Thanks for the new thread Teka 
I am kinda sad we lost 300 pages
Topic: [XC][XCurrency] Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat / Pos - page 1623. (Read 1484248 times)
May 29, 2014, 12:19:57 PM
I am kinda sad we lost 300 pages
May 29, 2014, 12:19:52 PM
Just saying that i support this coin.
This because the (beginning of) nice work en clearly answers from the dev in the past.
Thanks keep it going!
This because the (beginning of) nice work en clearly answers from the dev in the past.
Thanks keep it going!
May 29, 2014, 12:17:44 PM
Thanks for the new thread Teka
May 29, 2014, 12:16:56 PM
Back, what the hell went on here :p looks like our first correction. Im bag holding from 42-44.
This is healthy for the coin im not even worried more cheap coins
Whats up teka
This is healthy for the coin im not even worried more cheap coins
Whats up teka
Waiting on my darn BTC to come from Coinbase, want to buy more. GRRRR
May 29, 2014, 12:16:14 PM
I have a genuine question, and its absolutely not meant as trolling or what so ever.
Personally I haven't dumped my XC and for now I wont because I have trust in this coin - i think
But I can't help to wonder how a coin can survey FUD like this, and mostly coming with that massive dumps.
Are there any plans yet? do the DEVs have a certain vision on how to proceed from here?
Its not per say a XC problem, I see it happening a lot.
I'm still quite new to this whole thing - but how can a coin ever be successful (like LTC for example) with all those wa***rs around?
Personally I haven't dumped my XC and for now I wont because I have trust in this coin - i think
But I can't help to wonder how a coin can survey FUD like this, and mostly coming with that massive dumps.
Are there any plans yet? do the DEVs have a certain vision on how to proceed from here?
Its not per say a XC problem, I see it happening a lot.
I'm still quite new to this whole thing - but how can a coin ever be successful (like LTC for example) with all those wa***rs around?
Ok so here is my answer:
We have survived massive dumps in the multipool days, we are recovering from this quite well. Here is what I did yesterday to minimize the fud: https://twitter.com/drasticraven and also my Bitcointalk history. The dev himself offered up a review of the code which to my knowledge is still happening for today. Pizpie calmed the IRC.
Our three principles are:
Privacy.
Innovation.
Transparency.
May 29, 2014, 12:14:40 PM
Great team and great news, keep up the good work 100% support ... 
May 29, 2014, 12:11:33 PM
Back, what the hell went on here :p looks like our first correction. Im bag holding from 42-44.
This is healthy for the coin im not even worried more cheap coins
Whats up teka
This is healthy for the coin im not even worried more cheap coins
Whats up teka
Everything is cool, I've been up since 12 am yesterday GMT. However I'm quite awake.
May 29, 2014, 12:11:16 PM
I have a genuine question, and its absolutely not meant as trolling or what so ever.
Personally I haven't dumped my XC and for now I wont because I have trust in this coin - i think
But I can't help to wonder how a coin can survey FUD like this, and mostly coming with that massive dumps.
Are there any plans yet? do the DEVs have a certain vision on how to proceed from here?
Its not per say a XC problem, I see it happening a lot.
I'm still quite new to this whole thing - but how can a coin ever be successful (like LTC for example) with all those wa***rs around?
Personally I haven't dumped my XC and for now I wont because I have trust in this coin - i think
But I can't help to wonder how a coin can survey FUD like this, and mostly coming with that massive dumps.
Are there any plans yet? do the DEVs have a certain vision on how to proceed from here?
Its not per say a XC problem, I see it happening a lot.
I'm still quite new to this whole thing - but how can a coin ever be successful (like LTC for example) with all those wa***rs around?
May 29, 2014, 12:11:02 PM
Yes but why would it be in there in the first place if it's from the "ground up" code ? I didn't find this piece of code in any other coin I checked.
To add to Teka's comment, if you click on atcsecure's profile and read his last 5 messages you will see what he has to say about the claims (it's all hot air).
May 29, 2014, 12:10:56 PM
I bought 20 worth at 29... i'm crying......
May 29, 2014, 12:10:29 PM
hi everybody in community, we can still ask bter add XC coin on their exchange platform
here is the link
http://support.bter.com/hc/zh-cn/requests/new
here is the link
http://support.bter.com/hc/zh-cn/requests/new
community work together guys.
Oh yes please do contact them when you can everyone.
May 29, 2014, 12:10:19 PM
Back, what the hell went on here :p looks like our first correction. Im bag holding from 42-44.
This is healthy for the coin im not even worried more cheap coins
Whats up teka
This is healthy for the coin im not even worried more cheap coins
Whats up teka
May 29, 2014, 12:09:39 PM
hi everybody in community, we can still ask bter add XC coin on their exchange platform
here is the link
http://support.bter.com/hc/zh-cn/requests/new
here is the link
http://support.bter.com/hc/zh-cn/requests/new
community work together guys.
May 29, 2014, 12:09:34 PM
Teka It is really bad taste to just remove any post that are questioning the integrity of the coin... This post from the other thread hasn't been fixed and I think it's important to fix this.
In the main.cpp of XC there is this :
https://github.com/atcsecure/X11COIN/commit/6f0428202c17f1ea21cd1b8dab55c025a57375c7
This summit was done 16 hours ago , you can find this
bool CTxOut::IsDust() const
+{
+ // FedoraCoin: IsDust() detection disabled, allows any valid dust to be relayed.
+ // The fees imposed on each dust txo is considered sufficient spam deterrant.
+ return false;
+}
now I checked 2 other coins and they don't have this "dust" function from Fedoracoin. Why is it that it is in XC's code and not in BC's ?
In the main.cpp of XC there is this :
https://github.com/atcsecure/X11COIN/commit/6f0428202c17f1ea21cd1b8dab55c025a57375c7
This summit was done 16 hours ago , you can find this
bool CTxOut::IsDust() const
+{
+ // FedoraCoin: IsDust() detection disabled, allows any valid dust to be relayed.
+ // The fees imposed on each dust txo is considered sufficient spam deterrant.
+ return false;
+}
now I checked 2 other coins and they don't have this "dust" function from Fedoracoin. Why is it that it is in XC's code and not in BC's ?
Ok, you might not be a programmer so let me explain this. When you put "//" in front of code it is called commenting it out. That means it does not run and is not used.
Yes but why would it be in there in the first place if it's from the "ground up" code ? I didn't find this piece of code in any other coin I checked.
I believe this has been answered before. I have notified the dev and he will answer it. After that any more references to this will be removed and a link with the relevant message will be sent to the owner of the post.
edit for now: https://twitter.com/CinniTeam/status/472066590746230784
May 29, 2014, 12:08:39 PM
May 29, 2014, 12:07:59 PM
May 29, 2014, 12:07:52 PM
May 29, 2014, 12:07:44 PM
Teka It is really bad taste to just remove any post that are questioning the integrity of the coin... This post from the other thread hasn't been fixed and I think it's important to fix this.
In the main.cpp of XC there is this :
https://github.com/atcsecure/X11COIN/commit/6f0428202c17f1ea21cd1b8dab55c025a57375c7
This summit was done 16 hours ago , you can find this
bool CTxOut::IsDust() const
+{
+ // FedoraCoin: IsDust() detection disabled, allows any valid dust to be relayed.
+ // The fees imposed on each dust txo is considered sufficient spam deterrant.
+ return false;
+}
now I checked 2 other coins and they don't have this "dust" function from Fedoracoin. Why is it that it is in XC's code and not in BC's ?
In the main.cpp of XC there is this :
https://github.com/atcsecure/X11COIN/commit/6f0428202c17f1ea21cd1b8dab55c025a57375c7
This summit was done 16 hours ago , you can find this
bool CTxOut::IsDust() const
+{
+ // FedoraCoin: IsDust() detection disabled, allows any valid dust to be relayed.
+ // The fees imposed on each dust txo is considered sufficient spam deterrant.
+ return false;
+}
now I checked 2 other coins and they don't have this "dust" function from Fedoracoin. Why is it that it is in XC's code and not in BC's ?
Ok, you might not be a programmer so let me explain this. When you put "//" in front of code it is called commenting it out. That means it does not run and is not used.
Yes but why would it be in there in the first place if it's from the "ground up" code ? I didn't find this piece of code in any other coin I checked.
May 29, 2014, 12:06:24 PM
Teka It is really bad taste to just remove any post that are questioning the integrity of the coin... This post from the other thread hasn't been fixed and I think it's important to fix this.
In the main.cpp of XC there is this :
https://github.com/atcsecure/X11COIN/commit/6f0428202c17f1ea21cd1b8dab55c025a57375c7
This summit was done 16 hours ago , you can find this
bool CTxOut::IsDust() const
+{
+ // FedoraCoin: IsDust() detection disabled, allows any valid dust to be relayed.
+ // The fees imposed on each dust txo is considered sufficient spam deterrant.
+ return false;
+}
now I checked 2 other coins and they don't have this "dust" function from Fedoracoin. Why is it that it is in XC's code and not in BC's ?
In the main.cpp of XC there is this :
https://github.com/atcsecure/X11COIN/commit/6f0428202c17f1ea21cd1b8dab55c025a57375c7
This summit was done 16 hours ago , you can find this
bool CTxOut::IsDust() const
+{
+ // FedoraCoin: IsDust() detection disabled, allows any valid dust to be relayed.
+ // The fees imposed on each dust txo is considered sufficient spam deterrant.
+ return false;
+}
now I checked 2 other coins and they don't have this "dust" function from Fedoracoin. Why is it that it is in XC's code and not in BC's ?
Ok, you might not be a programmer so let me explain this. When you put "//" in front of code it is called commenting it out. That means it does not run and is not used.
Jump to: