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

[CrazyEyes]

This tech already exists in another currency which have this as their primary focus. I like the idea. But now you will fundraise this tech "again"? Great plans are good, but its taking away the focus on XC which is a excellent currency. And now i am starting to get worried, and the reason for this is that i have seen these great plans before in other context where talented people have lost their focus because they want to much. In 90% the plans are spinning out of control. In this case i am concerned that XC will loose ground.

More and more people are noticing this, and the answer that they get "trust us, its best for XC" like some sort of elitistic elite. BUT, if you do not have the peoples support in this you will loose. This is not some experiment, people invest real money into this.. im supporting wtih 1900XC, not much. But when 100 people with the same amount starting to get as confused as i am regarding Dan`s involvement in other currencys and this great plans, poeple will cash out.

[hoertest]

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?

 i think the market is still in place here. the magic word is fees. whatever coin you anticipate to get the most "cross usage" from the blocknet because of its distinct architecture you will want to hold in order to earn fees for offering that service. EG i think the xnode and xmixer protocol is the best anon solution and will get alot of usage in the blocknet even from coin holders that have some other kind of anon option in their node ( probably for important transactions, whatever). well thats just my few so i don't won't to start the anon debate here. Of corse i wanna hold XC and host as many mixers as possible. Blocknet in this regard is not one big all in one coin from an investment point of few, there is and will be still good and bad options within the ever growing network. SDC is a great one btw. So what the Blocknet does is increasing your userbase and by so your chance of earning fees while still keepig a market in place . for this regard i hope to see the list of participating coins grow quick and wide. there need to be competition on the blocknet. Then it has the chance to become a new internet and thats the vision as i understand it. Again every coin that generates some kind of revenue for his holders will benefit hugely from this network. the more it grows the better.

[synechist]

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 [no, a date was never given]. Tor sticks should've been shipped by now. [No, a date was never given.] Dan also mentioned a couple weeks ago that a mobile wallet will be [potentially] 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?

Morning all

You guys should read the thread before repeating questions that have already been answered.

The Blocknet will *not* dilute XC's resources, it will be the biggest powerhouse of resources that crypto has ever seen.

It will significantly grow XC's resources.

[synechist]

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?

 i think the market is still in place here. the magic word is fees. whatever coin you anticipate to get the most "cross usage" from the blocknet because of its distinct architecture you will want to hold in order to earn fees for offering that service. EG i think the xnode and xmixer protocol is the best anon solution and will get alot of usage in the blocknet even from coin holders that have some other kind of anon option in their node ( probably for important transactions, whatever). well thats just my few so i don't won't to start the anon debate here. Of corse i wanna hold XC and host as many mixers as possible. Blocknet in this regard is not one big all in one coin from an investment point of few, there is and will be still good and bad options within the ever growing network. SDC is a great one btw. So what the Blocknet does is increasing your userbase and by so your chance of earning fees while still keepig a market in place . for this regard i hope to see the list of participating coins grow quick and wide. there need to be competition on the blocknet. Then it has the chance to become a new internet and thats the vision as i understand it. Again every coin that generates some kind of revenue for his holders will benefit hugely from this network. the more it grows the better.

Hoertest, you really get the concept.

I hope everyone reads your post.

[synechist]

its taking away the focus on XC which is a excellent currency.

That's like saying that the internet takes away focus from Google.

It doesn't. It enables Google to thrive.

Focus has *not* been lost. A huge userbase for XC has been gained.

You should all setup Xmixers right now. :-)

[KimmyF]

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?

Although i can relate to what you are saying in some way i have also seen the opposite to many times: forced by commercial interested a project is rushed to deliver the goals set any way possible. This can all to easy result in tech thats not extendable and needs a complete re-write for the next fase. That in its turn will result in tech thats only limited (downwards) compatible.
See nothing wrong with already planning the next step when working on the current communication platform.
communicating a future direction != dropping the current work & shifting focus imo

[synechist]

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?

I hope this post terminates this discussion.

- SDC are officially in. For heaven's sake.

- In order for a coin to become part of the Blocknet, its developers will need to code the XBridge into it and release an updated wallet. So not just anyone can add a coin to the Blocknet.

- We're creating the internet of blockchains. There is no incentive for any coin to distance itself. By joining a coin gains a huge userbase for its services *and* the services of other coins. Win-win, massively.

[synechist]

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.

We'll be sorry to see you go.

I'm also sorry that you're considering leaving for reasons that, in my opinion, are misguided. This is why:

- you worry that XC is " taking on side projects before its core tech and market dominance has fully matured"

- but that's like worrying that Google is diluting itself by creating the internet.

- No, Google can only achieve market dominance *with* the internet.

- In the same way, XC will thrive best by acquiring a broad userbase - through the Blocknet.


We've just given XC a massive increase in users, more revenue sources for Xnode owners, and funds and dev talent by the bucketload.

Really, this is nothing but awesome for XC.

[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?

 i think the market is still in place here. the magic word is fees. whatever coin you anticipate to get the most "cross usage" from the blocknet because of its distinct architecture you will want to hold in order to earn fees for offering that service. EG i think the xnode and xmixer protocol is the best anon solution and will get alot of usage in the blocknet even from coin holders that have some other kind of anon option in their node ( probably for important transactions, whatever). well thats just my few so i don't won't to start the anon debate here. Of corse i wanna hold XC and host as many mixers as possible. Blocknet in this regard is not one big all in one coin from an investment point of few, there is and will be still good and bad options within the ever growing network. SDC is a great one btw. So what the Blocknet does is increasing your user base and by so your chance of earning fees while still keeping a market in place . for this regard i hope to see the list of participating coins grow quick and wide. there need to be competition on the blocknet. Then it has the chance to become a new Internet and thats the vision as i understand it. Again every coin that generates some kind of revenue for his holders will benefit hugely from this network. the more it grows the better.

I agree, monetising leveraged networks is fantastic logic and should be encouraged and is a logical way to motivate growth. I do believe that sharing resource to become more powerful is also attractive. I believe it does however, in my opinion, come with some drawbacks in the proposed form of a bridged network. I don't like a circle within a circle i cannot see how its a step forward. I see it only as a reaction to current market and projected market variables. And thats where it, for me gets a bit scary because i see bias towards money and a move away from tech and its relevance to begin with.

i believe that collaborating can be done without leveraging each others resources in this way and batching it in a group to frame it as "offering diversity i'm a one stop network shop" When its already there to begin with just not in this form. I believing solving the issue of teams and projects not collaborating with each other can and should be solved in a different way and will be down the track.

Not in one that results in a bridge network, but one that allows every network to be completely decentralized yet still sharing talent and tech as it is all open sourced mostly anyways! I believe a foundation that pertains to the alt coin industry is a broader and much wiser proposal one. With all innovative devs as panelists, a foundation where vc can come and speak with the talent directly through a foundation which holds all of the innovative development talent and not one that holds only a select few. I believe its possible within a foundation like that, the devs can collaborate with each other and share tech and their community resource to enhance and enrich the altcoin space and relevance on a much larger and more efficient scale.

I don't mean to come across that i discount the attractiveness of the bridged network proposal. I only want to show i understand and accept that from a programmers view it would make sense to think of things in terms of bubbles and try to form larger ones to connect to each other (Xbridge proposal). I would like to demonstrate that i would like to look at it as one big bubble trying to connect that to mainstream, its resource and not limit it to a select few that contains resource made up of mostly copied tech and top heavy with day traders/pump crews to begin with.

So to me its as you say "fee" meaning money. And i do agree it needs to sustain itself in some way; this whole industry via moentising its networks. But i don't believe it needs to in a way where it physically represents a corporation absorbing other tech to become stronger. I believe thats moving away from, in many ways what this is all meant to represent and what its fighting to move away from.

Does not mean we should not be having this dialogue in the first place though, its good and i'm sure you already you know that

[CrazyEyes]

This tech already exists in another currency which have this as their primary focus. I like the idea. But now you will fundraise this tech "again"? Great plans are good, but its taking away the focus on XC which is a excellent currency. And now i am starting to get worried, and the reason for this is that i have seen these great plans before in other context where talented people have lost their focus because they want to much. In 90% the plans are spinning out of control. In this case i am concerned that XC will loose ground.

More and more people are noticing this, and the answer that they get "trust us, its best for XC" like some sort of elitistic elite. BUT, if you do not have the peoples support in this you will loose. This is not some experiment, people invest real money into this.. im supporting wtih 1900XC, not much. But when 100 people with the same amount starting to get as confused as i am regarding Dan`s involvement in other currencys and this great plans, poeple will cash out.

[synechist]

Just bumping this valuable post:

...coins, each with their own specialization, collaborating for R&D and creating what sounds like a new way of distributing content and supporting interaction - all of which is not going to be beholden to standard data mining techniques.  It's an infrastructure that is being built.  

The coins on the list have unique features that can not only benefit XC but other coins...and ultimately the end user.  Util is working on programing how to filter malicious content to avoid risk to people who use their VPN (and now Blocknet).  SSD came up with stenographic transactions - coin movement embedded in pictures taken from pictures that you take from your smart phone.  XST has some pretty awesome SMS capabilities.  Fibre beat keylogging programs by creating an android like swiping pattern password for their wallet and have also released their own OS.  LXC decided to work on sidechains (sidechains!).  And my mentions aren't the sole focus of any coin I referenced or the full spectrum of what the combined dev force of all the coins included are capable of.  But these are all features that people want to use...and while I speak for myself, I think that they can come up with features that I and others will want to use.

Enabling the devs of each coin to work on what they do best to create something that will work together and bring an ultimately friendly and secure user experience is awesome. I don't see a joke here.  I see the beginning of another development process that will create the foundation for more innovation...and everyone working together only gets us there faster.  

Looking forward to more news...

[synechist]

This tech already exists in another currency which have this as their primary focus. I like the idea. But now you will fundraise this tech "again"? Great plans are good, but its taking away the focus on XC which is a excellent currency. And now i am starting to get worried, and the reason for this is that i have seen these great plans before in other context where talented people have lost their focus because they want to much. In 90% the plans are spinning out of control. In this case i am concerned that XC will loose ground.

More and more people are noticing this, and the answer that they get "trust us, its best for XC" like some sort of elitistic elite. BUT, if you do not have the peoples support in this you will loose. This is not some experiment, people invest real money into this.. im supporting wtih 1900XC, not much. But when 100 people with the same amount starting to get as confused as i am regarding Dan`s involvement in other currencys and this great plans, poeple will cash out.

I just responded to you. No need to repost.

Here is my response again:


That's like saying that the internet takes away focus from Google.

It doesn't. It enables Google to thrive.

Focus has *not* been lost. A huge userbase for XC has been gained.

You should all setup Xmixers right now. :-)

[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

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

I hope this post terminates this discussion.

- SDC are officially in. For heaven's sake.

- In order for a coin to become part of the Blocknet, its developers will need to code the XBridge into it and release an updated wallet. So not just anyone can add a coin to the Blocknet.

- We're creating the internet of blockchains. There is no incentive for any coin to distance itself. By joining a coin gains a huge userbase for its services *and* the services of other coins. Win-win, massively.

That is not true. SDC is not officially "in" until publicly stated otherwise by their dev team and community which is not the case right now i'm afraid

[cryptico]

Hello XC community and XC members.

Sorry for being away from the forum for a couple of days I do not have internet at the moment in my new flat and had a problem with an injury to my foot as well.

Now im tethering from my OPO thanks to jibble

Anyway Compliments for the development and for the HUGE announcement made. can someone clarify to me the difference between the XMixer and the Xbridge? Xbridge is gonna collect fees for the services provided by the Xmixers? will this new internet be build on top of Xmixers that will be used by Xbridges still? as this was one of the main reason I liked and invested in XC.

[synechist]

That is not true. SDC is not officially "in" until publicly stated otherwise by their dev team and community which is not the case right now i'm afraid

#

Did you just create that rule? It's not your call.

SDC are in. In fact, we've been in communication with them the most. We were chatting on Skype with Rynomster and others during the announcement.

Now drop this, for heaven's sake!

[synechist]

Hello XC community and XC members.

Sorry for being away from the forum for a couple of days I do not have internet at the moment in my new flat and had a problem with an injury to my foot as well.

Now im tethering from my OPO thanks to jibble

Anyway Compliments for the development and for the HUGE announcement made. can someone clarify to me the difference between the XMixer and the Xbridge? Xbridge is gonna collect fees for the services provided by the Xmixers? will this new internet be build on top of Xmixers that will be used by Xbridges still? as this was one of the main reason I liked and invested in XC.

Hey Cryptico. Sorry to hear about your foot.

The XBridge is a protocol, based on the Xnode protocol.

If a coin joins the Blocknet, it will need to add the XBridge application platform to its code and release an updated wallet.

After that, the coin's nodes will be able to communicate in true P2P fashion with nodes on any other blockchain.


How this benefits XC is:

- we gain a massive userbase (i.e. all the communities of all the other coins)

- our tech is industry-leading and so we should see top usage scores for XC

- Xmixers get a massive increase in traffic and so Xmixer owners get more revenue

- Other XC services (XChat, distributed content server, meshnet, etc...) will be in similarly high demand and so XC nodes will gain diverse sources of revenue.

[Edraket31]

@synechist: any thoughts about this?

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

Maybe whishfull thinking, but it seems to me that there is a bigger "thing" here

[synechist]

@synechist: any thoughts about this?

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

Maybe whishfull thinking, but it seems to me that there is a bigger "thing" here

That open place on the diagram is supposed to indicate that many other coins could join in future.

After all, this is the internet of blockchains. :-)

[hoertest]

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?

 i think the market is still in place here. the magic word is fees. whatever coin you anticipate to get the most "cross usage" from the blocknet because of its distinct architecture you will want to hold in order to earn fees for offering that service. EG i think the xnode and xmixer protocol is the best anon solution and will get alot of usage in the blocknet even from coin holders that have some other kind of anon option in their node ( probably for important transactions, whatever). well thats just my few so i don't won't to start the anon debate here. Of corse i wanna hold XC and host as many mixers as possible. Blocknet in this regard is not one big all in one coin from an investment point of few, there is and will be still good and bad options within the ever growing network. SDC is a great one btw. So what the Blocknet does is increasing your userbase and by so your chance of earning fees while still keepig a market in place . for this regard i hope to see the list of participating coins grow quick and wide. there need to be competition on the blocknet. Then it has the chance to become a new internet and thats the vision as i understand it. Again every coin that generates some kind of revenue for his holders will benefit hugely from this network. the more it grows the better.

I agree, monetising leveraged networks is fantastic logic and should be encouraged and is a logical way to motivate growth. I do believe that sharing resource to become more powerful is also attractive. I believe it does however, in my opinion, come with some drawbacks in the proposed form of a bridged network. I don't like a circle within a circle i cannot see how its a step forward. I see it only as a reaction to current market and projected market variables. And thats where it, for me gets a bit scary because i see bias towards money and a move away from tech and its relevance to begin with.

i believe that collaborating can be done without leveraging each others resources in this way and batching it in a group to frame it as "offering diversity i'm a one stop network shop" When its already there to begin with just not in this form. I believing solving the issue of teams and projects not collaborating with each other can and should be solved in a different way and will be down the track.

Not in one that results in a bridge network, but one that allows every network to be completely decentralized yet still sharing talent and tech as it is all open sourced mostly anyways! I believe a foundation that pertains to the alt coin industry is a broader and much wiser proposal one. With all innovative devs as panelists, a foundation where vc can come and speak with the talent directly through a foundation which holds all of the innovative development talent and not one that holds only a select few. I believe its possible within a foundation like that, the devs can collaborate with each other and share tech and their community resource to enhance and enrich the altcoin space and relevance on a much larger and more efficient scale.

I don't mean to come across that i discount the attractiveness of the bridged network proposal. I only want to show i understand and accept that from a programmers view it would make sense to think of things in terms of bubbles and try to form larger ones to connect to each other (Xbridge proposal). I owudl like to demonstrate that i  would like to look at it as one big bubble trying to connect that to mainstream its resource and not limit it to a select few that contains resource made up of mostly copied tech to begin with.

So to me its as you say "fee" meaning money. And i do agree it needs to sustain itself in some way; this whole industry via moentising its networks. But i don't believe it needs to in a way where it physically represents a corporation absorbing other tech to become stronger. I believe thats moving away from, in many ways what this is all meant to represent and what its meant to fighting to move away from.

Does not mean we should not be having this dialogue in the first place though, its good and i'm sure you already you know that

well it all comes down to how we define that Xbridge. i see it as a protocol that collaborating coins include into their wallet. A wallet that still can stand and work on its own outside the BLocknet. its a Gateway that users will be free to use. with just a few coins so far it looks more like a team , but eventually it will outgrow this image.

by so the blocknet doesn't have to sustain itself with fees. the fees i mentioned are those build into the different coinprojects itself also getting collected without the blocknet. eg for data storage, anon transactions (Xmixer, masternodes in drk), content hosting. Blocknets Xbridge will increase this audience but the fee is coin specific. thats my ideal scenario since it boosts free market competition on the Blocknet. thats why i was happy to see "similar" oriented coin projects on there from the get go and i hope this to increase. this forces the developers to develop the strongest possible product and position it apart from the others while still using the same bride. this is no contradiction. all coins right now use the internet.

actually the only hurdle to joining the blocknet should be legitimacy of the devteam. i want to see as many coins as possible having this bridge inside their wallet as an additionaly service for their users. still the stong will do better than the weak then.  

[LongAndShort]

That is not true. SDC is not officially "in" until publicly stated otherwise by their dev team and community which is not the case right now i'm afraid

#

Did you just create that rule? It's not your call.

SDC are in. In fact, we've been in communication with them the most. We were chatting on Skype with Rynomster and others during the announcement.

Now drop this, for heaven's sake!

I will not "drop it" As long as you want to keep bringing it up making out that i'm lying. It is not truth, it is not a done deal and sdc is not in fact "in" officially, as you continue to say. You may have perceived it as such but it is not truth or fact!

And has not even been passed through the entire dev team or community. I encourage you to re-read the logs and you will find its not a done deal at all at the very least it was said maybe that he thinks it will pass but will go and talk/consider it. But it most certainly was not agreed to right there and then. As they say pics or its not true. Show me some please.

Because i would hardly argue the fact if what i was stating was not truth! Why would i, I have no motivation to have such baseless claims unless you were confused about what has actually transpired! Sdc is not currently officially "in" as you state it.