rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 154.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: smooth on July 22, 2014, 08:42:54 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 22, 2014, 08:40:18 AM

- 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.

I disagree. It's not a problem to have boring old clones around; what's a problem is clones with some sort of copied breakthrough tech, but with devs who lack the ability to develop it further.

The latter situation allows P&D scams that can seriously mislead investors, due to actually having some decent tech to start from.

We want to avoid this.

The regular ol' crapcoin is no real problem.

nakaone

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on July 22, 2014, 08:51:45 AM

Quote from: smooth on July 22, 2014, 08:42:54 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 22, 2014, 08:40:18 AM

- 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.

If your objective is to completely destroy altcoins, yes then that would be the approach.

I would definitely say it makes a world of a difference to the people that have invested in the coin to not have their premium feature released before it reaches its prime and have hundreds of different coin clone the one thing that separate it from all the other coins....

by all we know about market this argument does not make sense at all - the market ALWAYS benefits the main innovation, regardless of how many shitclones are existent. I think the arguments for protection are on a multidimensional level stupid.

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

binaryFate

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Still wild and free

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on July 22, 2014, 08:52:27 AM

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.

I guess your suggestion is to just discuss about Monero then?

Nice try, but no. Just any coin that is open source and worth discussing. But you're almost right in that it actually excludes 99% of the coins.

onemorebtc

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: the_game1224 on July 22, 2014, 08:49:52 AM

Quote from: smooth on July 22, 2014, 08:42:54 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 22, 2014, 08:40:18 AM

- 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.

You say that like its a good thing. Whether or not you agree with XC only open sourcing the previous version or not the hundreds of clones/scams/p&ds being released on a daily basis is greatly damaging to the altcoin world.

yes it is a good thing:
- you see your new idea behaving in the wild
- more developers are interested to help you
- more code reviews

i cant imagine a better foundation for a new coin with a real invention.

of course: if you dont have a real innovation you'll get called out before release...tobad

(risto: i'd recommend removing all this discussion about closed source... it seems utterly pointless: this includes my post of course)

Este Nuno

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1002

amarha

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.

CryptoGretzky

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

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.

I guess your suggestion is to just discuss about Monero then?

CryptoGretzky

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: smooth on July 22, 2014, 08:42:54 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 22, 2014, 08:40:18 AM

- 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.

If your objective is to completely destroy altcoins, yes then that would be the approach.

I would definitely say it makes a world of a difference to the people that have invested in the coin to not have their premium feature released before it reaches its prime and have hundreds of different coin clone the one thing that separate it from all the other coins....

binaryFate

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Still wild and free

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.

the_game1224

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Quote from: smooth on July 22, 2014, 08:42:54 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 22, 2014, 08:40:18 AM

- 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.

You say that like its a good thing. Whether or not you agree with XC only open sourcing the previous version or not the hundreds of clones/scams/p&ds being released on a daily basis is greatly damaging to the altcoin world.

policymaker

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Crypto Currency Supporter

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.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: synechist on July 22, 2014, 08:40:18 AM

- 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.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: dreamspark on July 22, 2014, 08:36:08 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?

So that its not copied before they're sure of their implementation and have gained a significant lead. Not reasonable in my opinion but its the argument of the closed source coin backers of which I am not one.

Three reasons to go open source on a delayed timeline:

- the community will still benefit from our work

- we'd reduce the incentive for developers to flood the marketplace with clones that lack a long term future

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

Its About Sharing

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1000

Antifragile

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

Quote from: Profetu on July 22, 2014, 07:53:47 AM

[...]

Hi, here is the REV 1 trusted mixer implementation source code. The coin now has multi-path trustless mixing (still not open source though) and every wallet is a potential node.

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? Let's keep things as open as we can, yeah, ironic I know.
The fewer the rules the better.

dreamspark

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

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?

So that its not copied before they're sure of their implementation and have gained a significant lead. Not reasonable in my opinion but its the argument of the closed source coin backers of which I am not one.

CryptoGretzky

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

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?

Why? How many crappy clone coins do you think will be released the same day the source is released based on the anon tech?

Este Nuno

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1002

amarha

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

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: synechist on July 22, 2014, 08:19:17 AM

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 22, 2014, 08:16:31 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 22, 2014, 08:13:58 AM

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 22, 2014, 08:08:35 AM

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

Quote from: Profetu on July 22, 2014, 07:53:47 AM

[...]

Hi, here is the REV 1 trusted mixer implementation source code. The coin now has multi-path trustless mixing (still not open source though) and every wallet is a potential node.

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.

+1 on that

Closed source can be everything and nothing.

When and if they open source I think maybe someone can peer review it and then we can discuss it further.

XC makes their code open source on a delayed timeline.

For now, you can all review the mixer we released yesterday.

Traders and investors can consider whether it's worth getting in early while the breakthrough tech is yet to be made public.

When we launch Rev 3 there will be a big public bounty to provably break XC's anonymity.

I have been in XC from the start , but sold on the bubble.

I personally declare it vaporware like I have done with DRK until a peer review on the code has been done and it has been opensourced.

Trustless mixing is currently working.

The latest XC app is Rev 2.45. You can download it here and test out a "privacy mode" transaction yourself. Track the results in a block explorer.

This is hardly vapourware.

For the record, external testing, and public testing for a big bounty are happening around Rev 3.

And, also for the record, here is our statement on open source:

XC is committed to the open source model. Open source code is vital for the health and advancement of cryptographic technologies, and it is a privilege to share our technical breakthroughs with a community such as this. We believe that XC's code embodies several world-firsts enabling anonymity that is scalable, mobile-friendly, POS-integrated, and is ultimately a platform upon which a broad range of Blockchain 2.0 technologies will be built. However we have been under severe attack from competing projects. Furthermore people’s faith in altcoins is significantly hindered by clones. Therefore we believe that the ethical way to engage with the community is to make code available on a delayed timeline. This way, the community will still benefit from our work, while we'd reduce the incentive for developers to flood the marketplace with clones that lack a long term future and reduce the trustworthiness of the altcoin phenomenon. XC represents several market-leading innovations, and we are honoured to make these available to the community in the near future.

onemorebtc

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: Profetu on July 22, 2014, 08:19:01 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.

just finish development and as soon as it is open-source everything is ok...
just take it as an opportunity to buy more before everybody knows your secret stuff (lol)

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 22, 2014, 08:16:31 AM

Quote from: synechist on July 22, 2014, 08:13:58 AM

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 22, 2014, 08:08:35 AM

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

Quote from: Profetu on July 22, 2014, 07:53:47 AM

[...]

Hi, here is the REV 1 trusted mixer implementation source code. The coin now has multi-path trustless mixing (still not open source though) and every wallet is a potential node.

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.

+1 on that

Closed source can be everything and nothing.

When and if they open source I think maybe someone can peer review it and then we can discuss it further.

XC makes their code open source on a delayed timeline.

For now, you can all review the mixer we released yesterday.

Traders and investors can consider whether it's worth getting in early while the breakthrough tech is yet to be made public.

When we launch Rev 3 there will be a big public bounty to provably break XC's anonymity.

I have been in XC from the start , but sold on the bubble.

I personally declare it vaporware like I have done with DRK until a peer review on the code has been done and it has been opensourced.

Trustless mixing is currently working.

The latest XC app is Rev 2.45. You can download it here and test out a "privacy mode" transaction yourself. Track the results in a block explorer.

This is hardly vapourware.

For the record, external testing, and public testing for a big bounty are happening around Rev 3.

Profetu

full member

Activity: 204

Merit: 100

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.

Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 154. (Read 387493 times)