Pfft what a laugh why bite the hand that feeds you ?
Let me guess, mindfox had no idea how to implement anon - as lets be real here it took this guy 3 weeks to make a replacement wallet for XBC when the real dev up and left. Probably took longer. Either way its still a true fact.
Also, where did he get this idea ? I dare say he is using his intimate knowledge of "previewing" the (at the time might still be) closed XC anon source because of all the muppets on here needing proof and validation (and to steal/copy and clone)
You may fool 99% of the people but that 1% will always cut through the bs
Mindfox confirmed that the recipient wallet needs to be online to receive coins. Evidently people don't seem to realise the implications of this, and how it puts this coin an a different category to other cryptos. IMO it makes the coin virtually worthless in practice. I wonder how many people actually read the whitepaper with a basic level of comprehension. It's either complete incompetence from the devs or an intentional pump & dump. I would guess it's the former.
Personally I would have loved to see a new approach to anon transactions to liven up the competition. Unfortunately this isn't it, it's hamstrung by the fact that the recipient wallet needs to be online to receive funds, and I don't see a way around this with the proposed architecture. But that won't stop people buying up cheap & pumping it with spurious claims and sycophantic bullshit.
The disadvantage I see, is that there will be some delay in a "force with anonymity" transaction, as the wallet would have to wait to receive instructions on how to proceed. But this is only v1 of the design. We will work right after that into finding a smart way of avoiding this, without compromising coin security ( which is top priority for wallets, wouldn't you agree? )
A project is constantly evolving, expanding, becoming better, as long as there is required support and the need for it.
