have the time, I would say if he has the time available to test someone else's code, he should have the time to test with me to resolve an issue that affects 100% functionality of the coin he, himself, is developing. |
|
|
|
|
|
laredo7mm
|
|
August 08, 2014, 03:46:18 PM |
|
I'd still rather see him focus on making private transfers work for everyone first as it's a core feature of XC before further reviewing other coin's code. But my bias is obvious being that it doesn't work for me. Dan and I are going to do some testing later this afternoon so hopefully we narrow down why it's not working the way it should. I think he learned from keycoin and will execute it a little differently. also not all devs are as shady as keycoin and don't give credit. Perhaps finally people will realise that its a wise idea to buy the coin of the dev everybody is running to for validation. Arlyn should look over it since its a public statement and he really knows how to find a middle ground of objective review and still showing superiority of the own project without sounding arrogant. I'm not talking about previous execution with keycoin, I'm talking about making our coin work 100% before peer-reviewing other coins. If there is available time to help others, great, but it shouldn't come at the expense of neglecting existing bugs with our own coin. There should be some things that are up to the dev to decide, don t you think? Let s not become too demanding, neither concerning Dan nor the market situation. Considering on multiple occasions of previous testing attempts with Dan he has had to delay or push back our testing period because he didn't have the time, I would say if he has the time available to test someone else's code, he should have the time to test with me to resolve an issue that affects 100% functionality of the coin he, himself, is developing. How do you know he is going to review their code before he helps you this afternoon? You are coming across as extremely needy, IMO. You are the only one that seems to have this problem. I think Dan is being very gracious by spending some one on one time with you to try and figure it out. I would find it surprising if Dan would give priority to another coin over his own project. In my eyes, since you are the only one who can reproduce the bug, it is a relatively low priority. Instead of complaining, you should be commending. |
|
|
|
|
sfc
Member
Offline
Activity: 133
Merit: 10
|
|
August 08, 2014, 03:49:43 PM |
|
I'd still rather see him focus on making private transfers work for everyone first as it's a core feature of XC before further reviewing other coin's code. But my bias is obvious being that it doesn't work for me. Dan and I are going to do some testing later this afternoon so hopefully we narrow down why it's not working the way it should. I think he learned from keycoin and will execute it a little differently. also not all devs are as shady as keycoin and don't give credit. Perhaps finally people will realise that its a wise idea to buy the coin of the dev everybody is running to for validation. Arlyn should look over it since its a public statement and he really knows how to find a middle ground of objective review and still showing superiority of the own project without sounding arrogant. I'm not talking about previous execution with keycoin, I'm talking about making our coin work 100% before peer-reviewing other coins. If there is available time to help others, great, but it shouldn't come at the expense of neglecting existing bugs with our own coin. There should be some things that are up to the dev to decide, don t you think? Let s not become too demanding, neither concerning Dan nor the market situation. Considering on multiple occasions of previous testing attempts with Dan he has had to delay or push back our testing period because he didn't have the time, I would say if he has the time available to test someone else's code, he should have the time to test with me to resolve an issue that affects 100% functionality of the coin he, himself, is developing. I see your point, but i think the team has earned enough trust so that we can be more than confident that they will find the right way and balance. Sometimes it s a thin line between a justifiable demand and the screaming of a spoiled brat. |
|
|
|
|
|
Teka (OP)
|
|
August 08, 2014, 04:02:34 PM |
|
Hey, thank you legoman! You're welcome to donate to: The XC PR Fund: XULwYMBDXEfkQAmD8N9Hb95kGkCnKrRSQx The XC DeFUD Fund: XN77DGRr2ZhEeojQkft9eJXJMq4HxoJTCD I'm not trying to make waves but I remember the word was that the money needed for a proper advertising and marketing campaign was coming from the pre-mine. Or, maybe that's to advertise and market rev 3? At the moment the pre-mine is paying all our devs. And there are several. Every little bit helps. Wow! I'm sure it does. I remember you writing that you had a significant amount of pre-mine set aside for PR and marketing. It's new news to me if that is not the case. I don't know if you will be able to raise enough funding through donations alone to launch a proper advertising campaign. (As highlighted on the latest road map). I am trusting that you have a plan and know what your doing. ;-) Basically, Dan has so far funded a lot of things out of his own pocket like Xcaht development. We want to prevent converting the xc into fiat as much as possible. |
|
|
|
|
oblox
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1018
|
|
August 08, 2014, 04:02:47 PM |
|
How do you know he is going to review their code before he helps you this afternoon?
You are coming across as extremely needy, IMO. You are the only one that seems to have this problem. I think Dan is being very gracious by spending some one on one time with you to try and figure it out. I would find it surprising if Dan would give priority to another coin over his own project.
In my eyes, since you are the only one who can reproduce the bug, it is a relatively low priority. Instead of complaining, you should be commending.
I didn't say he was going to prioritize someone else's code over fixing the problem with me. I just said I'd rather see it happen that any sort of additional peer reviews be done after the coin works 100%. Simple as that. The sole reason I invested in XC was for the private transfers and so far I don't have that. I like the fact that the team is going the platform route and not focusing 100% on just private transfers, but still, the initial investment was for that particular feature. Needy or not, it's an advertised feature that lacks 100% functionality and voicing my concern to have it fixed shouldn't be ostracized. I'm not saying it has to be fixed this weekend, but I'd like to think that this afternoon's testing session will finally yield some sort of result to resolve this. I'm continually shocked at how the community seeming turns on another investor who has a broken feature that is advertised as working. Working for 99% is not 100% last I checked. I may be the only one, who knows. I'm at least speaking up and voicing my concern because everyone keeps saying private transfers work and from my eyes, they do not. You should be happy when it works for everyone. XC currently has such a small footprint, what happens when more people start trying it out and run into the same issue I am having. Are you really going to say it's low priority then? |
|
|
|
|
|
tazmania
|
|
August 08, 2014, 04:04:56 PM |
|
I'd still rather see him focus on making private transfers work for everyone first as it's a core feature of XC before further reviewing other coin's code. But my bias is obvious being that it doesn't work for me. Dan and I are going to do some testing later this afternoon so hopefully we narrow down why it's not working the way it should.
I'm not talking about previous execution with keycoin, I'm talking about making our coin work 100% before peer-reviewing other coins. If there is available time to help others, great, but it shouldn't come at the expense of neglecting existing bugs with our own coin.
Considering on multiple occasions of previous testing attempts with Dan he has had to delay or push back our testing period because he didn't have the time, I would say if he has the time available to test someone else's code, he should have the time to test with me to resolve an issue that affects 100% functionality of the coin he, himself, is developing.
I found the large holder keeping the price suppressed. Unhappy they can't get the support needed to fix a problem not many are having. They are making sure no one else benefits from the coin till their issue is resolved. |
|
|
|
oblox
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1018
|
|
August 08, 2014, 04:09:09 PM |
|
I'd still rather see him focus on making private transfers work for everyone first as it's a core feature of XC before further reviewing other coin's code. But my bias is obvious being that it doesn't work for me. Dan and I are going to do some testing later this afternoon so hopefully we narrow down why it's not working the way it should.
I'm not talking about previous execution with keycoin, I'm talking about making our coin work 100% before peer-reviewing other coins. If there is available time to help others, great, but it shouldn't come at the expense of neglecting existing bugs with our own coin.
Considering on multiple occasions of previous testing attempts with Dan he has had to delay or push back our testing period because he didn't have the time, I would say if he has the time available to test someone else's code, he should have the time to test with me to resolve an issue that affects 100% functionality of the coin he, himself, is developing.
I found the large holder keeping the price suppressed. Unhappy they can't get the support needed to fix a problem not many are having. They are making sure no one else benefits from the coin till their issue is resolved. Pft, I haven't sold a single coin since I've accumulated my position, although I have moved 20k of my coins to MP in the event I need to hedge my exposure. You probably should play detective elsewhere. |
|
|
|
|
|
