Topic: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine - page 58. (Read 578501 times)

extremly good interview. very informative! make sure to put it on the main page so everyone can see it!

Finally got some time to work on my open source xcn pool. Should be looking for beta testers in a couple of days if anyone is interested. There will be a 2% fee with all proceeds going to the cryptonite fund.

Here is a separate idea about aliased account names:

A pretty obvious extension of the account tree system is to offer aliased accounts. Basically someone could associate an alias with a cryptonite address and then payments could be sent to the alias instead of the address.

So instead of:

SEND 10 XCN TO CYsvPpb2YuyAib5ay9GJXU8j3nwohbttTz

You would have:

SEND 10 XCN TO xcn:bitfreak

A couple of problems with this approach: account tree bloat because of a potential land-grab of aliases and cybersquatting of aliases (anyone could register xcn:microsoft for instance). For these and possibly other reasons I don’t think this is a good idea.

Domain aliased accounts

A domain alias is a domain name you own that you use as your cryptonite address. Bitfreak owns bitfreak.info so he could use xcn:bitfreak.info as his cryptonite address.

To do this he would:
1. Create a new pub key pair and sign “xcn:bitfreak.info” with the private key
2. Add a new txt record to the bitfreak.info dns that resolves to the “xcn:bitfreak.info” signature
3. Create and submit a new ‘Register Alias’ transaction which includes the pub key and the domain alias.
4. Once the transaction is submitted every node checks that that there is a txt record associated with bitfreak.info with a signature that can be verified against the pub key.
5. Once included in a block the domain alias is stored in the account tree until it is removed or altered (using a similar process). Once the alias is added, the txt record can be removed and no more dns lookups are required.

That is the basic idea. Some other crypto scheme may be better.

Benefits:
* User friendly addresses. If I want to buy something from ‘fancyhats.com’ then I pay ‘xcn:fancyhats.com’.
* Promotional payments. It could be possible to pay to domains that don’t have a cryptonite account. Funds would be stored until a domain performs a registration transaction. Say I donate 10,000XCN to savetheplanet.com, savetheplanet would only be able to access the funds by registering. Once registered and having learned about cryptonite, savetheplanet may likely add xcn as a payment option.
* Encourages reuse of accounts so possibly less account tree bloat
* For non-domain owners a service could offer custom personal aliases. I would give my signature, pub key and name to the ‘xcnpal.com’ service and it would automatically create and register something like xcn:sam.xcnpal.com. With the right rules xcnpal would not need to be trusted. Even if the domain were hacked or expired, xcn:sam.xcnpal.com could not be modified without my permission.

Negatives:
* Requires all nodes to support domain aliases before it could be used.
* Effort is required to initially establish a domain alias. It is similar to setting up google mail for a custom domain.
* May not be worth the effort to implement. While I think the scheme works and is somewhat interesting, I’m not sure it would be a big enough selling point to justify doing it.

Yeah I thought the interview went quite well. There are a few interesting bits cut out of the published version but overall I think Arthur did a good job of editing and cutting out the irrelevant parts. I should also amend one incorrect comment I made near the end of the discussion. I said the maximum transaction rate for bitcoin is 7 tx's per block which is obviously too low, it's 7 tx's per second.

Somebody talk to me about side-chains and merged-mining in the context of Cryptonite. This is tremendously exciting!

I would like to launch a Mini-Blockchain side-chain of the Counterparty Protocol. This MBC would be Complementary to the embedded Counterparty Protocol data in the Bitcoin Blockchain. This side-chain wouldn't necessarily have to store all of the Counterparty Protocol data.

See here for more information - https://forums.counterparty.io/discussion/418/the-crossparty-protocol#latest

Beyond Bitcoin interview with Bitfeak is out!
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/beyond-bitcoin-18-cryptonite

 Bitfreak, great job of explaining the features and benefits of the system! I hope everyone takes the time to check it out.  

Micro-transactions are fine in most cases but unlike Bitcoin we tend to discourage arbitrary creation of new addresses, which is why it's harder to send micro-transactions to addresses which don't already exist in the account tree. When we get millions of non-empty addresses the account tree may grow to a few gigabytes in size, but we're talking possibly decades or more before we actually hit the 1GB mark. The trie structure used should be perfectly capable of handling such large numbers.

Bitcoin discourages small transctions by charging a fee.
Cryptonite does not have a problem with small transactions at all but it seems there is concern over the number of accounts.
Yet Bitcoin recommends creating a new account for every transaction for improved security and privacy.
Could cryptonite have an issue with too many account at some point in the future?

I'd need to know how many non-empty bitcoin addresses exist, which isn't exactly an easy task. I did these calculations a while ago but I'd have to go back and find it. I believe there are 3844 non-empty addresses in the Cryptonite network right now and the trie is currently about 150kB.

Bitfreak, you are an excecllent dev and your communication with the community is exemplary. I just tipped you some XCN and hope others will do so too. looking forward to Cryptonites rise once the public realizes its capabilities. may it take more time, even a few more months, I dont mind

Hi-

What size would the trie be if it had as many accounts as bitcoin currently does?

@kalon: catia made a comment on that issue a few pages back:

I notice there are several Cryptonite pools now, but I wonder if it's possible to configure Cryptonite to work with p2pool. This should be vastly better in terms of decentralization and it seems that Cryptonite has an advantage over Bitcoin in this regard since the blockchain needed is so much easier to work with.

Is anyone working on this? I'd look to see Cryptonite move in this direction early on.

I think so . More developments will be better.

Well, that's if every mined coin is sold. I think most ppl who mine this at the moment are "belivers" in the coin who hold at the moment.

Its around 2 btc that needed to be injected everyday to keep up the price and its something very difficult with the present scenario.
The mini-blockchain concept is really cool and thats what we need when cryptonite's been very widely accepted and dealt.

Current block reward is about 239.46 XCN. At 1 block per minute that's about 345k XCN per day (239.46×60×24).

How many coins are mined everyday? Can someone?

@joelao95: sorry I've been busy working on some other jobs, but I did just finish creating a basic APi for the block explorer. The changes have been committed to the github repo and I'll update our official block explorer shortly. Next job is to keep track of pruned blocks and add some useful charts to the block explorer. Then after that I'll bring my attention back to the web wallet. Meanwhile catia should be working on optimizing slice sharing and then move onto bug fixing. Another important feature we still need to add at some point is the prune/purge command which will let users delete old blocks from disk without having to resync or restart the client.

Great to hear you could make that happen. I look forward to checking it out.

We need BitMore talks on the things here and there.