Topic: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine - page 48. (Read 578501 times)
December 08, 2014, 10:28:24 AM
meanwhile this coin has time
December 08, 2014, 06:47:03 AM
There are already several pools available, people just seem to prefer 1GH for different reasons. Even if there was a p2pool I'm not sure it would take much away from 1GH.
Perhaps. But it may be more enticing because it would clearly lead to a more decentralized network and if the options there and easy to setup XCN could be the clear winner in this regard since every other network would require full blockchain to do so.
The nice thing about 1GH is that there is no need to setup an account. I too, like this model. There is also the fact that mining on another pool at this point would basically be equivalent to solo mining.
It may not be a problem now that 1GH is running the network but long term viability would require lessening their share. P2pool's benefits would be worth the switch.
December 08, 2014, 06:35:29 AM
Updated Files!
sheesh, man, these look sweet!Kudos to you!
December 08, 2014, 02:52:52 AM
There are already several pools available, people just seem to prefer 1GH for different reasons. Even if there was a p2pool I'm not sure it would take much away from 1GH.
December 07, 2014, 06:48:14 PM
Am I understanding this correctly, Basically 1GH is running the Cryptonite network? It looks like that pool solves almost every block. Seems like a nice pool but this strikes me as a big problem.
I know Bitfreak had doubts that p2pool could work with XCN but if there is any technical way (totally above my head) to make it work then that seems like it would be the best solution. I don't understand the technicalities of implementing the system but Cryptonite has seemed much more likely to be able to adopt the more decentralized pooling system (as apposed to Bitcoin) from an end user point of view because the blockchain is so much more manageable.
This pool issue is something which needs to be rectified and I'd hope someone smarter than myself could make that solution be p2pool.
I know Bitfreak had doubts that p2pool could work with XCN but if there is any technical way (totally above my head) to make it work then that seems like it would be the best solution. I don't understand the technicalities of implementing the system but Cryptonite has seemed much more likely to be able to adopt the more decentralized pooling system (as apposed to Bitcoin) from an end user point of view because the blockchain is so much more manageable.
This pool issue is something which needs to be rectified and I'd hope someone smarter than myself could make that solution be p2pool.
I think maybe part of the issue is that most people use Claymore's GPU miner, and I think maybe that miner only works with 1GH pool.
v2.1 - Added "nonce-pool.com" pool support.
December 06, 2014, 11:14:51 PM
Am I understanding this correctly, Basically 1GH is running the Cryptonite network? It looks like that pool solves almost every block. Seems like a nice pool but this strikes me as a big problem.
I know Bitfreak had doubts that p2pool could work with XCN but if there is any technical way (totally above my head) to make it work then that seems like it would be the best solution. I don't understand the technicalities of implementing the system but Cryptonite has seemed much more likely to be able to adopt the more decentralized pooling system (as apposed to Bitcoin) from an end user point of view because the blockchain is so much more manageable.
This pool issue is something which needs to be rectified and I'd hope someone smarter than myself could make that solution be p2pool.
I know Bitfreak had doubts that p2pool could work with XCN but if there is any technical way (totally above my head) to make it work then that seems like it would be the best solution. I don't understand the technicalities of implementing the system but Cryptonite has seemed much more likely to be able to adopt the more decentralized pooling system (as apposed to Bitcoin) from an end user point of view because the blockchain is so much more manageable.
This pool issue is something which needs to be rectified and I'd hope someone smarter than myself could make that solution be p2pool.
I think maybe part of the issue is that most people use Claymore's GPU miner, and I think maybe that miner only works with 1GH pool.
December 06, 2014, 11:11:52 PM
Am I understanding this correctly, Basically 1GH is running the Cryptonite network? It looks like that pool solves almost every block. Seems like a nice pool but this strikes me as a big problem.
I know Bitfreak had doubts that p2pool could work with XCN but if there is any technical way (totally above my head) to make it work then that seems like it would be the best solution. I don't understand the technicalities of implementing the system but Cryptonite has seemed much more likely to be able to adopt the more decentralized pooling system (as apposed to Bitcoin) from an end user point of view because the blockchain is so much more manageable.
This pool issue is something which needs to be rectified and I'd hope someone smarter than myself could make that solution be p2pool.
I know Bitfreak had doubts that p2pool could work with XCN but if there is any technical way (totally above my head) to make it work then that seems like it would be the best solution. I don't understand the technicalities of implementing the system but Cryptonite has seemed much more likely to be able to adopt the more decentralized pooling system (as apposed to Bitcoin) from an end user point of view because the blockchain is so much more manageable.
This pool issue is something which needs to be rectified and I'd hope someone smarter than myself could make that solution be p2pool.
December 06, 2014, 04:06:19 PM
Updated Files!
Donations: CX2XwA94yn2yugPkRaLKnrZx2HWc8RQMAw
Donations: CX2XwA94yn2yugPkRaLKnrZx2HWc8RQMAw
December 06, 2014, 10:04:36 AM
@enerbyte: nice, that looks to be pretty good quality, how did you get it made?
but I like to have the logo in high resolution.
mega.co.nz/#!IB4igDiL!i3FDHKRRnFeRMBTYXOlYOgEhHVUAXCqyFg_0J6ePO7A
thanks, I'll update the files soon.
... just have to look for some offline qr code generator....
I've used libqrencode by Fukuchi in the past with good results. The *nix version is at: http://fukuchi.org/works/qrencode/ and a link to the win32 version can be found on that page under the "BINDINGS and PORTS" section.
thanks for this, here also another
http://larsjung.de/jquery-qrcode/ 
December 06, 2014, 05:47:44 AM
... just have to look for some offline qr code generator....
I've used libqrencode by Fukuchi in the past with good results. The *nix version is at: http://fukuchi.org/works/qrencode/ and a link to the win32 version can be found on that page under the "BINDINGS and PORTS" section.
December 06, 2014, 03:39:35 AM
but I like to have the logo in high resolution.
Sorry I was going to upload it before but I forgot about it. Here is the svg vector logo:mega.co.nz/#!IB4igDiL!i3FDHKRRnFeRMBTYXOlYOgEhHVUAXCqyFg_0J6ePO7A
December 05, 2014, 10:08:48 PM
Hello everyone!
I share with you the files so that they can create their own paper wallets, just have to look for some offline qr code generator
and then edit the files with any image editor like photoshop, gimp, etc.
Good luck.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B-xG8_wDY16pbDVUUmdUd3pYUm8&usp=sharing
Donation: CX2XwA94yn2yugPkRaLKnrZx2HWc8RQMAw
I share with you the files so that they can create their own paper wallets, just have to look for some offline qr code generator
and then edit the files with any image editor like photoshop, gimp, etc.
Good luck.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B-xG8_wDY16pbDVUUmdUd3pYUm8&usp=sharing
Donation: CX2XwA94yn2yugPkRaLKnrZx2HWc8RQMAw
December 05, 2014, 08:07:13 PM
@enerbyte: nice, that looks to be pretty good quality, how did you get it made?
I design with Photoshop, the qr code with an offline generator and private key taken from the xcn client, I will upload the psd file to share but I like to have the logo in high resolution.
December 05, 2014, 07:54:24 PM
@enerbyte: nice, that looks to be pretty good quality, how did you get it made?
December 05, 2014, 05:39:13 PM
my first XCN paper wallet. 
December 03, 2014, 01:02:25 PM
Someone who doesn't want the coin to grow up can send the minimum amount "0.00001 XCN" plus the fee "0.0000001 XCN" to 1 BILLION addresses to increase the tree size and that only costs him 5.81 $.
That's why it's needed and I'm sure you understand that as you "the developer" is the first who suggested it.
I am the creator of the mini-blockchain scheme, not the developer of Cryptonite. And I believe the original Bitcoin code has some safeguards against that sort of activity but you do have a valid point and that is one of the reasons I suggested it. I just don't really think it's worth worrying about until there's actually a reason to worry about it, because there are far more important things that need to be done first.That's why it's needed and I'm sure you understand that as you "the developer" is the first who suggested it.
It's your call.
Was just trying to help
December 02, 2014, 10:23:39 PM
Someone who doesn't want the coin to grow up can send the minimum amount "0.00001 XCN" plus the fee "0.0000001 XCN" to 1 BILLION addresses to increase the tree size and that only costs him 5.81 $.
That's why it's needed and I'm sure you understand that as you "the developer" is the first who suggested it.
I am the creator of the mini-blockchain scheme, not the developer of Cryptonite. And I believe the original Bitcoin code has some safeguards against that sort of activity but you do have a valid point and that is one of the reasons I suggested it. I just don't really think it's worth worrying about until there's actually a reason to worry about it, because there are far more important things that need to be done first. That's why it's needed and I'm sure you understand that as you "the developer" is the first who suggested it.
December 02, 2014, 03:44:52 AM
I'd hope that we could find someway which would be both technically doable and tenable by most users, sooner rather than later.
There is no need to get it done soon because the account tree is still tiny should remain very small for years to come. I'm not even sure there will ever be a real need to implement it.As of current price according to http://crypto-prices.com/XCN
Someone who doesn't want the coin to grow up can send the minimum amount "0.00001 XCN" plus the fee "0.0000001 XCN" to 1 BILLION addresses to increase the tree size and that only costs him 5.81 $.
That's why it's needed and I'm sure you understand that as you "the developer" is the first who suggested it.
December 01, 2014, 02:43:22 AM
I'd hope that we could find someway which would be both technically doable and tenable by most users, sooner rather than later.
There is no need to get it done soon because the account tree is still tiny should remain very small for years to come. I'm not even sure there will ever be a real need to implement it. November 29, 2014, 11:24:39 PM
The account tree pruning may be a difficult thing to implement properly but I think it will be an important feature for the long term success of the coin. This may be rehashing ideas which seem unfeasible for Bitfreak but having an open discussion on the possible methods is helpful. I'd hope that we could find someway which would be both technically doable and tenable by most users, sooner rather than later.
Jump to: