rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 153.

policymaker

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Crypto Currency Supporter

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on July 22, 2014, 09:34:26 AM

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 22, 2014, 09:26:32 AM

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on July 22, 2014, 09:21:44 AM

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 22, 2014, 09:14:06 AM

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 20, 2014, 11:48:43 AM

XC was under the radar for several days with no mention on the pre-ann page about anon, it was a simple crappy wallet with no coin icon and a slight mention of some android app.

If I had rented 100mh/s in the first 2-3days I would have over 500BTC worth today.

I personally mined after the launch ( a few hours in) with 7 gpus for 6 hours ( at the current price that would be roughly 10BTC worth)

EDIT : Plus its coin supply was cut from roughly 16m coins to 5m after they mentioned anon

The initial ANN was scammy at best with no logo, no mention of anything other than a "andoid app" .

Do you really think this was not intentional by the developer and his friends to mine more and go under the radar ?

I am proof that that didn't happen... I am not a friend of the dev, yet I had the top hashes for almost a week+. All I used was my rigs (under 120 Mh X11) and rented some here and there.

I was trying to find the initial cache of the page from webarchives but I couldnt. For this exact reason someone would jump in mention that the launch was fair.

Something smelled funny about the coins ann thats why I mined it.

Do your remember the diff on the first few days Wink

?

60 day POW was the initial distro if I remember correctly (then people said cut the supply short etc etc)

You know, I was just discussing with my friend that mined along with me. The funny thing was, during that time a LOT of coins came out that turned out to be scam. I remember that XLB, summercoin, whitecoin, yellowcoin, asiacoin... all of them was during that time. I just ignored it and mined XC because the ANN was by a non-newbie account (atcsecure). That was one of the biggest reason why I mined it over the other crap coins.

The diff wasn't super high, it was actually really really low. under 100 for like a week at least. That's another reason why I kept mining it.

I also liked that it wasn't on any exchange. To me that was a sign of pump & dump by most other coins. I just felt that the dev wasn't in a hurry to dump it on an exchange.

Fact is though, for sure there weren't many people mining it with major hash early on.

exactly, I mined with a 5850 and then traded my way up as much as I could.... hardware pal is clearly mistaking XC for another coin.

CryptoGretzky

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 22, 2014, 09:26:32 AM

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on July 22, 2014, 09:21:44 AM

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 22, 2014, 09:14:06 AM

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 20, 2014, 11:48:43 AM

XC was under the radar for several days with no mention on the pre-ann page about anon, it was a simple crappy wallet with no coin icon and a slight mention of some android app.

If I had rented 100mh/s in the first 2-3days I would have over 500BTC worth today.

I personally mined after the launch ( a few hours in) with 7 gpus for 6 hours ( at the current price that would be roughly 10BTC worth)

EDIT : Plus its coin supply was cut from roughly 16m coins to 5m after they mentioned anon

The initial ANN was scammy at best with no logo, no mention of anything other than a "andoid app" .

Do you really think this was not intentional by the developer and his friends to mine more and go under the radar ?

I am proof that that didn't happen... I am not a friend of the dev, yet I had the top hashes for almost a week+. All I used was my rigs (under 120 Mh X11) and rented some here and there.

I was trying to find the initial cache of the page from webarchives but I couldnt. For this exact reason someone would jump in mention that the launch was fair.

Something smelled funny about the coins ann thats why I mined it.

Do your remember the diff on the first few days Wink

?

60 day POW was the initial distro if I remember correctly (then people said cut the supply short etc etc)

You know, I was just discussing with my friend that mined along with me. The funny thing was, during that time a LOT of coins came out that turned out to be scam. I remember that XLB, summercoin, whitecoin, yellowcoin, asiacoin... all of them was during that time. I just ignored it and mined XC because the ANN was by a non-newbie account (atcsecure). That was one of the biggest reason why I mined it over the other crap coins.

The diff wasn't super high, it was actually really really low. under 100 for like a week at least. That's another reason why I kept mining it.

I also liked that it wasn't on any exchange. To me that was a sign of pump & dump by most other coins. I just felt that the dev wasn't in a hurry to dump it on an exchange.

Fact is though, for sure there weren't many people mining it with major hash early on.

SushiChef

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: synechist on July 22, 2014, 09:23:38 AM

Good point. I personally wouldn't support such a fork.

However the reality is that a whole lot of people (and pump groups) do support such forks. It's unfortunately eminently practically feasible to pull these things off:

- 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.

My toughts exactly! Great to see my team defend this!

HardwarePal

hero member

Activity: 565

Merit: 500

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on July 22, 2014, 09:21:44 AM

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 22, 2014, 09:14:06 AM

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 20, 2014, 11:48:43 AM

XC was under the radar for several days with no mention on the pre-ann page about anon, it was a simple crappy wallet with no coin icon and a slight mention of some android app.

If I had rented 100mh/s in the first 2-3days I would have over 500BTC worth today.

I personally mined after the launch ( a few hours in) with 7 gpus for 6 hours ( at the current price that would be roughly 10BTC worth)

EDIT : Plus its coin supply was cut from roughly 16m coins to 5m after they mentioned anon

The initial ANN was scammy at best with no logo, no mention of anything other than a "andoid app" .

Do you really think this was not intentional by the developer and his friends to mine more and go under the radar ?

I am proof that that didn't happen... I am not a friend of the dev, yet I had the top hashes for almost a week+. All I used was my rigs (under 120 Mh X11) and rented some here and there.

I was trying to find the initial cache of the page from webarchives but I couldnt. For this exact reason someone would jump in mention that the launch was fair.

Something smelled funny about the coins ann thats why I mined it.

Do your remember the diff on the first few days Wink

?

60 day POW was the initial distro if I remember correctly (then people said cut the supply short etc etc)

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: smooth on July 22, 2014, 09:14:33 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 22, 2014, 09:11:51 AM

Quote from: smooth on July 22, 2014, 09:08:23 AM

Quote from: Este Nuno on July 22, 2014, 08:53:17 AM

I see the point of not wanting clones but it's inevitable that good open source tech will be forked.

Yes and no. It gets forked certainly, because it can, but only when there is something seriously wrong with the direction taken by the original developers (such as the example you gave) does the fork stand a chance of community support.

Unsuccessful forks, by contrast, make the original much stronger. By blocking forks you remove credible tests of your fitness, which makes the rational observer question your fitness.

I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part.

However there's a very strong additional motivation to fork:

Start a new blockchain, mine from the beginning and try make 10000% profit.

There is no reason for the community to support such a fork, as described. It is just an imitation with some obvious scammer behind it, while the brand value of the original developer will be vastly stronger. Such as fork will go nowhere, and as explained above will serve as a test, which once passed, will make the original stronger.

If there are other differences, then in that case, the community might just have a reason.

Good point. I personally wouldn't support such a fork.

However the reality is that a whole lot of people (and pump groups) do support such forks. It's unfortunately eminently practically feasible to pull these things off:

- 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.

CryptoGretzky

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: nakaone on July 22, 2014, 09:15:02 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 22, 2014, 09:02:52 AM

Quote from: nakaone on July 22, 2014, 08:55:05 AM

the main argument for closed source is that the distribution of the coins is non-optimal, otherwise you would not need to protect would you? Wink

I don't follow your reasoning. How would a coin's distribution affect its policy on open source?

from a logical standpoint, cloners need a reason to clone: the only reason for a clone to become successful is that the initial distribution is horrible. if everyone agrees that the distribution is fine, the clone will never get support.

this argument even holds from an empirical standpoint: see nxt, which was closed source until the mid of january and had a horrible starting distribution, see drk, which is still in parts closed source due to bad distribution and the fear of clones.

see on the hand xcp, which is not cloned due to the consensus that the distribution is fair. see bytecoin which was cloned due to the distribution and which is now lacking success because of the market deciding that the clone is fairer.

if your coin does not have a bad distribution I see no reason why it should be cloned and therefore no reason why it shouldn't be open source.

By your argument, Bitcoin had terrible distribution... that's why we have so many forks of bitcoin and then alts now.

policymaker

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Crypto Currency Supporter

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 22, 2014, 09:14:06 AM

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 20, 2014, 11:48:43 AM

XC was under the radar for several days with no mention on the pre-ann page about anon, it was a simple crappy wallet with no coin icon and a slight mention of some android app.

If I had rented 100mh/s in the first 2-3days I would have over 500BTC worth today.

I personally mined after the launch ( a few hours in) with 7 gpus for 6 hours ( at the current price that would be roughly 10BTC worth)

EDIT : Plus its coin supply was cut from roughly 16m coins to 5m after they mentioned anon

The initial ANN was scammy at best with no logo, no mention of anything other than a "andoid app" .

Do you really think this was not intentional by the developer and his friends to mine more and go under the radar ?

So, by your definition, the next P&D altcoin with an eye catchy pre-ANN is bound to success and a great investment. Plz, do invest your BTC in the next altcoin pre-ann, ill be there to support you!

And just because you are either 1) ignorant or 2) just FUDing, let me tell you this: The original ANN, had anon in its title and OP and that's exactly why it caught my eye, I didnt have even 1 month's experience in the scene, I witnessed DKR skyrocket the very same days, and XC caught my eye because that, there were no other coins claiming anonimity(at least other than cryptonote) at the time, it was still the "X11" hype. And it was originally named X11 coin.

CryptoGretzky

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 22, 2014, 09:14:06 AM

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 20, 2014, 11:48:43 AM

XC was under the radar for several days with no mention on the pre-ann page about anon, it was a simple crappy wallet with no coin icon and a slight mention of some android app.

If I had rented 100mh/s in the first 2-3days I would have over 500BTC worth today.

I personally mined after the launch ( a few hours in) with 7 gpus for 6 hours ( at the current price that would be roughly 10BTC worth)

EDIT : Plus its coin supply was cut from roughly 16m coins to 5m after they mentioned anon

The initial ANN was scammy at best with no logo, no mention of anything other than a "andoid app" .

Do you really think this was not intentional by the developer and his friends to mine more and go under the radar ?

I am proof that that didn't happen... I am not a friend of the dev, yet I had the top hashes for almost a week+. All I used was my rigs (under 120 Mh X11) and rented some here and there.

nakaone

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: synechist on July 22, 2014, 09:02:52 AM

Quote from: nakaone on July 22, 2014, 08:55:05 AM

the main argument for closed source is that the distribution of the coins is non-optimal, otherwise you would not need to protect would you? Wink

I don't follow your reasoning. How would a coin's distribution affect its policy on open source?

from a logical standpoint, cloners need a reason to clone: the only reason for a clone to become successful is that the initial distribution is horrible. if everyone agrees that the distribution is fine, the clone will never get support.

this argument even holds from an empirical standpoint: see nxt, which was closed source until the mid of january and had a horrible starting distribution, see drk, which is still in parts closed source due to bad distribution and the fear of clones.

see on the hand xcp, which is not cloned due to the consensus that the distribution is fair. see bytecoin which was cloned due to the distribution and which is now lacking success because of the market deciding that the clone is fairer.

if your coin does not have a bad distribution I see no reason why it should be cloned and therefore no reason why it shouldn't be open source.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: synechist on July 22, 2014, 09:11:51 AM

Quote from: smooth on July 22, 2014, 09:08:23 AM

Quote from: Este Nuno on July 22, 2014, 08:53:17 AM

I see the point of not wanting clones but it's inevitable that good open source tech will be forked.

Yes and no. It gets forked certainly, because it can, but only when there is something seriously wrong with the direction taken by the original developers (such as the example you gave) does the fork stand a chance of community support.

Unsuccessful forks, by contrast, make the original much stronger. By blocking forks you remove credible tests of your fitness, which makes the rational observer question your fitness.

I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part.

However there's a very strong additional motivation to fork:

Start a new blockchain, mine from the beginning and try make 10000% profit.

There is no reason for the community to support such a fork, as described. It is just an imitation with some obvious scammer behind it, while the brand value of the original developer will be vastly stronger. Such as fork will go nowhere, and as explained above will serve as a test, which once passed, will make the original stronger.

If there are other differences, then in that case, the community might just have a reason.

HardwarePal

hero member

Activity: 565

Merit: 500

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 20, 2014, 11:48:43 AM

XC was under the radar for several days with no mention on the pre-ann page about anon, it was a simple crappy wallet with no coin icon and a slight mention of some android app.

If I had rented 100mh/s in the first 2-3days I would have over 500BTC worth today.

I personally mined after the launch ( a few hours in) with 7 gpus for 6 hours ( at the current price that would be roughly 10BTC worth)

EDIT : Plus its coin supply was cut from roughly 16m coins to 5m after they mentioned anon

The initial ANN was scammy at best with no logo, no mention of anything other than a "andoid app" .

Do you really think this was not intentional by the developer and his friends to mine more and go under the radar ?

binaryFate

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Still wild and free

Quote from: Its About Sharing on July 22, 2014, 09:02:19 AM

[...]

(For sake of clarity - I currently don't have any XC, did have a few in the past, but rolled them into XMR.)

I'm not into closed source, but in the case of XC, not all of it is closed right? So, we can't even talk about the potentially beneficial aspects of it then, according to your new rule.

Perhaps, in certain situations (e.g. Spammers coming on here) Risto can do what he will, but exclusionary rules sound a bit dangerous to me, especially when what you are excluding is not clear (e.g. partial closed source.)

Now, on the other hand, I do see a bit of your point, in that why should we let others come here and promote their coin if they don't let us look at the code? Share is as share does.
Fair enough. Just sharing my worry...

IAS

I see your point too... maybe such a rule would be too strict, and we could miss interesting inputs on current developments.
This thread tends to be a heaven of nice discussions in an ocean of mainly greed-driven-promotions and scams (ie, the altcoin board). I probably tend to overreact when I see anything that looks like a shitcoin or even a technically fair attempt which is greed-driven...
The high-quality of this thread (I don't dare to say in absolute, but relatively to many others) is probably a benefit of self-moderation, even if it has its drawbacks. So I'm happy to leave the decision to Risto.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: smooth on July 22, 2014, 09:08:23 AM

Quote from: Este Nuno on July 22, 2014, 08:53:17 AM

I see the point of not wanting clones but it's inevitable that good open source tech will be forked.

Yes and no. It gets forked certainly, because it can, but only when there is something seriously wrong with the direction taken by the original developers (such as the example you gave) does the fork stand a chance of community support.

Unsuccessful forks, by contrast, make the original much stronger. By blocking forks you remove credible tests of your fitness, which makes the rational observer question your fitness.

I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part.

However there's a very strong additional motivation to fork:

Start a new blockchain, mine from the beginning and try make 10000% profit.

Therefore it doesn't make sense not to release code for currencies on a delayed timeline. Pure open source is great for a lot of scenarios, but not for a currency.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: Este Nuno on July 22, 2014, 08:53:17 AM

I see the point of not wanting clones but it's inevitable that good open source tech will be forked.

Yes and no. It gets forked certainly, because it can, but only when there is something seriously wrong with the direction taken by the original developers (such as the example you gave) does the fork stand a chance of community support.

Unsuccessful forks, by contrast, make the original much stronger. By blocking forks you remove credible tests of your fitness, which makes the rational observer question your fitness.

Profetu

full member

Activity: 204

Merit: 100

In the past XC had other developers like mindfox take a look at the code. So either:

-take a look at the previous implementation of the coin that has open source and talk about that
-if you are a skilled important member of the community ask to review the closed source by yourself
-ignore the coin until it is 100% open source.

I just wanted an honest opinion on the released code. As far as I know it could be a gem or a banal implementation with no innovation.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: Este Nuno on July 22, 2014, 08:58:45 AM

Yeah, personally I don't doubt XC's legitimacy at all and I'm mainly just curious about it as I hadn't seen it comp up in conversation here recently.

Check out Yahoo Finance for a clear introduction to XC.

If you have more questions, ask away.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: nakaone on July 22, 2014, 08:55:05 AM

the main argument for closed source is that the distribution of the coins is non-optimal, otherwise you would not need to protect would you? Wink

I don't follow your reasoning. How would a coin's distribution affect its policy on open source?

Its About Sharing

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1000

Antifragile

Quote from: binaryFate on July 22, 2014, 08:50:51 AM

Quote from: Its About Sharing on July 22, 2014, 08:39:43 AM

Quote from: binaryFate on July 22, 2014, 08:05:18 AM

Risto, I propose that you make a rule to forbid discussions about closed-source alts in this thread. These are really not worth our time.

And what happens when something special comes along? Are we not allowed to talk about it?
Are we going to have a list of rules here?

The problem is to define "special". I personally make it a rule that something closed-source is not special enough for me to spend time going through it. Even if it's "temporary" closed-source.
The fact that developers worry of other coins copying their code right away is in fact revealing a lot of their personal motives, if you ask me.

We are not going to have a list of rules, there is already one

Quote from: rpietila on May 25, 2014, 02:02:40 AM

The rules of this thread are very strict, as always in my threads:

- There is no freedom of speech. The topic is altcoins, but I also want that it stays in a level that is possible and interesting to read for a busy Bitcoin holder that does not care about alts. I know how it feels to be a busy Bitcoin holder, so I steer the discussion to the maximum benefit for me, and for my readers.

- Which alts can be discussed, is up to me. Mentioning an alt after that specific alt has been banned from a thread results in a ban for you. If you do not obey my ban from the thread, historically you have had 100% chance to be banned from the forum as a result. Don't try your luck.

- Posts may be deleted for whatever reason. Deletion does not necessarily mean that the post was offensive. It may also have been too long quote (in which case either the original, or the reply may be pruned), repetition of yours or somebody else's point, or anything else.

- Moderating actions are written in red. Others are not allowed to use red.

(For sake of clarity - I currently don't have any XC, did have a few in the past, but rolled them into XMR.)

I'm not into closed source, but in the case of XC, not all of it is closed right? So, we can't even talk about the potentially beneficial aspects of it then, according to your new rule.

Perhaps, in certain situations (e.g. Spammers coming on here) Risto can do what he will, but exclusionary rules sound a bit dangerous to me, especially when what you are excluding is not clear (e.g. partial closed source.)

Now, on the other hand, I do see a bit of your point, in that why should we let others come here and promote their coin if they don't let us look at the code? Share is as share does.
Fair enough. Just sharing my worry...

IAS

policymaker

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Crypto Currency Supporter

Quote from: Este Nuno on July 22, 2014, 08:53:17 AM

Well, in CrypoNote's case it actually helped that Monero was a clone of Bytecoin.

I see the point of not wanting clones but it's inevitable that good open source tech will be forked.

So the anon tech is currently in use and working but not fully open source yet? Am I understanding that correctly?

If there wasn't a demand by the community to see open source code I guess in theory projects could keep parts like this closed indefinitely to keep some competitive advantage. But I think having closed source parts alienates a large part of the community. Hell, I run all the open source stuff on a vm anyway just because I know it's not impossible that people slip malicious code into these things. And I don't mean to imply that XC is doing anything malicious at all and I'm sure they're not. Just that there have been many issues over the years.

Having people like you closely monitoring things so reasonably, is really encouraging, because it just assures me that when projects like XC finalise their plans and give the public what they really expect(working features with open source, in our situation) they will indeed get noticed and flourish, which is really OK.

Our community is quite commited to the cause and keeps a rather low profile, we let the team's efforts do the real talk, until the official roadmap is executed at least

Este Nuno

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1002

amarha

Quote from: policymaker on July 22, 2014, 08:49:37 AM

Quote from: Este Nuno on July 22, 2014, 08:31:41 AM

Why would the code not be open sourced? That's a bit scary. Any reasonable explanation as to why they would choose this path?

hey nuno, thanx for taking interest in XC. Im just a small holder, like many others, but ive been in XC thread since day 1. If you have the time and want to search the topic for clues, you will see for yourself that it is no regular P&D alt. It does not follow altcoins trading rules(parties have been manipulating from the start, probably big holders), and there is a a talented team behind it(you can check official XC team .pdf). Synechist is a part of it, and he's been doing a great deal of work.

There is no concern of their legitimacy(there are actual photos of the bitcoinbeltway in DC where they promoted XC) and there appears to be a significant amount of work being done backstage. They work by a real business plan, not P&D promises.

Most importantly, the things being developed are not limited to privacy-anonimity per se, but a lot of other groundbreaking stuff, which were NOT announced because of "anon" trend fading away, but were included in core development since the get-go.

ps: I realise most guys here have a good programming or tech related background and despise closed source, but I respect one's right to protect one's -possibly- life's work.

Yeah, personally I don't doubt XC's legitimacy at all and I'm mainly just curious about it as I hadn't seen it comp up in conversation here recently.

Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 153. (Read 387493 times)