A little feedback on MF's first open office

General
1

I consider MF to be the perfect mouthpiece for the xx network. Young, competent, motivated, and with a certain lightness of touch. I’m convinced that people will listen to him; that’s important. I hope he brings good contacts into play and uses them wisely. I look forward to seeing him speak publicly a lot.

As mentioned, I would like him to appear in public together with David. This bridge between young and old, between experience and dynamism, appeals to people, creates trust, and vision. The project needs good faces, and the combination of these two would be sensational. David should start by passing the baton; something like that doesn’t happen overnight. The more time and appearances together, the better. Now he still has it in his own hands to ensure that his legacy lives on in good hands when he’s no longer with us. (I wish him a long, healthy life, of course.)

MF has addressed the lack of budget. In my opinion, the right people and spokespeople are a very large budget; you just have to use it purposefully.

I don’t like the draft for a website redesign. Too many fragments, too little clarity. Remember, less is more. I personally prefer a clear image that allows me to quickly absorb the message visually.

Regarding the aforementioned name change, I’m not sure if it doesn’t distance the project too far from its valuable foundation and its founders. Founder David Chaum is an incredibly valuable asset that needs to be highlighted and not diluted. Of course, I’ve thought about a name :wink: One crazy idea among many would be “Q-Bitcoin.” Admittedly, a very bold approach. The next generation of Bitcoin – (q-bit) quantum-safe, privacy-friendly. A secure bridge to the future with good values ​​and the godfathers of crypto as its foundation.

qbit
qbit584×575 32 KB

1 Like
2

I haven’t seen the new Web site (unless the new Web site looks like the old Web site), so I’ll skip commenting on that. “Bitcoin”, however, is a no-go. It’s a registered trademark in various jurisdictions.

Regarding the both - Web site redesign, new name - both are significant expenses and effort that, given the seriousness of other issues, are almost distractions, in my opinion. How much would it cost to change the wallet and coin name in various places and - more importantly - why would anyone willfully fund that knowing that none of the fundamental issues are being addressed? I wish I was wrong about this, but I don’t think I am.

Separately, having a name that says new_name (formerly: old_name) instantly makes me want to google the old name to see what kind of scandals and screw-ups preceded the name change. Although xx is a very bad name (unfortunately), I rarely complain about it since most of names that xx Network used were bad (bad for SEO, generic, duplicate, etc.) and as bad as these issues are, there are far worse problems that need to be solved first.

How is it possible that 3 people are concerned about validators and governance and it seems 2-3 times as many are concerned about the Web site? Has anyone every complained about the Web site and why?

We don’t have any applications that use the Web site or depend on it. Meanwhile, we also don’t have any applications that work with our L1 network and literally almost no one complains about that. Am I living in a parallel universe?

Seeing this, I can only conclude most people (not MF, but given the larger number “most” of those concerned about making superficial changes) care about finding new buyers for the coin than making the network work. If that’s the case, that won’t end well.

1 Like
3

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. You are, of course, right about many of the points you raised. My idea was merely a thought experiment, sparked by mf mentioning a possible name change. I believe exploring such ideas can help him think in new directions – which I consider important. Naturally, such a change would trigger a long chain of work, take months, and consume resources that currently aren’t available.

However, Bitcoin itself is not a registered trademark. There are forks like Bitcoin SV or Bitcoin Gold, for instance. Moreover, in this case, it would be about Q-Bits, not Bits :wink:
I believe that many Bitcoin holders will increasingly focus on the quantum security of their coins in the near future. A quantum-secure “Q-Bitcoin” backed by the “Godfather of Crypto” could have significant demand potential.

That said, the small team’s focus should remain firmly on xx – regardless of whether the name is good or bad. Failures are part of growth and ultimately of success. I also see many positive aspects in xx’s history: the project has existed for years with a functioning mainnet. Even as the team evolves, new and talented minds continue to be inspired to contribute.

Unlike you, I think it’s a good thing that people are now seriously considering xx’s market presence. I see that as just as important as the network’s technical progress. When investors gain confidence in the xx-coin, start buying, and the price rises, it benefits the entire project. In fact, I’d say it’s a crucial foundation for further technical development, because it creates resources and increases visibility. That’s the only sustainable way to succeed without relying heavily on large investors. After all, no one can live on passion alone.

To succeed in the market, you don’t necessarily need a finished product. Having promising projects in the pipeline and delivering on the roadmap can already be enough. The market rewards clear goals upfront and simultaneously provides the means to achieve them – and to fairly compensate talented contributors.
There are idealists and cypherpunks who work for their values, but ultimately, everyone deserves to live well. That’s precisely why there’s always a risk that skilled developers will be lured away by better-funded projects.

A strong team capable of completing the project technically has every right to be compensated accordingly. Otherwise, it won’t work in the long run – as we’ve already seen. That’s also one of the reasons why the project got into serious trouble.
I believe it’s essential to speak out loudly at conferences and in public about how the xx network can improve our future, instead of quietly working for years on the technology while other projects gain market dominance through better strategy.

1 Like
4

Why would they gain confidence? The network doesn’t work (for application use).

Bitcoiners will never accept any dependency in their system. It doesn’t even depend on DNS. At most, they could reuse some of our code the same way they use bits and pieces from elsewhere. That’s about it.
We’ve had attempts to provide value added services, even indirect, to other chains (with Proxxy, for example) and it was incredibly difficult. Those who have tried know.
But most importantly there’s nothing anyone can do with the network now. They can only copy our source code, which probably isn’t what anyone who hodls xx has in mind. Our first priority should be to fix the network and validators, which can’t happen without an overhaul of on-chain “democracy” which has utterly failed.
Just look at these discussions - where are our esteemed Council Members in all this? LOL… Discussing price movements in Telegram channels, I suppose.

5

Of course, Bitcoin would never create a dependency within its own network. My idea came from the suggestion to rename the xx network. What I had in mind with “Q-Bitcoin” was more like a quantum-secure, privacy-wrapped version of Bitcoin running on the xx network. But as I said — just a thought experiment…

1 Like
6

People might not like that. I think the approach similar to Ethereum where they are simply integrating mix networks for privacy. That way we let Eth be Eth but have the support of cmixx or whatever mix network they integrate. Same would apply for bitcoin, let it be what it is but give the support it needs should users choose to use it.

7

I am not a developer, but in my view it is unrealistic to build new applications like “Haven” at this point in time without budget, a dedicated engineering team, and a clear roadmap. Even if a solid app could be built, the real challenge would be adoption, in a crowded market where no one is waiting for yet another messenger.

In my opinion, the most promising and impactful use case for the XX Network would be a universal cMixx gateway that allows other networks to optionally integrate privacy via cMixx and quantum resistance (if it truly exists within XX). This could be relevant to a wide range of systems: other cryptocurrencies such as Ethereum, XRP or Polkadot, messaging services like Signal or Telegram, or entirely different types of applications. Every new integration would increase the utility and thus the value of the XX Network. Such a gateway could also serve as a critical bridge between Web2 and Web3, potentially enabling large-scale adoption from a completely new direction.

To build a universal cMixx gateway, the XX Network will, in my view, need competent and financially strong partners. Attempting to do this with internal resources alone would exceed the project’s current capabilities. Well-negotiated partnerships are, in my opinion, the only realistic lever.

To attract such partnerships, the project must become visible, loud, and desirable — it must generate curiosity and create the impression: “We have to work with XX.” If that succeeds, XX could become the universal standard for privacy and quantum-resistant infrastructure.

Trust is not gained by waiting. The only way to earn trust is to take the first step and extend trust yourself.

1 Like