Unmoderated XC thread

[chaeplin]

again ??

This x11 dev (LolJoshCoin) just wiped the github again. Source code is deleted. In other words, impossible to tell which commits were pushed and what was updated. This dev is such a sham it's unbelievable!

https://github.com/atcsecure/X11COIN/

I have forked !!


first one https://github.com/chaeplin/X11COIN
fedoracode is here https://github.com/chaeplin/X11COIN/commit/6f0428202c17f1ea21cd1b8dab55c025a57375c7

next
https://github.com/chaeplin/X11COIN-1/commits/master

next
https://github.com/chaeplin/X11COIN-2/commits/master

Maybe you should teach this lolJoshCoin purchaser how to use github.

I have missed dns seed commit.
hired dev commit dns seed.


this is what changed.
just src part.

https://gist.github.com/chaeplin/d0b2742c0659e2c22d90

[solid12345]

As a holder of Darkcoin, I'm very interested in competitors claiming to achieve the same goal.


After the enormous rise in marketcap for Darkcoin, this weeks flavor of the month is apparently anonymity. Good luck with your investments.

If anonymity is flavor of the month then you'd better sell your Darkcoin now because people will get bored and move on to something new next month, no?

[coine_smithe]

As a holder of Darkcoin, I'm very interested in competitors claiming to achieve the same goal.


After the enormous rise in marketcap for Darkcoin, this weeks flavor of the month is apparently anonymity. Good luck with your investments.

If anonymity is flavor of the month then you'd better sell your Darkcoin now because people will get bored and move on to something new next month, no?

I think you're missing his point. He was really being tongue in cheek as if to say, other fads in the past have much easier to copy, but when it comes to anonymity it is actually the most advanced technology yet.

The reason Bitcoin itself even exists is because of revolutionary methods of applying cryptography to computer networks. This is research level science that is being conducted. Lofty claims of advances in this field are ridiculous and can't be taken seriously at all without white papers, technical presentation, and professionalism.

This isn't just tech kiddy crap any more, this is cutting edge computer science in a field where people can spend and lose millions of dollars. I sincerely hope for the people invested in XC that it works out for them, but as someone who has been investing, mining and researching this technology field for months, I am very skeptical and currently not invested, although I was at one point.

[solid12345]

I think you're missing his point. He was really being tongue in cheek This isn't just tech kiddy crap any more, this is cutting edge computer science in a field where people can spend and lose millions of dollars. I sincerely hope for the people invested in XC that it works out for them, but as someone who has been investing, mining and researching this technology field for months, I am very skeptical and currently not invested, although I was at one point.

But you have to admit XC wouldn't have taken off like this if Dark didn't have serious problems of its own. I have no problem admitting Dark is way ahead of the game and may be "the best" or most ahead anonymous coin at the moment and I'd much rather hold it if I could afford it, but people try to cover up the fact it has problems too, the whole instamine controversy, masternodes being hosted on Amazon servers, being ripe pickings for DDOS, etc. there wouldn't be a "search" for a better coin if there wasn't a need.

At the very least I don't think Dark deserves to be anywhere near the 10 dollar and above mark until we have proven 95-99% anonymity at least and full disclosure of source code to insure the technology is safe. There is still no guarantee after all that either DRK or XC isn't some major honeypot, neither are truly following the fundamental natures of open source software yet people seem more inclined to worry about whether a dev is using github right or outsourcing some coding work to other devs.

[stealth923]

The level of discussion quality here is 100x better than the moderated thread.

In there its all "this is the best thing in the universe omg omg"

denial is a bitch

[AlexGR]

I think you're missing his point. He was really being tongue in cheek as if to say, other fads in the past have much easier to copy, but when it comes to anonymity it is actually the most advanced technology yet.

The reason Bitcoin itself even exists is because of revolutionary methods of applying cryptography to computer networks. This is research level science that is being conducted. Lofty claims of advances in this field are ridiculous and can't be taken seriously at all without white papers, technical presentation, and professionalism.

White papers, presentations etc are more for academics. If you have something working, well, then your code is your white paper, so to speak. Others can analyze it and write 10 papers each, but the magic is performed in the result itself. If you have to convince others through papers and presentations, it's game over.

Academia is good for theoretical stuff like Zerocoin but when it comes to actually making something they haven't produced anything - so it's up to the people, like Cryptonote/Bytecoin people, Gmaxwell, Evan, etc to do the planning and coding.

The people can't wait the "academics", funded by the government, to provide solutions for them. They'll find a way to do things, even "dirty" ways and hacks that improve their privacy/anonymity.

But you have to admit XC wouldn't have taken off like this if Dark didn't have serious problems of its own. I have no problem admitting Dark is way ahead of the game and may be "the best" or most ahead anonymous coin at the moment and I'd much rather hold it if I could afford it, but people try to cover up the fact it has problems too, the whole instamine controversy, masternodes being hosted on Amazon servers, being ripe pickings for DDOS, etc. there wouldn't be a "search" for a better coin if there wasn't a need.

People simply want to catch the 2nd train because they missed the first one.

Litecoin vs Bitcoin,
memes/animals vs DOGE,
countrycoins vs Aurora,
"whitecoins" vs Blackcoin,
"anonymous" coins vs Dark

...etc

It's always the same.

As for masternodes being hosted on Amazon, one can host them in their PC and home internet connection. Nobody is forcing anyone to use external servers. It's just common sense for DDOS protection.

At the very least I don't think Dark deserves to be anywhere near the 10 dollar and above mark until we have proven 95-99% anonymity at least and full disclosure of source code to insure the technology is safe.

Dark is a development platform. It develops new code, new ideas, new economic models - and you can see the benefits in XC, which in a way are a vote of confidence for DRK's model. XC wouldn't even exist without DRK. Dan himself said it. He saw DRK and wanted to make something better.

The price (10$+) means nothing without the coin count and unlike most people who cannot make simple co-relations between price, scarcity, inflation etc - investors understand these parameters. Coin numbers adjusted, Litecoin would cost something like 65-70$ if it had 4.3mn coins instead of 29mn. And the question is why? What does Litecoin offer to cost 65-70$?

Under this light, why is Darkcoin overpriced? Even if it had 0 anonymity it would still be able to be closer to LTC for the mere reason that its economic model is better. LTC makes 28800 coins per day and DRK only 2880... LTC requires ~100mn USD to absorb annual production and DRK ~10mn usd. The fundamentals are heavily in favor of DRK.

There is still no guarantee after all that either DRK or XC isn't some major honeypot

Drk being a honeypot for what? No reason for FUD really. You can run a wireshark and see if there is anything suspicious. Besides, nobody forces a DRK user to use the closed source DarkSend wallet. They can use the opensource one. If they are in the receiving end of the payment (like a merchant etc) they don't care anyway. It's the sender who DarkSends.

[coine_smithe]

White papers, presentations etc are more for academics. If you have something working, well, then your code is your white paper, so to speak. Others can analyze it and write 10 papers each, but the magic is performed in the result itself. If you have to convince others through papers and presentations, it's game over.

Academia is good for theoretical stuff like Zerocoin but when it comes to actually making something they haven't produced anything - so it's up to the people, like Cryptonote/Bytecoin people, Gmaxwell, Evan, etc to do the planning and coding.

The people can't wait the "academics", funded by the government, to provide solutions for them. They'll find a way to do things, even "dirty" ways and hacks that improve their privacy/anonymity.

I'm sorry I totally disagree with this. It's totally normal to have both high, mid and even low level explanation of the technology involved here to assure investors. To his credit the dev of XC has posted academic papers on cryptography before in the XC forum, and while I'll admit to being unqualified to review the code, the tone so far seems to be "take my word for it". If you are willing to risk $10K, $100K, $1 million or more on promises from someone you don't know, then you are gambling. I would say there is less than a 5% chance that this dev has managed to miraculously pull out of thin air some solution that nobody else in this entire field has been able to come up with. If it were so simple, then don't you think the researchers at Johns Hopkins University would have been able to do it much sooner?

I've posted this in other forums before, http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/04/zerocoin-making-bitcoin-anonymous.html

As you can see in this article, one of the researchers is writing about his students at Johns Hopkins university who researched the technology behind Zerocoin. They are still developing it. Here's a quote,

"In this post I'm going to describe a new piece of research out of my lab at Johns Hopkins that provides one potential solution to this problem. This is joint work led by my hardworking students Ian Miers and Christina Garman, along with my colleague Avi Rubin. Our proposal is called Zerocoin, and we'll be presenting it at this year's IEEE S&P."

Here is Ian Miers twitter: https://twitter.com/secparam. He regularly discusses these new coins that claim to have anonymous solutions. He claims Zerocash will be superior to Darksend and compares Darksend to a coin mixer. I'm excited about Darksend, however, but the point is that the dev of XC claims to have a solution that is both more decentralized than Darksend (doesn't require masternodes), and is just as secure. How does that actually work? All I've heard so far are Xtunnels and Xnodes. I'm sorry but that sounds like XBullshit to me.

If graduate students researching this stuff for months and years are still working on getting Zerocash launched in the next few months, it seems unbelievable that a single man (who had to hire loljosh to dev the PoS portion of the coin and possibly more) has single-handedly come up with groundbreaking technology in this field well ahead of schedule.

I'm not saying I couldn't be wrong, but there is a serious lack of transparency here and investors are at great risk in this market that is rife with corruption, false promises and scams. I truly hope that this technology is for real, it would be ground breaking and exciting, but until it has been thoroughly vetted people need to stop hyping it up as if it is already safe to use.

Anonymity is not a toy. People trust their lives to anonymity. It must be fool proof, perfect, impervious to years and decades of future scrutiny and attempts at hacks and manipulation. I would argue that cryptography is the single most complex and difficult art to master in all of academia. It is the art of perfect secrecy, perfect trustlessness, elegant in its design and only the most genius of minds are worthy of such an endeavor. The significance of this undertaking cannot be overestimated.

[solid12345]

Anonymity is not a toy. People trust their lives to anonymity. It must be fool proof, perfect, impervious to years and decades of future scrutiny and attempts at hacks and manipulation. I would argue that cryptography is the single most complex and difficult art to master in all of academia. It is the art of perfect secrecy, perfect trustlessness, elegant in its design and only the most genius of minds are worthy of such an endeavor. The significance of this undertaking cannot be overestimated.

Which goes to my point on why I think DRK is overpriced at the moment, "semi-anonymous" or "almost anonymous" is not the same as anonymous, period. For anyone who feels Dark is correctly priced or should be priced even higher, tell me, would you feel secure being in the role of the next DPR running a Silk Road style website and conducting daily transactions of tens of thousands of dollars or more in DRK? It's a simple yes or no question.

[coine_smithe]

Anonymity is not a toy. People trust their lives to anonymity. It must be fool proof, perfect, impervious to years and decades of future scrutiny and attempts at hacks and manipulation. I would argue that cryptography is the single most complex and difficult art to master in all of academia. It is the art of perfect secrecy, perfect trustlessness, elegant in its design and only the most genius of minds are worthy of such an endeavor. The significance of this undertaking cannot be overestimated.

Which goes to my point on why I think DRK is overpriced at the moment, "semi-anonymous" or "almost anonymous" is not the same as anonymous, period. For anyone who feels Dark is correctly priced or should be priced even higher, tell me, would you feel secure being in the role of the next DPR running a Silk Road style website and conducting daily transactions of tens of thousands of dollars or more in DRK? It's a simple yes or no question.

It's better than Bitcoin and better than centralized mixers and better than anything else we have at the moment (except maybe Monero, except that doesn't have a freaking wallet so nobody can use the damn thing). I don't think Darkcoin is overhyped. The technology is well documented and a large consensus has been formed in the community that it is worth something (see the recent gigantic rise in value).

[AlexGR]

White papers, presentations etc are more for academics. If you have something working, well, then your code is your white paper, so to speak. Others can analyze it and write 10 papers each, but the magic is performed in the result itself. If you have to convince others through papers and presentations, it's game over.

Academia is good for theoretical stuff like Zerocoin but when it comes to actually making something they haven't produced anything - so it's up to the people, like Cryptonote/Bytecoin people, Gmaxwell, Evan, etc to do the planning and coding.

The people can't wait the "academics", funded by the government, to provide solutions for them. They'll find a way to do things, even "dirty" ways and hacks that improve their privacy/anonymity.

I'm sorry I totally disagree with this.

You actually agree and you'll understand why....

It's totally normal to have both high, mid and even low level explanation of the technology involved here to assure investors. To his credit the dev of XC has posted academic papers on cryptography before in the XC forum, and while I'll admit to being unqualified to review the code, the tone so far seems to be "take my word for it". If you are willing to risk $10K, $100K, $1 million or more on promises from someone you don't know, then you are gambling. I would say there is less than a 5% chance that this dev has managed to miraculously pull out of thin air some solution that nobody else in this entire field has been able to come up with. If it were so simple, then don't you think the researchers at Johns Hopkins University would have been able to do it much sooner?

"Assure investors"? A scammer might want to give all the assurances the investors want to hear in any form, including a white paper. That's why ultimately you have to decide on your own, not by what the "brochure" says or what the dev "promises".

And your ultimate decision, without whitepapers etc is that he has <5%. You saw the tech, you saw that he can't pull it off except by some kind of miracle, so it was your own decision without the "brochures" - or despite the "illustrations" and diagrams. See that we agree that they aren't so important? If it doesn't work, it doesn't. And if the fundamental structure is flawed, it's flawed.

If graduate students researching this stuff for months and years are still working on getting Zerocash launched in the next few months, it seems unbelievable that a single man (who had to hire loljosh to dev the PoS portion of the coin and possibly more) has single-handedly come up with groundbreaking technology in this field well ahead of schedule.

There's a "very good" chance that both XC and Zerocoin have fundamental design errors.

I'm not saying I couldn't be wrong, but there is a serious lack of transparency here and investors are at great risk in this market that is rife with corruption, false promises and scams. I truly hope that this technology is for real, it would be ground breaking and exciting, but until it has been thoroughly vetted people need to stop hyping it up as if it is already safe to use.

Agreed.

Anonymity is not a toy. People trust their lives to anonymity. It must be fool proof, perfect, impervious to years and decades of future scrutiny and attempts at hacks and manipulation. I would argue that cryptography is the single most complex and difficult art to master in all of academia. It is the art of perfect secrecy, perfect trustlessness, elegant in its design and only the most genius of minds are worthy of such an endeavor. The significance of this undertaking cannot be overestimated.

Yeah well, you can start somewhere to get the ball rolling and increase the level of anonymity (always relative to the power of the adversary that can see through the obfuscation)... otherwise you can wait forever for the perfect program that never comes.

[stealth923]

White papers, presentations etc are more for academics. If you have something working, well, then your code is your white paper, so to speak. Others can analyze it and write 10 papers each, but the magic is performed in the result itself. If you have to convince others through papers and presentations, it's game over.

Academia is good for theoretical stuff like Zerocoin but when it comes to actually making something they haven't produced anything - so it's up to the people, like Cryptonote/Bytecoin people, Gmaxwell, Evan, etc to do the planning and coding.

The people can't wait the "academics", funded by the government, to provide solutions for them. They'll find a way to do things, even "dirty" ways and hacks that improve their privacy/anonymity.

I'm sorry I totally disagree with this. It's totally normal to have both high, mid and even low level explanation of the technology involved here to assure investors. To his credit the dev of XC has posted academic papers on cryptography before in the XC forum, and while I'll admit to being unqualified to review the code, the tone so far seems to be "take my word for it". If you are willing to risk $10K, $100K, $1 million or more on promises from someone you don't know, then you are gambling. I would say there is less than a 5% chance that this dev has managed to miraculously pull out of thin air some solution that nobody else in this entire field has been able to come up with. If it were so simple, then don't you think the researchers at Johns Hopkins University would have been able to do it much sooner?

I've posted this in other forums before, http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/04/zerocoin-making-bitcoin-anonymous.html

As you can see in this article, one of the researchers is writing about his students at Johns Hopkins university who researched the technology behind Zerocoin. They are still developing it. Here's a quote,

"In this post I'm going to describe a new piece of research out of my lab at Johns Hopkins that provides one potential solution to this problem. This is joint work led by my hardworking students Ian Miers and Christina Garman, along with my colleague Avi Rubin. Our proposal is called Zerocoin, and we'll be presenting it at this year's IEEE S&P."

Here is Ian Miers twitter: https://twitter.com/secparam. He regularly discusses these new coins that claim to have anonymous solutions. He claims Zerocash will be superior to Darksend and compares Darksend to a coin mixer. I'm excited about Darksend, however, but the point is that the dev of XC claims to have a solution that is both more decentralized than Darksend (doesn't require masternodes), and is just as secure. How does that actually work? All I've heard so far are Xtunnels and Xnodes. I'm sorry but that sounds like XBullshit to me.

If graduate students researching this stuff for months and years are still working on getting Zerocash launched in the next few months, it seems unbelievable that a single man (who had to hire loljosh to dev the PoS portion of the coin and possibly more) has single-handedly come up with groundbreaking technology in this field well ahead of schedule.

I'm not saying I couldn't be wrong, but there is a serious lack of transparency here and investors are at great risk in this market that is rife with corruption, false promises and scams. I truly hope that this technology is for real, it would be ground breaking and exciting, but until it has been thoroughly vetted people need to stop hyping it up as if it is already safe to use.

Anonymity is not a toy. People trust their lives to anonymity. It must be fool proof, perfect, impervious to years and decades of future scrutiny and attempts at hacks and manipulation. I would argue that cryptography is the single most complex and difficult art to master in all of academia. It is the art of perfect secrecy, perfect trustlessness, elegant in its design and only the most genius of minds are worthy of such an endeavor. The significance of this undertaking cannot be overestimated.

I agree with your points about anonymity is not a joke and takes time and detailed discussions and constructive criticism to get right.

loljosh coin is only 3 weeks old and they are claiming to have the silver bullet to anonymity and that their dev is a godsend....I don't understand why people aren't seeing the warning signs over the dollar signs until its too late. The dev does not want to engage into any technical discussions and has formed a cult / ring of back patters to shield himself from the community.

Darkcoin has been through countless iterations of design scrutineers over several months to ensure we have the best possible solution with the technology we have available today. I mean look at this response today from the DRK dev in comparison to loljoshcoin dev.

DRK: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=627349.msg7073643#msg7073643

loljoshcoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7081319#msg7081319 (one liner saying, shhh its all fine)

And the biggest warning sign is from this message recently: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7083238#msg7083238

There isnt even a fully working blockchain, properly tested anonymity and he cant even make commits on github and is talking about Retail and Market ATMs....wake up people, this is someone with little commercial and business experience and all about raising hype.

If this was a genuine attempt at improving anonymity without riding on DRK's tail to get some attention, and had something genuine to offer, I would be all for collaboration to get the best possible results.

[coine_smithe]

White papers, presentations etc are more for academics. If you have something working, well, then your code is your white paper, so to speak. Others can analyze it and write 10 papers each, but the magic is performed in the result itself. If you have to convince others through papers and presentations, it's game over.

Academia is good for theoretical stuff like Zerocoin but when it comes to actually making something they haven't produced anything - so it's up to the people, like Cryptonote/Bytecoin people, Gmaxwell, Evan, etc to do the planning and coding.

The people can't wait the "academics", funded by the government, to provide solutions for them. They'll find a way to do things, even "dirty" ways and hacks that improve their privacy/anonymity.

I'm sorry I totally disagree with this.

You actually agree and you'll understand why....

It's totally normal to have both high, mid and even low level explanation of the technology involved here to assure investors. To his credit the dev of XC has posted academic papers on cryptography before in the XC forum, and while I'll admit to being unqualified to review the code, the tone so far seems to be "take my word for it". If you are willing to risk $10K, $100K, $1 million or more on promises from someone you don't know, then you are gambling. I would say there is less than a 5% chance that this dev has managed to miraculously pull out of thin air some solution that nobody else in this entire field has been able to come up with. If it were so simple, then don't you think the researchers at Johns Hopkins University would have been able to do it much sooner?

"Assure investors"? A scammer might want to give all the assurances the investors want to hear in any form, including a white paper. That's why ultimately you have to decide on your own, not by what the "brochure" says or what the dev "promises".

And your ultimate decision, without whitepapers etc is that he has <5%. You saw the tech, you saw that he can't pull it off except by some kind of miracle, so it was your own decision without the "brochures" - or despite the "illustrations" and diagrams. See that we agree that they aren't so important? If it doesn't work, it doesn't. And if the fundamental structure is flawed, it's flawed.

If graduate students researching this stuff for months and years are still working on getting Zerocash launched in the next few months, it seems unbelievable that a single man (who had to hire loljosh to dev the PoS portion of the coin and possibly more) has single-handedly come up with groundbreaking technology in this field well ahead of schedule.

There's a "very good" chance that both XC and Zerocoin have fundamental design errors.

I'm not saying I couldn't be wrong, but there is a serious lack of transparency here and investors are at great risk in this market that is rife with corruption, false promises and scams. I truly hope that this technology is for real, it would be ground breaking and exciting, but until it has been thoroughly vetted people need to stop hyping it up as if it is already safe to use.

Agreed.

Anonymity is not a toy. People trust their lives to anonymity. It must be fool proof, perfect, impervious to years and decades of future scrutiny and attempts at hacks and manipulation. I would argue that cryptography is the single most complex and difficult art to master in all of academia. It is the art of perfect secrecy, perfect trustlessness, elegant in its design and only the most genius of minds are worthy of such an endeavor. The significance of this undertaking cannot be overestimated.

Yeah well, you can start somewhere to get the ball rolling and increase the level of anonymity (always relative to the power of the adversary that can see through the obfuscation)... otherwise you can wait forever for the perfect program that never comes.

I see your point now.

White papers, presentations etc are more for academics. If you have something working, well, then your code is your white paper, so to speak. Others can analyze it and write 10 papers each, but the magic is performed in the result itself. If you have to convince others through papers and presentations, it's game over.

Academia is good for theoretical stuff like Zerocoin but when it comes to actually making something they haven't produced anything - so it's up to the people, like Cryptonote/Bytecoin people, Gmaxwell, Evan, etc to do the planning and coding.

The people can't wait the "academics", funded by the government, to provide solutions for them. They'll find a way to do things, even "dirty" ways and hacks that improve their privacy/anonymity.

I'm sorry I totally disagree with this. It's totally normal to have both high, mid and even low level explanation of the technology involved here to assure investors. To his credit the dev of XC has posted academic papers on cryptography before in the XC forum, and while I'll admit to being unqualified to review the code, the tone so far seems to be "take my word for it". If you are willing to risk $10K, $100K, $1 million or more on promises from someone you don't know, then you are gambling. I would say there is less than a 5% chance that this dev has managed to miraculously pull out of thin air some solution that nobody else in this entire field has been able to come up with. If it were so simple, then don't you think the researchers at Johns Hopkins University would have been able to do it much sooner?

I've posted this in other forums before, http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/04/zerocoin-making-bitcoin-anonymous.html

As you can see in this article, one of the researchers is writing about his students at Johns Hopkins university who researched the technology behind Zerocoin. They are still developing it. Here's a quote,

"In this post I'm going to describe a new piece of research out of my lab at Johns Hopkins that provides one potential solution to this problem. This is joint work led by my hardworking students Ian Miers and Christina Garman, along with my colleague Avi Rubin. Our proposal is called Zerocoin, and we'll be presenting it at this year's IEEE S&P."

Here is Ian Miers twitter: https://twitter.com/secparam. He regularly discusses these new coins that claim to have anonymous solutions. He claims Zerocash will be superior to Darksend and compares Darksend to a coin mixer. I'm excited about Darksend, however, but the point is that the dev of XC claims to have a solution that is both more decentralized than Darksend (doesn't require masternodes), and is just as secure. How does that actually work? All I've heard so far are Xtunnels and Xnodes. I'm sorry but that sounds like XBullshit to me.

If graduate students researching this stuff for months and years are still working on getting Zerocash launched in the next few months, it seems unbelievable that a single man (who had to hire loljosh to dev the PoS portion of the coin and possibly more) has single-handedly come up with groundbreaking technology in this field well ahead of schedule.

I'm not saying I couldn't be wrong, but there is a serious lack of transparency here and investors are at great risk in this market that is rife with corruption, false promises and scams. I truly hope that this technology is for real, it would be ground breaking and exciting, but until it has been thoroughly vetted people need to stop hyping it up as if it is already safe to use.

Anonymity is not a toy. People trust their lives to anonymity. It must be fool proof, perfect, impervious to years and decades of future scrutiny and attempts at hacks and manipulation. I would argue that cryptography is the single most complex and difficult art to master in all of academia. It is the art of perfect secrecy, perfect trustlessness, elegant in its design and only the most genius of minds are worthy of such an endeavor. The significance of this undertaking cannot be overestimated.

I agree with your points about anonymity is not a joke and takes time and detailed discussions and constructive criticism to get right.

loljosh coin is only 3 weeks old and they are claiming to have the silver bullet to anonymity and that their dev is a godsend....I don't understand why people aren't seeing the warning signs over the dollar signs until its too late. The dev does not want to engage into any technical discussions and has formed a cult / ring of back patters to shield himself from the community.

Darkcoin has been through countless iterations of design scrutineers over several months to ensure we have the best possible solution with the technology we have available today. I mean look at this response today from the DRK dev in comparison to loljoshcoin dev.

DRK: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=627349.msg7073643#msg7073643

loljoshcoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7081319#msg7081319 (one liner saying, shhh its all fine)

And the biggest warning sign is from this message recently: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7083238#msg7083238

There isnt even a fully working blockchain, properly tested anonymity and he cant even make commits on github and is talking about Retail and Market ATMs....wake up people, this is someone with little commercial and business experience and all about raising hype.

If this was a genuine attempt at improving anonymity without riding on DRK's tail to get some attention, and had something genuine to offer, I would be all for collaboration to get the best possible results.

You said all this much better than I could. Thanks for contributing as well.

[toknormal]

Anonymity is not a toy. People trust their lives to anonymity. It must be fool proof, perfect, impervious to years and decades of future scrutiny and attempts at hacks and manipulation. I would argue that cryptography is the single most complex and difficult art to master in all of academia. It is the art of perfect secrecy, perfect trustlessness, elegant in its design and only the most genius of minds are worthy of such an endeavor. The significance of this undertaking cannot be overestimated.

I don't think that clandestine product merchants operating outside of the law are the biggest target market for anonymous coins. If they were, none of them would have anywhere near the value they have right now.

Nor is 100% untraceability the most important thing either. Whatever technology these coins use it has to be accepted that some theoretical element of traceability exists.

What's more important is opaqueness. i.e. your average joe can't look up a blockchain and discover what transactions went through some random address - i.e. practical opaqueness in the financial system.

The reason that is the target market is that that's what people currently expect from the fiat financial system. e.g., if I set up a website to do sales and supply a payment address, people can't easily see what my turnover is on that address.

Absolute secrecy, "hiding from the NSA" and the like is a much lower priority. It might be technical one for some but it isn't such a big commercial one IMO.

[chaeplin]

for the record.

Is atcsecure still planning on giving an update tonight for future plans as well as more detailed report on xnodes?

Anyone know?

yes, dev posted this earlier.

Sorry but this is going to be fairly brief as I'm exhausted

- Future Plans
     - Finalize Business Plan
     - Identify key market potential opportunities
     - Market analysis for high growth opportunities
     - XC Foundation
     - Structured Corporate Entity
     - Android Wallet

     - Release REV2
  
     - REV2 is a major upgrade to the system, using the existing REV1 code.  It will support a decentralized learning trust system and be not only anonymous but have protection against various attack vectors

     - Post REV2 is Wallet improvements and Working today's the Retail Market Space and Point of Sales and ATM's.  A cost separate analysis will be done on this
         - Wallet Updates to include encrypted IM, encrypted IRC type communications
         - Wallet Updates to support new applications (will update)
          
     - Completing the Android wallet with the Mobile solution mentioned above -

That is the current high level plan, I will create a more formal way to present this and to keep it updated so that is available 24/7

- XNODE

  XNODE is in the wallet, the batch files run it either on mainnet or testnet.  Unfortunately I was not able to complete the testing tonight.  This will happen tomorrow with a basic user guide on how to set it up


ATCSECURE

it's working people wooohooo!  
I send 1 real XC to address XSQYYwgVVYoGyc23NCTcCvQRCNiidarU71 using:

Code:

walletpassphrase <my password> 60
sendfrommixer "1" XSQYYwgVVYoGyc23NCTcCvQRCNiidarU71 1.0

now try to find my fucking sender address  

dev...
you are a saint 

What is correct block height ?

[coine_smithe]

Anonymity is not a toy. People trust their lives to anonymity. It must be fool proof, perfect, impervious to years and decades of future scrutiny and attempts at hacks and manipulation. I would argue that cryptography is the single most complex and difficult art to master in all of academia. It is the art of perfect secrecy, perfect trustlessness, elegant in its design and only the most genius of minds are worthy of such an endeavor. The significance of this undertaking cannot be overestimated.

I don't think that clandestine product merchants operating outside of the law are the biggest target market for anonymous coins. If they were, none of them would have anywhere near the value they have right now.

Nor is 100% untraceability the most important thing either. Whatever technology these coins use it has to be accepted that some theoretical element of traceability exists.

What's more important is opaqueness. i.e. your average joe can't look up a blockchain and discover what transactions went through some random address - i.e. practical opaqueness in the financial system.

The reason that is the target market is that that's what people currently expect from the fiat financial system. e.g., if I set up a website to do sales and supply a payment address, people can't easily see what my turnover is on that address.

Absolute secrecy, "hiding from the NSA" and the like is a much lower priority. It might be technical one for some but it isn't such a big commercial one IMO.

I totally agree with you, that's the reason I think this technology is the future. Maybe I sounded like I thought it could only be used for drug deals, etc. but I'm mostly intrigued by the prospect of increasing fungibility for commerce.

[sin242]

for the record.

it's working people wooohooo!  
I send 1 real XC to address XSQYYwgVVYoGyc23NCTcCvQRCNiidarU71 using:

Code:

walletpassphrase <my password> 60
sendfrommixer "1" XSQYYwgVVYoGyc23NCTcCvQRCNiidarU71 1.0

now try to find my fucking sender address  

dev...
you are a saint 

What is correct block height ?

Does he list the "sent" address anywhere? i see a couple entries in different places, but without knowing what the originating addy is you obviously cant compare

[phosphorush]

I'm not receiving any rewards for minting XC and yeah I have the new wallet and I have it unlocked...

[chaeplin]

What for risking 0.7 BTC

[Joshuar]

What for risking 0.7 BTC

XC was made by loljosh(who is paid to make alt coins for BTC), which means atsecure(XC "dev") can't code himself, he pays loljosh to do everything for him. Similar to coingen.io


Pic #1(atsecure leaves loljosh a positive comment for great service, the amount of BTC risked/paid is .7


Pic #2(loljosh lists the price of .8 for x11+PoS, which is relatively the same price atsecure paid loljosh when he left him the positive comment, The day after XC was released..

Conclusion: XC was made by loljosh for .7/.8 BTC from atsecure. It's just another clone/copy coin.

[chaeplin]

Happen again!!

Dev has no clue..