Topic: PROOF that XSPEC is a SCAM - page 7. (Read 2581 times)

As a matter of fact, even if it turns out that not everything has been done well, that people were manipulated or something, the tech is not useless, and it already has more to offer than other over hyped, still very popular coins.

I agree that some things are shady as you said, but you went too far IMO. First it was always clearly stated that the project is ShadowCashe fork. When I say always I mean since jbg over took the lead. First group of developers obviously took coins (approx. 20k $ IIRC) for few hours of work. Changed the name, not sure what else has happened, and what I find strange here is that despite that many ICO holders still defend these people and say 'they were paid to deliver the first wallet, or to do initial work'. Maybe they are just afraid of bad publicity?

Now, regarding jbg, he actually mentioned that the reason the project has no whitepaper is because not enough code changes have been implemented (compared to ShadowCashe code base) to justify new whitepaper, which is thus expected with version 2 of the wallet which should bring stealth staking.

Further I would like to stress the fact that writing code is not the only job for a developer, especialy in projects where security or reliability are so important. Code inspection is very, very important, and jbg also had to spend a lot of time to familiarize him self with the ShadowCashe project/code base. From my conversations with him, my personal, subjective estimation is that he is enough capable, and knowledgeable for this kind of work.

The fact that he updates libraries, such as the Tor network, is a good sign that he cares about security. If one compares it to other projects like DO and Verge, the situation with XSPEC is much better. DO run until recently on a very vulnerable Tor code from 2014.

How I see things is that exactly because project is in this particular phase/state, there could be much potential in it, and money is anyway the main reason most of people buy/hold coins. Big money usually comes with greater risk.

Monero was also called scam at the beginning, and who knows, maybe it was. But its founder recognized the potential the project had and decided to invest in it. I hope same will happen with XSPEC.

I also don't think that amount of money collected with donations has been spent wisely, or very well, but that is up to jbg and community to decide how much they want to give, and for what. XSPEC would definitely profit from new developers, and IMO this step is necessary for the project further advancement.

Code 1.4 doesn't exist. jbg is going to announce in next days that he is leaving his project because he is forced to do so.

I was a big fan of this project for some time but have had enough.  The red flags thrown up in this thread are one thing, but it's clear that even if the dev delivers, that the relatively small community, lack of marketing and general negative feelings towards XSpec are such that it will only grow on the tailend of another major bullrun where a lot of newbies blindly take a punt.

Will be nice to come back to this thread in Dec 18 and enjoy XSPEC at a healthy $15-$20. Thanks for pushing the weak hands out today.

Agree
Me and my friens study and look for news about xspec and we believe on project.
If all cryptos grow and target 1 trillion marketcap this year, 100% shure that Spectrecoin price will target around 10 dollars

Dude, no one wants this scam coin.  You're making yourself look like a fool if you think people here are trying to "fud" to "buy low".  It shows me that you don't know what you're talking about, are wrong, and anything you say from now on will be met with the same lack of merit.


The coin speaks for itself, it's been proven and shown many times that this is a SCAM coin.  The price is tanking, and I can only imagine that it's the DEV that got called out for this shit.  Don't try and save-face and twisting what the thread is about.

Well, I know how to code and get paid to do so.

People want the anonymity provided by Tor + obsf4, and now you wait for "experts in coding" to make statements..

Now, think about what you've just written for a second. SpectreCoin has saved you time to setup a node (wallet) within Tor, without you having to download anything or setup anything. It's not particularly hard to set up a Tor node, if you know what you are doing, but if you're waiting for "experts", then you are the exact type that this coin is targeting: busy people who just want to use a coin, securely and anonymously. The dev himself said that Tor + obsf4 is not even the big draw of this coin, but it's a feature, and it works.

I do not believe that this is a fraudulent project. I have carefully studied it and can conclude that this is a good and promising project. I am ready to invest in it.

Xspec it is precious stone on crypto market. But some people or not understand this or deliberately want drop price. I think they receive money for this FUD posts

Maybe they like "true privacy" coin as  a token pay,verge or deep onion ? Why they not say thet this coins is scam ?  Because they not understand nothing on tech,  they only posts ordered by someone FUD

Let the community decides,im sure more experts in coding would make some statements about this,it this is really true now it would be the best time to sell our XSPECs,but if this just a FUD the T.S should be responsible with this i personally believed to XSPEC from the start and if this will be proven it would be the biggest lost that i will have.

Haha, this FUD is now beyond a joke. No one in the dev team or marketing team did this. (There might be a few shillers out there, but they're working for themselves, and beyond anyone's control). spectre.ai came a long way after SpectreCoin, so this does not even make sense either.

" Also they are trying to get some money from spectre.ai investers cause of name. "

This statement alone should make your whole motive suspect and cause a reasonable person to pause.

There is no "they".....many community comments were made  to that group about the similarity of the names when that exchange project was launched this fall....and @jbg , our project manager and dev, actually quieted the community saying its a different project and the publicity might actually be a positive.
This is a matter of record. Your statement is not.

So, you and the people that are trying to fud the price down for whatever purpose need to go find another
community to try to knock down.

For me... FUD. I believe in xspec and I buy more.

well, this is not just FUD, it's tactical verbal destruction.

and it actually makes me confident about xspec, because they want to buy low.

and this means, the price will raise soon.

This, along with the claim that Spectrecoin has tried in any way to shield the fact it was based on Shadowcash, is a total and complete lie. Spectrecoin investors were reasonably upset when newcomers came along with an ICO of a confusingly similar name (see Bitcoin Cash), but no one is trying to get money from Spectre.ai and if they are they are a rogue agent who has nothing to do with Spectrecoin.

Show me proof, Cabellos.

I dont reall know something about coding or anything about scripts,but as to what i have seen we need to have some debate here,the developer of XSPEC should have a good argument with the T.S so we will find any good reason why we believe to T.S or XSPEC we shouldnt accusing someone without any proper reasoning from the other side,but your posts looks legit lets wait for the XSPEC developers so that we will know that truth.

As an ICO participant in Xspec, it was most certainly clear to us that Shaadowcash was the basis for Spectrecoin. I'm not speaking to any of the code yet, I am responding to the first problem I saw, but the accusation this was hidden from investors is a complete lie right out of the gate. It is even on the Spectrecoin wiki, created by the Spectrecoin community, one of the very first statements on it, not hidden in tiny print somewhere. No one has ever tried to hide the Shadowcoin connection. Ever.

Thanks a lot for posting your findings, now I only have to add a small piece about "obfs4 support' in Spectre.

Almost everywhere, "Tor+OBFS4 support" in SpectreCoin comes following words like native, integrated and built-in. The tool-tip in the GUI says Tor+OBFS4 connection online.

In the meantime, at least on Windows, to enable obfs4 support in SpectreCoin client you have to at the very least download obfs4proxy.exe and edit torrc manually to add the bridge. And there are three funny things to it:

• First, spectre is able to recognize obfs4proxy in its data dir. It then strips the path and only passes the file name to Tor. Tor, in turn, attempts to find the executable in its own directory since it doesn't have the full path, and fails to do it.
• Second, there used to be an obfs4 setup guide on the official Spectre site (it may still be there somewhere but having just had a quick look I couldn't find it), which did not result in obfs4 actually working, because of the combination of the points above and below this one
• Third and my favourite, SpectreClient adds ClientTransportPlugin configuration option to Tor if it finds obfs4proxy executable but not the actual bridge config line; meaning Tor is aware that it can and needs to use obfs4 but isn't told how to connect to the bridge providing the functionality itself.

So much for native, integrated and built-in obfs4 support.

Thank you so much! It's really got me thinking. You did the titanic labors for us, but unfortunately i have no sendable merit to you   
I'm going to follow your further posts.