Im a little off put here. We had Mindfox review our code as he is a somewhat respected member of the BTCtalk community.
Now he has his own shit clone which is presenting falsified information about the source we recently opened up. He is claiming he has bettered our rev1 technology... not by actually doing anything with it but by lying and stating there were all sorts of issues that he and his PnD shit team have fixed. And now how they are moving ahead of our progression.
So why again are we opening source? I get all the high and mighty fucktards on reptiliea or w/e's thread stating they wont look twice at a coin that isnt open sourced fully but who gives a crap.
Those condescending "Coin analysts" will eventually see the light if they can get each others knob ends out of each others mouths long enough to say something constructive not talk about how much of a crypto hipster they are.
Just hold strong fellow XC'ers don't let the crypto hipsters get to you!
I did not know that Mindfox copied the XC code from Rev1. Supposedly he's a great programmer, so instead of stealing the code from XC, why not just create it yourself.
I hate to say it, but I hope there was something malicious/not working in the open source code that was released. Boy.....wouldn't that be a lesson to learn for those copy-fucks.
I wouldn't even bother making any future revs available for open source. Let this all be a lesson.
You don't trust closed-source? Fuck off, and invest elsewhere.
The fact is that this KeyCoin thing is free PR for XC.
And it's good PR because nothing spreads like contention. (In fact, it's my favourite sort of game.)
This is exactly what releasing code on a delayed timeline is good for: showing up stupid coins, helping XC rise to prominence, and providing valuable tech to real devs who want to study it and do some real work.
So all's well. Nothing to worry about. :-)
What? This is not good PR. Was the "contention" that occurred after the first big run up when a bunch of Dark coiners said XC tech didn't work good PR? No. This is a similar (although much lesser) situation.
XC is valuable because it is differentiated and has better functionality. Someone with an audience running around saying that the functionality is actually worse and poorly differentiated is not a good thing.
Also I agree with battbot's prior points about the whitepaper. At some point after all the Dark sniping the XC team appears to have decided that it doesn't want to compare itself to other coins and make a clear case for why it is the better solution. But if people do not think it is better, why would they invest in it on the expectation that it will be the market winner?
XC needs a well thought out whitepaper that clearly states why it is a superior solution, and why it will be adopted over competitors. I agree that there are some challenges doing so without revealing IP, but that is not a reason to avoid the issue until v3. Note the pretty large fall in price after the v2 launch, as many investors lose confidence that XC has the best solution... At some point constant investor losses irreparably damage your community (paging battbot to give a Cinni case study here, although I do think it's obvious that Dan is a vastly stronger developer and leader than the Cinni dev, no offense intended).
So strength of community matters, and it is being hurt by people not having a clear case to point to as to why XC is a superior solution. Pointing vaguely at "multipath" et al is evidently not sufficient. A real case for what that means in terms of security, reliability, privacy, etc. would be very valuable. Disagree?
