I´m opening this thread to discuss the possibility of a universal cMixx gateway in cooperation with other projects.
I´m 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.
I posted What works, if anything? because there’s nothing that makes it easy to start using cMixx as a service for anyone who wants to build.
Gateway for Polkadot, etc. - it’s workable, but if your wallet fails once every 20 sends, you have to add code to handle retries, deal with user’s support requests, etc. I don’t think any wallet wants to deal with these issues. xx network would have to work much better (and not be a joke in terms of validators) for any business (wallet vendor) to see value in it. I assume you remember Proxxy, and I also assume you never used it yourself, which tells you everything you need to know about the odds of that becoming a raging success.
Text chat (messenger) is a better use case, as retries are less annoying (but still annoying, which should discourage most developers, once they see how frequently they have to retry).
I agree the best way is to make it possible to easily use the network rather than try to create own clients.
But how do you even start selling any privacy value proposition when it takes 10 seconds to go to Wallet and see that your messages may be mixed by one guy? What’s the point?
The Foundation, Council and “community” don’t even think this is a problem.
So we have no good builder tools, network gateways are unreliable and the validators are a joke. But instead of fixing that, they’re fixing the Web site…
I agree as well, to the point that we have already started executing this strategy.
We’re currently in talks with 2 partners who are keen to follow an API approach to utilising the mixnet, particularly for the login/registration flow.
We’re aiming to close these partnerships as part of the ongoing transition we’ve been facilitating. I hope to find 1 to 2 more as we’re nearing DevConnect.
My goal here is to create a positive news cycle on our business approach, to then leverage that for future opportunities in obtaining liquidity (grants/sales/investments/etc)
The API approach sounds great, but is there a plan to create some working examples?
Last time you mentioned there are “workarounds” but the Foundation should get these basic things funded (I mean, dev docs and examples) before anything else, IMO. If this works well and builders plug in, no one even needs to come to our Web site (although we’d like that).
IMO the effect of positive news resulting from bringing in 2-3 whales to crush “democracy” and bust up the scummy validator pools would result in a much better ROI within days. It has to be done anyway, but the sooner it gets done the higher the likelihood other things might work (such as attracting high profile projects, funding xxPostage, etc.).
The downward spiral must be stopped and turned into positive momentum. A strong, visible and positive public image must be built, and the vision must be communicated loudly and confidently: We are building the one true infrastructure of the future — decentralized,private and quantum-resistant.
Big ambitions require big allies with first-class engineering teams. Strategic alliances with strong projects are not a “nice to have” — they are mandatory. The big players must be brought to a point where they fear missing out on the future infrastructure if they are not part of it. No trust — no alliance. No FOMO — no movement.
The XX Network itself is the “Big Thing”. Own apps, messengers, postage or the price of xx coin are side shows at this stage. Anyone who invests energy into side projects now has not understood the game. The only real lever is: to build an infrastructure on top of XX that hundreds of externally developed products will later want to run on — because they have no alternative.
I am not a dreamer. I am a realist and a strategist.
Like already tell you many many time.
Give me one single round ID (than I can check myself and all other too..) since ~2022 when the network have enough growth where Cryptocalibur process one round with 100% of these validators.
It have probably never happen so the risk is near 0% likely to happen. Stop to try to found wrong issue please !
Instead of try to found wrong issue please launch 30-40 new validators if you are able to run well like Cryptocalibur who monitor and maintain all these validators since years with pretty good performance (above average) even if recently down time seem have growth. The only drawback about him, it’s the 100% commission who go against a NPoS system locking nominators out.
But this type of quality infrastructure should be very expensive to maintain and time consuming.
If you do that instead of have a risk of 0% to run only on your own validators you will help the network to push out in waiting list everyone running with nominators locked out with the minimal stake who will help the network and give new good validators to be elected by the nominators and improve DDoS protection. So what you wait for ?
Sounds good, thank you. One question first: can you roughly outline what is part of this transition — or is that still confidential?
From my perspective there is currently only one technical priority: the network itself. The decisive question is: How will the XX-network be stabilized, hardened and further developed? If the claim is truly to become the next major infrastructure, then the best talent in the world must work on it — anything else would be self-deception.
What is missing is momentum.
What is needed is an alliance larger than any individual team. Cooperation multiplies force and enables the seemingly impossible.
A breakthrough is only realistic if a single infrastructure emerges that can be used collectively — Web2 and Web3 united on a neutral layer. That would be true mass adoption, not yet another island solution.
David Chaum could be the face of such a solution. I consider him one of the very few people who would be widely accepted in that role. Many of his former eCash colleagues are now industry heavyweights — names with serious gravity. Bring them back to the same table — like a legendary band returning to the stage after decades and waking up the scene. Such a comeback narrative also electrifies early investors and market leaders: Great people join movements — not projects.
Don’t think in products — build an alliance strong enough to make the heavyweights of Web2, finance, industry and politics reconsider and make a shared future possible. We do not want conflict — we want a better future.
Only those who think big have any chance of moving something big.
You’re wasting your time with him. He knows all this himself. He just wants to provoke and create a bad atmosphere. He knows full well that the problem will resolve itself as soon as we take the next step. His approach will drive away the last remaining validators, and unfortunately, one has to suspect that this is his actual goal. Just ignore him; anything else is pointless.
And he keeps coming back to the same topic. We should put our energy into building things up rather than destroying the existing structure.
For me, trust is the decisive lever. Let’s be honest: Web3 is facing opponents with virtually unlimited resources, fully committed to protecting their market dominance. A breakthrough will not happen as long as every project stays in its own ego-bubble, convinced it alone holds the ultimate answer. It will only happen through an alliance that unites leading projects and capabilities and acts as a single force — anything else is a waste of time.
Every movement needs a face. But the leading figures of major crypto projects will never accept one another in that role. Under the current circumstances, David Chaum has one advantage as a neutral anchor: he is one of the very few to whom people might still be willing to grant that role.
Of course, for such a role he would need to demonstrate loyalty, openness, and integrity.
Copy-pasting the instructions for running a node isn’t “building”.
What bad atmosphere? Has either of you created an engaging or meaningful topic on this forum in this decade? Look who’s kept this forum alive for half a decade running.
