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

[BTCwriter]

As a longterm investor, I'm a bit puzzled by the lack of focus on XCurrency. We haven't even officially launched this coin and we're talking about new tech, new corporation, etc.

Don't get me wrong I think the blocknet is a fantastic idea but it will involve huge development effort on Dan and his team.

Can we get one thing 'Dan's baby' delivered before we announce more things? I don't think I'm the only one with these concerns.

Do we have any estimate dates on the official launch of XC?

The BlockNet sounds like a joke. At least right now. I'm happy to have someone prove me wrong.

All coins participating in Blocknet are equal, unlike Supernet only Bitcoindark would butthurt and take advantages over joining shitcoins.

[G-Bert]

Can someone, part of the team or in the know, please tell me why sdc is on this pic, shadow is not part of that project so it stands to be misleading as of right now. Can someone fill me in please. Thanks.
https://twitter.com/XCurrency/status/522508661529530368/photo/1

Good luck with it all the same i just don't understand the tactic. I'm sure someone can explain the logic to me though. Thanks.

SDC is going to be/is one of the contributing coins to Blocknet. Good news IMO 

No i don't believe it is just yet, thats my point. Why is it being pitched as though it is? Just because its on a pic does not mean it is. I'm just wondering what the logic here is from dan/project team to put it there. Is it some jest to coheres Shadow to the project or an oversight maybe?

So i'm looking forward to someone in the know to engage in my attempt to strike a dialogue here, about it. Thanks again.

I asked the very same question myself as soon as it was posted.

Here it is from the horses mouth...

     5

Are the currencies shown here already "in" or are these just examples? (SDC?)

The currencies shown here are in.

[LongAndShort]

Can someone, part of the team or in the know, please tell me why sdc is on this pic, shadow is not part of that project so it stands to be misleading as of right now. Can someone fill me in please. Thanks.
https://twitter.com/XCurrency/status/522508661529530368/photo/1

Good luck with it all the same i just don't understand the tactic. I'm sure someone can explain the logic to me though. Thanks.

SDC is going to be/is one of the contributing coins to Blocknet. Good news IMO  

No i don't believe it is just yet, thats my point. Why is it being pitched as though it is? Just because its on a pic does not mean it is. I'm just wondering what the logic here is from dan/project team to put it there. Is it some jest to coheres Shadow to the project or an oversight maybe?

So i'm looking forward to someone in the know to engage in my attempt to strike a dialogue here, about it. Thanks again.




Disclaimer: This is my personal view which is likely to change after time. To me this seems like pressure on dan to formulate some sort of money grab. And however normal that is i fear it can also be somewhat detrimental to a cause for tech advancement. To me it seems like another way to get a hold of other peoples tech! Are we really at the point where we need to unite in such a way? I guess one can put forward a good argument towards "maybe it is".

To me, initially, this seems bias towards money and tech grabbing more then serving any future for us. (The industry and what the tech will serve in the future.)

This seems like, and i will reiterate initially, these are my own thoughts that this looks like it will only serve a few pockets and not really serve the industry as much. Please if you are not capable of a mature discussion please don't replay to my opinions because i mean no harm id just like to have a chat about it. Thanks.

[xxxgoodgirls]

Is Xbridge based upon the same principle as SuperNET is?

[dadon]

Dan is a very professional Dev there is no way in hell it would be there if he had not talked to the SDC team first, It just wouldn't happen.

[LongAndShort]

Can someone, part of the team or in the know, please tell me why sdc is on this pic, shadow is not part of that project so it stands to be misleading as of right now. Can someone fill me in please. Thanks.
https://twitter.com/XCurrency/status/522508661529530368/photo/1

Good luck with it all the same i just don't understand the tactic. I'm sure someone can explain the logic to me though. Thanks.

SDC is going to be/is one of the contributing coins to Blocknet. Good news IMO 

No i don't believe it is just yet, thats my point. Why is it being pitched as though it is? Just because its on a pic does not mean it is. I'm just wondering what the logic here is from dan/project team to put it there. Is it some jest to coheres Shadow to the project or an oversight maybe?

So i'm looking forward to someone in the know to engage in my attempt to strike a dialogue here, about it. Thanks again.

I asked the very same question myself as soon as it was posted.

Here it is from the horses mouth...

     5

Are the currencies shown here already "in" or are these just examples? (SDC?)

The currencies shown here are in.

Thanks mate ill get in touch with Shadow about this to me initially seems false so ill get back to you i could be wrong however.

[MemoryShock]

To me it seems like another way to get a hold of other peoples tech! Are we really at the point where we need to unite in such a way? I guess one can put forward a good argument towards "maybe it is".

To me, initially, this seems bias towards money and tech grabbing more then serving any future for us. (The industry and what the tech will serve in the future.)

This seems like, and i will reiterate initially, these are my own thoughts that this looks like it will only serve a few pockets and not really serve the industry as much. Please if you are not capable of a mature discussion please don't replay to my opinions because i mean no harm id just like to have a chat about it. Thanks.

I think the tech grabbing aspect is kind of moot since all coins involved will receive tech.  As well, it isn't being stated, to my knowledge, that each coin needs to divulge their secrets to be a part of this.  So that argument isn't really working for me.

As far as whether or not SDC is a part of it?  I think that once the press releases go live in three hours (specifically, when the news starts spreading tomorrow) that the devs will speak.  We have a couple all ready but some are absent and I am venturing a guess that they are waiting for the news to break out of deference to wait for XC to make the announcement (many issues in the past few months regarding other coins jumping the gun on announcements in this thread and people being upset here)...

My two thoughts...

[Coingrab]

Can someone, part of the team or in the know, please tell me why sdc is on this pic, shadow is not part of that project so it stands to be misleading as of right now. Can someone fill me in please. Thanks.
https://twitter.com/XCurrency/status/522508661529530368/photo/1

Good luck with it all the same i just don't understand the tactic. I'm sure someone can explain the logic to me though. Thanks.

SDC is going to be/is one of the contributing coins to Blocknet. Good news IMO  

No i don't believe it is just yet, thats my point. Why is it being pitched as though it is? Just because its on a pic does not mean it is. I'm just wondering what the logic here is from dan/project team to put it there. Is it some jest to coheres Shadow to the project or an oversight maybe?

So i'm looking forward to someone in the know to engage in my attempt to strike a dialogue here, about it. Thanks again.




Disclaimer: This is my personal view which is likely to change after time. To me this seems like pressure on dan to formulate some sort of money grab. And however normal that is i fear it can also be somewhat detrimental to a cause for tech advancement. To me it seems like another way to get a hold of other peoples tech! Are we really at the point where we need to unite in such a way? I guess one can put forward a good argument towards "maybe it is".

To me, initially, this seems bias towards money and tech grabbing more then serving any future for us. (The industry and what the tech will serve in the future.)

This seems like, and i will reiterate initially, these are my own thoughts that this looks like it will only serve a few pockets and not really serve the industry as much. Please if you are not capable of a mature discussion please don't replay to my opinions because i mean no harm id just like to have a chat about it. Thanks.

Why would you not want SDC to be a part of it? Most coins would give their left eye to be included. I've Read in SDC's thread everyone happy to be a apart of it. Yet hear you are coming to this thread and damn near accusing Dan M of adding SDC as some sort of ploy? Whats your beef man? Time to move on from the trolling bullshit you've been doing to some of the other member coins (mianly XST). SDC's dev and Dan have agreed or it wouldn't be included in this. Gonna have to find some other coins to troll.

[benthach]

interesting

[LongAndShort]

To me it seems like another way to get a hold of other peoples tech! Are we really at the point where we need to unite in such a way? I guess one can put forward a good argument towards "maybe it is".

To me, initially, this seems bias towards money and tech grabbing more then serving any future for us. (The industry and what the tech will serve in the future.)

This seems like, and i will reiterate initially, these are my own thoughts that this looks like it will only serve a few pockets and not really serve the industry as much. Please if you are not capable of a mature discussion please don't replay to my opinions because i mean no harm id just like to have a chat about it. Thanks.

I think the tech grabbing aspect is kind of moot since all coins involved will receive tech.  As well, it isn't being stated, to my knowledge, that each coin needs to divulge their secrets to be a part of this.  So that argument isn't really working for me.

As far as whether or not SDC is a part of it?  I think that once the press releases go live in three hours (specifically, when the news starts spreading tomorrow) that the devs will speak.  We have a couple all ready but some are absent and I am venturing a guess that they are waiting for the news to break out of deference to wait for XC to make the announcement (many issues in the past few months regarding other coins jumping the gun on announcements in this thread and people being upset here)...

My two thoughts...

Moot, sure, lets be clear, in no way do i mean to defame anyone. Because i just don't have any substantiating evidence. But to me it seems like a way to get a hold of tech by collaboration and to me points towards money due to pressure from people with money on Dan to use his name, which is what its for but seems to be used a lot lately. More so then over the techs ability to help people in the future which some projects are really focused on and some are focused on just money grabs and misleading marketing i.e using Dans name.. Don't get me wrong these are just my opinions and they stand until we see more develop here and provocative as my opinions are they really are not so out there at least some think so. As you said we will see soon. Thanks.

[BTCwriter]

To me it seems like another way to get a hold of other peoples tech! Are we really at the point where we need to unite in such a way? I guess one can put forward a good argument towards "maybe it is".

To me, initially, this seems bias towards money and tech grabbing more then serving any future for us. (The industry and what the tech will serve in the future.)

This seems like, and i will reiterate initially, these are my own thoughts that this looks like it will only serve a few pockets and not really serve the industry as much. Please if you are not capable of a mature discussion please don't replay to my opinions because i mean no harm id just like to have a chat about it. Thanks.

I think the tech grabbing aspect is kind of moot since all coins involved will receive tech.  As well, it isn't being stated, to my knowledge, that each coin needs to divulge their secrets to be a part of this.  So that argument isn't really working for me.

As far as whether or not SDC is a part of it?  I think that once the press releases go live in three hours (specifically, when the news starts spreading tomorrow) that the devs will speak.  We have a couple all ready but some are absent and I am venturing a guess that they are waiting for the news to break out of deference to wait for XC to make the announcement (many issues in the past few months regarding other coins jumping the gun on announcements in this thread and people being upset here)...

My two thoughts...

Moot, sure, lets be clear, in no way do i mean to defame anyone. Because i just don't have any substantiating evidence. But to me it seems like a way to get a hold of tech by collaboration and to me points towards money due to pressure from people with money on Dan to use his name, which is what its for but seems to be used a lot lately. More so then over the techs ability to help people in the future which some projects are really focused on and some are focused on just money grabs and misleading marketing i.e using Dans name.. Don't get me wrong these are just my opinions and they stand until we see more develop here and provocative as my opinions are they really are not so out there at least some think so. As you said we will see soon. Thanks.

Butthurt much and no longer love Shadowcoin? Join the Supernet team.
The tech for each coin is still there and every coins participating are equal to compet their tech
Blocknet is just a decentralize platform

[MemoryShock]

But to me it seems like a way to get a hold of tech by collaboration and to me points towards money due to pressure from people with money on Dan to use his name, which is what its for but seems to be used a lot lately. More so then over the techs ability to help people in the future which some projects are really focused on and some are focused on just money grabs and misleading marketing i.e using Dans name.. Don't get me wrong these are just my opinions and they stand until we see more develop here and provocative as my opinions are they really are not so out there at least some think so. As you said we will see soon. Thanks.

My apologies but it was difficult wading through that paragraph.

If I interpreted correctly, you saying that these coins are on board to use Dan's name, i.e. the coin reviews solicited by Key, Aero and others in order to grant them credibility and a price increase on the markets.

Big difference.  Those reviews were solicited.  

The devs listed on the Blocknet, as far as I can see and interpret, have value/unique features that contribute and are serious enough to have access to XC's foundation...meaning that they all add to the user experience Blocknet will be attempting to create.  It's a two way street.  

I respect a healthy suspicion of motives, for sure, but I am not seeing that here.  Everyone benefits and if things work out well, they all benefit from each others developing experience which to me is preferable to working by oneself.

And as I mentioned above...collaboration does not necessarily require the relinquishing of specifics.  

[LongAndShort]

Can someone, part of the team or in the know, please tell me why sdc is on this pic, shadow is not part of that project so it stands to be misleading as of right now. Can someone fill me in please. Thanks.
https://twitter.com/XCurrency/status/522508661529530368/photo/1

Good luck with it all the same i just don't understand the tactic. I'm sure someone can explain the logic to me though. Thanks.

SDC is going to be/is one of the contributing coins to Blocknet. Good news IMO  

No i don't believe it is just yet, thats my point. Why is it being pitched as though it is? Just because its on a pic does not mean it is. I'm just wondering what the logic here is from dan/project team to put it there. Is it some jest to coheres Shadow to the project or an oversight maybe?

So i'm looking forward to someone in the know to engage in my attempt to strike a dialogue here, about it. Thanks again.




Disclaimer: This is my personal view which is likely to change after time. To me this seems like pressure on dan to formulate some sort of money grab. And however normal that is i fear it can also be somewhat detrimental to a cause for tech advancement. To me it seems like another way to get a hold of other peoples tech! Are we really at the point where we need to unite in such a way? I guess one can put forward a good argument towards "maybe it is".

To me, initially, this seems bias towards money and tech grabbing more then serving any future for us. (The industry and what the tech will serve in the future.)

This seems like, and i will reiterate initially, these are my own thoughts that this looks like it will only serve a few pockets and not really serve the industry as much. Please if you are not capable of a mature discussion please don't replay to my opinions because i mean no harm id just like to have a chat about it. Thanks.

Why would you not want SDC to be a part of it? Most coins would give their left eye to be included. I've Read in SDC's thread everyone happy to be a apart of it. Yet hear you are coming to this thread and damn near accusing Dan M of adding SDC as some sort of ploy? Whats your beef man? Time to move on from the trolling bullshit you've been doing to some of the other member coins (mianly XST). SDC's dev and Dan have agreed or it wouldn't be included in this. Gonna have to find some other coins to troll.

Because i don't see it as necessary i believe the tech sdc holds is enough to hold its own weight in any future we have.

To me this whole thing just wreaks and until i figure out more thats my opinion..Most of those projects on that rider don't really bring much at all to the table. Dan lately seems to be pressured into giving his name to prop up market values even within questionable projects such as the one i debunked recently. To me this seems like a bit of a plight to fill a few coffers that have been accumulating (unsubstantiated of course and just an opinion).

I'm here for the tech, the money is secondary to the tech and what it represents to our futures. So i guess i see things a bit differently when it comes to looking at it a different way. Good luck to them but i don't see it as helping good tech become better, primarily. I see it more as a money grab and a way for the more questionable projects to leverage and piggy back on the resource and integrity of  the better ones. Which concerns me because anything really relying on that brings much more risk of it fading when the money or room for profit is gone..

For me sdc could do with distancing itself from this and i believe i would change my mind if the entire community vote for it. But we have not even talked about it publicly so i just see it as a way to cohere sdc into the project full of bobsurplus/prom pump coins. we'll find out very soon. Thanks

[demgains]

Can someone, part of the team or in the know, please tell me why sdc is on this pic, shadow is not part of that project so it stands to be misleading as of right now. Can someone fill me in please. Thanks.
https://twitter.com/XCurrency/status/522508661529530368/photo/1

Good luck with it all the same i just don't understand the tactic. I'm sure someone can explain the logic to me though. Thanks.

SDC is going to be/is one of the contributing coins to Blocknet. Good news IMO  

No i don't believe it is just yet, thats my point. Why is it being pitched as though it is? Just because its on a pic does not mean it is. I'm just wondering what the logic here is from dan/project team to put it there. Is it some jest to coheres Shadow to the project or an oversight maybe?

So i'm looking forward to someone in the know to engage in my attempt to strike a dialogue here, about it. Thanks again.




Disclaimer: This is my personal view which is likely to change after time. To me this seems like pressure on dan to formulate some sort of money grab. And however normal that is i fear it can also be somewhat detrimental to a cause for tech advancement. To me it seems like another way to get a hold of other peoples tech! Are we really at the point where we need to unite in such a way? I guess one can put forward a good argument towards "maybe it is".

To me, initially, this seems bias towards money and tech grabbing more then serving any future for us. (The industry and what the tech will serve in the future.)

This seems like, and i will reiterate initially, these are my own thoughts that this looks like it will only serve a few pockets and not really serve the industry as much. Please if you are not capable of a mature discussion please don't replay to my opinions because i mean no harm id just like to have a chat about it. Thanks.

Why would you not want SDC to be a part of it? Most coins would give their left eye to be included. I've Read in SDC's thread everyone happy to be a apart of it. Yet hear you are coming to this thread and damn near accusing Dan M of adding SDC as some sort of ploy? Whats your beef man? Time to move on from the trolling bullshit you've been doing to some of the other member coins (mianly XST). SDC's dev and Dan have agreed or it wouldn't be included in this. Gonna have to find some other coins to troll.

Because i don't see it as necessary i believe the tech sdc holds is enough to hold its own weight in any future we have.

To me this whole thing just wreaks and until i figure out more thats my opinion..Most of those projects on that rider don't really bring much at all to the table. Dan lately seems to be pressured into giving his name to prop up market values even within questionable projects such as the one i debunked recently. To me this seems like a bit of a plight to fill a few coffers that have been accumulating (unsubstantiated of course and just an opinion).

I'm here for the tech, the money is secondary to the tech and what it represents to our futures. So i guess i see things a bit differently when it comes to looking at it a different way. Good luck to them but i don't see it as helping good tech become better, primarily. I see it more as a money grab and a way for the more questionable projects to leverage and piggy back on the resource and integrity of  the better ones. Which concerns me because anything really relying on that brings much more risk of it fading when the money or room for profit is gone..

For me sdc could do with distancing itself from this and i believe i would change my mind if the entire community vote for it. But we have not even talked about it publicly so i just see it as a way to cohere sdc into the project full of bobsurplus/prom pump coins. we'll find out very soon. Thanks

If you're here for the tech, than you would actually be thrilled for this colloboration. Crypto shouldn't be looked at as a competition but rather sharing ideas, innovating new technology and collaborating together to bring in more users. SDC is a great coin and has a promising future, but it will not be able to compete as its own entity, with something as massive as BlockNet. The sheer size of BlockNet will dwarf every coin community by a wide margin and SDC would have to reach levels of LTC adoption to remain competitive. I would assume the # of coins will also grow in the network making pretty much all centralized asset exchanges that only accept one currency, obselete.

[CryptoGretzky]

To me it seems like another way to get a hold of other peoples tech! Are we really at the point where we need to unite in such a way? I guess one can put forward a good argument towards "maybe it is".

To me, initially, this seems bias towards money and tech grabbing more then serving any future for us. (The industry and what the tech will serve in the future.)

This seems like, and i will reiterate initially, these are my own thoughts that this looks like it will only serve a few pockets and not really serve the industry as much. Please if you are not capable of a mature discussion please don't replay to my opinions because i mean no harm id just like to have a chat about it. Thanks.

I think the tech grabbing aspect is kind of moot since all coins involved will receive tech.  As well, it isn't being stated, to my knowledge, that each coin needs to divulge their secrets to be a part of this.  So that argument isn't really working for me.

As far as whether or not SDC is a part of it?  I think that once the press releases go live in three hours (specifically, when the news starts spreading tomorrow) that the devs will speak.  We have a couple all ready but some are absent and I am venturing a guess that they are waiting for the news to break out of deference to wait for XC to make the announcement (many issues in the past few months regarding other coins jumping the gun on announcements in this thread and people being upset here)...

My two thoughts...

Moot, sure, lets be clear, in no way do i mean to defame anyone. Because i just don't have any substantiating evidence. But to me it seems like a way to get a hold of tech by collaboration and to me points towards money due to pressure from people with money on Dan to use his name, which is what its for but seems to be used a lot lately. More so then over the techs ability to help people in the future which some projects are really focused on and some are focused on just money grabs and misleading marketing i.e using Dans name.. Don't get me wrong these are just my opinions and they stand until we see more develop here and provocative as my opinions are they really are not so out there at least some think so. As you said we will see soon. Thanks.

Luckily... your opinions don't mean a thing and the LXC dev already agree it's a good move...

It will be good to work with other coins and work towards a future where crypto currencies are accepted as easily and readily as fiat money. It will be so much nicer to work with then against these coins as well. Cross coin development will be a big development in the future of all cryptocoins. It is also a very good way to know that coins you like or want are not scam coins and such as they would never be accepted by this network. This BlockNet is fully vetted and worked on by Dan M. I am more than sure he checked the validity of ever coin in the Blocknet himself.

[SpringfieldM1A]

Dear XC community,

As you may know, I was here from the very beginning. I always held a firm belief in XC as a project and platform.
I have held throughout the highs and lows because of my conviction that XC will succeed.

In the past I have been critical of XC branching out in these early development stages. I've grinded my teeth at the mooncries of marginal cryptocurrencies who basked in the reflected glory of XC and it's development at the very second it was clear there was a collaboration. I have stressed the importance to solidify XC's base before building ambitious projects on top of it.

Now with the announcement of Blocknet I throw in the towel. Although the underlying tech is amazing and it illustrates the development of XC is top notch, I think XC keeps diluting itself by taking on side or advanced projects before it's core tech and market dominance has fully matured. To me it seems there is lack of focus as it diverts precious development resources away from XC's core business.

I am sorry but I can no longer unify XC's direction with my personal beliefs. I might regret this decision, and it has been a very tough one to make, but for now I am out.

All the best

Springfield

[Mountaingoat]

I am not sure what to think of this update, on the one hand it is great, on the other, XC first needs to focus on itself, because the wallets for Linux and Mac's still aren't done.

This would have been better if it was done when XC publicly launched.

[CryptoGretzky]

Dear XC community,

As you may know, I was here from the very beginning. I always held a firm belief in XC as a project and platform.
I have held throughout the highs and lows because of my conviction that XC will succeed.

In the past I have been critical of XC branching out in these early development stages. I've grinded my teeth at the mooncries of marginal cryptocurrencies who basked in the reflected glory of XC and it's development at the very second it was clear there was a collaboration. I have stressed the importance to solidify XC's base before building ambitious projects on top of it.

Now with the announcement of Blocknet I throw in the towel. Although the underlying tech is amazing and it illustrates the development of XC is top notch, I think XC keeps diluting itself by taking on side or advanced projects before it's core tech and market dominance has fully matured. To me it seems there is lack of focus as it diverts precious development resources away from XC's core business.

I am sorry but I can no longer unify XC's direction with my personal beliefs. I might regret this decision, and it has been a very tough one to make, but for now I am out.

All the best

Springfield

Bye and good luck in whatever you will want to invest in.

Have to save this post cause this is like one of those post from people that sold Bitcoin at $1.00.

[LongAndShort]

Dear XC community,

As you may know, I was here from the very beginning. I always held a firm belief in XC as a project and platform.
I have held throughout the highs and lows because of my conviction that XC will succeed.

In the past I have been critical of XC branching out in these early development stages. I've grinded my teeth at the mooncries of marginal cryptocurrencies who basked in the reflected glory of XC and it's development at the very second it was clear there was a collaboration. I have stressed the importance to solidify XC's base before building ambitious projects on top of it.

Now with the announcement of Blocknet I throw in the towel. Although the underlying tech is amazing and it illustrates the development of XC is top notch, I think XC keeps diluting itself by taking on side or advanced projects before it's core tech and market dominance has fully matured. To me it seems there is lack of focus as it diverts precious development resources away from XC's core business.

I am sorry but I can no longer unify XC's direction with my personal beliefs. I might regret this decision, and it has been a very tough one to make, but for now I am out.

All the best

Springfield

I believe that is a mature opinion and i respect it. I agree, it looks that way however, i do believe also that xc is almost coming to a close in it developments and is looking to diversify, which is why i see the bridge as somewhat logical for them to consider. But mostly my opinion is that Dan has a lot of pressure on him, from others to put his name to some projects to generate money!

Just my opinion and no way means he is not a capable dev to begin with or that this project is in no way relevant at all. But thats just what it looks like, pressure and his name, in my opinion, is being abused and the effect of it as you say "diluted"

My opinion only!! Can you suggest another more reasonable assumption and or have you got any ideas of how this project can diversify itself and remain the robust core as it stands as of now? I think those suggestions will really benefit Dan, and primarily this project and its supporters.

[Edraket31]

Looking at Blocknet, it seems to me that 1 spot is still open......
1 coin left which is working in silence?

Maybe too much conspiracy, but I see lots of "XC" mentioned in several codes
XCurrency
XChat etc

When I look at XCash, I see even more "XC"
XCash
XChange
XCoinfactory

Researching XCash github, it seems that JohnyXCash is describing a sort of central place (blocknet?) where devs bring in their work.....
https://github.com/JohnnyXCash/XCash/commit/e59581d133360a2850f0287d53706c444d3f2d1f