Topic: Unmoderated XC thread - page 3. (Read 57240 times)

He made one mistake, and fixed it. Fair enough.

But why would he fork from DRK when DRK doesn't work? And especially not when we can make a better system seperately? I mean shit, DRK can't even fork from DRK. There is clearly a fundamental problem with how DRK was setup when it takes two months to get a simple feature working.

Not the sort of code you'd want to build off of, not when you can do better yourself.

Because they are completely different things. If you currently transfer coins using XC, the nodes can steal the coins. If you currently transfer coins using DRK, the nodes can NOT steal the coins. I can't believe I have to explain this to you. Are you 15 or just pretending to be? If you're trying to say that hacker can break into a masternode, that's a moot point as there are zero coins in my masternodes, the coins are in cold wallets.



Most would probably suspect the competence of someone who plans on doing the mixing by trusting the nodes not to steal. It's good though that he's receiving guidance. But again, would've been probably easier to just fork from DRK instead of making every mistake along the way and ending up following DRK's example anyway.



I don't know why I should start answering your questions as unlike you, I've been mainly responding to retarded claims instead of being proactively aggressive. Those who are interested in XC will probably evaluate Rev 2 when it is released and the details are clear.

Funny how you forget DRK can have coins stolen aswell. Something which seems to go quietly under the radar here.

And yes, Dan chose a different system after a major community backlash. That still doesn't stop the fact he will have created a much more anon and secure system in the same time it's taken Evan to fix one 'simple' issue.

Are all your arguments after Rev 2 going to be based on things that didnt happen?

I seriously can't wait for Rev 2. I'm going to come here and remind you all everytime you post here that your system is flawed and most importantly, lacks the competence to fix it. Ill probably even head over to the DRK thread just to really push the issue.

Also, I think you all forget when you say XC is just copying DRK system, that DRK just copied Greg Maxwells coinjoin system. You have zero moral standpoint on this whole copying issue. The only difference is Dan is working on actual innovative features, things that have never been done before, while Evan has just got someone else's ideas to function properly, then fails at implementing even the most simple feature on his own.

I understand your fustrations against answering my question of naming one thing after Rev 2 that will make DRK better than XC, It must seriously hurt you guys knowing one guy beat in a few weeks what took DRK six months to build.

Anyways, please.

Answer the question.

One thing DRK will have that will be an improvement on XC after Rev 2?

I've already got about six or seven lined up for why XC is better than DRK once Rev 2 is released, but ill leave them to an infographic I'm gonna pump into the DRK thread everytime anyone even mentions XC.

Fun times.

Yes, the fundamentals that for example prevent nodes from stealing the coins. If the "fudsters" didn't point it out XC wouldn't have thought of following DRK's lead and plan to implement multisigs. There's a little bit more to those fundamentals still and we'll see if XC chooses to follow DRK again.

Fundamentals? After Rev 2 our fundamentals will be allot more anon and secure than DRKs. This isn't in question. Even Chaeplin has admitted this

You guys seem to think spending six months to build something which a better Dev can build in six weeks makes your fundamentals better, it doesn't.

Dan has developed world first in technology and spearheaded program's for the likes of IBM.

All because you spend six months writing poorer code doesn't make it any better. To put this in perspective, Evan has taken two months to implement a failed fix for the masternodes, while dan got this working in less than two weeks without a hitch and moved on.

Infact, I'd even argue our fundamentals are even stronger, I mean, how good can your fundamentals be when what was a 'simple' fix has now taken two months to implement, and it has even yet to be done correctly, especially when XC built the entire thing from scratch in less than two weeks without even batting an eyelid.

Seriously, lets not talk about fundamentals. Once Rev 2 is out every single argument about fundamentals you have all posted in this thread goes completely out the window.

So, ill ask again. Name one advantage DRK will have over XC apart from first movers once Rev 2 is released? Just one.

That's all extra fluff on top of the basic functionality (and btw, DRK is not a PoS coin so it doesn't need "staking mobile wallet"). Maybe it would be best for XC to just concentrate on those extra features and fork from DRK if they're gonna follow its lead anyway so they could at least get the fundamentals right.

I donno. I don't see DRK racing to implement anonymous messaging, staking mobile wallet APPs or PoBC.

And those are just the features that have been leaked.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/could-proof-of-blockchain-pobc-be-the-solution-to-asic-industrial-mining-575013

That's a retarded bet. If I win and XC goes to zero I win 10000*nothing lol. How does that bet make any sense?

"MUCH better" is highly debatable imo, when you consider the following timeline:

- XC thought that transferring the actual coins to xnodes was a good idea
- when the trust issue was repeatedly pointed out, it was decided that a "dynamic trust model" would be implemented to fix the issue
- when the flaws in that model were pointed out, it was decided that it's better to follow what DRK did, and implement multisigs so the nodes couldn't steal the coins

It looks to me like XC is following DRK's lead and not the other way around. This can be 100% confirmed after XC announces plans to add collateral.

Wrong. Monero hasn't taken off because it still currently still in alpha testing and has a fundamental flaw with blockchain bloating. Until they fix this it has no long term future


Firstly, if we assume Chaeplin actually proved a hard link, which is highly debatable, Chaeplin said after Rev 2 his method would not be possible.

Chaeplin also said that the method he used is allot more easy to exploit in DRK, and wouldn't even be covered until RC4.


This was proven as baseless FUD when the peer review was done by a number of high profile members of the community who have no attachment to XC.



So, there's all those pretty poor arguments out the window. Anymore?

As far as I can see, it's you guys in denial.

Ill ask again, how long do you think DRK can stay as a market leader once Rev 2 is released and its competitor has MUCH better technology across the board, a MUCH better Dev, and MUCH better plans for the future?

So narrow minded - you can keep your technology that you "hope" will be superior. Monero has better anonymity, look how far its gotten, not far. Why - because it doesnt have the whole package. Technology is a small piece of the pie.

XC's reputation is a pump & dump and thats where it will stay, the market confirms this. The damage it has done to investors by confusing everyone with XCache and how the Dev did not address the FUD around loljosh has put the nail in the coffin. Let alone you claim it to be 100% anonymous by offering 1btc reward for a few hours and claim its uncrackable. No one takes the coin seriously. Chaeplin proved a hard-link and the dev just brushed it aside - good way for an investor to feel comfortable.

Not to mention the copy paste from Fedora, and how the dev cannot use github, do you think investors are stupid. They would take one look and know its another copy/clone CINNI/CLOAK/RAZR basket. Dont fool yourself! Denial is a bitch.

Lol. Brush off the obvious.

Ill ask again, once rev 2 is released, and XC has better technology across the board, has a better Dev, and has much bigger plans for the future, and a team that can back it up.

What will DRK have apart from first movers advantage?

You don't think XCs price will spike like DRKs did when people realise there is a MUCH better alternative?

Seriously. This is like saying google was a small company that would go nowhere while holding yahoo shares.

Also, DRKs position isn't set in cement, the altcoins market is constantly changing, if you think all because it did anonymous first DRK will still be around in two years then your blinder than Steve wonder

What you dont realise is we are just having fun with you - no one cares about XCacheJosh Coin anymore...you can release anything you want, it will just be tumbleweeds, all thats left are a few core shills who are holding on tight to the grave. And you are one of them

I'm crying laughing at watching how blind you are to the obvious

I mean, there are shills, and then there are you guys.

I'm counting down the minutes until Rev 2 is released and I can ask you guys to name a single advantage DRK has over XC, while ill be able to name quite a few in the opposite direction.

Should be fun.

LOL im crying laughing at how stupid this guy is.....hahahaha - now i definitely know you have no idea of the relation between darksend and masternodes.

Well, it should be. After rev 2 we will have better tech, better Dev's and much better plans for the future.


Question. Once rev 2 comes out and XC is trustless, what's your arguments going to be then?

Edit: DRK coins can currently be stolen

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc3-hard-fork-on-june-20th.1241/


So, until DRK fixes its fork, all DRK coins transferred through darksend are at risk. That's why the maximum darksend limit is 10, not the bullshit excuse you posted above.

It was you who made the claims of XC being ahead of DRK wasn't it?



That's a retarded bet. If I win and XC goes to zero I win 10000*nothing lol. How does that bet make any sense?

You are confusing DRK (trustless) with XC (trusted transactions - undoing Satoshi's work). The node of DRK doesn't own your coins. It's the "lawyers office" that signs the agreement that the two parties want to change coins. It only signs the agreement.

The number 10 is used for identical inputs that increase obfuscation. If everyone puts 10 in, how can you know who put what?

http://explorer.darkcoin.io/tx/56b3b95b76995d3e4d3107cf753c8496493010f625fc04d971e9262d74e6a5a5

That's the reason, not because coins can be lost. The plan was to increase denomination pools (10 / 100 / 1000) etc - so the limit would be then 100 or 1000, depending the highest pool. However changes in spec might move away from denomination pools.


Trusted transactions = inferior tech. Sorry. Satoshi invented trustless transactions for a reason and XC destroyed trustless transactions and marketed trusted transactions as ...innovation and superior tech.

You guys know that people can steal coins from DRK aswell? That's why there is a 10 DRK limit?

Lol

I'm gonna love watching all your arguments once Rev 2 is released.

Ps: the original bet makes no sense, it says that XC has to increase by 1200% within the next two months while DRK has to stay still.

My bet still stands. 10000XC that XC will grow more than DRK over the next two months. Meaning its a better investment.

I mean, we do have better Dev's, technology, and plans. The only thing DRK has is media exposure and a Dev who couldn't fix a lightbulb.

Ceci n'est pas une fourchette !