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

[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.