http://bitcoinmagazine.com/16436/xcurrencys-new-trustless-ad-hoc-mesh-network/Tbh, this was asking for FUD:
CoinJoin generally requires a mixing server or some form of semi-centralised supernode (cf. DarkCoin “masternodes”). XC’s mesh networks are entirely distributed, even with the recent addition of Xmixer.
This was referencing DRK as inferior to XC, and thou this is very true peoples feelings tend to follow where they are invested.
I don't agree.
Point 1- The article was written by a bitcoin Magazine employee, It is not paid PR, If the shills want to complain as they have been mentioned they should complain directly with who wrote the article not involving XC.
Point 2- It is in the right of who wrote the article to mention the coin that implement a semi-decentralized coinjoin supernode approach of anonimity to make the comparison since XC announced the Coin-join Killer with Final REV-2 release. The question is it is true or not? IT IS PERIOD. Dark-nodes ar semi centralized as it is a limit of coinjoin based implementations.
Point 3- Going against what the truth is will be counter productive for an establish magazine as this one in the Crypto world. I think they make their thoughts on what they wrote what do you think?
Now they can go cry back home with their reputation in the trash.
1. An article written from the content provided from Synechist, or as he put it, the "scoop".
2. Coin-join killah rah rah rah. I already made it a point to tackle this one, no need to do it again.
3. What truth? The article was derived entirely from Synechist. See point 1.
Face it, you guys brought it on yourselves for inaccurately describing DRK. Everything else made sense in terms of PR material but when there are inaccuracies, especially as it relates to competition, expect that competition to take note.
Functionality-wise, DRK works. That's more than I can say from XC when I used it (granted, back at 2.47h IIRC).