Topic: XCurrency (XC) BlockNet community thread - page 17. (Read 29212 times)

You know it is extremely distressing to see someone with your background and time in Bitcoin world to be taking any of this crap seriously. It is just not expected and a crying shame.

What evidence are you looking for? Evidence is all laid out and well known. There is a reason no one wants to buy this shitcoin.

Yah man it is all a big FUD. It is a conspiracy. You will be able to sell poop for $1 million one day and don't listen to all these naysayers. 

When you have name calling with accusations your argument seems weak.  Presenting evidence with acutal links and an objective view would seem like a better approach.

I would never have guessed if you hadn't told me!

its one thing to pull out your own funds, it's another to ruin the party for the rest of the investors.

Thats actually a real bitchmove

I've been following XC.  I was a hodler for a long period and have been one of the ones dumping after announcement of the blocknet.  Luckily for XC - it only represented about 1% of my bitcoin holdings.

After seeing them offering this ICO it was too much to bear.  I'm so fucking sick of closed source and Dan the Pumper man pumping shitcoins.  Then their public IPO idea to raise MORE money than what they got from the premine.  And now this alliance with outright scammers.  It's just too much.

I will be reporting to the SEC with the original verbage that literally promised returns along with a list of the exchanges it will be listed on.

Can someone confirm that it will be happening on Poloniex?  I would prefer to catch them doing their IPO / ICO on a US based exchange.

It is funny to see the XC PR machine abuse terms associated with BTC like decentralized, trustless etc etc and try to apply to this garbage bullshit scamcoin called XC. From Day 1 these clowns are all about trying to be me-too about everything and anything in crypto.

This coin is mined-out piece of shit. There is nothing more centralized than trying to sell mined out piece of shit and going door to door like the witnesses. You have a garbage closed source system and there is nothing trustless about it, even if you get it reviewed from any external source. CVEs come into play in 20-30 year code bases, only no one will even bother with this piece of crap because it doesn't deserve any.

This isn't what satoshi had envisioned. You will see it once you understand that getting your own heads out of your assess is a pre-requirement to understand these things. The "developer" of this scam coin hires off beat unknown coders to develop crap that can be sold to noobs who then make a fool out of themselves with their retardation in the self moderated thread. He had to fucking donate to loljosh to even launch the scam for crying out. If you believed them there were ASICs and FPGAs because of which they had to shut down PoW. Yah Satoshi envisioned all this   Bunch of scammy people associated behind the scenes with this as well as up front who will go underground in the coming days once the final tricks are pulled off from this latest scam and the idiot bagholders are what the rest of BTCTalk will have to endure listening to sorry sob stories.

Web 3.0? Decentralized? Trustless? BlockNET 2500 BTC IPO? Content serving from nodes? Code review pump and dumps? These clowns are all over the place. It is amazing to me that a crap coin like this is valued at 70K. Just dump it out and get it over.

Also why is Busoni all of a sudden allowing this? His lawyers are suddenly fine with this crap given they did the right thing by not allowing SuperNET ICO?

At least we are on the same page there. 
its not important its mandatory. its the last step.

i think XCs quick MESHs will solve the issue better. having the other cornerstone called free (private) speech at hand on the same platform is a nice bonus. but i'm in this for the financial privacy.

I'm actually surprised how many consider this just another altcoin trend. precious metals aren't backed by ganja, they are not country specific, they don't store information. but they are private. the idea of bitcoin was to serve as form of money that can''t be created out of thin air, digital gold. what part is missing? privacy.

I do agree with you that untracability is important.  

This article describes ring signatures & explains the reason for bloat - https://cryptonote.org/inside.php

My understanding is that the blockchain will be between 3 & 6 times bigger with ring signatures.  But it doesn't rely on client side mixing but the protocol itself.

My understanding about XC (correct me if I'm wrong) and Darkcoin both are that they have mixers (Darkcoin masternodes \ XC every node).  Not all of the coins are mixed - only the coins that you specify need to be mixed are mixed with other coins that are specify that they need to be mixed.  Is this the case with XC?

 i never scream cheap XC. and i don't consider myself a fool either.
 again all crypto investing is voluntary last time i checked so i see no point in discussing these things to death. i don't do this with other coins i consider scams or when i don't like what they offer. i just don't buy them. i see no point in getting in their threads demanding explenations for actions that keep me from investing.

on the bloat thing. is the bloat a result of on chain anonymity?

and regarding the supernet knock off. all altcoins are bitcoin knockoffs or atleast startet as such and i'm glad they are here.

Regarding the importance of anonymity. DRK adjusted ,yes, but still this is the main piece in the puzzle missing to make crypto the digital cash/PM. bitcoin solved the double spend, now the only characteristica missing is untracebility of funds and transaction but without giving up the decentralisation of btc.  also other inconveniences that come with the task like bloat or on chain anonymity for later decryption should be avoided. XCs mixer tech solves this task imo. and i personally decided to put funds in it before open sourcing cause i anticipate a higher reward by doing so. i think its legitimate to articulate this especially in the XC community. i not once spammed other anon coins threads with my view. don't know how many in here can say this about themselfs.

Privacy is Freedom and thats essentially what satoshi wanted to give to humankind when he invented btc. thats no gimmick. its THE most important task of the digital age. i consider 15 $ cheap if i'm 100% shure a coin delivers this to my standards.

No.  XC does not use it.  My understanding is that CryptoNote is the only protocol that uses ring signatures (Monero, Boolberry, Darknote, Bytecoin).  Which is a completely separate codebase from bitcion & it's still fairly rough.

It also creates blockchain bloat (which XC has sworn to avoid).

This tech actually seems pretty promising, and I see many coins (with lower caps than XC) use it.

I have to work it out in my head... not sure how the system holds against someone analyzing the input and output amounts of a a transaction.. but I will get to the bottom of it.

Im looking more into this. Does XC implement this tech?


Cloak had their anon 'verified' as well (I made a lot off Cloak, because I knew when to sell). Until its open source and allowed meticulous review by the community, then it isn't verified. Yes, they are going to say they are going to EVENTUALLY let that happen, but you retards will trust the devs and give them your money before they do.




Dark was the first mover. It had the advantage of pumping into the realm of unknown, so the upside was sky high. It has adjusted harshly since then.

Your 'higher risk for a higher ROI' strategy is a common fallacy that all you alt coin investors seem to have... and the coins keep suckering you in with it. Instead of delivering actual code, they find ways to give you more empty promises (like anon or the blocknet) and shake more money out of you. They give links to mixing graphics that look nice and pretty, but at the end of the day are nonsense and prove nothing. I had different views on XC UNTIL THEY GROUPED THEMSELVES WITH DEV TEAMS WHO DID EXACTLY WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED.


"Cheap XC cheap XC." Thats all you fools say. You will soon learn what actual cheap XC is, and many people like me will be there to get it. It's the price a sane person would pay for how high risk the investment actually is.

I feel it is misleading to state that the coin is better than anything else out there when it's not open sourced for the community to review.  The fact that it's "the best" is normally stated in a matter of fact way by the marketing team and Dan.

I've been following the XC project (you probably know why) and the issue of pumping other altcoins and now the SuperNET knockoff to raise more money / increase buying pressure so whales can offload (if you view events thru a cynical perspective instead of optimistic one).  Even IF I didn't have a problem with it being closed sourced before - would make me seriously question the integrity of the team who was promising me a technology that couldn't be verified for my investment.

As long as those putting their money into it fully trust both the judgement of the development team (that they can actually KNOW that their solution is the best out there like they claim) and the integrity.  Then by all means put money into it.  But closed source requires trust in the team - not the code itself having been reviewed by the entire community.  And those are two very different animals.

In my mind to promise something like the SuperNET before delivering open source of the actual full project is terrible.  Label it FUD, or pre-disposition, or whatever you'd like. 

See i don't have a problem with this one bit. they just say they think they have the best implementation. based on their rev1 that is open sourced i decided to buy in now cause i think they will follow through like they did with rev1. but nobody is forced to do so and i don't think that its moraly questionable to share what you are working on even if you don't put out every line of new code you write in realtime. I respect your position of wanting prove first but its has no ground for confrontation on the ethics of XCs team. its an investment decision and i can respect that.