Author

Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 152. (Read 387493 times)

legendary
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
July 22, 2014, 11:48:48 AM
Now that this has been cleared up, here's how XC works:

......

From my understanding, does XC still need a number of masternodes (or supernodes or simply nodes or whatever you call them) to perform mixing ?

If the answer is yes, the coin will be less decentralized as long as amount of nodes smaller than amount of clients/users, is it true ?

An who will operate these nodes ? what is the benefit for operating one ?

Is there any potential leakage of user's anonymity in case one entity own a sizeable amount of nodes ?

No, XC no longer has any degree of centralisation. Every node forwards/mixes transactions trustlessly.

There's also currently no minimum amount of coins required to run an Xnode. The app does it automatically.

The benefit of operating an xnode will be:

- you get tx fees, though these are still to be determined. Chances are they'll be very low.

- you get to use secure private messaging (currently working; update due shortly)

- you get to stake


The messaging thing is the strongest incentive to keep apps running.

If we need to provide more of an incentive we might increase tx fees. But we expect tx volume to make up for low fees in due course.

sr. member
Activity: 300
Merit: 250
July 22, 2014, 11:43:32 AM
Now that this has been cleared up, here's how XC works:

......

From my understanding, does XC still need a number of masternodes (or supernodes or simply nodes or whatever you call them) to perform mixing ?

If the answer is yes, the coin will be less decentralized as long as amount of nodes smaller than amount of clients/users, is it true ?

An who will operate these nodes ? what is the benefit for operating one ?

Is there any potential leakage of user's anonymity in case one entity own a sizeable amount of nodes ?
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
July 22, 2014, 11:35:19 AM
Those "other choices of currency" don't have to worry About legall stuff. This will help getting crypto to a whole new audience much quicker. They will be trader for btc until "new paradigm" so it will benefit everyone in The longrun I think. Collaboration is much more effective then divide and conquer!

Edit: I have The tendancy of updating my Posts when I'm at home. Currently on my Phone but like The discussion

For now we don't. But the proposed BitLicence regulations out of New York State do target alts unfortunately.

I dont see them stop me paying in crypto at some underground stripclub if The owner decided to accept it as payment

Or at any other service or internet business

Same thing as with prohabition.. Aint gonna work
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
Crypto Currency Supporter
July 22, 2014, 11:33:10 AM
That is better than nothing, but having only such a short part of the whole thing makes it hard to reason about with the bigger picture in mind. If there was the usual diff header, it would be a bit easier. Considering that it is also outdated already, I do not feel like investing time into figuring how it works. I hope you understand.





Your point is fair,but keep in mind that there were people with legitimate claims like yours back then, asking for open source. The fact that this is delivered now, proves the team's dedication to open source and justifies their course of action. I strongly believe there will be shitcoins with this tech from now on
newbie
Activity: 16
Merit: 0
July 22, 2014, 11:25:26 AM
That is better than nothing, but having only such a short part of the whole thing makes it hard to reason about with the bigger picture in mind. If there was the usual diff header, it would be a bit easier. Considering that it is also outdated already, I do not feel like investing time into figuring how it works. I hope you understand.


   - it's not coinjoin, because it’s not centralised or semi-centralised. There's nothing akin to masternodes in XC either.
This is a very strange claim. CoinJoin was originally designed to be decentralized and trustless. To me, it sounds more like you have implemented CoinJoin the way it was originally supposed to be built.


- we'd avoid causing clones, which reduce the trustworthiness of the altcoin phenomenon

Whatever the other merits of your approach, this one is silly. There are hundreds of altcoin clones, with countless more released every single day. Whether or not your particular pet coin gets cloned or not makes no difference at all to the overall phenomenon.
Let us hope for their sake that nobody hex edits name and certain other things in the binary to launch a clone coin. :-)
sr. member
Activity: 485
Merit: 250
July 22, 2014, 11:21:15 AM
What about Cloak Coin? Don't see any discussion on that. They were recently featured here http://www.deepdotweb.com/2014/07/17/cloakcoin-promises-holy-grail-cryptocurrency-anonymity/
legendary
Activity: 826
Merit: 1002
amarha
July 22, 2014, 11:11:46 AM
Those "other choices of currency" don't have to worry About legall stuff. This will help getting crypto to a whole new audience much quicker. They will be trader for btc until "new paradigm" so it will benefit everyone in The longrun I think. Collaboration is much more effective then divide and conquer!

Edit: I have The tendancy of updating my Posts when I'm at home. Currently on my Phone but like The discussion

For now we don't. But the proposed BitLicence regulations out of New York State do target alts unfortunately.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
July 22, 2014, 11:03:23 AM
Those "other choices of currency" don't have to worry About legall stuff. This will help getting crypto to a whole new audience much quicker. They will be trader for btc until "new paradigm" so it will benefit everyone in The longrun I think. Collaboration is much more effective then divide and conquer!

Edit: I have The tendancy of updating my Posts when I'm at home. Currently on my Phone but like The discussion
legendary
Activity: 826
Merit: 1002
amarha
July 22, 2014, 10:54:48 AM

If you have an unreversible mixer, congratulations.  Bitcoin will almost certainly want to adopt it.  However,  it won't fix fungibility.


When you say that, are you referring to Bitcoin 3rd party development like Dark Wallet? Or the core dev team? I don't think the core dev team would ever implement that tech in to Bitcoin even if it was perfect.

Why would they not want to adopt it? We're talking about Bitcoin as in the open source beta phase project.

I would put the line at 100-1 that the current Bitcoin development team with it's current political situation would ever add such a thing to Bitcoin.

If it's possible for 3rd parties to add it then people will be all over that at light speed. But Gavin et al? I highly doubt that. But maybe I'm wrong. I wonder what everyone else thinks.

And this just highlights one of the most serious issues with Bitcoin as a project. Someone needs control over it but also the vote of the majority should certainly count. This is where Mike Hearns light house project may come into its own, not just funding the devs but breaking them away from the Bitcoin Foundation and also allowing people to show their support for features they would like to see.

If Lighthouse ends up working that way then it could be interesting to see what direction Bitcoin takes. But even then we already have the vested interests of the Bitcoin Foundation and it would take some sort of political upheaval within the Bitcoin dev community to really change the status quo.

I think it was a Mike Hearn interview where he said that Wladimir doesn't even touch the core protocol due to political issues. And he's a PHD who's apparently supposed to be Gavin's successor as lead dev! (edit: I can't find the quote yet though all I've been able to find is that he said Gavin is pretty much the only one who does touch the core protocol. I might have misremembered, not sure. edit2: found the quote, pasted at the bottom)

To be honest though I don't really mind that whole mess since it bodes quite well for our respective 'alternative' choices of curenncy. Wink

Quote from: Mike Hearn via CoinDesk
“The only people doing any kind of heavy lifting on the protocol today are people paid by the Bitcoin Foundation. When I say ‘people,’ what I actually mean is Gavin [Andresen]. There are only three people paid by the Foundation to work on bitcoin, code-wise. And of those, Wladimir [van der Laan] and Cory [Fields] refuse to work on the protocol, partly because of the social issues that have come up.”
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
July 22, 2014, 10:51:41 AM

If you have an unreversible mixer, congratulations.  Bitcoin will almost certainly want to adopt it.  However,  it won't fix fungibility.


When you say that, are you referring to Bitcoin 3rd party development like Dark Wallet? Or the core dev team? I don't think the core dev team would ever implement that tech in to Bitcoin even if it was perfect.

Why would they not want to adopt it? We're talking about Bitcoin as in the open source beta phase project.

I would put the line at 100-1 that the current Bitcoin development team with it's current political situation would ever add such a thing to Bitcoin.

If it's possible for 3rd parties to add it then people will be all over that at light speed. But Gavin et al? I highly doubt that. But maybe I'm wrong. I wonder what everyone else thinks.

And this just highlights one of the most serious issues with Bitcoin as a project. Someone needs control over it but also the vote of the majority should certainly count. This is where Mike Hearns light house project may come into its own, not just funding the devs but breaking them away from the Bitcoin Foundation and also allowing people to show their support for features they would like to see.

You nailed it! And I can tell you The dedicated dev's and team of XC implemented and did what The Community asked. Big time
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
July 22, 2014, 10:34:26 AM

If you have an unreversible mixer, congratulations.  Bitcoin will almost certainly want to adopt it.  However,  it won't fix fungibility.


When you say that, are you referring to Bitcoin 3rd party development like Dark Wallet? Or the core dev team? I don't think the core dev team would ever implement that tech in to Bitcoin even if it was perfect.

Why would they not want to adopt it? We're talking about Bitcoin as in the open source beta phase project.

I would put the line at 100-1 that the current Bitcoin development team with it's current political situation would ever add such a thing to Bitcoin.

If it's possible for 3rd parties to add it then people will be all over that at light speed. But Gavin et al? I highly doubt that. But maybe I'm wrong. I wonder what everyone else thinks.

And this just highlights one of the most serious issues with Bitcoin as a project. Someone needs control over it but also the vote of the majority should certainly count. This is where Mike Hearns light house project may come into its own, not just funding the devs but breaking them away from the Bitcoin Foundation and also allowing people to show their support for features they would like to see.
legendary
Activity: 826
Merit: 1002
amarha
July 22, 2014, 10:27:15 AM

If you have an unreversible mixer, congratulations.  Bitcoin will almost certainly want to adopt it.  However,  it won't fix fungibility.


When you say that, are you referring to Bitcoin 3rd party development like Dark Wallet? Or the core dev team? I don't think the core dev team would ever implement that tech in to Bitcoin even if it was perfect.

Why would they not want to adopt it? We're talking about Bitcoin as in the open source beta phase project.

I would put the line at 100-1 that the current Bitcoin development team with it's current political situation would ever add such a thing to Bitcoin.

If it's possible for 3rd parties to add it then people will be all over that at light speed. But Gavin et al? I highly doubt that. But maybe I'm wrong. I wonder what everyone else thinks.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
July 22, 2014, 10:19:34 AM

If you have an unreversible mixer, congratulations.  Bitcoin will almost certainly want to adopt it.  However,  it won't fix fungibility.


When you say that, are you referring to Bitcoin 3rd party development like Dark Wallet? Or the core dev team? I don't think the core dev team would ever implement that tech in to Bitcoin even if it was perfect.

Why would they not want to adopt it? We're talking about Bitcoin as in the open source beta phase project.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1100
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
July 22, 2014, 10:19:28 AM
If I am not mistaken, XC PoW phase (and hence total PoW coins) were cut short because the network witnessed multi tera hashes. I think it was well over 3 TH and attributed to X11 ASICs.
legendary
Activity: 826
Merit: 1002
amarha
July 22, 2014, 10:16:26 AM

If you have an unreversible mixer, congratulations.  Bitcoin will almost certainly want to adopt it.  However,  it won't fix fungibility.


When you say that, are you referring to Bitcoin 3rd party development like Dark Wallet? Or the core dev team? I don't think the core dev team would ever implement that tech in to Bitcoin even if it was perfect.
legendary
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
July 22, 2014, 10:06:28 AM
I understand where you guys come from but not sure what you expect of a coin that is work in progress. The code will eventually be all open source, as of now the code of the previous implementation is open source. So we could pretend the coin is at REV1 at there is the mixer open source. Any thoughts on it?

http://pastebin.com/G4mH4AxR

"Closed source can be everything and nothing." - you are free to make a transaction and find a link between sender and receiver in the blockchain. I think a bounty is still in effect for this.



I can't use the code if it is not open source.  It is a coin stealer, presumptively, and a key logger.

When the source is open and the coin is usable, then peer review will be effective.  Until then, it is a joke.

If you have an unreversible mixer, congratulations.  Bitcoin will almost certainly want to adopt it.  However,  it won't fix fungibility.


Of course. You're under no pressure to use XC until all the code is open source. That's quite understandable.

But it's still a solid project and an attractive investment, regardless. There's no incentive to wait until it's an established product before investing.

legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1030
Sine secretum non libertas
July 22, 2014, 09:55:19 AM
I understand where you guys come from but not sure what you expect of a coin that is work in progress. The code will eventually be all open source, as of now the code of the previous implementation is open source. So we could pretend the coin is at REV1 at there is the mixer open source. Any thoughts on it?

http://pastebin.com/G4mH4AxR

"Closed source can be everything and nothing." - you are free to make a transaction and find a link between sender and receiver in the blockchain. I think a bounty is still in effect for this.



I can't use the code if it is not open source.  It is a coin stealer, presumptively, and a key logger.

When the source is open and the coin is usable, then peer review will be effective.  Until then, it is a joke.

If you have an unreversible mixer, congratulations.  Bitcoin will almost certainly want to adopt it.  However,  it won't fix fungibility.
legendary
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
July 22, 2014, 09:53:03 AM
- the average newbie to crypto has trouble telling the difference between P&D scams and legit projects
- there's a general lack of clear information to guide newbies
- coins thus only rise to prominence by getting pumped
- the majority of speculators thus only hear about it 3/4 of the way to the top and get burned.

We really want to avoid contributing to this dynamic.

That all sounds very idealistic.

And, yet, you will be contributing to exactly this dynamic once you release your delayed open source.



No we won't, because there'll be a clear differentiator between us and whoever clones us. It'll be obvious.

In all fairness, we'd avoid this dynamic even less by being completely closed source.

But then we'd not get to share our tech breakthroughs with the crypto community. And that would be worse.


sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
July 22, 2014, 09:50:00 AM
- the average newbie to crypto has trouble telling the difference between P&D scams and legit projects
- there's a general lack of clear information to guide newbies
- coins thus only rise to prominence by getting pumped
- the majority of speculators thus only hear about it 3/4 of the way to the top and get burned.

We really want to avoid contributing to this dynamic.

That all sounds very idealistic.

And, yet, you will be contributing to exactly this dynamic once you release your delayed open source.



Damned if you do, damned if you don't.... so you want the source opened or not then?
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
July 22, 2014, 09:45:00 AM
- the average newbie to crypto has trouble telling the difference between P&D scams and legit projects
- there's a general lack of clear information to guide newbies
- coins thus only rise to prominence by getting pumped
- the majority of speculators thus only hear about it 3/4 of the way to the top and get burned.

We really want to avoid contributing to this dynamic.

That all sounds very idealistic.

And, yet, you will be contributing to exactly this dynamic once you release your delayed open source.

Jump to: