Author

Topic: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite - NEW Thread | 1st mini-blockchain coin | Bounties! - page 169. (Read 215807 times)

member
Activity: 112
Merit: 100
gnasirator, I like the idea of switching from PoW to PoS. Also, implementing masternodes would be a nice bonus.

Long-term, this would be a great move for XCN, but not yet.

A much wider coin distribution is required first.  Remember, only 18% of the max coin supply is in existence currently.

Let's get it up to > 50% before POS//masternodes are introduced in place of mining.
It's nice to see the team re-develop and I support pow / pos mixed mining
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
Novaexchange: "We will first test deposit and withdrawal and if it works we will open markets and enable deposits and withdrawals." :-)

finnaly! should be 1-2 hours to test deposits and withdraws, after 1 month of "processing". hope we will see xcn listed by tomorrow?
legendary
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
Novaexchange: "We will first test deposit and withdrawal and if it works we will open markets and enable deposits and withdrawals." :-)
legendary
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
...and remember that the minting method is only a part of the story, when talking about distribution.
Proof of capacity may bring less miner centralisation, but it's still something that can be developed to a professional level.
sr. member
Activity: 527
Merit: 251
Quality Crypto Collector
gnasirator, I like the idea of switching from PoW to PoS. Also, implementing masternodes would be a nice bonus.

Long-term, this would be a great move for XCN, but not yet.

A much wider coin distribution is required first.  Remember, only 18% of the max coin supply is in existence currently.

Let's get it up to > 50% before POS//masternodes are introduced in place of mining.
sr. member
Activity: 527
Merit: 251
Quality Crypto Collector
@gnasirator: your ideas are interesting, but to create a block you will still need to solve some kind of "problem", otherwise you would have a lot of blocks created together and no way to tell which one to keep. Also every time a transaction is made, the nodes would generate a block, making too many of them.

Interesting ideas indeed, but wrong solution to the problems, which are, as Gnasirator says:

1  Energy consumption
2  Poor distribution

The best solution which I have discovered so far appears to  be Proof of Capacity, as implemented in Burstcoin.

I'd be genuinely interested to know what you think of that protocol, and whether or not it may be technically feasible to incorporate it into a mini-blockchain coin. 
newbie
Activity: 63
Merit: 0
Hashrates for r9 390 and r7 370 using Claymore?

do you have an working amd miner? claymore xcn amd do not work on suprnova.

I didn't know that, I was thinking about switching my machines to it. So I guess I really cant mine this.
legendary
Activity: 1208
Merit: 1003
gnasirator, I like the idea of switching from PoW to PoS. Also, implementing masternodes would be a nice bonus.
full member
Activity: 175
Merit: 113
@gnasirator: your ideas are interesting, but to create a block you will still need to solve some kind of "problem", otherwise you would have a lot of blocks created together and no way to tell which one to keep. Also every time a transaction is made, the nodes would generate a block, making too many of them.

yeah well, the concept is still in its drafting phase. I'm open for suggestions Smiley
How about the mining concept itself stays the way it is - still doing its lottery thing. But with block rewards based on found transactions, there would be no incentive to increase my hashrate. On the contrary, everybody would try to keep his hash rate at the minimum so that he would still be taking part in the mining process but use as little resources as possible for it. That means, projecting it to the extreme, every node would do a single hash per change in the building of its block per round. That would be quite economical, solve the consensus finding AND save resources.
The difficulty would auto-adjust by not going up but going down as much as necessary so that there's still one block per minute found.
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
Hashrates for r9 390 and r7 370 using Claymore?

do you have an working amd miner? claymore xcn amd do not work on suprnova.
newbie
Activity: 63
Merit: 0
Hashrates for r9 390 and r7 370 using Claymore?
legendary
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
@gnasirator: your ideas are interesting, but to create a block you will still need to solve some kind of "problem", otherwise you would have a lot of blocks created together and no way to tell which one to keep. Also every time a transaction is made, the nodes would generate a block, making too many of them.
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
yeah very profitable, but how much i can do with a single 1070 with this coin? the calculator is wrong on suprnova  can't find anyway  good calculator for this one? also what is the hashrate of a 1080ti here? thanks

i make around 13 mh with nvidia 1070 (in windows). others say over 15mh, but depends on the drivers and cuda version you use, i could not make my gpu-s to make over 13.5mh.
calculator on whattomine is accurate now if you know your hashrate, i tested it, you have it "active (not listed)" here: http://whattomine.com/coins/184-xcn-m7
hashrate for 1080 i do not know, i do not have one. maybe you can test it and let us know.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
yeah very profitable, but how much i can do with a single 1070 with this coin? the calculator is wrong on suprnova  can't find anyway  good calculator for this one? also what is the hashrate of a 1080ti here? thanks
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100


Price going again over 500?  Huh Is 330-340 on btc38 now... Shocked

full member
Activity: 175
Merit: 113
Hey folks, I'd like to share some thoughts with you and get an opinion about them.

So far, we have established that XCN is a highly innovative coin because it introduces the prune-able mini-blockchain and the accounts DB.
Therefore, for the first time in history it is now possible to keep the required amount of data for a scalable crypto-currency proportional to its actual usage, preventing unlimited growth of the blockchain to all eternity.
That's good!

What is still not-so-good is the fact that even XCN still relies on mining - a wasteful game of high-speed lottery. There are some promising approaches out there to improve this concept:
1. make computers do useful stuff instead (Ethereum) and create a big cloud-based supercomputer. Great. But as a result the primary focus of the coin has shifted away from the use as a currency towards the application and payment system of that super computer. And what we're actually all looking for is THAT new, perfect and stable money we can use all over the world.
2. Replace mining's proof-of-work by a proof-of-stake algorithm. Which is nothing else than paying interest based on account balance.

Both approaches have one common disadvantage: They lead to money concentration, just like bitcoin does as well. After enough time there will be only a few, rich and powerful people left who control the whole ecosystem. Just as we experience in the "real world" with FIAT money.

I would like to see a new coin, one that is actually USABLE as money and long-term stable because it's systematically built to be long-term stable. And here's where XCN is a great technological foundation because at least data-wise, it already is long-term stable and scalable. The only thing left to solve would be mining / transaction processing. I like the idea of paying participating nodes for processing transactions. That's just fair and is an intrinsic motivation to participate and keep the network alive. But instead of raw hashing power, what we ACTUALLY need for this is good network connectivity. Because the core action of validating a transaction doesn't require much processing power at all.
How about we build a mining algorithm that rewards nodes for "discovering" a new transaction and forwarding it to the other peers.

Let me explain:
Let's say computer A wants to send money to computer B. This new transaction now needs to be processed in the network. Computer C is the first direct link to computer A. That means C "discovers" the new transaction and forwards it to its peers. These peers are D, E, F. They all are now confirming and signing that transaction themselves and forwarding it until at the end of the round, the complete network knows about it and forges a new block for the blockchain together.
The rewards are now distributed as follows:
Computers A and B both PAY a transaction fee which they can set as they like, just like with bitcoin. The higher the fee, the more likely it is for that transaction to be included in the next block because of course the block size is limited and every other peer in the network wants to fill the new block with the most valuable transactions.
So Computer C suggests it to be in that new block and signs it as the first. Next ones are D, E and F, also all signing the signature of C. Therefore, they are now "tier 2" signers which entitles them to a smaller share of the reward. And so on, until the complete network has signed the transaction as is creating the new block.

This way, the incentive would suddenly be to place your mining rig in a remote location of the world to create good, reliable network coverage (to be able to receive and sign as many transactions as possible AND to be the first one to sign them) while rewarding everybody evenly without the need for expensive mining rigs and high power bills. In the beginning, the rewards would be mined, just as with bitcoin and later on the transaction fees would take over.
With this approach, every wallet out there could also be a miner at the same time, simply because it doesn't cost any resources, except for a little network traffic - which is the ACTUALLY valuable resource on the internet. We would have to solve issues like one node running multiple wallets at the same time to increase its income unproportionally. But that's easy as it could all be e.g. IP address based (the only other actually scarce resource on the internet: unique addresses).

and for money concentration: We should also look into some concepts of encouraging spending the money, like continuous deprivation for example. All goods loose value over time - it would only make sense for money to do the same. How much is for us all to decide - I'm feeling it shouldn't be too much. But it should be noticeable over ~5 years. This would have many advantages, of which one is that "lost" wallets would over time be emptied and the money is fed back into the ecosystem (and can also be used to pay mining!).

This, together with the mini-blockchain would be what I imagine to be the first, actually usable new money out there.

All of this is only some rough ideas I had during a long drive through the countryside recently and the details still need to be sussed out. But what do you guys think?
At least for me, personally, the whole cryptocoin movement is a quest for finding the perfect money of the future and therefore I think we need to focus on developing it systematically right - altough I don't mind making some profit from mining other alt-coins along the way Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1208
Merit: 1003
With a proper development XCN is a $20-30mln coin easily Smiley
newbie
Activity: 63
Merit: 0
Any idea how to get coins off Polo. I have a 30 day support ticket they have not responded to
legendary
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
New blockchain snapshot:

https://mega.nz/#!EEB3CRbQ!X85fLbdUXjFb2mx3gsJdBYcZJeg1QGBRukLau8jxKXQ
newbie
Activity: 21
Merit: 0
Are some news about Poloniex?
Wallet frozen for withdraw.
Jump to: