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

[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

[mav137]

It's nice to see that we think alike

Following a model similar to the OSI model would scale perfectly, but the question is who get's to determine the specifications and how can we layer the technology in such a way that everyone's would adopt the model and work only within the scope of one's own layer. (Which would mean splitting and cutting current projects into separate development teams).

In a way the content API that XC is developing voor QI is a layered model, the bottom layer being XC and the top layer being the content. There could be a lot more layers, but it's gonna take a lot of convincing in the crypto scene to have people adhere to the specifications. Unless... XC sets the bar and develops it's own layered model.
This would require the entire framework to be readily available (thought out, programmed and documented) before other dev's would consider contributing to the overall (or just one modular layer) development.

The scene being open source, it could well be that a model like that would be adopted by the entire scene, and that's when things get really interesting, because the layers developed for one coin could be interchangeable with another (if the specifications are followed).

Im sorry for kinda hijacking the thread with this, but it's interesting to see what kind of layers we could build on top of each other.
Right now we have:

- Blockchain layer (based on Satoshi's original work) but expanded with multipath anonimity in the case of XC)
- An anonimity layer could be seperatly defined (may the best method win adoption in all coins)
- Application layers (currency / content, etc)

My programming background is (non existent ) too limited to base this on real code, but functional concepts wise it could work a little like described above

I see a revolutionary coin and a revolutionary approach to the community. The tech is great and still under heavy development -> so be patient.
The approach to the crypto community is revolutionary in the sense that we as a community take on this financial privacy centered innovation together.
The world has been in conflict ever since the current elite has existed. It has always been a method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule to separate the people and getting them not to accomplish their goals and see the real problems.

This is exactly how most people view crypto as well at the moment; they support one team and all the rest is bad. You dont realize this is the revolution the world has been waiting for, for a long time! It's so damn early in the game you actually get to question the development of coins. It's like facebook when they where still programming it. There are no losers in this scene, since everyone here is already aware of these developments.

I understand it's hard to look at this with a new set of eyes, it's a whole new paradigm. (you've learned to view the world in conflict)
Let developers learn and cooperate with each others.
Most coins will fail, but not the lessons they bring the community. We are evolving at a rate that is unlike anything else!
A lot of coins will serve very specific niches of the market. I trust XC with their "odd approach" to make the same kind of gutt based decisions as the team has done until now. I have faith that the coins that cooperate from the view of sharing strengths will boost each other and get this community to an entire new level

It's in everyones right to join or not to join, but the way this thing is shaping up -> collaboration will bring much good for all involved. For the critics, keep posting good questions and ways that could undermine this development.
It will help us understand and rethink our approach. But please do keep in mind what I said above about the new paradigm and how not everything is greed and conflict. Where in this together!

[illodin]

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

Why would they need anyone's permission to add SDC or any coin they wish to their blocknet?

[hoertest]

I think the Blocknet won't take away to much of Dans time. XBridge was his idea but now all devs from the contributing coins will work together to develop it further. he has som great recources at hand now and even can concentrate more on REV3.

I can understand that some think XC should have launched first or that it looks like the focus is missing for  XC but you have to understand from Dans point of few and also mine it is in the benefit of xc to have the Blocknet running when XC launches. The mixer fees will be10 times higher from the start. so the focus is purely on a XC friendly ecosystem come launchtime. also Dan has just released another XC update with the chat bug fixed yesterday too. constant progress getting made but this Blocknet idea had to be pushed now. All coins taking part in this and by so sharing their recources to Blocknet still have things on their own plate.


I don't think i will buy shares though but to those in fear that xc or the other coins will get dumped don't be. those coin will mostly get spend directly to fund BLocknets development. there is no need for them to dump for BTC  first.

[KimmyF]

[snip]

Why would they need anyone's permission to add SDC or any coin they wish to their blocknet?

From the 'How will it work' section:

An API implementing the XBridge protocol
will be incorporated into the wallets of
participating cryptocurrencies.

[illodin]

[snip]

Why would they need anyone's permission to add SDC or any coin they wish to their blocknet?

From the 'How will it work' section:

An API implementing the XBridge protocol
will be incorporated into the wallets of
participating cryptocurrencies.

And because all cryptos are (or should be) open source, anyone can do that.

[LongAndShort]

[snip]

Why would they need anyone's permission to add SDC or any coin they wish to their blocknet?

From the 'How will it work' section:

An API implementing the XBridge protocol
will be incorporated into the wallets of
participating cryptocurrencies.

And because all cryptos are (or should be) open source, anyone can do that.

Which would require the users of each coin to vote with their nodes! thus it being a decision made by people to accept it or not!

I'm not really sure what you are getting at but you seem to be of the opinion this is a centralised decision. And to me that mindset tends to be a killer in this industry.

[illodin]

[snip]

Why would they need anyone's permission to add SDC or any coin they wish to their blocknet?

From the 'How will it work' section:

An API implementing the XBridge protocol
will be incorporated into the wallets of
participating cryptocurrencies.

And because all cryptos are (or should be) open source, anyone can do that.

Which would require the users of each coin to vote with their nodes! thus it being a decision made by people to accept it or not!

I'm not really sure what you are getting at but you seem to be of the opinion this is a centralised decision. And to me that mindset tends to be a killer in this industry.

Are you sure there is a need for changing how participating coins' blockchains work? You could add a lot of functionality to the wallet and it would still operate in the same network with other vanilla wallets, no voting or forking would happen.

[holyprofit]

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.

I don't think this indicates lack of focus at all - in fact it shows incredible focus. There is no point building the perfect ecosystem if no-one wants to use it - this looks more like developing on various fronts but in preparation for the launch. I don't think it will slow us down at all and if rev3 were ready today and this were in the pipeline I would have waited for this to come out BEFORE the launch.

[KimmyF]

[snip]

Why would they need anyone's permission to add SDC or any coin they wish to their blocknet?

From the 'How will it work' section:

An API implementing the XBridge protocol
will be incorporated into the wallets of
participating cryptocurrencies.

And because all cryptos are (or should be) open source, anyone can do that.

Which would require the users of each coin to vote with their nodes! thus it being a decision made by people to accept it or not!

I'm not really sure what you are getting at but you seem to be of the opinion this is a centralised decision. And to me that mindset tends to be a killer in this industry.

Are you sure there is a need for changing how participating coins' blockchains work? You could add a lot of functionality to the wallet and it would still operate in the same network with other vanilla wallets, no voting or forking would happen.

Think that in theory this could work as long as the bridged services are fee. If not the bridging node has to pay in the relevant coin.

[LongAndShort]

[snip]

Why would they need anyone's permission to add SDC or any coin they wish to their blocknet?

From the 'How will it work' section:

An API implementing the XBridge protocol
will be incorporated into the wallets of
participating cryptocurrencies.

And because all cryptos are (or should be) open source, anyone can do that.

Which would require the users of each coin to vote with their nodes! thus it being a decision made by people to accept it or not!

I'm not really sure what you are getting at but you seem to be of the opinion this is a centralised decision. And to me that mindset tends to be a killer in this industry.

Are you sure there is a need for changing how participating coins' blockchains work? You could add a lot of functionality to the wallet and it would still operate in the same network with other vanilla wallets, no voting or forking would happen.

I'm not sure i stated there was need to change the way a blockchain works? Sorry if i came across that way. They will need to communicate however. Why are there only a few projects listed and a foundation being formed if it is as easy as you seem to think to create it, with their code as is. Why not all 500+ projects if people did in fact not have a choice to opt in/out?

This proposal is a circle within a circle in my opinion and it may not hurt anyone to be in or out although its being sold by a few as that is the case. Its still a choice and not one that someone can make for each community "weather they like it or not".

[LongAndShort]

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.

I don't think this indicates lack of focus at all - in fact it shows incredible focus. There is no point building the perfect ecosystem if no-one wants to use it - this looks more like developing on various fronts but in preparation for the launch. I don't think it will slow us down at all and if rev3 were ready today and this were in the pipeline I would have waited for this to come out BEFORE the launch.

I see it as a unique funding attempt to funnel into another. uniting is a good thing but is this really necessary if you remove the market variable?

[ib88]

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?

Bumping for answer.

I can't see how Dan can take on another huge project like the Blocknet. Its been mentioned many times that you guys are up all hours working on XC. Add to that several code reviews and other collaborations. The Blocknet is founded on Xbridge which is based on XC's technology - I can only assume then that Dan will be the main developer on this. XC and Blocknet development sound like two seperate full-time jobs to me.

The "final" Rev 2 was released a month ago and we're still getting updates to fix bugs. Linux and mac wallets are STILL not available after being promised several times that they would to be out by now. The XC Inc. ITO is also now pushed out to 2015. Tor sticks should've been shipped by now. Dan also mentioned a couple weeks ago that a mobile wallet will be released in 2 weeks - that would mean it would be released this weekend, is that still the case?

The list above are not complaints and I'm okay with slight delays here and there (I work on projects all the time) but we have all these delays and now Dan's going to further dilute his attention away from XC?? This will surely slow down XC's development even further. Can we at least get a rough dates for upcoming XC milestones?

[4M8B]

Hey guys

I've set up a node but don't have transaction income yet after 12h+

Running throught port 9050

XCurrency.conf

-addnode ... the onions an some regular ones
-rpcallowip=127.0.0.1
-rpcuser=...
-rpcpassword=...
-server=1
-staking=0
-listen=1
-daemon=1
-keypool=100
-gen=0
-genproclimit=-1
-distmode-autonode=1

P2P port running as service

Running 8 connections ...

Something forgotten ??

[silverkinguk]

I wish I was informed by XC team about Blocknet,also puzzled as to why Qibuck was not approached since Qibuck was the first to approach XC on collab efforts? I do not see Qibuck on the diagram of accepted coins.