Unmoderated XC thread

[phosphorush]

2. DRK has a mixer (coinjoin)      XC has a mixer that is also encrypted?  Better for XC?

Did you not read the post above yours - XC mixer is flawed - hard link is proven

did someone get the 100 XC then? who? where?

[1715613492]

1715613492

[1715613492]

1715613492

[1715613492]

1715613492

[AlexGR]

I wanted to do a comparison between DRK and XC, and I invite input from anyone.
It seems that DRK has an advantage in that it preceded XC and gained a significant following before XC appeared. However after that I'm not sure how it is better.

1. DRK relies on Masternodes.    With XC each wallet can act as a node.  Better for XC?

DRK "relies" on masternodes, XC "relies" on xnodes... Branding differences. Given that most people open their wallet to transact and then close it, or have their PC off, dedicated hardware is better for network reliability. However there is nothing preventing one from running a masternode on their laptop.

2. DRK has a mixer (coinjoin)      XC has a mixer that is also encrypted?  Better for XC?

DRK has encrypted transactions as a planned feature since January.

3. Both coins have talented developers, but XC 's developer has important business experience too, which may help in gaining widespread adoption...?

Adoption for cryptocurrencies in general is problematic. It will take years - and I'm not talking about 2-3-5-10 merchants accepting DRK or XC. We are talking about tens of thousands of merchants doing so. The attention span of most people in cryptoland is too short for waiting so long.

4. It is claimed that XC is building an entire platform ? Is DRK doing this or seeing it as important?

The potential to provide network services that are paid for them, is a DRK concept. The difference being that XC is a PoS coin and as such cannot pay with block generation, so it'll have to do it with fees.

5. The name Darkcoin is very different in it's connotations to XC 11 coin. Will Darkcoins name possibly impede it's progress?

People said that since the beginning... It's working great so far and the global media love it for portraying it as the darker brother of bitcoin or something. I think the name is a definite hit.

6. DRK presently trades much bigger volume and is on at least one bigger important exchange

7. XC is a lot cheaper.

Tends to happen with all market leaders.

[adhitthana]

2. DRK has a mixer (coinjoin)      XC has a mixer that is also encrypted?  Better for XC?

Did you not read the post above yours - XC mixer is flawed - hard link is proven

I know Chaeplin has lamented that he wishes his English was better (but hey he probably speaks more languages than myself).. So it's not clear to me what was proven.
But since you believe it has been proven can you explain it to us.

Remembering Albert Einsteins words.   "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

[adhitthana]

Thank you AlexGR

[jaft16]

2. DRK has a mixer (coinjoin)      XC has a mixer that is also encrypted?  Better for XC?

Did you not read the post above yours - XC mixer is flawed - hard link is proven

I know Chaeplin has lamented that he wishes his English was better (but hey he probably speaks more languages than myself).. So it's not clear to me what was proven.
But since you believe it has been proven can you explain it to us.

Remembering Albert Einsteins words.   "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

I'm starting to like you now. Hehe

[adhitthana]

Tends to happen with all market leaders.

Toyota is the world's largest car manufacturer today, yet they didn't start till the 1930's.
But maybe the tautology was tongue in cheek

[phosphorush]

DRK has encrypted transactions as a planned feature since January.

Yeah, and now it's June, great progress there... DRK also promised anonymity and then said that it would never be 100% anon

[AlexGR]

DRK has encrypted transactions as a planned feature since January.

Yeah, and now it's June, great progress there... DRK also promised anonymity and then said that it would never be 100% anon

You got it backwards.

The plan for DRK was to provide privacy / moderate anonymity but pressure escalated to improve anonymity around March after some discussions between Evan and Anonymint and that's what is being done the last few months (DarkSend was changed to increase anonymity and it will get further increases).

As promised, here is our vision and future plans for XCoin!

http://xcoin.co/XCoinVision.pdf

TL;DR: We're building XCoin into a moderately-anonymous network, where the transactions are sent encrypted and only able to be read the party who is receiving the funds. Blocks will be published via CoinJoin as to ensure some amount of anonymity. This is being built in such a way to compete with the other top alt-coins and maybe even Bitcoin.  

Btw, full of win that statement with competing with other top alt-coins or even Bitcoin...

As for the encryption, network encryption is the easy part. Getting the mechanics to work on the Bitcoin protocol is the hard stuff.

[chaeplin]

^^

For those who don't understand this.
You should read this http://tech.eu/features/808/bitcoin-part-one/




Why input is so important ?

Input
An input is a reference to an output in a different transaction. Multiple inputs are often listed in a transaction. The values of the referenced outputs are added up, and the total is usable in the outputs of this transaction. Previous tx is a hash of a previous transaction. Index is the specific output in the referenced transaction. ScriptSig is the first half of a script (discussed in more detail later).

The script contains two components, a signature and a public key. The public key belongs to the redeemer of the output transaction and proves the creator is allowed to redeem the outputs value. The other component is an ECDSA signature over a hash of a simplified version of the transaction. It, combined with the public key, proves the transaction was created by the real owner of the address in question. Various flags define how the transaction is simplified and can be used to create different types of payment.

from https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transactions


the transaction spend from multiple addresses == a common party controlled those addresses [xc mixer, single wallet]

the transaction spend from multiple addresses =/= a common party controlled those addresses [coinjoin and variant]









As stated here.

So when you send from original address A to the receiving address D , it goes to the mixer B, the mixer makes a new address C to send the amount to the receiver D? And Chaeplin doesn't get only A?

And chaeplin is adding that the mixer only uses one address for you, so once you know A, you can trace it. Which is what I said before. You have to assume A is known.

that is not how the mixer work's


The highlevel summary is this

The mixer tells the client to send coins to wallet b, however wallet C is used to send coins to the final user, there is NO link from wallet B to wallet C unless somebody manually moves the coins from C to B

Owner of Xnode should know this, for privacy of xnode user.

* Do not spend coins.

[phosphorush]

My progress claims stil holds, even now they postponed the upgrade... maybe in 1 year DRK team can actually deliver what they promised lol

[roede94105]

My progress claims stil holds, even now they postponed the upgrade... maybe in 1 year DRK team can actually deliver what they promised lol

Yeah lol, not like darksend and Masternodes work and it's late just for the payment of MN.

Oh wait.

[chaeplin]

For those who don't understand this.
You should read this http://tech.eu/features/808/bitcoin-part-one/




As stated here.

So when you send from original address A to the receiving address D , it goes to the mixer B, the mixer makes a new address C to send the amount to the receiver D? And Chaeplin doesn't get only A?

And chaeplin is adding that the mixer only uses one address for you, so once you know A, you can trace it. Which is what I said before. You have to assume A is known.

that is not how the mixer work's


The highlevel summary is this

The mixer tells the client to send coins to wallet b, however wallet C is used to send coins to the final user, there is NO link from wallet B to wallet C unless somebody manually moves the coins from C to B

It is clear that Dev has no idea on multiple input.

there is NO link from wallet B to wallet C unless somebody manually moves the coins from C to B

There is link from wallet B to wallet C when those are spent in single tx as of input.

[AlexGR]

My progress claims stil holds, even now they postponed the upgrade... maybe in 1 year DRK team can actually deliver what they promised lol

The specs were upgraded along the way hence the delivery takes more time.

Plain coinjoin evolved into DarkSend to solve issues that appeared while implementing coinjoin (like DOS).

Normal node mixing evolved into masternodes and introduction of proof-of-service with masternode payments that is a platform for various services across the network - something impossible with plain nodes. It also future-proofs the network in ways that haven't been solved up to now.

So there is actually over-delivery in the part of the dev compared to the initial plan. And the competing with the other top altcoins / bitcoin part is right on track (what a DRK buyer wants to see).

As for the rest of vapor-ware coins, why are they so anxious for Darkcoin to finish? Ah yes, because they have nothing to show for and want DarkSend opened.

[phosphorush]

Are we? It is the DRK fan boys that keep coming to XC threads and spread FUD not the other way around (Official DRK twitter even spread FUD about XC, does that tell you something?). I want DRK to succeed, I just think that XC has much more potential and delivered more in weeks than DRK in months.

[AlexGR]

Are we? It is the DRK fan boys that keep coming to XC threads and spread FUD not the other way around (Official DRK twitter even spread FUD about XC, does that tell you something?). I want DRK to succeed, I just think that XC has much more potential and delivered more in weeks than DRK in months.

One can deliver you a ton of rotten meat or a kilogram of fresh meat. What would you rather eat?

Coin forwarding = broken technique because it is based on trust to the node to not steal the coins.

Satoshi invented trustless transactions and now we are regressing back to trusted transactions.

You can argue this is "progress" or "innovation", but in reality it is not.

[phosphorush]

Are we? It is the DRK fan boys that keep coming to XC threads and spread FUD not the other way around (Official DRK twitter even spread FUD about XC, does that tell you something?). I want DRK to succeed, I just think that XC has much more potential and delivered more in weeks than DRK in months.

One can deliver you a ton of rotten meat or a kilogram of fresh meat. What would you rather eat?

Coin forwarding = broken technique because it is based on trust to the node to not steal the coins.

Satoshi invented trustless transactions and now we are regressing back to trusted transactions.

You can argue this is "progress" or "innovation", but in reality it is not.

In that regards, DRK seems to have the same problems as XC -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=641178.0

But why you DRK fan boys (and devs too, it seems, from my point above) are so concerned about XC? And why did you twist it around when the facts (the same stated above) clearly show that?

[GhostPlayer]

Are we? It is the DRK fan boys that keep coming to XC threads and spread FUD not the other way around (Official DRK twitter even spread FUD about XC, does that tell you something?). I want DRK to succeed, I just think that XC has much more potential and delivered more in weeks than DRK in months.

I tried restraining from posting here, as I am a DRK "fanboy" if you will... I cannot let this one pass. Where is this official DRK twitter FUD? Or do you mean the fake DRK twitter going around? Just like the fake FB? Who is running those?

 We, DRK "fanboys" with our "masterbater" servers, were happily helping each other out with debate, mining, and node setup, when all of a sudden we got flooded with XC speard. We went nowhere except our little home in the BTCtalk thread.

 A huge and clearly coordinated FUD campaign attacked our thread. Many accusations flew.
 How can you say what you just said, when it is exactly the opposite? chaeplin blew XC wide open as flawed. XC invaded DRK space. DRK will deliver this month, and the next, and the one after that. It works here and now, and its not even finished with all its feature (MN payments, 10 DRK limit, new stuff Evan has not revealed, vetting by industry leaders, open source)

 How on earth can XC deliver if it is fundamentally flawed?
 Even when brought down to your knees, in pure technical analysis, you embarrass yourself in this way, as what, a last resort?

 Competition is good. Stupidity is not. XC cannot fix a fundamental flaw in its core design in months, while the next stage of DRK is mere weeks ahead.

Get your facts straight.

 You should be tipping chaeplin. He's only feeding you good stuff to fix that you didnt even know about about.
 

[AlexGR]

In that regards, DRK seems to have the same problems as XC

Wake up. DRK is trustless. It does not forward coins. It simply asks parties to sign transactions. A transaction is either signed or it is not. If it is, the coins change ownership. The node can't steal.

[humanitee]

In that regards, DRK seems to have the same problems as XC

Wake up. DRK is trustless. It does not forward coins. It simply asks parties to sign transactions. A transaction is either signed or it is not. If it is, the coins change ownership. The node can't steal.

Literally lol'd when I read his reply.

[GhostPlayer]

In that regards, DRK seems to have the same problems as XC

Wake up. DRK is trustless. It does not forward coins. It simply asks parties to sign transactions. A transaction is either signed or it is not. If it is, the coins change ownership. The node can't steal.

 At this point, even if the main XC dev himself killed the coin, would make no difference to the discussion. And "we" are the "fanboys".
 Ok, sure, no prob.