Is there a rationale for sticking with the CryptoNite hashing algo? Some issues I pointed out before: 1) the CPU mining phase is prone to botnets 2) Someone will inevitably develop a GPU miner and it's in their interest not to release it, creating a fairness problem. (I'd personally prefer X11, because it's CPU+GPU and draws much less power than scrypt.)
Then go to Groestl, which draws even less power than X11, is CPU+GPU too and better yet reduces the advantage of GPU over CPU.
I personally am explicity against a CPU+GPU algo. Because this means CPU have no reason to mine anymore (except for increasing a little the mining power of a GPU miner). GPU mining means "more money for the richs, less money for the rest of us". Not exactly in the direction of fairness.
Plus, CryptoNote goes beyond a lot of the shortcoming of the bitcoin protocol. CryptoNote uses CryptoNight algo only. Maybe it could be possible to implement X11 on CryptoNote as a replacement for CryptNight, but as stated above, I am against this.
That being said, your point regarding botnets is interesting. I suppose the reason why there is not much botnets on GPU is that server do not come with a real GPU to start with.
edit: I actually can't find anything on this algo. Is this even a sound hashing function with a low probability of being cracked in the future? Most of the algos that the crypto community has been using are well-established and created by professionals and researchers (like the NIST finalists).
Did you check for the Cryptonote or
Cryptonight? The first is the technology, the second is the algo.
