Let's learn about XC, And why it's the Future of Crypto "currencies"

[dadon]

Let's learn about XC and why it blows it's competitors including BTC out of the water hands down...( this was mostly copied from the XC website because it explains it best)

Total coins:
5.5 Million
Premine: 125k
Block Times: 90 Seconds
POS interest: 3.33% per year
Min stake time: 8 hours
Max Stake time: 30 Days

TECHNOLOGY

The XC network is made up of two parts: (1) the standard XC network, made up of computers running the XC App, and (2) the anonymous XC network, which is run by XC Nodes.  All apps that are open and connected to the network while holding coins are a part of the standard XC network.  This network is very similar to what other cryptocurrencies currently use.

 The XC anonymous network, on the other hand, is something entirely different.  It can be accessed from any XC App, but if a user designates a transaction to be sent anonymously, it is processed by the XC Nodes which make up the anonymizing portion of the network.  Any XC App can be set up to run as an XC Node, as long as it meets certain criteria

no bloat

XC was designed from the ground up to be compatible with mobile devices. Currently, there are several projects that have an anonymizing strategy that results in an unworkable blockchain bloat problem, which will only be compounded if they are ever introduced to mobile platforms.  Technologies like ring signatures and zero-knowledge proofs fall into this category and currently lack a way of avoiding this major setback.  XCurrency is able to use standard transactions, but multi-path then achieves an extremely high level of privacy combined with a high degree of prunability.  This allows XC to avoid blockchain bloat, even with full mobile integration.

decentralized

Because every XC App can function as an XC Node, this allows XC to avoid what Bitcoin core developer Gregory Maxwell has recently called a security “chokepoint” in some other coins’ use of semi-centralized nodes to forward transactions.  Unlike most other anonymous strategies, XC avoids the need to hold a very large amount of coins in order for an XC Node to function.  This is made possible due to the small, random transaction sizes of XC’s multi-path architecture.  The smaller capital requirement to run an XC Node benefits the XC network by allowing more XC Nodes to exist, increasing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the anonymous network.

network security

XC uses multi-sig and end-to-end message encryption. This solution improves upon the more common practice of simply forwarding transactions, which can be problematic because malicious actors can steal transactions instead of forwarding them.  Another issue resolved by the XC approach is XC Nodes cannot snoop on the broadcasting system and publish the identities of senders and receivers.  This further adds to XC's security.

not just for payments

From the onset, XC was designed to take advantage of Blockchain 2.0 architecture. This makes implementations such as secure messaging, secure chatting, and decentralized cloud storage possible. XC’s comprehensive approach to incorporating current and trending technologies provides a stable platform on which to implement exciting new ideas and features in the future. The XC community has already seen evidence of this forward planning in the efficiency with which changes can be made.

 XC was built for the future. While it successfully implements the imperative state of the art technologies that are expected of a cryptocurrency today, the foundation has been laid for even bigger things to come.

Near future (Coming months all of this will be implemented Most probably by the end of the year, Brace yourselves.)

XC Mobile

Currently in progress is the fully featured XC mobile wallet/app.  This app for smartphones will be made available for both iOS and Android operating systems.  Users will be able to earn interest on the go, made possible thanks to XC’s adaptive design.  XC is also working on the technology to allow the purchase of XCurrency directly through the mobile app – this will add ease-of-use for those with less tech knowledge, and will make reloading with XCurrency easier than ever.

Decentralized Cloud Storage

The incorporation of Blockchain 2.0 architecture into the XC framework allows for a broad range of future developments.  One area being looked into by the XC team is the use of the XC blockchain for decentralized cloud storage.  This storage could be utilized by individuals, businesses, or even political campaigns.  The ability to safely store and transfer important documents, without fear of disclosure to third parties, is something that a diverse group of people could benefit from.  XC is taking steps to make this feature a reality.

Payment Networks

As the XCurrency base is further developed, adding XCurrency to an existing payment network, such as the Visa network, will be a number one priority.  Imagine XC being as easy to use as a credit card, but without the need for the actual card, since XC will be fully functional on any mobile device.  This integration into any one of the larger payment networks will allow XC to be utilized at millions of point of sale locations across the globe.  It will also open the door for utilization with ATM’s, otherwise known as cash machines in some countries.  Combined with the ability to reload your mobile app with XCurrency at the click of a button, this will be the premier step toward bringing XC before the masses as a usable, functional, flexible, and robust currency alternative.

NFC Payments

A project that’s been in the works for years, near field communication (NFC) payment technology is starting to gain mass adoption and acceptance as a simpler, faster, and more secure way to make payments at point of sale locations.  With the development of XC’s mobile app, the timing for such an acceptance of NFC technology by the general population couldn’t have been better.  Some of the key benefits associated with utilization of NFC technology in conjunction with XC:

Blockchain 2.0 Apps

XCurrency is built on Blockchain 2.0, a flexible digital platform which allows easy integration for current and future XC applications.  A few examples of upcoming applications would include the use of the XC App for encrypted messaging and chat, and the use of the XC blockchain for decentralized cloud storage.  These are just the start; the potential to build upon the XC platform is limitless.  With the Blockchain 2.0 architecture already in place, the blockchain for XCurrency is like a foundation awaiting the actual building to be erected.  Stay tuned to see what the XCurrency team has planned, and as always, if you have a great idea that you would like to see implemented, by all means contact us and we’ll take a more detailed look.

Web 3.0 Development

Web 3.0 represents the evolution of the World Wide Web.  Poised to make the internet fully and provably secure against identity theft, fraud, and spying,  Web 3.0 is a fundamental change in the architecture of the Internet. XCurrency’s platform approach incorporates Web 3.0 concepts, like decentralization and appropriately secure protocols for various types of information. As XC’s Blockchain 2.0 applications grow in number, XC will increasingly become a fundamental building block of Web 3.0.

Proof of Blockchain

Proof of Blockchain (PoBC) is such new technology, that very few understand it.  Invented by Jasinlee, one of XC’s developers, PoBC will essentially allow blockchains to talk to each other.  At this point, PoBC is a revolutionary concept that, if successfully implemented, will become an incredibly powerful facet of the XCurrency project, further increasing privacy and reducing blockchain size.  PoBC is not going to be implemented in the immediate future due to the enormous amount of work required to code and implement it, (and there are more immediate goals, as outlined in the XC roadmap), but keep an eye out for announcements regarding PoBC, and the positive impacts that PoBC may have on XC’s future.

Learn about XC's free encrypted Messaging (soon to have free encrypted video and voice call)
http://xc-official.com/xc-news/

Lead developer
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dan-metcalf/12/1a8/b82

TIMELINE
*2014-5-08 XC launches
*2014-5-26 Rev. 1.0 End to end encryption
*2014-5-26 Trusted mixer
*2014-6-16 Rev. 1.5 Early multipath  
*2014-6-16 XC team reveals their identities
*2014-6-24 XC TOR Stick test release
*2014-7-7  XC official website launch
*2014-7-7  XC social media platforms launch
*2014-7-7 Rev 2.0
*2014-7-7 Full multipath
*2014-7-7 Trustless mixing
*2014-7-8 New XC team members introduced
*2014-7-9 XChat app test release
*2014-7-21 Rev 1 mixer code open source release
*2014-8-4 XChat and private payments merge
*2014-8-7 XC TOR Stick
*2014-8-7 XChat release
 COMING SOON
[Undisclosed Rev 2 privacy feature]
*Rev 2.5 XChat, New UI preview
*Rev 3.0 [Undisclosed tech update]
*XC app UI
*Official public launch
*XC TOR Stick ships to buyers
*Public bounty to provably break privacy
*XChat mobile
*XC mobile staking wallets
*XC ATMs
*XChat voice calling
*Point of sale integration
*XChat video calling
*Proof of Blockchain
*Decentralised cloud storage
*Decentralised exchange
*Interchains
AND MORE TO BE ANNOUNCED!!

[1714782279]

1714782279

[1714782279]

1714782279

[1714782279]

1714782279

[1714782279]

1714782279

[dadon]

Some more info provided by one of XCs team members

Let's sketch a scenario here:

- I want to pay someone

- I don't want to publicly reveal my address

- I don't want to publicly reveal the amount paid

- I will need to prove to the recipient that the amount has been paid

- If the product/service I'm paying for is not delivered I want the option of using this proof of payment to demand a refund or otherwise seek redress.


- The recipient does not want to disclose his/her address

- The recipient does not want to disclose the amount received

- The recipient needs proof of payment before providing the product/service


Solution:

- Sender uses multipath to conceal the amount paid

- Sender uses trustless mixing to conceal the address paid from

- Sender sends to a single-use address that (s)he is in control of

- Recipient provides a publicised address but will receive payment on a stealth address, thus concealing the address received on

- Sender then makes a public payment to the recipient's publicised address that is recorded on the blockchain as successfully sent


- In the event of a dispute, the sender can sign a message proving to be the owner of the public key associated with that address. This involves disclosing - at least to the recipient and possibly also publicly or to a mediator - the address and the amount. As such, users will be discouraged from engaging in illicit transactions due to inability to dispute publicly should products or services not be delivered.


So that'll work pretty well - and I haven't even need to use XChat, which would come in handy for other scenarios.

Secondly, when XC starts on smart contracts there'll be an additional tool at our disposal: escrow service nodes (which earn fees for forwarding/arbitrating multisig transactions). Now that'll be powerful. There'll be no conceivable situation we can't engineer optimally.

LINKS TO XC RELATED
*https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.0
*http://xctalk.com/
*http://www.reddit.com/r/XCofficialreddit/
*http://xc-official.com/

[dadon]

XC introduction video.
http://youtu.be/00WyuTm5jvQ

[dadon]

no one..

[Silly Money]

Lol, I see no evidence of why it's the future. Just looks like another dime a dozen alt to me.

[dadon]

Lol, I see no evidence of why it's the future. Just looks like another dime a dozen alt to me.

Does it lol..wow..fell free to name something better..and not just promises i want to see working tech..or fell free to link the sender and receiver addresses and claim the 2 BTC bounty that's been out for over a month.

[Phillis]

Lol, I see no evidence of why it's the future. Just looks like another dime a dozen alt to me.

thats because it is, plus its POS...

[dadon]

Lol, I see no evidence of why it's the future. Just looks like another dime a dozen alt to me.

thats because it is, plus its POS...

you peeps make me giggle, go ahead name something better, i dare you, real working tech no vaporware allowed, and what's wrong with POS no new coin mintage means stable price, can't see the faults.

[dadon]

just name something better, should be easy since it's a dime a dozen..ohh that's what i thought it's not a dime a dozen, it's in a league of it's own, you all BTC fan boys, and your terrified, don't blame you really.

[Cannon Fodder]

Lol, I see no evidence of why it's the future. Just looks like another dime a dozen alt to me.

LOL, I see no evidence that you have a brain.  

How can anyone that reads up on XC and who the main developer is come to the conclusion that XC is just another dime a dozen alt?

[newuser01]

please stop the constant spamming of XC

Sell that shit and write it off as a loss instead of trying to get another pump going.. it's not going to happen

[shanuu]

please stop the constant spamming of XC

Sell that shit and write it off as a loss instead of trying to get another pump going.. it's not going to happen

Why? Why we should sell?  Give us some reasons.
You know something that we don't?

[dadon]

please stop the constant spamming of XC

Sell that shit and write it off as a loss instead of trying to get another pump going.. it's not going to happen

no loss i put less then 5k into it when it first came out, and got 80k i hold 75k right now, all profit no need to pump and dump, has a bright future and i'm in profit since it's sitting around $1 mark, and not spamming i'm spreading awareness because half this forum seams to living under a rock.

[policymaker]

Must be hard to have missed the train and now just feed in uncertainty and shitcoins. XC has been, is and will be constantly delivering till we bypass the haters in the community altogether and get noticed in the open world.

[newuser01]

please stop the constant spamming of XC

Sell that shit and write it off as a loss instead of trying to get another pump going.. it's not going to happen

Why? Why we should sell?  Give us some reasons.
You know something that we don't?

No

You know it as well but you don't want to believe it.

[dadon]

please stop the constant spamming of XC

Sell that shit and write it off as a loss instead of trying to get another pump going.. it's not going to happen

Why? Why we should sell?  Give us some reasons.
You know something that we don't?

No

You know it as well but you don't want to believe it.

no one is going to pay you any attention until you explain WHY!! ohhh well we can't all retire off crypto investments good luck with whatever P&D your holding.

[Lauda]

Nothing special, you're talking nonsense IMO.

[shanuu]

please stop the constant spamming of XC


Sell that shit and write it off as a loss instead of trying to get another pump going.. it's not going to happen

Why? Why we should sell?  Give us some reasons.
You know something that we don't?

No

You know it as well but you don't want to believe it.

I don't know what are you talking about!?
Plecase do explain...

[dadon]

Nothing special, you're talking nonsense IMO.

very special, your talking nonsense IMO.

[Lauda]

Nothing special, you're talking nonsense IMO.

very special, your talking nonsense IMO.

How about you start a poll newbie and see what happens. It wouldn't even matter since the older members are with Monero (a nice portion of them).

[dow1135]

Nothing special, you're talking nonsense IMO.

Nothing special, did you read the OP? I would really like you to point me to another coin that has working tech like XC and also the future plans of XC.

[dadon]

Nothing special, you're talking nonsense IMO.

very special, your talking nonsense IMO.

How about you start a poll newbie and see what happens. It wouldn't even matter since the older members are with Monero (a nice portion of them).

there is already a poll and XC is beating XMR lol...and who cares innovation always wins, mobile devices are the future, XC is specifically designed for mobile devices, good luck with that for XMR. and this forum is a tiny audience, XC will soon have free encrypted video and voice calling soon this will bring in so many people to crypto, plus in wallet XC purchasing, XMR can't compete sorry to rain on your parade mate. here is the poll i was going to do one but no need https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=568166.0

[Lauda]

there is already a poll and XC is beating XMR lol...and who cares innovation always wins, mobile devices are the future, XC is specifically designed for mobile devices, good luck with that for XMR. and this forum is a tiny audience, XC will soon have free encrypted video and voice calling soon this will bring in so many people to crypto, plus in wallet XC purchasing, XMR can't compete sorry to rain on your parade mate. here is the poll i was going to do one but no need https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=568166.0

It does by 15 votes, how important really.
If you're going by that logic:

because DRK clearly beat your 'future coin'.

You said that ring signatures are bloating the blockchain and this being a major setback. This is wrong, the setback is very minor, stop talking nonsense and do your research.

[dadon]

there is already a poll and XC is beating XMR lol...and who cares innovation always wins, mobile devices are the future, XC is specifically designed for mobile devices, good luck with that for XMR. and this forum is a tiny audience, XC will soon have free encrypted video and voice calling soon this will bring in so many people to crypto, plus in wallet XC purchasing, XMR can't compete sorry to rain on your parade mate. here is the poll i was going to do one but no need https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=568166.0

It does by 15 votes, how important really.
If you're going by that logic:

because DRK clearly beat your 'future coin'.

You said that ring signatures are bloating the blockchain and this being a major setback. This is wrong, the setback is very minor, stop talking nonsense and do your research.

XC is 3 months old and DRK 6 months old, and hey your the one who said start a poll lol i'm just pointing out there is one already and your loosing.

[dadon]

there is already a poll and XC is beating XMR lol...and who cares innovation always wins, mobile devices are the future, XC is specifically designed for mobile devices, good luck with that for XMR. and this forum is a tiny audience, XC will soon have free encrypted video and voice calling soon this will bring in so many people to crypto, plus in wallet XC purchasing, XMR can't compete sorry to rain on your parade mate. here is the poll i was going to do one but no need https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=568166.0

It does by 15 votes, how important really.
If you're going by that logic:

because DRK clearly beat your 'future coin'.

You said that ring signatures are bloating the blockchain and this being a major setback. This is wrong, the setback is very minor, stop talking nonsense and do your research.

ok so ring signature bloat is not a big deal...i believe you..so when will you have mobile wallets for XMR, is there an ETA 2020?

[dow1135]

there is already a poll and XC is beating XMR lol...and who cares innovation always wins, mobile devices are the future, XC is specifically designed for mobile devices, good luck with that for XMR. and this forum is a tiny audience, XC will soon have free encrypted video and voice calling soon this will bring in so many people to crypto, plus in wallet XC purchasing, XMR can't compete sorry to rain on your parade mate. here is the poll i was going to do one but no need https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=568166.0

It does by 15 votes, how important really.
If you're going by that logic:
http://snd1.splashpress1.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/double_facepalm.jpg
because DRK clearly beat your 'future coin'.

You said that ring signatures are bloating the blockchain and this being a major setback. This is wrong, the setback is very minor, stop talking nonsense and do your research.

I would think the blockchain bloat would hinder mass adoption, can you pls explain why you think it's not a problem? The future is mobile with brick and mortar shops, How will XMR integrate into mobile? Oh also does XMR have EM, or encrypted voice and video chat around the corner?

[Lauda]

At first I was a bit ignorant when I encountered Monero but that was due to other issues at hand (mine not the coins). Don't get me wrong I'm not a real Monero supporter but I do own some.

The first is that you're missing time as a frame of reference. Those two chains don't exist at the same time, and by the time the ring signatures chain reaches the level of transactions chain 1 has the lay of the land will be different. In other words, Bitcoin's blockchain right now is 20gb as it processes 61 000 transactions a day with a huge market cap and massive amounts of global reach. If Monero, for instance, reached that level in 5 years time it would have a 110gb blockchain by the middle of 2019. I have a 1tb Kingston thumb drive in my pocket, WD just released the 6tb version of their Red NAS series of drives. With HGST pushing HAMR drives for next year, they expect that in the next 5 years there will be 40tb - 60tb drives that are as readily available and cheap as 4tb - 6tb drives today. Will a 110gb blockchain on full nodes really matter by 2019, when everyone is sporting 40tb drives? By direct comparison: Bitcoin's blockchain takes up 0.5% of today's 4tb drives, and comparably Monero would take up 0.275% of 2019's 40tb drives. In other words, disk space and Internet capacity is rapidly outstripping potential blockchain growth.
Ring signatures provide cryptographically untraceable and unlinkable transactions for a small sacrifice in blockchain storage in a world where disk space is not at a premium.

Exactly how is encrypted voice and video useful for a coin?
How about you put wireless charging in it too? 

[dadon]

At first I was a bit ignorant when I encountered Monero but that was due to other issues at hand (mine not the coins). Don't get me wrong I'm not a real Monero supporter but I do own some.

The first is that you're missing time as a frame of reference. Those two chains don't exist at the same time, and by the time the ring signatures chain reaches the level of transactions chain 1 has the lay of the land will be different. In other words, Bitcoin's blockchain right now is 20gb as it processes 61 000 transactions a day with a huge market cap and massive amounts of global reach. If Monero, for instance, reached that level in 5 years time it would have a 110gb blockchain by the middle of 2019. I have a 1tb Kingston thumb drive in my pocket, WD just released the 6tb version of their Red NAS series of drives. With HGST pushing HAMR drives for next year, they expect that in the next 5 years there will be 40tb - 60tb drives that are as readily available and cheap as 4tb - 6tb drives today. Will a 110gb blockchain on full nodes really matter by 2019, when everyone is sporting 40tb drives? By direct comparison: Bitcoin's blockchain takes up 0.5% of today's 4tb drives, and comparably Monero would take up 0.275% of 2019's 40tb drives. In other words, disk space and Internet capacity is rapidly outstripping potential blockchain growth.
Ring signatures provide cryptographically untraceable and unlinkable transactions for a small sacrifice in blockchain storage in a world where disk space is not at a premium.

Exactly how is encrypted voice and video useful for a coin?
How about you put wireless charging in it too? 

because of NSA mass surveillance, why is Skype worth 8 billion all that is voice and video and not encrypted, lol your different aren't you...

[dow1135]

At first I was a bit ignorant when I encountered Monero but that was due to other issues at hand (mine not the coins). Don't get me wrong I'm not a real Monero supporter but I do own some.

The first is that you're missing time as a frame of reference. Those two chains don't exist at the same time, and by the time the ring signatures chain reaches the level of transactions chain 1 has the lay of the land will be different. In other words, Bitcoin's blockchain right now is 20gb as it processes 61 000 transactions a day with a huge market cap and massive amounts of global reach. If Monero, for instance, reached that level in 5 years time it would have a 110gb blockchain by the middle of 2019. I have a 1tb Kingston thumb drive in my pocket, WD just released the 6tb version of their Red NAS series of drives. With HGST pushing HAMR drives for next year, they expect that in the next 5 years there will be 40tb - 60tb drives that are as readily available and cheap as 4tb - 6tb drives today. Will a 110gb blockchain on full nodes really matter by 2019, when everyone is sporting 40tb drives? By direct comparison: Bitcoin's blockchain takes up 0.5% of today's 4tb drives, and comparably Monero would take up 0.275% of 2019's 40tb drives. In other words, disk space and Internet capacity is rapidly outstripping potential blockchain growth.
Ring signatures provide cryptographically untraceable and unlinkable transactions for a small sacrifice in blockchain storage in a world where disk space is not at a premium.

Exactly how is encrypted voice and video useful for a coin?
How about you put wireless charging in it too? 

It's not just a coin it's a platform. Your going to try and tell me that encrypted messages, voice, and video that is totally decentralized is not useful? Hell it's a multi billion dollar feature. Do you really like the NSA collecting all your data, if anon is such a big deal I would also think that having an XC app on your computer or phone to chat, call or skype  totally anonymous is a big deal.

[holyprofit]

At first I was a bit ignorant when I encountered Monero but that was due to other issues at hand (mine not the coins). Don't get me wrong I'm not a real Monero supporter but I do own some.

The first is that you're missing time as a frame of reference. Those two chains don't exist at the same time, and by the time the ring signatures chain reaches the level of transactions chain 1 has the lay of the land will be different. In other words, Bitcoin's blockchain right now is 20gb as it processes 61 000 transactions a day with a huge market cap and massive amounts of global reach. If Monero, for instance, reached that level in 5 years time it would have a 110gb blockchain by the middle of 2019. I have a 1tb Kingston thumb drive in my pocket, WD just released the 6tb version of their Red NAS series of drives. With HGST pushing HAMR drives for next year, they expect that in the next 5 years there will be 40tb - 60tb drives that are as readily available and cheap as 4tb - 6tb drives today. Will a 110gb blockchain on full nodes really matter by 2019, when everyone is sporting 40tb drives? By direct comparison: Bitcoin's blockchain takes up 0.5% of today's 4tb drives, and comparably Monero would take up 0.275% of 2019's 40tb drives. In other words, disk space and Internet capacity is rapidly outstripping potential blockchain growth.
Ring signatures provide cryptographically untraceable and unlinkable transactions for a small sacrifice in blockchain storage in a world where disk space is not at a premium.

Exactly how is encrypted voice and video useful for a coin?
How about you put wireless charging in it too? 

wireless charging would be awesome. Seriously though, encrypted communication is a massive issue.

[fanboy4]

What happens if "Decentralized Cloud Storage" decided to be shut off by dev?

[Lauda]

Yet you keep avoiding the bloating issues hm.
Edit your post and I might consider this one more time.

[holyprofit]

What happens if "Decentralized Cloud Storage" decided to be shut off by dev?

Not sure I understand. No-one can shut it off because it's decentralised - that's the point. (XC relies on
every wallet acting as a node so they would have to own every wallet.)

[dadon]

Yet you keep avoiding the bloating issues hm.
Edit your post and I might consider this one more time.

i'm not avoding nothing the bloating issue is not my expertise i did say that a lot of what was written was from the website, all i asked was do you have an ETA for XMR mobile wallets before 2020

[Lauda]

Yet you keep avoiding the bloating issues hm.
Edit your post and I might consider this one more time.

i'm not avoding nothing the bloating issue is not my expertise i did say that a lot of what was written was from the website, all i asked was do you have an ETA for XMR mobile wallets before 2020

I've clearly stated that I'm not real supporter of Monero.
Why should I care for a mobile wallet?

[PowderMonkey]

I'll make a disclaimer: I'm an XC holder.

Just wanted to address one thing, anyone that says XC is just another dime a dozen coin hasn't done any research whatsoever.  The very reason I'm holding my XC is because there's a genuine and open dev and team that have a focused plan, and are consistently and routinely achieving goals on the road map, usually way ahead of schedule.

Unless someone is looking to strictly chase pump and dump coins for fast profit (or, fast loss), they'd be crazy to not hold at least a little XC for the long term.  My 2 cents.

Carry on.

[Phillis]

i hate XC PR guy because it feels like he is attempting (and seemingly successfully) to indoctrinate people into investing in that coin. Its announcements like "another world first" type of thing.

[SushiChef]

[childish remarks]

Telling the world you hate someone because he articulates better then you.. Yeah great one!

[G-Bert]

XC is the only coin I hold (other than BTC) that I dont find myself constantly worrying about the price.

The only reason I got involved in the first place is due to the open Dev (and now whole open dev team!) and it clearly not being a scam.

Since then everything promised has been delivered on time or early.

I've got various other coins aswell, but XC has my majority and I dont feel constantly worried about price unlike the others.

Im not trying to be a fanboy, but don't see why XC wouldn't be worth checking out to anyone after a long term investment not another P&D.

[dadon]

i hate XC PR guy because it feels like he is attempting (and seemingly successfully) to indoctrinate people into investing in that coin. Its announcements like "another world first" type of thing.

let me be brutally honest..i want people to make money on XC like early BTC adopters did this is my motive, not to P&D, i swear that on my mothers grave, i legitimately believe XC is the future of crypto, it has proven this to me.

[rdnkjdi]

The only reason I got involved in the first place is due to the open Dev (and now whole open dev team!) and it clearly not being a scam.

Yeah ... on the dev.  Might wanna read this..

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=21506.msg198342#msg198342

and the end of this.

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=2702.msg198923#new


I do have a question - is XC open source?

[dadon]

The only reason I got involved in the first place is due to the open Dev (and now whole open dev team!) and it clearly not being a scam.

Yeah ... on the dev.  Might wanna read this..

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=21506.msg198342#msg198342

and the end of this.

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=2702.msg198923#new


I do have a question - is XC open source?

jasinlee is not a dev of XC he was helping with some minor shit that's all,  and XC is open source but on a delayed timeline to prevent copy & paste shit.

[fluffypony]

It's not just a coin it's a platform. Your going to try and tell me that encrypted messages, voice, and video that is totally decentralized is not useful? Hell it's a multi billion dollar feature. Do you really like the NSA collecting all your data, if anon is such a big deal I would also think that having an XC app on your computer or phone to chat, call or skype  totally anonymous is a big deal.

tox.im already does this, and it does so in a way that cryptographers agree is reasonably safe.

Until we see a whitepaper detailing the cryptography and mathematics behind this anonymous, encrypted voice/video/chat it's nothing more than hype to sell a coin. Even when such a whitepaper is released (and please don't link me to whitepapers with walls of text and zero maths) it will have to be vetted and peer-reviewed before it can be considered excellent or even safe to implement.

First you plan, then you talk, then you publish a whitepaper, then you write code, then you release. Not the other way around.

[rdnkjdi]

Gotcha ... for some reason I was thinking parts of it were going to stay closed sourced.  

You guys really should pay somebody several hundred XC's to re-design your website.  it's just .... awful.

My comment was geared towards the guy who was raving about the entire dev team.  After losing my ass in crypto I pay a lot more attention to who associates with who.  So consider that my fair warning to noobs.

[fluffypony]

ok so ring signature bloat is not a big deal...i believe you..so when will you have mobile wallets for XMR, is there an ETA 2020?

I tell you what. If you can't transact with Monero on most modern smartphones (Android, iOS, Blackberry, Windows Phone) by December 31st, 2014, I will eat an entire hat and film it on video.

Shout if you want this GPG signed to prove I'm not joking. Although you'll first need to understand what GPG is, and given your proclivity for ignoring cryptographic principles I don't suspect that to be plausible.

[G-Bert]

The only reason I got involved in the first place is due to the open Dev (and now whole open dev team!) and it clearly not being a scam.

Yeah ... on the dev.  Might wanna read this..

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=21506.msg198342#msg198342

and the end of this.

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=2702.msg198923#new


I do have a question - is XC open source?

Yeah Jasinlee Isn't our Dev though. He's just helped/helping out. Also all that stuff has been discussed in the XC thread, had a reply for Jasin, and is basically nothing do do with XC anyway.

Dan Metcalf is the Developer of XC - http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dan-metcalf/12/1a8/b82

And yes, XC is open source, Rev 1.5 was released a little while ago (and has already been copied)

Further releases are being released on a delayed timeline to try slow down the copy/paste P&D crew. They're currently on Rev 2.47 or thereabouts)

[rdnkjdi]

The only reason I got involved in the first place is due to the open Dev (and now whole open dev team!) and it clearly not being a scam.

Yeah ... on the dev.  Might wanna read this..

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=21506.msg198342#msg198342

and the end of this.

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=2702.msg198923#new


I do have a question - is XC open source?

Yeah Jasinlee Isn't our Dev though. He's just helped/helping out. Also all that stuff has been discussed in the XC thread, had a reply for Jasin, and is basically nothing do do with XC anyway.

Dan Metcalf is the Developer of XC - http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dan-metcalf/12/1a8/b82

And yes, XC is open source, Rev 1.5 was released a little while ago (and has already been copied)

Further releases are being released on a delayed timeline to try slow down the copy/paste P&D crew. They're currently on Rev 2.47 or thereabouts)

Isn't he your #2 core dev per website?

http://www.xc-official.com/the-xc-team/

[atcsecure]

The only reason I got involved in the first place is due to the open Dev (and now whole open dev team!) and it clearly not being a scam.

Yeah ... on the dev.  Might wanna read this..

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=21506.msg198342#msg198342

and the end of this.

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=2702.msg198923#new


I do have a question - is XC open source?

Yeah Jasinlee Isn't our Dev though. He's just helped/helping out. Also all that stuff has been discussed in the XC thread, had a reply for Jasin, and is basically nothing do do with XC anyway.

Dan Metcalf is the Developer of XC - http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dan-metcalf/12/1a8/b82

And yes, XC is open source, Rev 1.5 was released a little while ago (and has already been copied)

Further releases are being released on a delayed timeline to try slow down the copy/paste P&D crew. They're currently on Rev 2.47 or thereabouts)

Isn't he your #2 core dev per website?

http://www.xc-official.com/the-xc-team/

Does it say #2 core developer? No it does NOT

[battbot]

Jasinlee was not part of XC's original dev team.  He volunteered to help with the XC project about 4-6 weeks after XC launched.  His contributions toward the XC project are greatly appreciated, but his involvement with the XC project is limited and thus does not compromise the integrity of XC's platform or development.

Dan Metcalf is the original and lead developer of XC.  XC's original dev team consists of Dan Metcalf and 4 other coders (not counting Jasinlee).  Currently, the only coder besides Dan from the original dev team to have gone public is Christian Howe (the other 3 remain anonymous, but to my knowledge, were there from the beginning as well).  

While I believe the above to be accurate, I am happy to be corrected on anything I just said.

[G-Bert]

The only reason I got involved in the first place is due to the open Dev (and now whole open dev team!) and it clearly not being a scam.

Yeah ... on the dev.  Might wanna read this..

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=21506.msg198342#msg198342

and the end of this.

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=2702.msg198923#new


I do have a question - is XC open source?

Yeah Jasinlee Isn't our Dev though. He's just helped/helping out. Also all that stuff has been discussed in the XC thread, had a reply for Jasin, and is basically nothing do do with XC anyway.

Dan Metcalf is the Developer of XC - http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dan-metcalf/12/1a8/b82

And yes, XC is open source, Rev 1.5 was released a little while ago (and has already been copied)

Further releases are being released on a delayed timeline to try slow down the copy/paste P&D crew. They're currently on Rev 2.47 or thereabouts)

Isn't he your #2 core dev per website?

http://www.xc-official.com/the-xc-team/

As per website

"Christian Howe
Developer
 
Core XC developer from day one."

[rdnkjdi]

Well your website makes him look like #2.  Whatever ...

Goodluck to you guys.  Tired of seeing this shill / marketing thread everywhere.  Your thread reminds me of reddit doders.  Getting irritating.  Pay somebody to redesign your website.  It would do your coin good.

[fluffypony]

Jasinlee was not part of XC's original dev team.  He volunteered to help with the XC project about 4-6 weeks after XC launched.  His contributions toward the XC project are greatly appreciated, but his involvement with the XC project is limited and thus does not compromise the integrity of XC's platform or development.

Dan Metcalf is the original and lead developer of XC.  XC's original dev team consists of Dan Metcalf and 4 other coders (not counting Jasinlee).  Currently, the only coder besides Dan from the original dev team to have gone public is Christian Howe (the other 3 remain anonymous, but to my knowledge, were there from the beginning as well).  

While I believe the above to be accurate, I am happy to be corrected on anything I just said.

So zero cryptographers, then?

Just checking.

[synechist]

First you plan, then you talk, then you publish a whitepaper, then you write code, then you release. Not the other way around.

Nope. First you research, then you code, then you explain it to everyone (via a scholarly paper and other means).

Invert this order and you'll facilitate the creation of innumerable P&D coins that the general public will have a hard time distinguishing from the quality projects. And this hinders the entire altcoin phenomenon.

To not lend support to XC's way of doing things is, in effect, to lend support to an awfully unethical environment composed mostly of scams.

[G-Bert]

Well your website makes him look like #2.  Whatever ...

Goodluck to you guys.  Tired of seeing this shill / marketing thread everywhere.  Your thread reminds me of reddit doders.  Getting irritating.  Pay somebody to redesign your website.  It would do your coin good.

Agree with the website point (the menu bit is still busted) and the fact jasin is looking like second developer on said website. but i got no say in any of this stuff.

I assure you I am no shill. Just followed the 1060 page thread so know the answers to most of your questions.

Good luck to you too.

[synechist]

Well your website makes him look like #2.  Whatever ...

Goodluck to you guys.  Tired of seeing this shill / marketing thread everywhere.  Your thread reminds me of reddit doders.  Getting irritating.  Pay somebody to redesign your website.  It would do your coin good.

Shill? Full disclosure: I'm XC's PR and media liaison. Thus no shilling here.

Marketing? Ask me some real questions then.

You're very welcome to improve the quality of discourse on XC if it doesn't suit your tastes.

[Teka]

Well your website makes him look like #2.  Whatever ...

Goodluck to you guys.  Tired of seeing this shill / marketing thread everywhere.  Your thread reminds me of reddit doders.  Getting irritating.  Pay somebody to redesign your website.  It would do your coin good.

You're right: whatever. It's probably best to give up when your facts are incorrect and your best argument doesn't stick.

[demgains]

Gotcha ... for some reason I was thinking parts of it were going to stay closed sourced.  

You guys really should pay somebody several hundred XC's to re-design your website.  it's just .... awful.

My comment was geared towards the guy who was raving about the entire dev team.  After losing my ass in crypto I pay a lot more attention to who associates with who.  So consider that my fair warning to noobs.

I think this is coming in the future, with the PR campaign Rev 3

[G-Bert]

Well your website makes him look like #2.  Whatever ...

Goodluck to you guys.  Tired of seeing this shill / marketing thread everywhere.  Your thread reminds me of reddit doders.  Getting irritating.  Pay somebody to redesign your website.  It would do your coin good.

You're right: whatever. It's probably best to give up when your facts are incorrect and your best argument doesn't stick.

To be fair to him Teka, the site does show him right at the top next to Dan. Could be easy to assume if you dont know the history of XC. Just saying.

[fluffypony]

First you plan, then you talk, then you publish a whitepaper, then you write code, then you release. Not the other way around.

Nope. First you research, then you code, then you explain it to everyone (via a scholarly paper and other means).

Invert this order and you'll facilitate the creation of innumerable P&D coins that the general public will have a hard time distinguishing from the quality projects. And this hinders the entire altcoin phenomenon.

To not lend support to XC's way of doing things is, in effect, to lend support to an awfully unethical environment composed mostly of scams.

Nonsense - Satoshi released the whitepaper and received commentary on it before he released the code. Specifically, he released the whitepaper on 2008-11-01, and then he released Bitcoin 0.1 on 2009-01-09. I have no doubt he had a large portion of the code completed by the time he released the whitepaper, but those 2 months gave him time to refine things after discussions on the cryptography mailing list. This is important, especially with a cryptocurrency or other cryptography related projects, because you cannot have knowledge of all pitfalls a priori, and discussions with cryptographers and a peer review process at least allows the major ones to be removed.

About the only occurrence I've ever seen of cryptographically sound software being released before the whitepaper was BitMessage where they were both made available within days of each other in November, 2012. The difference is that he knew that no great amount of users were going to have their messages at risk initially, so there was time to fix major pitfalls. Additionally, nobody that got in to BitMessage early had any sort of financial advantage over those that got in later.

Doing things the other way round when you are dealing with people's money is not only grossly irresponsible, but incredibly dangerous. That there is closed-source code not even being made available for review is unconscionable. You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that this is a good idea.

[rdnkjdi]

Well your website makes him look like #2.  Whatever ...

Goodluck to you guys.  Tired of seeing this shill / marketing thread everywhere.  Your thread reminds me of reddit doders.  Getting irritating.  Pay somebody to redesign your website.  It would do your coin good.

You're right: whatever. It's probably best to give up when your facts are incorrect and your best argument doesn't stick.

Of course it doesn't stick to people who are trying to get rich off it's success are who are on the other side of the isle.  Look - here is why I know XC will fail (this is from another thread).

Consensus.  Consensus needs a whitepaper.  Consensus needs a community (not shills & hype).  Consensus needs open source (XC is delayed - I admit ...).  Consensus needs proper distribution (not PoS).  Consensus needs a simple (and not horrific) website.  Consensus needs simplicity - both in product and in communication.  Not shiny things that re-invent the wheel "better" 

"XC is a currency that you can skype on and the NSA can't find you plus you can buy a USB key.  But mostly it's a currency"

wtf?

Consensus ... consensus is why XC is guaranteed to fail.

I lost a ton on another coin.  Turns out I wasn't wrong .... on anything.  Except taking consensus into consideration.  It wasn't a scam, it wasn't a pump and dump, etc.  I see more posts about innovation on your coin (just because I've been loosely following it due to Jasinlee) than ANY other coin.  But it still takes huge dumps everytime it goes above 5 mil market cap.  Even with all the "good news" it's harder and harder to "keep it up" ... the market cap I mean.

XCdoge has better marketing (horrific website aside) than most other coins too.  More - more marketing would be the proper term. 

Anybody thinking about buying into XC just think about consensus. 

[dadon]

fuck bro you sound like you had more acid then i did tonight...

[BitCoinDream]

Lol, I see no evidence of why it's the future. Just looks like another dime a dozen alt to me.

Does it lol..wow..fell free to name something better..and not just promises i want to see working tech..or fell free to link the sender and receiver addresses and claim the 2 BTC bounty that's been out for over a month.

The first thing that concerns me is that U r from XC, but not declaring it in the OP. Why do u want to hide that and want to look like a random user ?

[dadon]

Lol, I see no evidence of why it's the future. Just looks like another dime a dozen alt to me.

Does it lol..wow..fell free to name something better..and not just promises i want to see working tech..or fell free to link the sender and receiver addresses and claim the 2 BTC bounty that's been out for over a month.

The first thing that concerns me is that U r from XC, but not declaring it in the OP. Why do u want to hide that and want to look like a random user ?

I am just a random user, have nothing to do with the Team, just trying to bring awareness.

[synechist]

First you plan, then you talk, then you publish a whitepaper, then you write code, then you release. Not the other way around.

Nope. First you research, then you code, then you explain it to everyone (via a scholarly paper and other means).

Invert this order and you'll facilitate the creation of innumerable P&D coins that the general public will have a hard time distinguishing from the quality projects. And this hinders the entire altcoin phenomenon.

To not lend support to XC's way of doing things is, in effect, to lend support to an awfully unethical environment composed mostly of scams.

Nonsense - Satoshi released the whitepaper and received commentary on it before he released the code. Specifically, he released the whitepaper on 2008-11-01, and then he released Bitcoin 0.1 on 2009-01-09. I have no doubt he had a large portion of the code completed by the time he released the whitepaper, but those 2 months gave him time to refine things after discussions on the cryptography mailing list. This is important, especially with a cryptocurrency or other cryptography related projects, because you cannot have knowledge of all pitfalls a priori, and discussions with cryptographers and a peer review process at least allows the major ones to be removed.

About the only occurrence I've ever seen of cryptographically sound software being released before the whitepaper was BitMessage where they were both made available within days of each other in November, 2012. The difference is that he knew that no great amount of users were going to have their messages at risk initially, so there was time to fix major pitfalls. Additionally, nobody that got in to BitMessage early had any sort of financial advantage over those that got in later.

Doing things the other way round when you are dealing with people's money is not only grossly irresponsible, but incredibly dangerous. That there is closed-source code not even being made available for review is unconscionable. You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that this is a good idea.

Satoshi did that before an entire ecosystem grew up around Bitcoin and its many offshoots.

To do the same now would, as stated, be obviously unethical. I don't need to reiterate why.

As for your remark about releasing closed source code, those who consider it a risk and still invest in XC stand to benefit, and those who don't, do not stand to benefit should XC succeed. That's all it comes down to. "Dangerous"? Of course, insofar as dangerous" implies "risky". Unethical? By no means.

But to assert that releasing closed source code is "dangerous" also implies, as far as I can see, that developers should take responsibility for the risks that their investors make. This is just silly. We've been completely open about our policy on open source and any investor would factor this in when they do their due diligence. Come on. What sort of libertarian-paternalist black swan does this position make of you?

[BitCoinDream]

Lol, I see no evidence of why it's the future. Just looks like another dime a dozen alt to me.

Does it lol..wow..fell free to name something better..and not just promises i want to see working tech..or fell free to link the sender and receiver addresses and claim the 2 BTC bounty that's been out for over a month.

The first thing that concerns me is that U r from XC, but not declaring it in the OP. Why do u want to hide that and want to look like a random user ?

I am just a random user, have nothing to do with the Team, just trying to bring awareness.

Does not seem so from your posts in this thread. U never seem to talk positively about any other Alt. I'm a Bitcoiner. Still I hold Stellar and interested in Ether as a non-biased user. Your posts are full of Bias and that is what concerns me about XC.

[synechist]

Consensus.  Consensus needs a whitepaper.  Consensus needs a community (not shills & hype).  Consensus needs open source (XC is delayed - I admit ...).  Consensus needs proper distribution (not PoS).  Consensus needs a simple (and not horrific) website.  Consensus needs simplicity - both in product and in communication.  Not shiny things that re-invent the wheel "better" 

"XC is a currency that you can skype on and the NSA can't find you plus you can buy a USB key.  But mostly it's a currency"

wtf?

Consensus ... consensus is why XC is guaranteed to fail.

Interesting point... mostly because it's ambiguous.

If "consensus" applies to all those diverse attributes, then what do you mean by consensus?

In what sense is PoS not fair distribution?

In what sense is having a website (whether good or not) related to consensus?


Weird post.

[dadon]

Lol, I see no evidence of why it's the future. Just looks like another dime a dozen alt to me.

Does it lol..wow..fell free to name something better..and not just promises i want to see working tech..or fell free to link the sender and receiver addresses and claim the 2 BTC bounty that's been out for over a month.

The first thing that concerns me is that U r from XC, but not declaring it in the OP. Why do u want to hide that and want to look like a random user ?

I am just a random user, have nothing to do with the Team, just trying to bring awareness.

Does not seem so from your posts in this thread. U never seem to talk positively about any other Alt. I'm a Bitcoiner. Still I hold Stellar and interested in Ether as a non-biased user. Your posts are full of Bias and that is what concerns me about XC.

i don't bother too hold any other coins anymore been burnt too many times, too many promises too little delivery's, XC is the only crypto i have seen with a vision and a proven delivery schedule they never miss and almost always over deliver on. that's why i talk the way i do about XC because my faith is with them and them only, have nothing too do with the team, just trying to bring awareness mate.

[fluffypony]

Nonsense - Satoshi released the whitepaper and received commentary on it before he released the code. Specifically, he released the whitepaper on 2008-11-01, and then he released Bitcoin 0.1 on 2009-01-09. I have no doubt he had a large portion of the code completed by the time he released the whitepaper, but those 2 months gave him time to refine things after discussions on the cryptography mailing list. This is important, especially with a cryptocurrency or other cryptography related projects, because you cannot have knowledge of all pitfalls a priori, and discussions with cryptographers and a peer review process at least allows the major ones to be removed.

About the only occurrence I've ever seen of cryptographically sound software being released before the whitepaper was BitMessage where they were both made available within days of each other in November, 2012. The difference is that he knew that no great amount of users were going to have their messages at risk initially, so there was time to fix major pitfalls. Additionally, nobody that got in to BitMessage early had any sort of financial advantage over those that got in later.

Doing things the other way round when you are dealing with people's money is not only grossly irresponsible, but incredibly dangerous. That there is closed-source code not even being made available for review is unconscionable. You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that this is a good idea.

Satoshi did that before an entire ecosystem grew up around Bitcoin and its many offshoots.

To do the same now would, as stated, be obviously unethical. I don't need to reiterate why.

As for your remark about releasing closed source code, those who consider it a risk and still invest in XC stand to benefit, and those who don't, do not stand to benefit should XC succeed. That's all it comes down to. "Dangerous"? Of course, insofar as dangerous" implies "risky". Unethical? By no means.

But to assert that releasing closed source code is "dangerous" also implies, as far as I can see, that developers should take responsibility for the risks that their investors make. This is just silly. We've been completely open about our policy on open source and any investor would factor this in when they do their due diligence. Come on. What sort of libertarian-paternalist black swan does this position make you?

You realise that you just agreed with me that releasing the cryptocurrency before releasing a whitepaper is unethical? Because you did. Releasing a whitepaper detailing the cryptography will NOT get your idea stolen. If that were the case, ZeroCoin would have been implemented by someone else. Their whitepaper was released in May 2013, after all.

What you (collectively) have done is unethical: releasing a cryptocurrency so that the early adopters can get rich, and then following that up with progressive closed-source releases so that nobody can check, and finally - only many months down the line - releasing a whitepaper that cryptographers, mathematicians, and computer scientists can peer review.

The thing is, I'm not alone in knowing that you are an unethical lot. Per: http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#x11_coin -

This coin seems to fit the pattern of a rapid PoW mining period followed by a much slower PoS period.

The coin launched on May 08th, 2014, according to their blockchain. By May 15th, the blockchain reveals that X11 coin had roughly 2,226,000 coins in existence by that day 117). By May 27th, the coin had switched almost entire into PoS 118) with around 5.5 million X11Coins in existence.

Initially, the bitcointalk.org thread created by the x11 community stated that the total number of PoW coins would be around 16 million coins and that PoS minting would take the expected total to 33 million coins 119). However, the coin developers have sinced changed their mind and shorted the PoW phase until 7.5 million coins are mined. Considering it took 19 days to produce roughly 5 million coins, we can't be far off from the end of the PoW phase and the full blown PoS phase, which returns 3.33 percent annually.

The problem with this sort of coin start, from the investor's perspective, is thus:

You are going to mine 7.5 million coins in probably 4-6 weeks. From that moment on, the most the entire network of X11 users can generate is 7,500,000 x .033 = 247,500 X11coins. When an investor comes along and sees a 100% PoW coin that makes 7.5 million coins in the first month, and then proceeds to adjust it's mining operations so that only ~20,000 coins are generated a month, the investor correctly identifies that coin as suspicious of being more of a money making venture for the creators rather than a revolutionary currency. Not to mention the fact that historically, only 50% or less of the coin holders actually mint their coins. It appears too many of them are just interested in day trading or too lazy/uninformed to do something otherwise. So the monthly total drops even more.

Why should an investor look at a PoW/PoS coin (and its coin generation tactics) without a discerning eye?

We also notice that the developer took a 99,000 X11coin premine (~2% total coins today, should be about 1.3% of total PoW coins). Unfortunately, you can read the bitcointalk.org thread yourself 120) and read the numerous problems the coin had launching. A number of miners simply gave up. You can also read how the developer more or less got the first 120 blocks (totaling some 26 thousand X11coin) and was shamed into including that into the premine total.

Last but not least, we can see on the blockchain that one wallet address has received 3.26 million coins 121), more than 50% of the coin's current totals. A quick look at the transactions to this address show it is mostly mining blocks that have produced this astronomical figure. Should it represent the mining of one person, that would be a ludicrous amount of coins. Should it represent a mining pool, it still is a problem because it suggests that one pool already has too much power and could potentially do double spends and other nefarious actions. But then again, the coin was mined so fast…did anyone notice?

All of these are suspect to bad signs for the coin.

[rdnkjdi]

Consensus.  Consensus needs a whitepaper.  Consensus needs a community (not shills & hype).  Consensus needs open source (XC is delayed - I admit ...).  Consensus needs proper distribution (not PoS).  Consensus needs a simple (and not horrific) website.  Consensus needs simplicity - both in product and in communication.  Not shiny things that re-invent the wheel "better" 

"XC is a currency that you can skype on and the NSA can't find you plus you can buy a USB key.  But mostly it's a currency"

wtf?

Consensus ... consensus is why XC is guaranteed to fail.

Interesting point... mostly because it's ambiguous.

If "consensus" applies to all those diverse attributes, then what do you mean by consensus?

In what sense is PoS not fair distribution?

In what sense is having a website (whether good or not) related to consensus?


Weird post.

It's not weird at all.  There is a huge difference between SELLING something to somebody (pump).  And consensus (currency). 

Look at bitcoin's website.  https://bitcoin.org/en/

Look at XC's website.  http://www.xc-official.com/

Look at all the XC posters.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the difference between salesmanship and consensus. 

Monroe & Bytecoin are a great example of consensus.  (Although Bytecoin did a lot less salesmanship than your coin does.)  Monroe fixed the consensus problem. 

PoS (which is why IMO it will ultimately fail) distributes the coin based on those who hold it.  I can understand why "mining" is waste of resources.  But (again IMO) it's a necessary one.  The idea of energy cannot be created - only transferred is partially at work.  Whereas with PoS - any "energy" created is done so by purely by innovation. 

Look at litecion.  Almost no innovation.  But tons and tons of wasteful energy behind it give it value (for now anyway).

Monroe & Bytecoin are a good example of a coin with consensus caused by distribution problems (Bytecoin).  Look at the market caps - the market punishes lack of proper distribution in the long run.

[dadon]

Nonsense - Satoshi released the whitepaper and received commentary on it before he released the code. Specifically, he released the whitepaper on 2008-11-01, and then he released Bitcoin 0.1 on 2009-01-09. I have no doubt he had a large portion of the code completed by the time he released the whitepaper, but those 2 months gave him time to refine things after discussions on the cryptography mailing list. This is important, especially with a cryptocurrency or other cryptography related projects, because you cannot have knowledge of all pitfalls a priori, and discussions with cryptographers and a peer review process at least allows the major ones to be removed.

About the only occurrence I've ever seen of cryptographically sound software being released before the whitepaper was BitMessage where they were both made available within days of each other in November, 2012. The difference is that he knew that no great amount of users were going to have their messages at risk initially, so there was time to fix major pitfalls. Additionally, nobody that got in to BitMessage early had any sort of financial advantage over those that got in later.

Doing things the other way round when you are dealing with people's money is not only grossly irresponsible, but incredibly dangerous. That there is closed-source code not even being made available for review is unconscionable. You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that this is a good idea.

Satoshi did that before an entire ecosystem grew up around Bitcoin and its many offshoots.

To do the same now would, as stated, be obviously unethical. I don't need to reiterate why.

As for your remark about releasing closed source code, those who consider it a risk and still invest in XC stand to benefit, and those who don't, do not stand to benefit should XC succeed. That's all it comes down to. "Dangerous"? Of course, insofar as dangerous" implies "risky". Unethical? By no means.

But to assert that releasing closed source code is "dangerous" also implies, as far as I can see, that developers should take responsibility for the risks that their investors make. This is just silly. We've been completely open about our policy on open source and any investor would factor this in when they do their due diligence. Come on. What sort of libertarian-paternalist black swan does this position make you?

You realise that you just agreed with me that releasing the cryptocurrency before releasing a whitepaper is unethical? Because you did. Releasing a whitepaper detailing the cryptography will NOT get your idea stolen. If that were the case, ZeroCoin would have been implemented by someone else. Their whitepaper was released in May 2013, after all.

What you (collectively) have done is unethical: releasing a cryptocurrency so that the early adopters can get rich, and then following that up with progressive closed-source releases so that nobody can check, and finally - only many months down the line - releasing a whitepaper that cryptographers, mathematicians, and computer scientists can peer review.

The thing is, I'm not alone in knowing that you are an unethical lot. Per: http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#x11_coin -

This coin seems to fit the pattern of a rapid PoW mining period followed by a much slower PoS period.

The coin launched on May 08th, 2014, according to their blockchain. By May 15th, the blockchain reveals that X11 coin had roughly 2,226,000 coins in existence by that day 117). By May 27th, the coin had switched almost entire into PoS 118) with around 5.5 million X11Coins in existence.

Initially, the bitcointalk.org thread created by the x11 community stated that the total number of PoW coins would be around 16 million coins and that PoS minting would take the expected total to 33 million coins 119). However, the coin developers have sinced changed their mind and shorted the PoW phase until 7.5 million coins are mined. Considering it took 19 days to produce roughly 5 million coins, we can't be far off from the end of the PoW phase and the full blown PoS phase, which returns 3.33 percent annually.

The problem with this sort of coin start, from the investor's perspective, is thus:

You are going to mine 7.5 million coins in probably 4-6 weeks. From that moment on, the most the entire network of X11 users can generate is 7,500,000 x .033 = 247,500 X11coins. When an investor comes along and sees a 100% PoW coin that makes 7.5 million coins in the first month, and then proceeds to adjust it's mining operations so that only ~20,000 coins are generated a month, the investor correctly identifies that coin as suspicious of being more of a money making venture for the creators rather than a revolutionary currency. Not to mention the fact that historically, only 50% or less of the coin holders actually mint their coins. It appears too many of them are just interested in day trading or too lazy/uninformed to do something otherwise. So the monthly total drops even more.

Why should an investor look at a PoW/PoS coin (and its coin generation tactics) without a discerning eye?

We also notice that the developer took a 99,000 X11coin premine (~2% total coins today, should be about 1.3% of total PoW coins). Unfortunately, you can read the bitcointalk.org thread yourself 120) and read the numerous problems the coin had launching. A number of miners simply gave up. You can also read how the developer more or less got the first 120 blocks (totaling some 26 thousand X11coin) and was shamed into including that into the premine total.

Last but not least, we can see on the blockchain that one wallet address has received 3.26 million coins 121), more than 50% of the coin's current totals. A quick look at the transactions to this address show it is mostly mining blocks that have produced this astronomical figure. Should it represent the mining of one person, that would be a ludicrous amount of coins. Should it represent a mining pool, it still is a problem because it suggests that one pool already has too much power and could potentially do double spends and other nefarious actions. But then again, the coin was mined so fast…did anyone notice?

All of these are suspect to bad signs for the coin.

It's all a conspiracy  

[dadon]

Consensus.  Consensus needs a whitepaper.  Consensus needs a community (not shills & hype).  Consensus needs open source (XC is delayed - I admit ...).  Consensus needs proper distribution (not PoS).  Consensus needs a simple (and not horrific) website.  Consensus needs simplicity - both in product and in communication.  Not shiny things that re-invent the wheel "better"  

"XC is a currency that you can skype on and the NSA can't find you plus you can buy a USB key.  But mostly it's a currency"

wtf?

Consensus ... consensus is why XC is guaranteed to fail.

Interesting point... mostly because it's ambiguous.

If "consensus" applies to all those diverse attributes, then what do you mean by consensus?

In what sense is PoS not fair distribution?

In what sense is having a website (whether good or not) related to consensus?


Weird post.

It's not weird at all.  There is a huge difference between SELLING something to somebody (pump).  And consensus (currency).  

Look at bitcoin's website.  https://bitcoin.org/en/

Look at XC's website.  http://www.xc-official.com/

Look at all the XC posters.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the difference between salesmanship and consensus.  

PoS (which is why IMO it will ultimately fail) distributes the coin based on those who hold it.  I can understand why "mining" is waste of resources.  But (again IMO) it's a necessary one.  The idea of energy cannot be created - only transferred is partially at work.  Whereas with PoS - any "energy" created is done so by purely by innovation.  

Look at litecion.  Almost no innovation.  But tons and tons of wasteful energy behind it give it value (for now anyway).

what are you on about man...your just looking desperate now...and what has LTC got to do with XC? LTC has no innovation i agree, XC is full of innovation..i don't get what your trying to say?

[rdnkjdi]

Then you are incredibly thick skulled.

Litecoin has no innovation but it has consensus (people accept it as a currency) largely because it's proof of work and was (kinda) done fairly.  XC is PoS, it was not done ... fairly is not the proper term.  It was not launched in a way to continue to encourage consensus rather than sales.  Instead of me having the ability to mine xc - I have to buy it from one of you guys who probably mined it for way less.

PoS after mining is an intentional concentrated effort to distribute wealth to early adopters. 

My point with the website is that XC's is trying to "sell you something" not "quietly wait for consensus around a form of currency"

If you don't get it - after you lose enough money on it come back and I'll try explaining it harder.  

[dadon]

Then you are incredibly thick skulled.

Litecoin has no innovation but it has consensus (people accept it as a currency) largely because it's proof of work and was (kinda) done fairly.  XC is PoS, it was not done launched fairly, and the website is trying to "sell you something" not "quietly wait for consensus around a form of currency"

If you don't get it - after you lose enough money on it come back and I'll try explaining it harder. 

you make no sense at all....so how was XC not done fairly lol...and why will POS make it fail...MAN!!WHAT DID YOU TAKE!!!!! TELL ME!!!!

[dadon]

....I WANT SOME

[dadon]

Then you are incredibly thick skulled.

Litecoin has no innovation but it has consensus (people accept it as a currency) largely because it's proof of work and was (kinda) done fairly.  XC is PoS, it was not done launched fairly, and the website is trying to "sell you something" not "quietly wait for consensus around a form of currency"

If you don't get it - after you lose enough money on it come back and I'll try explaining it harder. 

btw bro bet i made more money on crypto then 50% of this forum lol

[synechist]

Nonsense - Satoshi released the whitepaper and received commentary on it before he released the code. Specifically, he released the whitepaper on 2008-11-01, and then he released Bitcoin 0.1 on 2009-01-09. I have no doubt he had a large portion of the code completed by the time he released the whitepaper, but those 2 months gave him time to refine things after discussions on the cryptography mailing list. This is important, especially with a cryptocurrency or other cryptography related projects, because you cannot have knowledge of all pitfalls a priori, and discussions with cryptographers and a peer review process at least allows the major ones to be removed.

About the only occurrence I've ever seen of cryptographically sound software being released before the whitepaper was BitMessage where they were both made available within days of each other in November, 2012. The difference is that he knew that no great amount of users were going to have their messages at risk initially, so there was time to fix major pitfalls. Additionally, nobody that got in to BitMessage early had any sort of financial advantage over those that got in later.

Doing things the other way round when you are dealing with people's money is not only grossly irresponsible, but incredibly dangerous. That there is closed-source code not even being made available for review is unconscionable. You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that this is a good idea.

Satoshi did that before an entire ecosystem grew up around Bitcoin and its many offshoots.

To do the same now would, as stated, be obviously unethical. I don't need to reiterate why.

As for your remark about releasing closed source code, those who consider it a risk and still invest in XC stand to benefit, and those who don't, do not stand to benefit should XC succeed. That's all it comes down to. "Dangerous"? Of course, insofar as dangerous" implies "risky". Unethical? By no means.

But to assert that releasing closed source code is "dangerous" also implies, as far as I can see, that developers should take responsibility for the risks that their investors make. This is just silly. We've been completely open about our policy on open source and any investor would factor this in when they do their due diligence. Come on. What sort of libertarian-paternalist black swan does this position make you?

You realise that you just agreed with me that releasing the cryptocurrency before releasing a whitepaper is unethical? Because you did.

No I didn't. Perchance you fail to distinguish statements from (your) interpretations of statements?

Releasing a whitepaper detailing the cryptography will NOT get your idea stolen. If that were the case, ZeroCoin would have been implemented by someone else. Their whitepaper was released in May 2013, after all.

XC is not innovating in cryptography. It's innovating in privacy, scalability, flexibility, and mainstream-friendliness.

We released our Rev 1 mixer code recently. Within two days' time it was copied and implemented in another project. So your claim is empirically on weak grounds, and depends for its defence on a unique case (Zerocoin) where the cryptography is (a) so complex that most people can't understand it, disincentivising cloning, and (b) not working anyway, further disincentivising cloning.

XC's scenario is closer to the opposite: tech that works is highly valued. While our trustless multipath mixing isn't simple, it's not as hard to understand as a zero-knowledge proof system. Therefore the incentive to clone will be very high.

What you (collectively) have done is unethical: releasing a cryptocurrency so that the early adopters can get rich, and then following that up with progressive closed-source releases so that nobody can check, and finally - only many months down the line - releasing a whitepaper that cryptographers, mathematicians, and computer scientists can peer review.

The thing is, I'm not alone in knowing that you are an unethical lot. Per: http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#x11_coin -

I'm aware of that writeup. It's as badly researched as using the name "X11coin" to refer to XC might suggest. Concerning XC it omits most of the picture and distorts what part it claims to portray.

Next.

[fluffypony]

-desperation and nonsense snipped-

Come talk to me in 12 months when you've grown up and the market has taught you how wrong you are.

[battbot]

-desperation and nonsense snipped-

My monero bags are feeling heavy.

[synechist]

Consensus.  Consensus needs a whitepaper.  Consensus needs a community (not shills & hype).  Consensus needs open source (XC is delayed - I admit ...).  Consensus needs proper distribution (not PoS).  Consensus needs a simple (and not horrific) website.  Consensus needs simplicity - both in product and in communication.  Not shiny things that re-invent the wheel "better" 

"XC is a currency that you can skype on and the NSA can't find you plus you can buy a USB key.  But mostly it's a currency"

wtf?

Consensus ... consensus is why XC is guaranteed to fail.

Interesting point... mostly because it's ambiguous.

If "consensus" applies to all those diverse attributes, then what do you mean by consensus?

In what sense is PoS not fair distribution?

In what sense is having a website (whether good or not) related to consensus?


Weird post.

It's not weird at all.  There is a huge difference between SELLING something to somebody (pump).  And consensus (currency). 

Look at bitcoin's website.  https://bitcoin.org/en/

Look at XC's website.  http://www.xc-official.com/

Look at all the XC posters.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the difference between salesmanship and consensus. 

Monroe & Bytecoin are a great example of consensus.  (Although Bytecoin did a lot less salesmanship than your coin does.)  Monroe fixed the consensus problem. 

PoS (which is why IMO it will ultimately fail) distributes the coin based on those who hold it.  I can understand why "mining" is waste of resources.  But (again IMO) it's a necessary one.  The idea of energy cannot be created - only transferred is partially at work.  Whereas with PoS - any "energy" created is done so by purely by innovation. 

Look at litecion.  Almost no innovation.  But tons and tons of wasteful energy behind it give it value (for now anyway).

Monroe & Bytecoin are a good example of a coin with consensus caused by distribution problems (Bytecoin).  Look at the market caps - the market punishes lack of proper distribution in the long run.

Are you are aware of XC's actual distribution of wealth? It's pretty healthy.

As for your purported opposition between marketing and consensus, that's a category error. The latter pertains to how value is agreed upon; the former pertains to the discovery of how value is agreed upon.

I find the view that PoS does not achieve consensus and thus is punished by the market intriguing. However I've yet to see any actual argumentation for this view. Empirical claims of its truth are incoherent without an intelligible hypothesis as to their connection. Can you supply a hypothesis?

[synechist]

-desperation and nonsense snipped-

Come talk to me in 12 months when you've grown up and the market has taught you how wrong you are.

Come to me as soon as you like, just provide argumentation.

Predictions of that nature are groundless without argumentation.

[dadon]

-desperation and nonsense snipped-

Come talk to me in 12 months when you've grown up and the market has taught you how wrong you are.

When he has grown up?...WHAT?..your post just then was one of the most immature post's i have ever seen ROFL!!

[dadon]

Fluffypony your making Fluffy ponies and SR members look immature...just stop it..

[fluffypony]

Fluffypony your making Fluffy ponys and SR members look immature...just stop it..

You can say what you need to say in one post, you don't need a string of them. Ease up on the hard drugs.

I don't know what SR is.

[G-Bert]

How can one see what the distribution of XC is like? I know its nothing like that article has said, from seeing a rich list a while ago. A link might be handy...

[dadon]

Fluffypony your making Fluffy ponys and SR members look immature...just stop it..

You can say what you need to say in one post, you don't need a string of them. Ease up on the hard drugs.

I don't know what SR is.

uhmm (SR) Senior As In Senior member lol...what were u saying about hard drugs...lol

[Teka]

-desperation and nonsense snipped-

Come talk to me in 12 months when you've grown up and the market has taught you how wrong you are.

Ok sure, what would you like to talk about? After all I've been here longer than you.

[rdnkjdi]

Consensus.  Consensus needs a whitepaper.  Consensus needs a community (not shills & hype).  Consensus needs open source (XC is delayed - I admit ...).  Consensus needs proper distribution (not PoS).  Consensus needs a simple (and not horrific) website.  Consensus needs simplicity - both in product and in communication.  Not shiny things that re-invent the wheel "better" 

"XC is a currency that you can skype on and the NSA can't find you plus you can buy a USB key.  But mostly it's a currency"

wtf?

Consensus ... consensus is why XC is guaranteed to fail.

Interesting point... mostly because it's ambiguous.

If "consensus" applies to all those diverse attributes, then what do you mean by consensus?

In what sense is PoS not fair distribution?

In what sense is having a website (whether good or not) related to consensus?


Weird post.

It's not weird at all.  There is a huge difference between SELLING something to somebody (pump).  And consensus (currency). 

Look at bitcoin's website.  https://bitcoin.org/en/

Look at XC's website.  http://www.xc-official.com/

Look at all the XC posters.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the difference between salesmanship and consensus. 

Monroe & Bytecoin are a great example of consensus.  (Although Bytecoin did a lot less salesmanship than your coin does.)  Monroe fixed the consensus problem. 

PoS (which is why IMO it will ultimately fail) distributes the coin based on those who hold it.  I can understand why "mining" is waste of resources.  But (again IMO) it's a necessary one.  The idea of energy cannot be created - only transferred is partially at work.  Whereas with PoS - any "energy" created is done so by purely by innovation. 

Look at litecion.  Almost no innovation.  But tons and tons of wasteful energy behind it give it value (for now anyway).

Monroe & Bytecoin are a good example of a coin with consensus caused by distribution problems (Bytecoin).  Look at the market caps - the market punishes lack of proper distribution in the long run.

Are you are aware of XC's actual distribution of wealth? It's pretty healthy.

As for your purported opposition between marketing and consensus, that's a category error. The latter pertains to how value is agreed upon; the former pertains to the discovery of how value is agreed upon.

I find the view that PoS does not achieve consensus and thus is punished by the market intriguing. However I've yet to see any actual argumentation for this view. Empirical claims of its truth are incoherent without an intelligible hypothesis as to their connection. Can you supply a hypothesis?

Nope.  Not at all. 

If somebody is unable to differentiate between PoS vs PoW or sees no difference.  And if someone is unable to differentiate between being sold to (XC website) and consensus (BTC website).  Or unable to comprehend what I'm trying to say - then even if I went to the trouble of putting together what you ("XC PR guy") would accept as proper proof that what you are trying to sell is a bad investment (which is probably not possible as it would be a conflict of interest).  It would change nothing.

I'm just trying to say enough to convince people who are like I used to be that this coin will be worth pennies on the dollar of what it's worth now.  I'm not really trying to convince the XC PR guy or the XCdogers.

[dadon]

How can one see what the distribution of XC is like? I know its nothing like that article has said, from seeing a rich list a while ago. A link might be handy...

http://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/#!rich   Right hand side, remember in the top 10 addresses there are wallets of exchanges.

[Skoupi]

What nfc and web 3.0 has to do with a cryptocurrency?
I mean a mobile wallet that supports nfc, while it's nice, isn't a core aspect of a currency right?

[synechist]

What nfc and web 3.0 has to do with a cryptocurrency?
I mean a mobile wallet that supports nfc, while it's nice, isn't a core aspect of a currency right?

Correct, these features are not core aspects of the currency.

XC was created for the mainstream, and therefore usability and integration with existing payment infrastructure are necessary.

(Now that I think about it, "Bitcoin 2.0" technologies like web 3.0 are kind-of core to the currency...)

[dadon]

Consensus.  Consensus needs a whitepaper.  Consensus needs a community (not shills & hype).  Consensus needs open source (XC is delayed - I admit ...).  Consensus needs proper distribution (not PoS).  Consensus needs a simple (and not horrific) website.  Consensus needs simplicity - both in product and in communication.  Not shiny things that re-invent the wheel "better" 

"XC is a currency that you can skype on and the NSA can't find you plus you can buy a USB key.  But mostly it's a currency"

wtf?

Consensus ... consensus is why XC is guaranteed to fail.

Interesting point... mostly because it's ambiguous.

If "consensus" applies to all those diverse attributes, then what do you mean by consensus?

In what sense is PoS not fair distribution?

In what sense is having a website (whether good or not) related to consensus?


Weird post.

It's not weird at all.  There is a huge difference between SELLING something to somebody (pump).  And consensus (currency). 

Look at bitcoin's website.  https://bitcoin.org/en/

Look at XC's website.  http://www.xc-official.com/

Look at all the XC posters.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the difference between salesmanship and consensus. 

Monroe & Bytecoin are a great example of consensus.  (Although Bytecoin did a lot less salesmanship than your coin does.)  Monroe fixed the consensus problem. 

PoS (which is why IMO it will ultimately fail) distributes the coin based on those who hold it.  I can understand why "mining" is waste of resources.  But (again IMO) it's a necessary one.  The idea of energy cannot be created - only transferred is partially at work.  Whereas with PoS - any "energy" created is done so by purely by innovation. 

Look at litecion.  Almost no innovation.  But tons and tons of wasteful energy behind it give it value (for now anyway).

Monroe & Bytecoin are a good example of a coin with consensus caused by distribution problems (Bytecoin).  Look at the market caps - the market punishes lack of proper distribution in the long run.

Are you are aware of XC's actual distribution of wealth? It's pretty healthy.

As for your purported opposition between marketing and consensus, that's a category error. The latter pertains to how value is agreed upon; the former pertains to the discovery of how value is agreed upon.

I find the view that PoS does not achieve consensus and thus is punished by the market intriguing. However I've yet to see any actual argumentation for this view. Empirical claims of its truth are incoherent without an intelligible hypothesis as to their connection. Can you supply a hypothesis?

Nope.  Not at all. 

If somebody is unable to differentiate between PoS vs PoW or sees no difference.  And if someone is unable to differentiate between being sold to (XC website) and consensus (BTC website).  Or unable to comprehend what I'm trying to say - then even if I went to the trouble of putting together what you ("XC PR guy") would accept as proper proof that what you are trying to sell is a bad investment (which is probably not possible as it would be a conflict of interest).  It would change nothing.

I'm just trying to say enough to convince people who are like I used to be that this coin will be worth pennies on the dollar of what it's worth now.  I'm not really trying to convince the XC PR guy or the XCdogers.

is this guy speaking Mahican or is it just me?

[therightmintality]

Consensus.  Consensus needs a whitepaper.  Consensus needs a community (not shills & hype).  Consensus needs open source (XC is delayed - I admit ...).  Consensus needs proper distribution (not PoS).  Consensus needs a simple (and not horrific) website.  Consensus needs simplicity - both in product and in communication.  Not shiny things that re-invent the wheel "better"  

"XC is a currency that you can skype on and the NSA can't find you plus you can buy a USB key.  But mostly it's a currency"

wtf?

Consensus ... consensus is why XC is guaranteed to fail.

Interesting point... mostly because it's ambiguous.

If "consensus" applies to all those diverse attributes, then what do you mean by consensus?

In what sense is PoS not fair distribution?

In what sense is having a website (whether good or not) related to consensus?


Weird post.

It's not weird at all.  There is a huge difference between SELLING something to somebody (pump).  And consensus (currency).  

Look at bitcoin's website.  https://bitcoin.org/en/

Look at XC's website.  http://www.xc-official.com/

Look at all the XC posters.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the difference between salesmanship and consensus.  

Monroe & Bytecoin are a great example of consensus.  (Although Bytecoin did a lot less salesmanship than your coin does.)  Monroe fixed the consensus problem.  

PoS (which is why IMO it will ultimately fail) distributes the coin based on those who hold it.  I can understand why "mining" is waste of resources.  But (again IMO) it's a necessary one.  The idea of energy cannot be created - only transferred is partially at work.  Whereas with PoS - any "energy" created is done so by purely by innovation.  

Look at litecion.  Almost no innovation.  But tons and tons of wasteful energy behind it give it value (for now anyway).

Monroe & Bytecoin are a good example of a coin with consensus caused by distribution problems (Bytecoin).  Look at the market caps - the market punishes lack of proper distribution in the long run.

So you are saying XC is all hype, no technology or innovation?  You are saying the XC website is too nice and shiny, that it is all about marketing.  You are saying that continued mining is healthy for coins, and POS coins will fail?

I find it humorous that you and fluffypony have these opinions.  Fluffy thinks we should have a fancy whitepaper and flowcharts and make promises that are never delivered like many alts.  You think we have shiny marketing and over promised and have not delivered.  It may shock you, but you can actually do both.  XC has marketing and has delivered.   I am a traditional, non crypto/techy, investor.  When I invested in XC, I did so because it was more structured like a business. To have consensus, you have to breakout of the crypto world down the road.  You don't do this by having similar technology and similar marketing to BitCoin, it already exist.  You have to have superior technology and marketing to gain eventual users...ie consensus.   Mobile is the future and XC will have a platform, not just a wallet, to gain mobile users.  Oh, and when the official Rev. 3 is released you will have ample time to claim a substantial bounty for anonymous content discovery.  

POS... Please click on my user name and read my post on dilution and how this will effect coins still being mined, especially after they reach consensus.   I'm very happy XC will not have to fight that battle.  

You are still welcomed to get on board.  If you ask serious questions, the community is willing to help answer, as well as the team.  XC has nothing to hide, it just trudges along and continues to deliver on the roadmap.  And lastly, sometimes when things are shiny it's just because they shine.

[synechist]

If somebody is unable to differentiate between PoS vs PoW or sees no difference.

I understand the difference well. The former secures the network by finding valid hashes of a block that are also low numbers. Since there's no predictable way to find a hash that's a low number, it requires (on average) a lot of computations to find one, therefore a lot of work. Hence "proof of work". In contrast proof-of-stake solves blocks by randomly selecting addresses referring to coins of sufficient age and accruing new coins to those addresses. Both systems achieve consensus in the same sense.

And if someone is unable to differentiate between being sold to (XC website) and consensus (BTC website).

I differentiate sharply between the two. Consensus is either (a) price discovery in a market, or (b) agreement on the temporal ordering of transactions. In contrast, marketing is how market actors become aware of something. Since you think a website is part of "consensus" rather than about how people find out about a currency, it appears that you don't differentiate the two terms here.

Or unable to comprehend what I'm trying to say - then even if I went to the trouble of putting together what you ("XC PR guy") would accept as proper proof that what you are trying to sell is a bad investment (which is probably not possible as it would be a conflict of interest).  It would change nothing.

Well if you're not trying to convince your readers (which aren't just me), then what are you here for?

Go on, convince us. I promise to respond respectfully and to consider your arguments with due seriousness, as I hope this post demonstrates.

But until you (or anyone else) can supply a rationale to explain how PoS does not achieve consensus, you have no case.

[dadon]

If somebody is unable to differentiate between PoS vs PoW or sees no difference.

I understand the difference well. The former secures the network by finding valid hashes of a block that are also low numbers. Since there's no predictable way to find a hash that's a low number, it requires (on average) a lot of computations to find one, therefore a lot of work. Hence "proof of work". In contrast proof-of-stake solves blocks by randomly selecting addresses referring to coins of sufficient age and accruing new coins to those addresses. Both systems achieve consensus in the same sense.

And if someone is unable to differentiate between being sold to (XC website) and consensus (BTC website).

I differentiate sharply between the two. Consensus is either (a) price discovery in a market, or (b) agreement on the temporal ordering of transactions. Marketing is how market actors become aware of something.

Or unable to comprehend what I'm trying to say - then even if I went to the trouble of putting together what you ("XC PR guy") would accept as proper proof that what you are trying to sell is a bad investment (which is probably not possible as it would be a conflict of interest).  It would change nothing.

Well if you're not trying to convince your readers (which aren't just me), then what are you here for?

Go on, convince us. I promise to respond respectfully and to consider your arguments with due seriousness, as I hope this post demonstrates.

But until you (or anyone else) can supply a rationale to explain how PoS does not achieve consensus, you have no case.

+1 You so smart and stuff Synechist 

[G-Bert]

If somebody is unable to differentiate between PoS vs PoW or sees no difference.

Go on, convince us. I promise to respond respectfully and to consider your arguments with due seriousness, as I hope this post demonstrates.

But until you (or anyone else) can supply a rationale to explain how PoS does not achieve consensus, you have no case.

+ 1.

Genuinely would like to see your argument here.

[Lauda]

I think that you're wasting your time arguing here half of them are on my ignore list anyways.
I honestly believe that your understanding and knowledge (!) exceeds theirs by far. They would not admit defeat no matter how long you argued about XC.

[rdnkjdi]

If somebody is unable to differentiate between PoS vs PoW or sees no difference.

I understand the difference well. The former secures the network by finding valid hashes of a block that are also low numbers. Since there's no predictable way to find a hash that's a low number, it requires (on average) a lot of computations to find one, therefore a lot of work. Hence "proof of work". In contrast proof-of-stake solves blocks by randomly selecting addresses referring to coins of sufficient age and accruing new coins to those addresses. Both systems achieve consensus in the same sense.

And if someone is unable to differentiate between being sold to (XC website) and consensus (BTC website).

I differentiate sharply between the two. Consensus is either (a) price discovery in a market, or (b) agreement on the temporal ordering of transactions. Marketing is how market actors become aware of something.

Or unable to comprehend what I'm trying to say - then even if I went to the trouble of putting together what you ("XC PR guy") would accept as proper proof that what you are trying to sell is a bad investment (which is probably not possible as it would be a conflict of interest).  It would change nothing.

Well if you're not trying to convince your readers (which aren't just me), then what are you here for?

Go on, convince us. I promise to respond respectfully and to consider your arguments with due seriousness, as I hope this post demonstrates.

But until you (or anyone else) can supply a rationale to explain how PoS does not achieve consensus, you have no case.

1.  PoS vs PoW.  

The difference between PoS & PoW (from a gut - how I think level).

PoW means I can buy hardware and mine this coin.  Which while it may add indirect value to the coin - the person I'm making rich or adding wealth to off of my purchase is the hardware manufacturer.  Not the coin.  (IE - I don't feel like making dadon rich - 'cuz he's a tool).  We can draw up charts and look at distributions or try to come to some hypothesis.  But as I stated before you are not my primary audience.

This is less of a distribution thing for me than it is a psychological effect that I am utterly convinced will have long term impact on coin adoption.  PoS attempts to directly capture this wealth into early adopters - so instead of new miners / adopters taking wealth away from existing miners (possibly early adopters) they have to directly add to it by purchasing the coin.

2.  Marketing vs adoption.  I think I would disagree with your sentiments.  Marketing is an attempt for an early adopter to unload their coin for more something else (Bitcoin, fiat, whatever).  Adoption is recognizing that what I hold in my hand is the currency I want to keep for next year.  I understand the line is inherently blurred and if you don't want to see it - you can try and force me to quantify it to the point and say they are both the same.  They are NOT the same.

Your website SCREAMS and YELLS at me - "Make dadon the tool rich".  This entire post screams at me - "Make dadon the tool rich".  Bitcoin doesn't scream and yell at me ... it quietly explains what cryptocurrency is & why there is a need for it.  

3.  The lack of a solid message.  I mean I see USB sticks and hear everybody guaffing about their private XCChats and I don't know - I mean do I get to use XCChat for free without buying any coins?  Or I have to own X number of coins?  Or I have to pay so many coins to send a message?  And what does XCChat have to do with anything esp a currency?  If this is some revolutionary privacy technology - it's directly tied to the coin.  So if the value of the coin suddenly goes to 0 and stays there for six months - all underlying technology will be abandoned I'm assuming?

Shouldn't I just use bitmessage?  

While I understand that you're trying to invent web 3.0 or whatever.  It's just - it's insane for me to believe that this tangled web of chats and marketing and terrible website and everything tied together somehow (including your secondary dev that abandoned his other projects that didn't pay off) is somehow the future.

4.  Your people are irritating.  (granted - I am easy to irritate so maybe that's my problem).  (BTW - this post should read "Currencies" not "Currencys")

The bottom line is that no - I CANNOT put together a whitepaper to show that XCurrency is not the future.  But I can with quite a bit of confidence say that it's not.  

Edit:  TL/DR.  XCurrency is irritating me.  OP "Currencys" should be "Currencies"

[dadon]

I think that you're wasting your time arguing here half of them are on my ignore list anyways.
I honestly believe that your understanding and knowledge (!) exceeds theirs by far. They would not admit defeat no matter how long you argued about XC.

says the guy with kittycat and the bigmac in his profile pic...meow

[dadon]

If somebody is unable to differentiate between PoS vs PoW or sees no difference.

I understand the difference well. The former secures the network by finding valid hashes of a block that are also low numbers. Since there's no predictable way to find a hash that's a low number, it requires (on average) a lot of computations to find one, therefore a lot of work. Hence "proof of work". In contrast proof-of-stake solves blocks by randomly selecting addresses referring to coins of sufficient age and accruing new coins to those addresses. Both systems achieve consensus in the same sense.

And if someone is unable to differentiate between being sold to (XC website) and consensus (BTC website).

I differentiate sharply between the two. Consensus is either (a) price discovery in a market, or (b) agreement on the temporal ordering of transactions. Marketing is how market actors become aware of something.

Or unable to comprehend what I'm trying to say - then even if I went to the trouble of putting together what you ("XC PR guy") would accept as proper proof that what you are trying to sell is a bad investment (which is probably not possible as it would be a conflict of interest).  It would change nothing.

Well if you're not trying to convince your readers (which aren't just me), then what are you here for?

Go on, convince us. I promise to respond respectfully and to consider your arguments with due seriousness, as I hope this post demonstrates.

But until you (or anyone else) can supply a rationale to explain how PoS does not achieve consensus, you have no case.

1.  PoS vs PoW.  

The difference between PoS & PoW (from a gut - how I think level).

PoW means I can buy hardware and mine this coin.  Which while it may add indirect value to the coin - the person I'm making rich or adding wealth to off of my purchase is the hardware manufacturer.  Not the coin.  (IE - I don't feel like making dadon rich - 'cuz he's a tool).  We can draw up charts and look at distributions or try to come to some hypothesis.  But as I stated before you are not my primary audience.

This is less of a distribution thing for me than it is a psychological effect that I am utterly convinced will have long term impact on coin adoption.

2.  Marketing vs adoption.  I think I would disagree with your sentiments.  Marketing is an attempt for an early adopter to unload their coin for more something else (Bitcoin, fiat, whatever).  Adoption is recognizing that what I hold in my hand is the currency I want to keep for next year.  I understand the line is inherently blurred and if you don't want to see it - you can try and force me to quantify it to the point and say they are both the same.  They are NOT the same.

Your website SCREAMS and YELLS at me - "Make dadon the tool rich".  This entire post screams at me - "Make dadon the tool rich".  Bitcoin doesn't scream and yell at me ... it quietly explains what cryptocurrency is & why there is a need for it.  

3.  The lack of a solid message.  I mean I see USB sticks and hear everybody guaffing about their private XCChats and I don't know - I mean do I get to use XCChat for free without buying any coins?  Or I have to own X number of coins?  Or I have to pay so many coins to send a message?  And what does XCChat have to do with anything esp a currency?  If this is some revolutionary privacy technology - it's directly tied to the coin.  So if the value of the coin suddenly goes to 0 and stays there for six months - all underlying technology will be abandoned I'm assuming?

Shouldn't I just use bitmessage?  

While I understand that you're trying to invent web 3.0 or whatever.  It's just - it's insane for me to believe that this tangled web of chats and marketing and terrible website and everything tied together somehow (including your secondary dev that abandoned his other projects that didn't pay off) is somehow the future.

4.  Your people are irritating.  (granted - I am easy to irritate so maybe that's my problem).  (BTW - this post should read "Currencies" not "Currencys")

The bottom line is that no - I CANNOT put together a whitepaper to show that XCurrency is not the future.  But I can with quite a bit of confidence say that it's not.  

Yeah i think it's just you... Mahican? he is speaking it isn't he?

[rdnkjdi]

I think that you're wasting your time arguing here half of them are on my ignore list anyways.
I honestly believe that your understanding and knowledge (!) exceeds theirs by far. They would not admit defeat no matter how long you argued about XC.

Maybe so ...

Losing enough money gives you a lot of time to think and makes you move a hell of a lot slower.  I need to just leave them in peace I suppose.  If it wasn't for Jasinlee I woulda never looked into it.

[dadon]

I think that you're wasting your time arguing here half of them are on my ignore list anyways.
I honestly believe that your understanding and knowledge (!) exceeds theirs by far. They would not admit defeat no matter how long you argued about XC.

Maybe so ...

Losing enough money gives you a lot of time to think and makes you move a hell of a lot slower.  I need to just leave them in peace I suppose.  If it wasn't for Jasinlee I woulda never looked into it.

mate i invested less then 1k USD into QRK made 120k USD converted most of that to fiat kept a bit of BTC and traded alts and have made easily another 100k....beat that..off less then 1k.. 200k profit i can not loose and right now i have 75k of XC worth around 70k USD LOL...your clueless mate

[rdnkjdi]

I think that you're wasting your time arguing here half of them are on my ignore list anyways.
I honestly believe that your understanding and knowledge (!) exceeds theirs by far. They would not admit defeat no matter how long you argued about XC.

Maybe so ...

Losing enough money gives you a lot of time to think and makes you move a hell of a lot slower.  I need to just leave them in peace I suppose.  If it wasn't for Jasinlee I woulda never looked into it.

mate i invested less then 1k USD into QRK made 120k USD converted most of that to fiat kept a bit of BTC and traded alts and have made easily another 100k....beat that..off less then 1k.. 200k profit i can not loose and right now i have 75k of XC worth around 70k USD LOL...your clueless mate

Find a good escrow and I will bet you up to 3 BTC that your currency will be worth less 3 months from now than it is now.

Yeah well - I know the difference between currencys & currencies ... plus mine is bigger.  Sheesh ...

[dadon]

what's bigger? your Ego..I could of told you that....and where did i write currencies ? lol..and hey your the one saying iv'e got to lose to learn..i'm just saying i got nothing to lose, not bragging, just saying.

[rdnkjdi]

what's bigger? your Ego..I could of told you that....and where did i write currencies ? lol..and hey your the one saying iv'e got to lose to learn..i'm just saying i got nothing to lose, not bragging, just saying.

Dude.  The title of this thread is "Currencys" - it should read "currencies".  You have 250K and you aren't willing to bet on the three month outcome of this coin?

Geeze - OK new priority for XC team.  Get higher quality shills.  You are going on ignore.  And I will *try* to stay out of XC threads. 

[Teka]

what's bigger? your Ego..I could of told you that....and where did i write currencies ? lol..and hey your the one saying iv'e got to lose to learn..i'm just saying i got nothing to lose, not bragging, just saying.

Dude.  The title of this thread is "Currencys" - it should read "currencies".  You have 250K and you aren't willing to bet on the three month outcome of this coin?

Geeze - OK new priority for XC team.  Get higher quality shills.  You are going on ignore.  And I will *try* to stay out of XC threads. 

You keep brining that up like someone life depends on it.

[dadon]

what's bigger? your Ego..I could of told you that....and where did i write currencies ? lol..and hey your the one saying iv'e got to lose to learn..i'm just saying i got nothing to lose, not bragging, just saying.

Dude.  The title of this thread is "Currencys" - it should read "currencies".  You have 250K and you aren't willing to bet on the three month outcome of this coin?

Geeze - OK new priority for XC team.  Get higher quality shills.  You are going on ignore.  And I will *try* to stay out of XC threads.  

What's your bet then? you want to put BTC on this then lets do it!! point taken on my spelling i did leave school at 14 so can't expect too much...but what's your bet i want it in escrow.

[G-Bert]

This thread now seems to have turned into pointless bickering about who's got the most money. lol.

I appreciate the reply about PoS, but still dont quite understand what you're saying. The way I understand it, its just like earning interest on what you have in the bank (wallet). 3.33% is what everyone earns over a year. Ok, the early adopters will be getting more because they have more coins, but then im sure they will also be spending more and the wealth will slowly get spread out. Maybe Im wrong here?
Personally I cant afford mining equipment, so PoS suits me better, (and the majority of the general public, i would imagine)

2. I Didn't think XC had really done much marketing? The website was basically re done due to the community screaming and shouting about how crap the original one was. The original site had no information and looked shit, this was a good improvement. I spose it is a bit promotional, but i dont see how it "shouts make daddon rich" lol

3. You dont need a single XC coin to use Xchat/Tor stick (the Tor stick basically just being a bootable operating system with XChat built into a wallet (again, no coins needed) that will hide your i.p.

4. Can't argue with  your opinion, but I think Synechist is pretty reasonable? pretty much everyone else in our thread is just a person gambing in crypto, there seems to be a lot of twats in every currency from what I have seen. lol

[dadon]

This thread now seems to have turned into pointless bickering about who's got the most money. lol.

I appreciate the reply about PoS, but still dont quite understand what you're saying. The way I understand it, its just like earning interest on what you have in the bank (wallet). 3.33% is what everyone earns over a year. Ok, the early adopters will be getting more because they have more coins, but then im sure they will also be spending more and the wealth will slowly get spread out. Maybe Im wrong here?
Personally I cant afford mining equipment, so PoS suits me better, (and the majority of the general public, i would imagine)

2. I Didn't think XC had really done much marketing? The website was basically re done due to the community screaming and shouting about how crap the original one was. The original site had no information and looked shit, this was a good improvement. I spose it is a bit promotional, but i dont see how it "shouts make daddon rich" lol

3. You dont need a single XC coin to use Xchat/Tor stick (the Tor stick basically just being a bootable operating system with XChat built into a wallet (again, no coins needed) that will hide your i.p.

4. Can't argue with  your opinion, but I think Synechist is pretty reasonable? pretty much everyone else is just a personal gambing in crypto, there seems to be a lot of twats in every currency. lol

sorry for being a twat   been a long night, i can get like that...4.30 am here and every argument about XC being a fail has made no sense, and just for the record i'm in XC for the long run i have made my short term money XC is a long term, i'm holding 12-24 months at least.

[G-Bert]

This thread now seems to have turned into pointless bickering about who's got the most money. lol.

I appreciate the reply about PoS, but still dont quite understand what you're saying. The way I understand it, its just like earning interest on what you have in the bank (wallet). 3.33% is what everyone earns over a year. Ok, the early adopters will be getting more because they have more coins, but then im sure they will also be spending more and the wealth will slowly get spread out. Maybe Im wrong here?
Personally I cant afford mining equipment, so PoS suits me better, (and the majority of the general public, i would imagine)

2. I Didn't think XC had really done much marketing? The website was basically re done due to the community screaming and shouting about how crap the original one was. The original site had no information and looked shit, this was a good improvement. I spose it is a bit promotional, but i dont see how it "shouts make daddon rich" lol

3. You dont need a single XC coin to use Xchat/Tor stick (the Tor stick basically just being a bootable operating system with XChat built into a wallet (again, no coins needed) that will hide your i.p.

4. Can't argue with  your opinion, but I think Synechist is pretty reasonable? pretty much everyone else is just a personal gambing in crypto, there seems to be a lot of twats in every currency. lol

sorry for being a twat   been a long night, i can get like that...4.30 am here and every argument about XC being a fail has made no sense

I wasn't calling you a twat dude, just pointing out they are everywere not just in XC threads!

Im just trying to be some kind of mediator here that's all.  

edit: and for the record, same here, Im holding long term and have 95% all in XC. But this is also why I like to hear opposing arguments.

So far I haven't heard anything to deter me from keeping my money in XC, but I will keep asking others opinions to try and keep a balanced opinion.

[dadon]

This thread now seems to have turned into pointless bickering about who's got the most money. lol.

I appreciate the reply about PoS, but still dont quite understand what you're saying. The way I understand it, its just like earning interest on what you have in the bank (wallet). 3.33% is what everyone earns over a year. Ok, the early adopters will be getting more because they have more coins, but then im sure they will also be spending more and the wealth will slowly get spread out. Maybe Im wrong here?
Personally I cant afford mining equipment, so PoS suits me better, (and the majority of the general public, i would imagine)

2. I Didn't think XC had really done much marketing? The website was basically re done due to the community screaming and shouting about how crap the original one was. The original site had no information and looked shit, this was a good improvement. I spose it is a bit promotional, but i dont see how it "shouts make daddon rich" lol

3. You dont need a single XC coin to use Xchat/Tor stick (the Tor stick basically just being a bootable operating system with XChat built into a wallet (again, no coins needed) that will hide your i.p.

4. Can't argue with  your opinion, but I think Synechist is pretty reasonable? pretty much everyone else is just a personal gambing in crypto, there seems to be a lot of twats in every currency. lol

sorry for being a twat   been a long night, i can get like that...4.30 am here and every argument about XC being a fail has made no sense

I wasn't calling you a twat dude, just pointing out they are everywere not just in XC threads!

Im just trying to be some kind of mediator here that's all.  

edit: and for the record, same here, Im holding long term and have 95% all in XC. But this is also why I like to hear opposing arguments.

So far I haven't heard anything to deter me from keeping my money in XC, but I will keep asking others opinions to try and keep a balanced opinion.

yeah they didn't try to attack XC very hard did they, just sort of gave up lol..XC is a solid investment i sleep easy every night

[G-Bert]

This thread now seems to have turned into pointless bickering about who's got the most money. lol.

I appreciate the reply about PoS, but still dont quite understand what you're saying. The way I understand it, its just like earning interest on what you have in the bank (wallet). 3.33% is what everyone earns over a year. Ok, the early adopters will be getting more because they have more coins, but then im sure they will also be spending more and the wealth will slowly get spread out. Maybe Im wrong here?
Personally I cant afford mining equipment, so PoS suits me better, (and the majority of the general public, i would imagine)

2. I Didn't think XC had really done much marketing? The website was basically re done due to the community screaming and shouting about how crap the original one was. The original site had no information and looked shit, this was a good improvement. I spose it is a bit promotional, but i dont see how it "shouts make daddon rich" lol

3. You dont need a single XC coin to use Xchat/Tor stick (the Tor stick basically just being a bootable operating system with XChat built into a wallet (again, no coins needed) that will hide your i.p.

4. Can't argue with  your opinion, but I think Synechist is pretty reasonable? pretty much everyone else is just a personal gambing in crypto, there seems to be a lot of twats in every currency. lol

sorry for being a twat   been a long night, i can get like that...4.30 am here and every argument about XC being a fail has made no sense

I wasn't calling you a twat dude, just pointing out they are everywere not just in XC threads!

Im just trying to be some kind of mediator here that's all.  

edit: and for the record, same here, Im holding long term and have 95% all in XC. But this is also why I like to hear opposing arguments.

So far I haven't heard anything to deter me from keeping my money in XC, but I will keep asking others opinions to try and keep a balanced opinion.

yeah they didn't try to attack XC very hard did they, just sort of gave up lol..XC is a solid investment i sleep easy every night

exactly. 

[dadon]

well that's why i started this thread to bring awareness and spark conversation on all things XC related, it just went way off topic, i just don't understand what that guy was saying about POS VS POW?

[synechist]

well that's why i started this thread to bring awareness and spark conversation on all things XC related, it just went way off topic, i just don't understand what that guy was saying about POS VS POW?

Since some degree of mutual respect has returned to this thread, I'll venture a response to that POS vs POW post.

[dadon]

well that's why i started this thread to bring awareness and spark conversation on all things XC related, it just went way off topic, i just don't understand what that guy was saying about POS VS POW?

Since some degree of mutual respect has returned to this thread, I'll venture a response to that POS vs POW post.

LoL Thanks mate sorry about that i get emotional

[therightmintality]

Then you are incredibly thick skulled.

Litecoin has no innovation but it has consensus (people accept it as a currency) largely because it's proof of work and was (kinda) done fairly.  XC is PoS, it was not done ... fairly is not the proper term.  It was not launched in a way to continue to encourage consensus rather than sales.  Instead of me having the ability to mine xc - I have to buy it from one of you guys who probably mined it for way less.

PoS after mining is an intentional concentrated effort to distribute wealth to early adopters. 

My point with the website is that XC's is trying to "sell you something" not "quietly wait for consensus around a form of currency"

If you don't get it - after you lose enough money on it come back and I'll try explaining it harder.  

The thing I like most about XC that it is POS and that the mining is complete.  Other coins that continue to mine are fighting dilution.   They go up in value, it becomes more and more attractive to mine, and many sell as soon as they get the coins.   The supply of coins is increasing on a daily basis and this increases volume, and Market Cap, but puts downward pressure on the price.   I looked at some of these coins and thought about investing, but the price I pay per coin is much higher that a the cost of mining a coin.  This will eventually catch up and the price will slowly fluctuate up a down, with a longer term downward trend.  I am comparing this to traditional investment where if a stock splits, the price in turn doubles so the stock is not diluted.  So, why would I invest in a coin that added significant shares through continued mining, with no immediate price change, other than downward sell pressure due to miners wanting to recoup cost and see this as an income source/job.   I like XC because it rewards current coinholders with a dividend, like a traditional stock, that is usually kept in the account and not immediately sold. 

[rdnkjdi]

<<Edit>> Deleted.  I said I was going to leave XC be.

[therightmintality]

<<Edit>> Deleted.  I said I was going to leave XC be.

You also were making no sense with your argument from an economical theory and brand adoption perspective...

[fluffypony]

I like XC because it rewards current coinholders with a dividend, like a traditional stock, that is usually kept in the account and not immediately sold. 

So it actively discourages people from spending their XC, thus reducing any perceived or actual utility? Seriously.

I'm done with this thread. Cheers.

[RW-Stott]

I like XC because it rewards current coinholders with a dividend, like a traditional stock, that is usually kept in the account and not immediately sold. 

So it actively discourages people from spending their XC, thus reducing any perceived or actual utility? Seriously.

I'm done with this thread. Cheers.

Your stupidity stupefies.

[dadon]

I like XC because it rewards current coinholders with a dividend, like a traditional stock, that is usually kept in the account and not immediately sold.  

So it actively discourages people from spending their XC, thus reducing any perceived or actual utility? Seriously.

I'm done with this thread. Cheers.

I don't even know how to respond to this so i will just roll my eyes.  

[therightmintality]

I like XC because it rewards current coinholders with a dividend, like a traditional stock, that is usually kept in the account and not immediately sold. 

So it actively discourages people from spending their XC, thus reducing any perceived or actual utility? Seriously.

I'm done with this thread. Cheers.

That's correct, which is healthy during the developmental phase, opposed to a P&D or a POW with mining activity creating downward pressure.  Most coins are nominally, if at all, "spent" during this phase.  Once a coin has technology and is recognized, it's velocity will slowly increase as merchants and payments are made.  Slow Velocity is critical and healthy in the early stages.  Once it becomes more widely accepted, it then falls into true currency economic principles.   The price will be more of a reflection of value, compared with other world currency and BTC.  Ownership at this stage is irrelevant because it is a currency, meant to be spent.   Although it may still be traded, the swings are nominal and will fluctuate with value compared to goods and services.  However, POW coins dilution is much more amplified once it reaches this stage and inflation becomes a huge concern.  

[drawingthesun]

Lol, I see no evidence of why it's the future. Just looks like another dime a dozen alt to me.

thats because it is, plus its POS...

you peeps make me giggle, go ahead name something better, i dare you, real working tech no vaporware allowed, and what's wrong with POS no new coin mintage means stable price, can't see the faults.

XC cut off proof of work early making all XC holders preminers, so XC is in scam territory for that.

Also POS, good luck with that, no new blood allowed to mine coin, they must buy from you.

If XC technology is truly worthwhile (I'm not sure it is) then a clone that is POW will emerge and become the dominate coin.

[almond]

Lol, I see no evidence of why it's the future. Just looks like another dime a dozen alt to me.

thats because it is, plus its POS...

you peeps make me giggle, go ahead name something better, i dare you, real working tech no vaporware allowed, and what's wrong with POS no new coin mintage means stable price, can't see the faults.

XC cut off proof of work early making all XC holders preminers, so XC is in scam territory for that.

Also POS, good luck with that, no new blood allowed to mine coin, they must buy from you.

If XC technology is truly worthwhile (I'm not sure it is) then a clone that is POW will emerge and become the dominate coin.

The advent of multipools blunts the pos vs. pow argument.  Most all POS coins have their own multipools so miners can add their new blood to whatever pool they want.

[Buffer Overflow]

I lost interest after I read the word 'premine'.

[brownmon]

I lost interest after I read the word 'premine'.

Lazy coin devs!  Why aren't they working hard?!  Why aren't they advertising more?

Let's pay them no money!  I'm sure that will help them develop the coin and advertise more!

[Buffer Overflow]

I lost interest after I read the word 'premine'.

Lazy coin devs!  Why aren't they working hard?!  Why aren't they advertising more?

Let's pay them no money!  I'm sure that will help them develop the coin and advertise more!

Absolutely. That way I know a coin is created for the right reasons.

[fluffypony]

I lost interest after I read the word 'premine'.

Lazy coin devs!  Why aren't they working hard?!  Why aren't they advertising more?

Let's pay them no money!  I'm sure that will help them develop the coin and advertise more!

As one of the 7 core team members working on Monero, I can assure you that despite us getting paid nothing, having no premine, having no instamine, we work hard and Monero is progressing accordingly. You don't need to cheat to be able to push out excellent code.

[Teka]

I lost interest after I read the word 'premine'.

Lazy coin devs!  Why aren't they working hard?!  Why aren't they advertising more?

Let's pay them no money!  I'm sure that will help them develop the coin and advertise more!

As one of the 7 core team members working on Monero, I can assure you that despite us getting paid nothing, having no premine, having no instamine, we work hard and Monero is progressing accordingly. You don't need to cheat to be able to push out excellent code.

To hire the best people in the industry, you need funds. This let you push the best code. Also so far a lot of things have been funded by Dan himself and not from the premine like xchat. You're obviously going to dismiss this point due to your biased opinion and conflict of intrest.

[Lauda]

To hire the best people in the industry, you need funds. This let you push the best code. Also so far a lot of things have been funded by Dan himself and not from the premine like xchat. You're obviously going to dismiss this point due to your biased opinion and conflict of intrest.

Okay I'll make a 99% premine code so that the best devs will work on that coin.  
Best people in the industry? They are so into coding random coins.

[Teka]

To hire the best people in the industry, you need funds. This let you push the best code. Also so far a lot of things have been funded by Dan himself and not from the premine like xchat. You're obviously going to dismiss this point due to your biased opinion and conflict of intrest.

Okay I'll make a 99% premine code so that the best devs will work on that coin.  
Best people in the industry? They are so into coding random coins.

A 99% premine would be ridiculous, a tiny percentage of a coin is not. Have you looked at xc outside of the premine? Because if you are focusing on a premine then your missing a lot of information. 

[fluffypony]

To hire the best people in the industry, you need funds. This let you push the best code. Also so far a lot of things have been funded by Dan himself and not from the premine like xchat. You're obviously going to dismiss this point due to your biased opinion and conflict of intrest.

Okay I'll make a 99% premine code so that the best devs will work on that coin.  
Best people in the industry? They are so into coding random coins.

Hah hah - exactly!

We need the best, so we premine the most!

[Teka]

To hire the best people in the industry, you need funds. This let you push the best code. Also so far a lot of things have been funded by Dan himself and not from the premine like xchat. You're obviously going to dismiss this point due to your biased opinion and conflict of intrest.

Okay I'll make a 99% premine code so that the best devs will work on that coin.  
Best people in the industry? They are so into coding random coins.

Hah hah - exactly!

We need the best, so we premine the most!

The premine is a tiny percentage and honestly more of Dans personal funds have been used then the premine. Unlike other coins, we are building a privacy platform that is based around solid code. We also don't have issues regarding blockchain bloat


p.s you've lost quite a few potential orders today

[fluffypony]

The premine is a tiny percentage and honestly more of Dans personal funds have been used then the premine. Unlike other coins, we are building a privacy platform that is based around solid code. We also don't have issues regarding blockchain bloat

So you've gotten pruning working in XC, then? Can you link to the code on github? Because not even Bitcoin has pruning right now. Until you've written the code that lets you prune the blockchain and run off a new merkle root, your claim is spurious and incorrect. Don't claim to have solved a problem when what you mean is "we will solve it later...once Bitcoin does the work for us".

p.s you've lost quite a few potential orders today

Doubtful, 99% of our orders since the market tanked in March are from large farms and are based around our 19" rack ASIC grids that aren't even on the website. None of them have stopped ordering. But it's completely fine to tell yourself that's the case if it'll make you feel better.

[Teka]

The premine is a tiny percentage and honestly more of Dans personal funds have been used then the premine. Unlike other coins, we are building a privacy platform that is based around solid code. We also don't have issues regarding blockchain bloat

So you've gotten pruning working in XC, then? Can you link to the code on github? Because not even Bitcoin has pruning right now. Until you've written the code that lets you prune the blockchain and run off a new merkle root, your claim is spurious and incorrect. Don't claim to have solved a problem when what you mean is "we will solve it later...once Bitcoin does the work for us".

p.s you've lost quite a few potential orders today

Doubtful, 99% of our orders since the market tanked in March are from large farms and are based around our 19" rack ASIC grids that aren't even on the website. None of them have stopped ordering. But it's completely fine to tell yourself that's the case if it'll make you feel better.

Let's be honest, there are some coins with terrible blockchain bloat. Also, the code for current rev won't be accessible for some time to prevent theft of our technology.

[therightmintality]

I lost interest after I read the word 'premine'.

Lazy coin devs!  Why aren't they working hard?!  Why aren't they advertising more?

Let's pay them no money!  I'm sure that will help them develop the coin and advertise more!

As one of the 7 core team members working on Monero, I can assure you that despite us getting paid nothing, having no premine, having no instamine, we work hard and Monero is progressing accordingly. You don't need to cheat to be able to push out excellent code.

i just want to understand... so you and none of the core dev team own any Monero?

The premine  on XC was 2% of supply, which some is being used on development.   Look at the distribution of XC, we have a broad base and a strong community.   Good luck with dilution, I don't want to buy a coin that PS3 miners using dorm electricity are dumping to pay for their college text books and beer.

[fluffypony]

i just want to understand... so you and none of the core dev team own any Monero?

The premine  on XC was 2% of supply, which some is being used on development.   Look at the distribution of XC, we have a broad base and a strong community.   Good luck with dilution, I don't want to buy a coin that PS3 miners using dorm electricity are dumping to pay for their college text books and beer.

We own very little - collectively we own less than 50 000 Monero between all 7 of us. We earned it legitimately, either by buying on the OTC trading thread / first exchange, or by mining.

I don't get the PS3 comment, are you meaning that XC should lie in the hands of only a few?

[therightmintality]

i just want to understand... so you and none of the core dev team own any Monero?

The premine  on XC was 2% of supply, which some is being used on development.   Look at the distribution of XC, we have a broad base and a strong community.   Good luck with dilution, I don't want to buy a coin that PS3 miners using dorm electricity are dumping to pay for their college text books and beer.

We own very little - collectively we own less than 50 000 Monero between all 7 of us. We earned it legitimately, either by buying on the OTC trading thread / first exchange, or by mining.

I don't get the PS3 comment, are you meaning that XC should lie in the hands of only a few?

so the monero team owns 2% for now and I'm sure continues to mine.  Them, along with college kids mining on their gaming machines with free electricity, or large multi pools both selling daily, or huge farms which can manipulate the price.   Oh, is claymore one of the devs as well?    Any POW coin will fight dilution and eventually inflation... no thanks.

[brownmon]

Lazy coin devs!  Why aren't they working hard?!  Why aren't they advertising more?

Let's pay them no money!  I'm sure that will help them develop the coin and advertise more!

As one of the 7 core team members working on Monero, I can assure you that despite us getting paid nothing, having no premine, having no instamine, we work hard and Monero is progressing accordingly. You don't need to cheat to be able to push out excellent code.

I don't see what getting paid has to do with 'cheating'.

Just because a few dozen people are happy to work for free, doesn't mean most people are.

[battbot]

Anyone not in XCurrency right now is doing it wrong.  


Every XC wallet is automatically an Xnode and no balance needs to be held in it (aka, completely decentralized).

Privacy Mode is on-chain, and breaks transactions into fragments and utilises trustless mixing to forward fragments on to the recipient. (It's not a ring signature either; it's a unique m-of-m multisig transaction.)

• Since every node forwards fragments, there's no telling whether a node is the originator or final receiver of a fragment. Therefore receiver/sender address is concealed.
• Since fragments are sent, there's no telling what the full amount of any given transaction is. Therefore the amount sent/received is concealed.
• Since trustless mixing is m-of-m multisig, no node can steal coins. They can either sign or opt out. (In the latter case, fragments are sent via spare nodes).

XC will soon be adding "stealth addresses" to its arsenal. This will allow the receiver to publicise a receiving address, while payments sent to it will arrive in another address, prevent associating the receiver with amounts received.

Finally XC nodes can run as TOR nodes, so that not only are their IP addresses concealed, but since they do not use exit nodes they're immune to packet sniffers.

As such, XC claims to be completely private. Sender address, receiver address, amount, and IP address are all kept private.  Future developments will allow increasing control over degrees of privacy, enabling XC transactions to be flexible and tailored to a wide variety of use-cases.


In addition to completely anonymous transfers, XC has XChat, instant p2p encrypted messaging (also available on the XC TOR Stick, www.xcmerch.com).  XC is also developing encrypted voice + video to be used across PC & mobile platforms.  

http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/xcurrency-begins-selling-highly-anticipated-xchat-tor-stick/2014/08/07


Lead developer: Dan Metcalf -- http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dan-metcalf/12/1a8/b82

http://www.xc-official.com/

[rdnkjdi]

Can you explain about Dan being a CEO of a currency - and how it makes sense / where his funding comes from / what other employees there are of the company?  

About 100 years ago - there were sub currencies for companies where they refused to pay employees cash but offered you "tokens" that could only be spent only at their stores .  So they were able to monopolize on whatever they paid people.  In that sense - I suppose the owner of the company issuing tokens was the boss / CEO of a currency ....

[battbot]

Can you explain about Dan being a CEO of a currency - and how it makes sense / where his funding comes from / what other employees there are of the company?  

About 100 years ago - there were sub currencies for companies where they refused to pay employees cash but offered you "tokens" that could only be spent only at their stores .  So they were able to monopolize on whatever they paid people.  In that sense - I suppose the owner of the company issuing tokens was the boss / CEO of a currency ....

It's just a title, and can easily be changed (or removed)...  He funds XC development from his own pocket & from the premine.  I'm sure there are also private investors that contribute towards development as well.