Topic: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine - page 136. (Read 578501 times)

go Ahead 

you the best i love you

user 14351, congratulations to your post #1000

:-)

Since I've been critical of some things, for balance I will point out that this is probably my favorite part of this coin.

No it likely won't have a massive pump (and perhaps the pumps it has already seen have been too high -- I believe this), but that means the price will stay low enough for people to buy in or mine at reasonable difficulties for a long time. Coins that want to shut the door after a few early adopters get in are great for pump-and-dump purposes but have no real chance long term. It also means serious, potentially existential and possibly unfixable, problems with mining incentives that plague most other coins (including at some point Bitcoin) don't come up for many, many decades.

what you don't understand is this:  the technology of XCN is so great it should overcome the inflation issue

You don't know that. I'd definitely fork it, toss the PoW and relaunch it myself if I weren't already busy with other things. If someone else wants to do it, it may happen.

It would actually be a bad bet to say this coin won't be forked. Whether those inevitable forks get any success is hard to say. Launch problems definitely help forks, but it is a question of degree.

Sheesh, your concern trolling is tiresome.

"More early success?" Pfft, that's just an empty assertion to justify your belabored critique. You've repeatedly shared your concerns, but the coin will not be relaunched, nor will the developer's design decisions be revisited.  Perhaps we can let the market take it from here?

News article now published on Coins Source, as requested on Twitter earlier

http://www.coinssource.com/cryptonite-the-first-mini-blockchain/

I would caution that there is no way to know how many wallets/addresses someone controls. Whoever is running that miner that is getting 20+% of the coins is either pretty dumb, or wants to be discovered, because if he just mined into 10-20 different addresses no one would have ever found it.

does anyone have the expertise to pull a "rich list" from the XCN blockchain?  i think this is important to establish for those of us worried about the early mining issues, and the possibility of the majority of the circulation owned by very few top wallets.  this unknown is the only thing preventing me from buying XCN.

I guess we are going in circles, but that is why it should have been the least of your worries in developing it. But to each his own.

There is no doubt in my mind this coin would be seeing more early success (and that, often, later success builds on early success) had a mature PoW been used. Perhaps there is no doubt in your mind that I am wrong. I guess that's why altcoins are so much fun.

LOL everything about this coin is unproven and highly experimental. We designed an entire CRYPTO-currency here, the PoW algorithm should be the least of your worries, it's probably the most trustworthy aspect of the coin compared to all the other new ideas implemented in this coin.

Correction, we don't know there is "one" large miner, we just know of one. Not the same thing at all.

Moreover, we don't know that releasing one GPU miner will create any kind of parity. There may still be highly optimized miners lurking, since the algorithm has gotten so little scrutiny. Several of the developer's statements about it have been contradicted by dga, who is clearly expert on the subject.

You have your arguments for existing PoWs not being very good, and you might be right, I take no position on that really. If you had/have ideas for PoW, then publish them and get peer review, or push them out on an otherwise uninteresting coin and let the world take a whack at breaking it.

I do take issue with muddying the waters on an otherwise interesting and innovative coin by throwing in an unproven and immature PoW. PoW is cryptography. Cryptography is hard. This was a blunder.

http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/2202/lessons-learned-and-misconceptions-regarding-encryption-and-cryptology/2210#2210

They did just create the stratum implementation - maybe it's buggy.

I appreciate quality coins myself. Best of luck.

Obviously there is no easy way to prove it's not us, but if you've been following development of the GPU miner on IRC and other threads here, it's pretty damn obvious we don't have one. I bought the majority of my coins on Bter in fact. And lets just assume that's not true, in reality it doesn't matter much at all because we're only a week into mining and it takes 10 years for half of all coins to be mined. Only a very small fraction of all coins have been mined so far, and the GPU miner should be ready very soon. There is more than enough time for more people to start mining and offset this one large miner.

There were several good reasons actually. We started off by looking at existing PoW algorithms and we thought about using a PoS hybrid or a memory hard algorithm but ultimately decided to just stick with the multi-hash approach used by Quark and similar coins because we felt that was more in line with the original ideals of Bitcoin and it was much easier to implement with the limited time we had. However we didn't feel like the existing multi-hash PoW algorithms were great, they used unknown and even obsolete hashing functions just so they could claim to use a greater number of hashing functions. We wanted something which placed emphasis on quality of hash functions and not quantity, and something that could not instantly be adapted to GPU miners so that average desktop users had a chance to mine the coin before the big GPU miners began to dominate everything.

Here's Coins Source's Latest Article Featuring Cryptonite:

http://www.coinssource.com/cryptonite-the-first-mini-blockchain/

Actually I have a better idea.

Let's keep everything the same and substitute a mature PoW that won't get scammed by the first guy who can compile a better miner for an algorithm that has never been examined or optimized by anyone before. It is possible that first guy might well not be the developers, but how does anyone tell the difference? You have never answered that question and you continue to ignore that avoiding conflicts of interest in a non-transparent trust-free environment includes avoiding, structurally, the possibility or appearance of same.

Seriously, what were you thinking? You have all these great ideas for mini-blockchain, scalability, microtransactions, etc., and then you mess it up by trying to play PoW cryptographer, for part of the coin that adds no real value over 100 other PoW algorithms. Why?

Oh, and since you have no premine or other scammy incentive to want to stay on this fork, you might as well just develop right on the other fork instead, and save someone the trouble of merging your changes. Why not?

Right... go ahead, reduce the coins to 2 million, have them all mined within a week, premine it to the shit, but it's not a scam because you have a GPU miner available at launch. If we wanted to make a nice healthy return on the immense amount of effort we put into this coin we would have simply premined it, and it was a very hard decision to go with no premine because I've spent a lot of money out of my own pocket on this coin. In all honestly we could have done a rather large premine like MOST coins do and people wouldn't be complaining as much as they are about having no GPU miner at launch. Whoever has that huge amount of hashing power might have created their own private GPU miner but we have no damn GPU miner, but catia has been working on one for the last few days and it should be available soon. You guys have no appreciation of anything we've done here and I'm sick of it. Go create your own fork of Cryptonite because I can't stand to listen to your whining any more.