Hello guys!
Thank Altcoin Investing and @Pallas, the chief developer for the interview on his website. Thanks for the time and the good work. Enjoy! https://www.altcoininvestingnews.com/single-post/XCNInterview
#sekker
Topic: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite - NEW Thread | 1st mini-blockchain coin | Bounties! - page 40. (Read 215908 times)
March 30, 2018, 06:07:43 AM
March 29, 2018, 04:06:25 AM
Other than trying to get this coin onto some more and bigger Exchanges, is there any set plan for actually getting the coin into REAL use?
It's all well and good to trade and gamble on Exchanges, but unless a coin has a REAL use in REAL life, the value will always be a complete gamble, because it has no actual use and serves no purpose, therefore demand will remain just by gamblers....
I think in addition to trying to get onto a decent exchange, you need to show some plans and work towards some eventual use for this coin, be it as a day to day currency for purchasing (in which case you need to be talking to card companies, or have some specific service that it can be used for... Obviously the first is preferable, but creating coins with no actual use or purpose has been done by everyone and his dog, and most are going the way of the Dodo.
This is a good technology but needs to show some long-term plan at least, and preferably some timeframe and work in progress to get it into ACTUAL REAL LIFE use....
Just saying....
It's all well and good to trade and gamble on Exchanges, but unless a coin has a REAL use in REAL life, the value will always be a complete gamble, because it has no actual use and serves no purpose, therefore demand will remain just by gamblers....
I think in addition to trying to get onto a decent exchange, you need to show some plans and work towards some eventual use for this coin, be it as a day to day currency for purchasing (in which case you need to be talking to card companies, or have some specific service that it can be used for... Obviously the first is preferable, but creating coins with no actual use or purpose has been done by everyone and his dog, and most are going the way of the Dodo.
This is a good technology but needs to show some long-term plan at least, and preferably some timeframe and work in progress to get it into ACTUAL REAL LIFE use....
Just saying....
March 28, 2018, 07:36:44 AM
Updated Windows Builds:
Cryptonite (db61): http://www.mediafire.com/file/pyijziu586r2gn3/Cryptonite-0-1-5-2-db61.zip
Cryptonite (db48): http://www.mediafire.com/file/4fnadkgu1smgumc/Cryptonite-0-1-5-2-db48.zip
db6.1 for first time users.
Cryptonite (db61): http://www.mediafire.com/file/pyijziu586r2gn3/Cryptonite-0-1-5-2-db61.zip
Cryptonite (db48): http://www.mediafire.com/file/4fnadkgu1smgumc/Cryptonite-0-1-5-2-db48.zip
db6.1 for first time users.
thanks for update new wallet ,i really appreciate it ,buy the wallet ,any plan add creative function to XCN ?
March 28, 2018, 07:32:18 AM
Updated Windows Builds:
Cryptonite (db61): http://www.mediafire.com/file/pyijziu586r2gn3/Cryptonite-0-1-5-2-db61.zip
Cryptonite (db48): http://www.mediafire.com/file/4fnadkgu1smgumc/Cryptonite-0-1-5-2-db48.zip
db6.1 for first time users.
Cryptonite (db61): http://www.mediafire.com/file/pyijziu586r2gn3/Cryptonite-0-1-5-2-db61.zip
Cryptonite (db48): http://www.mediafire.com/file/4fnadkgu1smgumc/Cryptonite-0-1-5-2-db48.zip
db6.1 for first time users.
March 28, 2018, 03:16:39 AM
Enexus provided a patch to compile with miniupnp 2.0 (keeping compatibility with older version).
I've merged it now.
I've merged it now.
March 26, 2018, 04:47:26 PM
Btw. I don't think 1GB blocks, will be ever in use, that's non-sense 
.
But with 60 sec block time, there can be used 32MB blocks, especially if those blocks can pack more transactions, than standard bitcoin protocol.
That would be in theory, with Bitcoin tx sizes 2200 tx/s, quite a lot
.But with 60 sec block time, there can be used 32MB blocks, especially if those blocks can pack more transactions, than standard bitcoin protocol.
That would be in theory, with Bitcoin tx sizes 2200 tx/s, quite a lot
March 26, 2018, 04:41:08 PM
Yep, I know, tho this bear market will scare them out for good.
@pallas - can you think how we can test live network? I'll help with my nodes, in test, I would want to see especially variable size of blocks, and how they propagate through network.
Also if we think about high tx/s, we should improve single-threaded code, without parallism, as here: https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M?t=854
Scaling can be only done if code can and will use multi-cores processing.
@pallas - can you think how we can test live network? I'll help with my nodes, in test, I would want to see especially variable size of blocks, and how they propagate through network.
Also if we think about high tx/s, we should improve single-threaded code, without parallism, as here: https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M?t=854
Scaling can be only done if code can and will use multi-cores processing.
Time to code the tx generator script. Then we should run it on multiple nodes and see how the network reacts.
March 26, 2018, 04:18:02 PM
Yep, I know, tho this bear market will scare them out for good.
@pallas - can you think how we can test live network? I'll help with my nodes, in test, I would want to see especially variable size of blocks, and how they propagate through network.
Also if we think about high tx/s, we should improve single-threaded code, with parallism, as here: https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M?t=854
Scaling can be only done if code can and will use multi-cores processing.
@pallas - can you think how we can test live network? I'll help with my nodes, in test, I would want to see especially variable size of blocks, and how they propagate through network.
Also if we think about high tx/s, we should improve single-threaded code, with parallism, as here: https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M?t=854
Scaling can be only done if code can and will use multi-cores processing.
March 26, 2018, 06:29:09 AM
The level of idiocy and complacency, is at ATH on this forum, and only hope, that this big correction will ride them out, of here.
This is prevalent throughout unfortunately.
It is due to the massive influx of newbies that involve themselves in something that has been around longer than the few days they care to research. There is a meme floating about the place (which i wished i saved now) saying something along the lines of ...
newbie - I just got into Crypto yesterday and started buying ICO coins and trading some Alt coins ...
newbie - I am now a CryptoExpert and CryptoAdvisor a week later because I traded and bought coins.
Amazing the amount of 'experts' out there that can teach us all a lesson or two
#crysx
March 26, 2018, 06:24:52 AM
some people don't seem to realize that Cryptonite development started in 2013.
Yup!
In fact, some people just don't seem to realize that there is actually a thing called 'reading' and 'research' and 'due diligence'.
Ho Hum. Back to work for me.
#crysx
March 26, 2018, 05:20:20 AM
The level of idiocy and complacency, is at ATH on this forum, and only hope, that this big correction will ride them out, of here.
March 26, 2018, 03:11:49 AM
some people don't seem to realize that Cryptonite development started in 2013.
March 25, 2018, 10:42:05 PM
March 25, 2018, 10:12:51 PM
duplicate magi coin
March 24, 2018, 04:43:16 AM
@Pallas , would you tell , which source , I could build a linux wallet from , pls...
https://github.com/pallas1/Cryptonite
March 24, 2018, 04:41:37 AM
@Pallas , would you tell , which source , I could build a linux wallet from , pls...
March 23, 2018, 11:30:02 AM
And PoS doesn't work?
I think that scalability wise, PoS or DPoS are much better solution.
I think that scalability wise, PoS or DPoS are much better solution.
I didn't say that PoS doesn't work.
PoW vs PoS is a long debate, they both have plus and minus.
Let's concentrate on a possible PoS mini-blockchain implementation, or other alternatives.
March 23, 2018, 11:19:12 AM
And PoS doesn't work?
I think that scalability wise, PoS or DPoS are much better solution.
I think that scalability wise, PoS or DPoS are much better solution.
March 23, 2018, 10:45:06 AM
Personally, I'm in 2 minds about POS vs POW.
I love the idea of getting rid of "wasting energy".
On the other hand, it's that "wasted" energy that gives the token additional undisputable value and is therefore a great layer of trust, next to the current trade prices on the exchanges.
Same effect as with gold. It's expensive to mine, hence it's rare, hence it's valuable. In theory, there should be some market-driven self adjustment happening to how much energy a coin consumes and I think that's what's happening. So POW isn't necessarily bad. Also, there are many voices warning against pure POS as there seem to be some issues with that, too.
I've thought about that topic a while ago, too and my feeling is that a new POW/hybrid POW/POS approach that somehow incentivizes contribution to coin network health might be a good approach. E.g. instead of just having the tokens "at stake", the POW part could be about providing network bandwidth (e.g. forwarding new transactions) or transaction history lookups. I'm not sure yet how to encapsulate these tasks in a way so that it can be verified independently that a node has done it. But it must be possible, SETI@home is somehow verifying processed packages as well.
The POS part could stay more or less the same as having tokens at stake I guess.
I love the idea of getting rid of "wasting energy".
On the other hand, it's that "wasted" energy that gives the token additional undisputable value and is therefore a great layer of trust, next to the current trade prices on the exchanges.
Same effect as with gold. It's expensive to mine, hence it's rare, hence it's valuable. In theory, there should be some market-driven self adjustment happening to how much energy a coin consumes and I think that's what's happening. So POW isn't necessarily bad. Also, there are many voices warning against pure POS as there seem to be some issues with that, too.
I've thought about that topic a while ago, too and my feeling is that a new POW/hybrid POW/POS approach that somehow incentivizes contribution to coin network health might be a good approach. E.g. instead of just having the tokens "at stake", the POW part could be about providing network bandwidth (e.g. forwarding new transactions) or transaction history lookups. I'm not sure yet how to encapsulate these tasks in a way so that it can be verified independently that a node has done it. But it must be possible, SETI@home is somehow verifying processed packages as well.
The POS part could stay more or less the same as having tokens at stake I guess.
I agree with your comments on POW and POS.
Maybe POW is expensive in terms of energy, but it's what makes it work; and let's remember bitcoin is the biggest coin, the first and it still works pretty fine, regardless of all the attacks it got over the years.
Hybrid POW/POS could be a nice solution, but I'm not sure it's a good thing to introduce in a coin like XCN: I mean, what if those huge chinese xcn holders start staking? No coins for new users, no coins for small investors.
Furthermore, there is a technical problem to solve: miniblockchain is about removing transaction history and keeping a balance sheet of accounts instead, which clashes with the POS concept of "coin age"; since every node needs to verify the stake transactions, they would need to know the coin age and history of those coins. I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that we need to rethink it and adapt to mini-blockchain.
About SETI@home, they probably verify the packages in a centralised manner.
You know, that PoW, isn't so secure on alts in reality, because they have rather small processing power.
Stakers can secure coin, even if it's small, cause it's almost impossible to gather so large supply of coins in one hands.
If the coin is small, then getting a large part of it is easy and cheap.
Besides, I've never seen a 51% attack on an altcoin yet. It is possible in theory, but making use of it is not easy. For example, if exchanges have 30 confirmations for altcoins, making a successful hashrate attack means having 99% of the hashrate for a long time.
Of course I'm not counting those dead coins where you can mine 30 blocks in a few minutes because no one is mining at that moment in time.
And PoW always have limitation, as we can with Bitcoin - it's unsustainable, and it's getting absurd, when miners flew from one country to another, because they are forbidding them (for a good cause - tremendous energy waste is absurd, for sha256 algorythm, that don't contribute to humanity in anyway, nor it can be really used as a global super computer, because it's not designed so, and calculations of sha256, wouldn't have much usage).
True, but I don't think that POS is the answer.
POW is a waste of energy but it works.
March 23, 2018, 10:15:47 AM
Personally, I'm in 2 minds about POS vs POW.
I love the idea of getting rid of "wasting energy".
On the other hand, it's that "wasted" energy that gives the token additional undisputable value and is therefore a great layer of trust, next to the current trade prices on the exchanges.
Same effect as with gold. It's expensive to mine, hence it's rare, hence it's valuable. In theory, there should be some market-driven self adjustment happening to how much energy a coin consumes and I think that's what's happening. So POW isn't necessarily bad. Also, there are many voices warning against pure POS as there seem to be some issues with that, too.
I've thought about that topic a while ago, too and my feeling is that a new POW/hybrid POW/POS approach that somehow incentivizes contribution to coin network health might be a good approach. E.g. instead of just having the tokens "at stake", the POW part could be about providing network bandwidth (e.g. forwarding new transactions) or transaction history lookups. I'm not sure yet how to encapsulate these tasks in a way so that it can be verified independently that a node has done it. But it must be possible, SETI@home is somehow verifying processed packages as well.
The POS part could stay more or less the same as having tokens at stake I guess.
I love the idea of getting rid of "wasting energy".
On the other hand, it's that "wasted" energy that gives the token additional undisputable value and is therefore a great layer of trust, next to the current trade prices on the exchanges.
Same effect as with gold. It's expensive to mine, hence it's rare, hence it's valuable. In theory, there should be some market-driven self adjustment happening to how much energy a coin consumes and I think that's what's happening. So POW isn't necessarily bad. Also, there are many voices warning against pure POS as there seem to be some issues with that, too.
I've thought about that topic a while ago, too and my feeling is that a new POW/hybrid POW/POS approach that somehow incentivizes contribution to coin network health might be a good approach. E.g. instead of just having the tokens "at stake", the POW part could be about providing network bandwidth (e.g. forwarding new transactions) or transaction history lookups. I'm not sure yet how to encapsulate these tasks in a way so that it can be verified independently that a node has done it. But it must be possible, SETI@home is somehow verifying processed packages as well.
The POS part could stay more or less the same as having tokens at stake I guess.
I agree with your comments on POW and POS.
Maybe POW is expensive in terms of energy, but it's what makes it work; and let's remember bitcoin is the biggest coin, the first and it still works pretty fine, regardless of all the attacks it got over the years.
Hybrid POW/POS could be a nice solution, but I'm not sure it's a good thing to introduce in a coin like XCN: I mean, what if those huge chinese xcn holders start staking? No coins for new users, no coins for small investors.
Furthermore, there is a technical problem to solve: miniblockchain is about removing transaction history and keeping a balance sheet of accounts instead, which clashes with the POS concept of "coin age"; since every node needs to verify the stake transactions, they would need to know the coin age and history of those coins. I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that we need to rethink it and adapt to mini-blockchain.
About SETI@home, they probably verify the packages in a centralised manner.
You know, that PoW, isn't so secure on alts in reality, because they have rather small processing power.
Stakers can secure coin, even if it's small, cause it's almost impossible to gather so large supply of coins in one hands.
And PoW always have limitation, as we can with Bitcoin - it's unsustainable, and it's getting absurd, when miners flew from one country to another, because they are forbidding them (for a good cause - tremendous energy waste is absurd, for sha256 algorythm, that don't contribute to humanity in anyway, nor it can be really used as a global super computer, because it's not designed so, and calculations of sha256, wouldn't have much usage).
Jump to: