Topic: [CryptoNote] A complete forking guide to create your own CryptoNote currency - page 3. (Read 18572 times)

CryptoNote has launched its official reference implementation: CryptoNoteCoin.
The currency is the showcase for CryptoNote technology and the educational coin for the new users.

It is designed to have no economic value. The emission will take 2 months, followed by the genesis block relaunch.

The announcements:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annlaunched-cryptonotecoin-cryptonote-based-coin-for-education-purposes-686485.
https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=231

CryptoNote has updated its official repository to include the testnet tool for those who are building a new CryptoNote currency.

The testnet is your sandbox for the currency's and network's sustainability before the launch or prior to a major update. Generally, you wouldn't want to roll out a feature, which might jeopardize user experience or network health.

The new CryptoNote testnet tool ignores the real network by skipping its checkpoints and peer lists. It also generates a new genesis block on startup. By doing so you create a new block chain for your network which can be used for testing purposes. This can also be useful for pool owners deploying a new feature related to mining, since their own testnet doesn't have external miners to compete with for the blocks during the tests.

1. After compiling the binaries you should start the daemon with the "--testnet" and "--data-dir" arguments:

--testnet argument forces daemon to start a new testing network.
--data-dir argument should be different from the default folder so that the testnet doesn't interfere with the real network's block chain and peer pools. When you launch a new testnet, be sure to provide it with a new folder.

2. Launching simplewallet requires only the "--testnet" argument to connect to the testnet daemon:


3. In case you need to create a testnet that consists of more than 1 node, you should connect each next daemon to the previously launched testnet through the "--add-exclusive-node" argument:



Links to the repository and the forking guide:
https://github.com/cryptonotefoundation/cryptonote
https://cryptonotestarter.org

Original discussion: https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=234&p=791#p791

It's true - perhaps it's easy to forget that nothing has fallen apart. Innovation is being unveiled and progress from CN coins is happening, with positive consequences.


I would just take the perspective that as a concept, CN is working and producing results which are not just admirable but exciting as well, and we should take a level-headed, embracing attitude to developments while there is still no evidence to the contrary.

What do you even mean here? These are open-source projects. Apart from that .. what are they enabling? Innovation? I'll take two examples: merge mining, and i2p integration.

The environment for merge mining is highly clamored; however, the mention of i2p was in fact bashed. Cryptonote has nothing to do with enabling innovation, you don't need their permission or support for it. How do you think their presence in any way spurs innovation? People could simply fork this without them, due to being open source .. so where are you going with this?


I would point out that the CN philosophy is simply that of a cheerleader, not the creator of this playing field. They cheer for the currencies that would have been on the field regardless of their presence at all. This is more in line with their vision -- they're not a government and they don't make laws.

CryptoNote's genius, is coming up with a concept and contributing some code according to them. Apart from that, it was the Bytecoin/Cybernote/Betanote website that provided the bulk of the source code. It is their genius that is as an enabler -- not CryptoNote in the sense that you put forth. CN hasn't maintained a repo until this thread.

The playing field is level, the code is all open source. Anyone who has the skills can currently fork a CN coin as has been done. The issue is with 100's on uninnovative implementations which is possible with "noob forking guides" and devs with no skill at all. Im sorry but if you think that 10's or 100's of slightly tweaked reference implementations is good for anyone then you mistaken. Yes competition is good and anybody who has the ideas and the skills to implement them will be able to do so already without the cryptonote team babying people to do it. This is why the motive question has been thrown out there and most of what drawinginthesun aludes to makes perfect sense.

 Perhaps if you countered the actual arguments you might have more listeners.

Drawinginthesun gives many reasons why lots of the same coin isn't good, arguments such as this "Only coins that offer a massive advantage over the other market participants should be able to take value from a market leader" and "However if Monero were to fall due to clones that offer very small incremental changes to the code, then I would be a fool to invest my time, money and energy into that competitor because I know the precedent has been set, another coin will be along shortly to ruin that coin, with small incremental changes." need more response than they're just trying to create a level playing field.

Even if Monero is, as you say, supposed to 'take on' Bytecoin, who's to say that there can't be a coin made to overtake both of them, theoretically speaking? Cryptonote's genius is as an enabler - to introduce an environment where users are in no doubt that any innovation is possible, if they have the skill to implement it.


I would say that this is the essence of CryptoNote's philosophy: to create a level playing field where any coin is given the potential to become a leader - an environment where anyone will be able to compete for the lead position.

I disagree with you.

Hal Finney said that if a CryptoCoin that had no real advantage over Bitcoin and were to overtake the value of Bitcoin it would create a disastrous situation where all the CryptoCoins would lose their value. His reasoning was that if investors (1) saw that another coin can overtake Bitcoin, based on hype and manipulation alone it would call into question "can any type of faith based currency (2) actually be a store of value".

This store of value is important because many projects die fast if people are not committed to their security, maintenance and continue research and development. If the "store of value" idea was to be undone via a clone without true merit and reason to exist, the investors would be unwilling to invest in the clone because the precedent has now been set that any clone on hype alone will eradicate their investment. As people stop investing their money into miners or buying the coin itself, people see their value fall and begin to stop investing the most important asset in the world, their time. Once time stops being invested into a project the project ceases to exist.

This has nothing about making a quick buck. I don't invest in alternative coins often and only moved onto Monero because I saw merit. However if Monero were to fall due to clones that offer very small incremental changes to the code, then I would be a fool to invest my time, money and energy into that competitor because I know the precedent has been set, another coin will be along shortly to ruin that coin, with small incremental changes. This is the crux of Hal Finney's argument.

Only coins that offer a massive advantage over the other market participants should be able to take value from a market leader, because that functionality is really adding a true addition to the marketplace. Obviously Bytecoin fills this role, however due to the 80% premine it was automatically unsuitable to be the market leader for a CryptoNote coin, Monero was born to be the restart of the unfair premine. Monero's first and vital innovation is one of the marketplace, Monero offered the first public release of a CryptoNote coin that was not premined.

This is the crux of my argument; if there are thousands of CryptoNote clones all fighting each other for market share, with no clear leader, where does the investor park his energies and capital? Without a growing capital base the developers leave to better pastures. Under the current vision of the CryptoNote "team" they are in fact creating a rotten apple, a confused market with no clear leader. It's a mess.

Up until Monero I saw a future of about three true market participants; Bitcoin, Ethereum and a Storage based coin. However it is entirely reasonable that Ethereum will also be that storage based coin.

Monero adds onto that list as the fourth participant.

(1) [Miners and people who buy the coin are both investors]

(2) [All CryptoCoins are faith based, they rely on the will of the people to maintain value, rather than a Government taking control and manipulating the market to keep prices at a set standard]

pretty much agreed.

But currency aims likewise should not detract from CN itself: its devs have put in such an insane amount of work and there are considerably easier ways to make a quick bit of cash. Consistency of strategy also points to this.

I would even suggest that some of the more unsavory talk on this forum when it comes to coin wars was assumed by CN - competition is competition after all, and communities will want to silence the criticism by demonstrating real progress, which in turn allows coins with real talent behind them to become more credible for everyone's benefit.

So what coin would you support? You have to support some coin.

I think that CryptoNote was pretty clear with their point. They want more coins so that the whole platform takes off due to internal competition. Just reflect on your own reaction, once threatened with diluted hash rate, you start to call on the supporters around your coin. So ultimately, this seems to be working exactly according to CryptoNote's plan.

I might not be getting all the strategic stuff they've posted and might not share their vision, but still I think that CryptoNote is pretty consistent with their strategy. They want the whole platform to advance, not a certain coin. They deny that they'll launch their coin (and as of now it is written forever in the web and can be linked to if CN digresses from its vision).

In my opinion, CryptoNote is doing something much more important than trying to make a quick buck. It's a shame that XMR supporters are so obsessed with their coin and hash rate that they deny strategic development. Come on guys, you do have the highest hash rate, but it is 80% botnets. What's the point in trying to secure a rotten apple? CryptoNote is trying to change the world, while you are interested in your investment payoff. That's puny and unworthy.

One of my favorite speculations is that Bytecoin/BetaNote/Cybernote/Cryptonote are all ripoffs of yet another main currency that has yet to surface.

For a little background:

Cryptonote was the name of the project on the first .onion site, with no mention of bytecoin anywhere. go look at the reddit dstrange put together and look for the screen cap w/ green letters.

Bytecoin was the name of the same project on the .com site, now calling the project that name instead of taking cryptonote as the name (though they still managed to miss the name of the project as 'cybernote' in the readme file -- even after two years of putting it together)

Betanote is claimed by Catherine Irwin to be the name of the project before it was bytecoin/cryptonote. I would guess this would just be the beta version. But that's a catch in itself, because if there was a beta version for testing -- it would imply that there was no need to hide the project for two years (from claimed aggressors) as was originally claimed by one/both of the groups.

Cybernote was a possible typo name in the github when the project first surfaced. It can easily be speculated that this was, at one point, the name of the/a project. Who ever remembers readme's anyways?

Now we have Bytecoin/cryptonote project merging code that breaks their wallets .. awkward, and a cryptonote site that's pressing rather insanely for both merge mining and infinite forks.

Only wild speculation can exist at this point, but with all the variables present .. i'm sure it can take you pretty far.

Really all I do know is that this isn't how reasonable people act, historically. Something's dead wrong here, and I don't really care what it is. As you've said, Monero's the market leader right now. Boolberry's there too, though a little more distant .. the market is speaking volumes about all of this .. and it's saying that it's more than a little worried about whatever past this protocol has had to the point where it's willing to put the future of this protocol into the hands of those that did not birth it into the world. I agree with the market, and think that this is the best chance for the continued survival of this protocol.

I cannot understand how the CryptoNote team are making such a bad decision whilst also being very intelligent (making CryptoNote in the first place)

The bad decision is this: More clones mean more hashrate spread about thus making all the CryptoNote coins weaker. This is why Satoshi would never advocate hundreds of Bitcoin clones because it harms the overall security of Bitcoin.

The market can support perhaps a handful of coins, but any more and the hashrate dilution starts to seem more like an attack.

I must conclude that the current CryptoNote team are not the original mathematicians and programmers that created CryptoNote and in fact a newer group of people that have inherited the project. This new team are now advocating hashrate dilution that will make each CryptoNote coin more venerable.

There's only one way this can be opposed, the community must vote via their miners a market leader, thankfully Monero now has more hashrate than all the other CryptoNote coins combined and thus a leader has been chosen.

Remember guys and girls, hashrate is very important and not just academic, if all the CryptoNote coins had similar hashrates there could be no market leader as people would be wary of an attack. At the moment it seems that Monero is far more secure than all the other CryptoNote coins.

We should be against hashrate dilution, not advocating it as these "CryptoNote developers" advise.

When this team advocates something that reads like an attack on the security of the CryptoNote ecosystem you have to ask yourself, do these people have our best interests at heart? I say they don't, this move is so immature and dangerous, the only conclusion is that they are not the original creators of CryptoNote but rather a later set of people that have inherited the project and are misinformed.

The monero team is the most active, and they have academics reviewing the code and white paper, they are being more responsible towards CryptoNote than this original team.

They said it's pretty much the code base of bytecoin plus boolberry and monero code added in. So once Monero fixes the scalability issues then the reference will have them inside.

I laughed there too. One thing I can't figure out though is that .. there's no restrictions besides time now for newbie accounts. You can literally post everywhere, but have a 360 second timer between posts. Why do these accounts all have the post count set so that's gone before they post anything substantial/more focused?

I'm guessing it's because most of them sign in from the same ip address .. so 360 seconds really starts to add up.

LOL - I just imagined darkota and I arguing on the other thread. But we were actually the same person.

By using your logic, at the moment right after btc-mike will go offline but you will stay on, i can say that you are the same guy, just because you are  online now, but the other guy is offline. *facepalm*

Stop this game, don't act like a little troll.

They're most likely all shill/sockpuppet accounts created and used by one guy, especially cause you see one of them go offline, and the other goes online right after, aka PizzaTraveler is online now, and all others are offline. It's really pathetic, but that's how some people are.

Yeah .. the same type of horde was presented in the BCN thread, and also were heavily present around the shift from the BMR to MRO thread. Sockpuppets are a common occurrence in all of these threads. OFC you can say the same about mine; however, I have only one active profile at a time .. not that it makes a difference but it would be pretty awkward for me to use multiple accounts simultaneously.

It's fun to speculate why they're around though. Either BCN promoters, CN promoters, paid marketing competition from another altcoin, paid competition from a totally alternative group perhaps not relating to any currency at all, someone just bored, anything really can fit .. the main theme that seems to be present for all of them is that they usually post highly suggestive, non-targeted, potentially offensive, comments designed to be mostly passed over -- but noticed (perhaps unconsciously) -- in order to cause general confusion without inciting an argument. There were also some in the DRK thread, but IIRC they usually just copied and pasted previous comments .. but it can't be confirmed whether or not these are the same people.

Personally I'm guessing just someone's subliminal advertising marketing group .. but who's to know? Best advice is to just know when they're around and, after recognition, give a factual answer if possible .. so that anyone else reading the comments doesn't get sucked into the trap.

Look at the profiles of the last five posters. Created in last 2 months. Start posting in off-topic/politics. Only post about CN coins, never about other coins.