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

[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.