XCurrency (XC) BlockNet community thread

[stealth923]

The wallet is released and it is 100% working decentralized trustless mixing, which has been demonstrated several times and a visual block explorer was built showing how complex the anon system really is

I'm sorry.  But without actual code review by the community - I don't care what factors from the outside looking in are used to measure the supposed "anoniminity" of a coin.  It isn't enough.  It's like a code review of 400,000 lines of code by one developer in six hours.

Sure.  He looked at it.  But regardless of his experience level - it proves nothing about the security or trustworthiness of the coins claims.  How many "code reviews" and external factors have been looking for exploits in Windows?   Even with thousands of developers spending millions of man hours "code reviewing" it - it STILL isn't secure.

Software that needs to be secure (in this case anoniminity needs to be secure) is not considered so until it's open sourced.  Period.

all your doing is spreading FUD because I won't open source it.  Here is proof http://imgur.com/h8rFt5U or just go download the wallet it test it for your self

Stop it with the FUD accusations.  Legitimate concerns are NOT FUD.  Saying "I have the best anoniminity technology on the market.  Even though my coin is 20th on the market cap and I haven't open sourced it yet - just trust me" is MUCH more misleading than the "FUD" you accuse us of.  How about we just drop the terms FUD & SHILL and hold each other accountable to try & discover the truth about any given coin / technology?

2nd - the trustless anon & xchat was developed after XC's ATH price, so its not a stupid pump game, its real technology, combined with Xchat, which is real tech developed in-house, not a cloned CINNI EM system.

Again.  Until it's open sourced no one knows.  I have a hunch that it's probably modified code.  Or terrible with lots of holes.  Because the fact that your coin is 20th on the market cap with like 4 legit contenders - some of which have passed you in the last three month period while your coin has continued to fall.  Screams that you need legitimacy more than you need other coins to not clone you.  So the "I don't want clones" doesn't really hold water.

3rd - I'm NOT involved with any scam coins so stop making false allegations

Again.  Lets worry about the truth - not what paints who in a bad light.  The BlockNET is including coins with developers who in the past have left "investors" out to dry by promising technology and then delivering far far less.  Then move on to the next promised project / pump.

I view this as no less than a scam.  The fact that you are working with these developers to try and bring value to both their coin and your coin makes you "involved" with these coins, no?

In fact - haven't you kinda made a living by selling the "legitimacy" of XC to pump other coins?  Isn't that all this is - just on a much bigger scale?

http://xc-official.com/xcurrency-code-reviews-the-de-facto-standard-of-legitimacy-among-altcoins.html

You're using the fact that you can create pump on small coins as a marketing technique?  The reality / truth looks more like this

http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/halcyon/

+2 Good Post

[Revelation]

Dude.  that's exactly what he said.

My post got deleted as being uncivil.

Reading comprehension?

"Dictatorial" was a profoundly biased description.

That's what I was addressing.

My post was deleted for no apparent reason, nor did I try to offend anyone. As an investor I am feeling offended by the fact that you are making certain inaccurate claims that are supposed to appease me and other investors , whereas these claims are simply not true and are worrisome. When I've raised my concern about this my post was deleted. To me this is dictatorial.

Is it a coincidence that you're spreading so much negativity around the Blocknet topics and you're also a supporter of the Supernet?

I never wrote anything about SuperNet. Your accusation is absolutely groundless and ridiculous.

[Revelation]

And your logic is flawed.  If to you what is dictatorial is deleting your post, then how come that post was deleted exactly for claiming dictatorial behaviour?  Circular reasoning.

Dude.  that's exactly what he said.

My post got deleted as being uncivil.

Reading comprehension?

"Dictatorial" was a profoundly biased description.

That's what I was addressing.

My post was deleted for no apparent reason, nor did I try to offend anyone. As an investor I am feeling offended by the fact that you are making certain inaccurate claims that are supposed to appease me and other investors , whereas these claims are simply not true and are worrisome. When I've raised my concern about this my post was deleted. To me this is dictatorial.

Is it a coincidence that you're spreading so much negativity around the Blocknet topics and you're also a supporter of the Supernet?

The post was not about dictatorship, my post was about the claim in the OP that is supposed to appease investors which is very offensive to me and should be to any investor. If you are accusing me of something, please, read carefully and turn reading comprehension on. 

[Este Nuno]

So far, every anon coin that has claimed to have a 100% working anon has failed and has dumped horribly.

What about the CryptoNote ring signature tech that's been verified by cryptographers?

I wasn't aware of it being broken, do you have a link?

[the_game1224]

So far, every anon coin that has claimed to have a 100% working anon has failed and has dumped horribly.

What about the CryptoNote ring signature tech that's been verified by cryptographers?

I wasn't aware of it being broken, do you have a link?

Yes as far as I know CryptoNote is solid with the drawback being the bloat.  Having said that I haven't followed it in a while, has there been anything done to address that?

[Este Nuno]

So far, every anon coin that has claimed to have a 100% working anon has failed and has dumped horribly.

What about the CryptoNote ring signature tech that's been verified by cryptographers?

I wasn't aware of it being broken, do you have a link?

Yes as far as I know CryptoNote is solid with the drawback being the bloat.  Having said that I haven't followed it in a while, has there been anything done to address that?

BBR has implemented a fix that scales the blockchain down linearly. It's an improvement, but not a complete solution.

I'm interested in learning more about XC's anon implementation, is there documentation yet or a timeline? Is the documentation expected around the same time as rev3?

[hoertest]

So far, every anon coin that has claimed to have a 100% working anon has failed and has dumped horribly.

What about the CryptoNote ring signature tech that's been verified by cryptographers?

I wasn't aware of it being broken, do you have a link?

Yes as far as I know CryptoNote is solid with the drawback being the bloat.  Having said that I haven't followed it in a while, has there been anything done to address that?

BBR has implemented a fix that scales the blockchain down linearly. It's an improvement, but not a complete solution.

I'm interested in learning more about XC's anon implementation, is there documentation yet or a timeline? Is the documentation expected around the same time as rev3?

right with rev3 detailed documentation should be expected.
some will state the closed source debate here again. well i like how they go about it. it requires trust now. but the mixer works and there is a great graphical blockexplorer tool from kimmyf that visualises the tx for you to see. i can understand that people shy away from investing before open source but i'm willing to take the higher risk now in order for a higher ROI. so please not that debate here again now. last time i checked nobody was forced to buy any coins.

meanwhile here is the latest PR surrounding the core privacy approach of XC:

http://xc-official.com/xcurrencys-revolutionary-privacy-advancement-trustless-ad-hoc-mesh-networking.html

its far from the socalled "whitepaper" but it gives mor info at least. I think both the cryptonote route and XCs idea are the right way to really bring that last evolutionary step to crypto in order to make it the digital equivalent to gold. untraceable transactions are a mandatory characteristic that bitcoin is missing. still the idea of decentralisation must not be compromised. Everybody that is working on this gets a big thumps up from me. the bloat issues of CN give XC the edge here imo.  (please don'T attack me monero fans  )

people underestimate the importance of private transactions. this is not a trend like country or weed coins. its the missing part of the puzzle to kill fiat for good. the possible ROI is gigantic. those 15 $ DRK was just a mild preview of whats possible.

[Este Nuno]

So far, every anon coin that has claimed to have a 100% working anon has failed and has dumped horribly.

What about the CryptoNote ring signature tech that's been verified by cryptographers?

I wasn't aware of it being broken, do you have a link?

Yes as far as I know CryptoNote is solid with the drawback being the bloat.  Having said that I haven't followed it in a while, has there been anything done to address that?

BBR has implemented a fix that scales the blockchain down linearly. It's an improvement, but not a complete solution.

I'm interested in learning more about XC's anon implementation, is there documentation yet or a timeline? Is the documentation expected around the same time as rev3?

right with rev3 detailed documentation should be expected.
some will state the closed source debate here again. well i like how they go about it. it requires trust now. but the mixer works and there is a great graphical blockexplorer tool from kimmyf that visualises the tx for you to see. i can understand that people shy away from investing before open source but i'm willing to take the higher risk now in order for a higher ROI. so please not that debate here again now. last time i checked nobody was forced to buy any coins.

meanwhile here is the latest PR surrounding the core privacy approach of XC:

http://xc-official.com/xcurrencys-revolutionary-privacy-advancement-trustless-ad-hoc-mesh-networking.html

its far from the socalled "whitepaper" but it gives mor info at least. I think both the cryptonote route and XCs idea are the right way to really bring that last evolutionary step to crypto in order to make it the digital equivalent to gold. untraceable transactions are a mandatory characteristic that bitcoin is missing. still the idea of decentralisation must not be compromised. Everybody that is working on this gets a big thumps up from me. the bloat issues of CN give XC the edge here imo.  (please don'T attack me monero fans  )

people underestimate the importance of private transactions. this is not a trend like country or weed coins. its the missing part of the puzzle to kill fiat for good. the possible ROI is gigantic. those 15 $ DRK was just a mild preview of whats possible.

Don't worry about me, I definitely don't have any plans to go offtopic in this thread. Only reason I commented up there in the beginning was the "100%" claim, but I don't intend to post about that any more than I already have.

Looking forward to seeing rev3 stuff when it comes out. Always interesting to compare different implementations.

[rdnkjdi]

it requires trust now. but the mixer works and there is a great graphical blockexplorer tool from kimmyf that visualises the tx for you to see.

Thank you for your honesty on this.  This is (one) of my biggest problems with XC.  It's sold as the best at anonymous transactions without opensource without explaining that you really need to take the devs word that it is the best anonymity solution.

[hoertest]

it requires trust now. but the mixer works and there is a great graphical blockexplorer tool from kimmyf that visualises the tx for you to see.

Thank you for your honesty on this.  This is (one) of my biggest problems with XC.  It's sold as the best at anonymous transactions without opensource without explaining that you really need to take the devs word that it is the best anonymity solution.

See i don't have a problem with this one bit. they just say they think they have the best implementation. based on their rev1 that is open sourced i decided to buy in now cause i think they will follow through like they did with rev1. but nobody is forced to do so and i don't think that its moraly questionable to share what you are working on even if you don't put out every line of new code you write in realtime. I respect your position of wanting prove first but its has no ground for confrontation on the ethics of XCs team. its an investment decision and i can respect that.

[rdnkjdi]

I respect your position of wanting prove first but its has no ground for confrontation on the ethics of XCs team.

I feel it is misleading to state that the coin is better than anything else out there when it's not open sourced for the community to review.  The fact that it's "the best" is normally stated in a matter of fact way by the marketing team and Dan.

I've been following the XC project (you probably know why) and the issue of pumping other altcoins and now the SuperNET knockoff to raise more money / increase buying pressure so whales can offload (if you view events thru a cynical perspective instead of optimistic one).  Even IF I didn't have a problem with it being closed sourced before - would make me seriously question the integrity of the team who was promising me a technology that couldn't be verified for my investment.

As long as those putting their money into it fully trust both the judgement of the development team (that they can actually KNOW that their solution is the best out there like they claim) and the integrity.  Then by all means put money into it.  But closed source requires trust in the team - not the code itself having been reviewed by the entire community.  And those are two very different animals.

In my mind to promise something like the SuperNET before delivering open source of the actual full project is terrible.  Label it FUD, or pre-disposition, or whatever you'd like. 

[Aristophanes]

What about the CryptoNote ring signature tech that's been verified by cryptographers?

I wasn't aware of it being broken, do you have a link?

Im looking more into this. Does XC implement this tech?


Cloak had their anon 'verified' as well (I made a lot off Cloak, because I knew when to sell). Until its open source and allowed meticulous review by the community, then it isn't verified. Yes, they are going to say they are going to EVENTUALLY let that happen, but you retards will trust the devs and give them your money before they do.

i can understand that people shy away from investing before open source but i'm willing to take the higher risk now in order for a higher ROI. so please not that debate here again now. last time i checked nobody was forced to buy any coins.

people underestimate the importance of private transactions. this is not a trend like country or weed coins. its the missing part of the puzzle to kill fiat for good. the possible ROI is gigantic. those 15 $ DRK was just a mild preview of whats possible.

Dark was the first mover. It had the advantage of pumping into the realm of unknown, so the upside was sky high. It has adjusted harshly since then.

Your 'higher risk for a higher ROI' strategy is a common fallacy that all you alt coin investors seem to have... and the coins keep suckering you in with it. Instead of delivering actual code, they find ways to give you more empty promises (like anon or the blocknet) and shake more money out of you. They give links to mixing graphics that look nice and pretty, but at the end of the day are nonsense and prove nothing. I had different views on XC UNTIL THEY GROUPED THEMSELVES WITH DEV TEAMS WHO DID EXACTLY WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED.


"Cheap XC cheap XC." Thats all you fools say. You will soon learn what actual cheap XC is, and many people like me will be there to get it. It's the price a sane person would pay for how high risk the investment actually is.

[Aristophanes]

What about the CryptoNote ring signature tech that's been verified by cryptographers?

I wasn't aware of it being broken, do you have a link?

Im looking more into this. Does XC implement this tech?

This tech actually seems pretty promising, and I see many coins (with lower caps than XC) use it.

I have to work it out in my head... not sure how the system holds against someone analyzing the input and output amounts of a a transaction.. but I will get to the bottom of it.

[rdnkjdi]

What about the CryptoNote ring signature tech that's been verified by cryptographers?

I wasn't aware of it being broken, do you have a link?

Im looking more into this. Does XC implement this tech?

This tech actually seems pretty promising, and I see many coins (with lower caps than XC) use it.

No.  XC does not use it.  My understanding is that CryptoNote is the only protocol that uses ring signatures (Monero, Boolberry, Darknote, Bytecoin).  Which is a completely separate codebase from bitcion & it's still fairly rough.

It also creates blockchain bloat (which XC has sworn to avoid).

[hoertest]

What about the CryptoNote ring signature tech that's been verified by cryptographers?

I wasn't aware of it being broken, do you have a link?

Im looking more into this. Does XC implement this tech?

This tech actually seems pretty promising, and I see many coins (with lower caps than XC) use it.

No.  XC does not use it.  My understanding is that CryptoNote is the only protocol that uses ring signatures (Monero, Boolberry, Darknote, Bytecoin).  Which is a completely separate codebase from bitcion & it's still fairly rough.

It also creates blockchain bloat (which XC has sworn to avoid).

 i never scream cheap XC. and i don't consider myself a fool either.
 again all crypto investing is voluntary last time i checked so i see no point in discussing these things to death. i don't do this with other coins i consider scams or when i don't like what they offer. i just don't buy them. i see no point in getting in their threads demanding explenations for actions that keep me from investing.

on the bloat thing. is the bloat a result of on chain anonymity?

and regarding the supernet knock off. all altcoins are bitcoin knockoffs or atleast startet as such and i'm glad they are here.

Regarding the importance of anonymity. DRK adjusted ,yes, but still this is the main piece in the puzzle missing to make crypto the digital cash/PM. bitcoin solved the double spend, now the only characteristica missing is untracebility of funds and transaction but without giving up the decentralisation of btc.  also other inconveniences that come with the task like bloat or on chain anonymity for later decryption should be avoided. XCs mixer tech solves this task imo. and i personally decided to put funds in it before open sourcing cause i anticipate a higher reward by doing so. i think its legitimate to articulate this especially in the XC community. i not once spammed other anon coins threads with my view. don't know how many in here can say this about themselfs.

Privacy is Freedom and thats essentially what satoshi wanted to give to humankind when he invented btc. thats no gimmick. its THE most important task of the digital age. i consider 15 $ cheap if i'm 100% shure a coin delivers this to my standards.

[rdnkjdi]

I do agree with you that untracability is important.  

This article describes ring signatures & explains the reason for bloat - https://cryptonote.org/inside.php

My understanding is that the blockchain will be between 3 & 6 times bigger with ring signatures.  But it doesn't rely on client side mixing but the protocol itself.

My understanding about XC (correct me if I'm wrong) and Darkcoin both are that they have mixers (Darkcoin masternodes \ XC every node).  Not all of the coins are mixed - only the coins that you specify need to be mixed are mixed with other coins that are specify that they need to be mixed.  Is this the case with XC?

[hoertest]

I do agree with you that untracability is important. 

This article describes ring signatures & explains the reason for bloat - https://cryptonote.org/inside.php

My understanding is that the blockchain will be between 3 & 6 times bigger with ring signatures.  But it doesn't rely on client side mixing but the blockchain protocol itself.

At least we are on the same page there. 
its not important its mandatory. its the last step.

i think XCs quick MESHs will solve the issue better. having the other cornerstone called free (private) speech at hand on the same platform is a nice bonus. but i'm in this for the financial privacy.

I'm actually surprised how many consider this just another altcoin trend. precious metals aren't backed by ganja, they are not country specific, they don't store information. but they are private. the idea of bitcoin was to serve as form of money that can''t be created out of thin air, digital gold. what part is missing? privacy.

[slapper]

It is funny to see the XC PR machine abuse terms associated with BTC like decentralized, trustless etc etc and try to apply to this garbage bullshit scamcoin called XC. From Day 1 these clowns are all about trying to be me-too about everything and anything in crypto.

This coin is mined-out piece of shit. There is nothing more centralized than trying to sell mined out piece of shit and going door to door like the witnesses. You have a garbage closed source system and there is nothing trustless about it, even if you get it reviewed from any external source. CVEs come into play in 20-30 year code bases, only no one will even bother with this piece of crap because it doesn't deserve any.

This isn't what satoshi had envisioned. You will see it once you understand that getting your own heads out of your assess is a pre-requirement to understand these things. The "developer" of this scam coin hires off beat unknown coders to develop crap that can be sold to noobs who then make a fool out of themselves with their retardation in the self moderated thread. He had to fucking donate to loljosh to even launch the scam for crying out. If you believed them there were ASICs and FPGAs because of which they had to shut down PoW. Yah Satoshi envisioned all this   Bunch of scammy people associated behind the scenes with this as well as up front who will go underground in the coming days once the final tricks are pulled off from this latest scam and the idiot bagholders are what the rest of BTCTalk will have to endure listening to sorry sob stories.

Web 3.0? Decentralized? Trustless? BlockNET 2500 BTC IPO? Content serving from nodes? Code review pump and dumps? These clowns are all over the place. It is amazing to me that a crap coin like this is valued at 70K. Just dump it out and get it over.

Also why is Busoni all of a sudden allowing this? His lawyers are suddenly fine with this crap given they did the right thing by not allowing SuperNET ICO?

[rdnkjdi]

It is funny to see the XC PR machine abuse terms associated with BTC like decentralized, trustless etc etc and try to apply to this garbage bullshit scamcoin called XC. From Day 1 these clowns are all about trying to be me-too about everything and anything in crypto.

This coin is mined-out piece of shit. There is nothing more centralized than trying to sell mined out piece of shit and going door to door like the witnesses. You have a garbage closed source system and there is nothing trustless about it, even if you get it reviewed from any external source. CVEs come into play in 20-30 year code bases, only no one will even bother with this piece of crap because it doesn't deserve any.

This isn't what satoshi had envisioned. You will see it once you understand that getting your own heads out of your assess is a pre-requirement to understand these things. The "developer" of this scam coin hires off beat unknown coders to develop crap that can be sold to noobs who then make a fool out of themselves with their retardation in the self moderated thread. He had to fucking donate to loljosh to even launch the scam for crying out. If you believed them there were ASICs and FPGAs because of which they had to shut down PoW. Yah Satoshi envisioned all this   Bunch of scammy people associated behind the scenes with this as well as up front who will go underground in the coming days once the final tricks are pulled off from this latest scam and the idiot bagholders are what the rest of BTCTalk will have to endure listening to sorry sob stories.

Web 3.0? Decentralized? Trustless? BlockNET 2500 BTC IPO? Content serving from nodes? Code review pump and dumps? These clowns are all over the place. It is amazing to me that a crap coin like this is valued at 70K. Just dump it out and get it over.

Also why is Busoni all of a sudden allowing this? His lawyers are suddenly fine with this crap given they did the right thing by not allowing SuperNET ICO?

Tell us how you really feel :p

My understanding was that it was not going to be on ploniex

[slapper]

It is funny to see the XC PR machine abuse terms associated with BTC like decentralized, trustless etc etc and try to apply to this garbage bullshit scamcoin called XC. From Day 1 these clowns are all about trying to be me-too about everything and anything in crypto.

This coin is mined-out piece of shit. There is nothing more centralized than trying to sell mined out piece of shit and going door to door like the witnesses. You have a garbage closed source system and there is nothing trustless about it, even if you get it reviewed from any external source. CVEs come into play in 20-30 year code bases, only no one will even bother with this piece of crap because it doesn't deserve any.

This isn't what satoshi had envisioned. You will see it once you understand that getting your own heads out of your assess is a pre-requirement to understand these things. The "developer" of this scam coin hires off beat unknown coders to develop crap that can be sold to noobs who then make a fool out of themselves with their retardation in the self moderated thread. He had to fucking donate to loljosh to even launch the scam for crying out. If you believed them there were ASICs and FPGAs because of which they had to shut down PoW. Yah Satoshi envisioned all this   Bunch of scammy people associated behind the scenes with this as well as up front who will go underground in the coming days once the final tricks are pulled off from this latest scam and the idiot bagholders are what the rest of BTCTalk will have to endure listening to sorry sob stories.

Web 3.0? Decentralized? Trustless? BlockNET 2500 BTC IPO? Content serving from nodes? Code review pump and dumps? These clowns are all over the place. It is amazing to me that a crap coin like this is valued at 70K. Just dump it out and get it over.

Also why is Busoni all of a sudden allowing this? His lawyers are suddenly fine with this crap given they did the right thing by not allowing SuperNET ICO?

Tell us how you really feel :p

My understanding was that it was not going to be on ploniex

Tell it to the SEC http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml