Its verry interesting to me , I would like to know how could you mine this algo with cpu. Im following ... 
When it starts and how could we mine this witn Nvidia Gpus and also with Amd Gpus
Thx in advance
Topic: [PRE-ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine - page 12. (Read 24108 times)
July 21, 2014, 01:34:26 PM
When it starts and how could we mine this witn Nvidia Gpus and also with Amd Gpus
Thx in advance
July 21, 2014, 01:03:43 PM
Its verry interesting to me , I would like to know how could you mine this algo with cpu. Im following ...
July 21, 2014, 12:54:32 PM
Here goes my checklist:
Non-newbie member - Check
OP which talks about features and not only block/hashing algo - Check
Fair Launch - Yet to see
No IPO - Check
Btw, there is one thing I am wondering - multisig - what kind of size are we talking about when implementing something with n > 3, ie say 5 key multisig. Will it work well with the chain?
Non-newbie member - Check
OP which talks about features and not only block/hashing algo - Check
Fair Launch - Yet to see
No IPO - Check
Btw, there is one thing I am wondering - multisig - what kind of size are we talking about when implementing something with n > 3, ie say 5 key multisig. Will it work well with the chain?
July 21, 2014, 12:17:14 PM
Looks good, good luck!
July 21, 2014, 12:08:13 PM
whereas I also think that 600$ per coin is also far from optima, it is bitcoins biggest unit of account, and it is no problem to use a smaller unit like satoshi or bits or whatever.
There's no reason you can't to the opposite thing and use larger units to denominate values.I understand what you are saying, but it seems billion count coins don't fair very well these days.
Maybe that's just because there have been no innovative coins which use billions of coins? I don't think having billions of coins really has anything to do with why a coin will fail.bytecoin has - look I own 1.8 million bytecoin - this is worth somewhat 40$ or 0.08 btc - imagine I buy a coffee or a pizza with this or take the opposite I would try to buy a house with bytecoin - this is really really horrible even for a math oriented person to calculate.
I do not think we should spam this wonderful project with this, from a technical perspective, minor problem but you should really consider this.
Fair enough, im intrigued and will participate. Good luck!
July 21, 2014, 12:05:46 PM
The only practical difference is where you put the decimal point. There's actually 18 quintillion "units" in a 2^64 unit coin. Bitcoin has 2 trillion units only because of problems representing larger numbers using floating point values.
I don't think anyone is arguing against the increased divisibility and precision available in 64-bit coins. So the only remaining argument is that it is somehow different if i send you
2.865 coins vs
28.65 vs
286.5
Like whats the big deal? Much the same way as BTC has had to adopt alternate units like mBTC and uBTC, we are considering adding KXCN and MXCN to the GUI client so that people are free to put the decimal point wherever they please.
I don't think anyone is arguing against the increased divisibility and precision available in 64-bit coins. So the only remaining argument is that it is somehow different if i send you
2.865 coins vs
28.65 vs
286.5
Like whats the big deal? Much the same way as BTC has had to adopt alternate units like mBTC and uBTC, we are considering adding KXCN and MXCN to the GUI client so that people are free to put the decimal point wherever they please.
July 21, 2014, 12:04:46 PM
whereas I also think that 600$ per coin is also far from optima, it is bitcoins biggest unit of account, and it is no problem to use a smaller unit like satoshi or bits or whatever.
There's no reason you can't to the opposite thing and use larger units to denominate values.I understand what you are saying, but it seems billion count coins don't fair very well these days.
Maybe that's just because there have been no innovative coins which use billions of coins? I don't think having billions of coins really has anything to do with why a coin will fail.bytecoin has - look I own 1.8 million bytecoin - this is worth somewhat 40$ or 0.08 btc - imagine I buy a coffee or a pizza with this or take the opposite I would try to buy a house with bytecoin - this is really really horrible even for a math oriented person to calculate.
I do not think we should spam this wonderful project with this, from a technical perspective, minor problem but you should really consider this.
July 21, 2014, 11:57:53 AM
whereas I also think that 600$ per coin is also far from optima, it is bitcoins biggest unit of account, and it is no problem to use a smaller unit like satoshi or bits or whatever.
There's no reason you can't do the opposite thing and use larger units to denominate values.I understand what you are saying, but it seems billion count coins don't fair very well these days.
Maybe that's just because there have been no innovative coins which use billions of coins? I don't think having billions of coins really has anything to do with why a coin will fail. July 21, 2014, 11:53:02 AM
I think 1billion is enough
That's the problem, what you "think" sounds like the right amount is only an arbitrary guess. We're not just picking some random number, we're using the natural upper limit of a 64 bit integer.I understand what you are saying, but it seems billion count coins don't fair very well these days.
No?
July 21, 2014, 11:46:31 AM
i was silently following your other thread.
i like your concept but also think that a coin supply of around 20 million is much better than this almost undefineable huge number - the reasons for this are practical.
What exactly is practical about 1 BTC being worth more than $600? Instead of sending very small amounts we'll be sending very large amounts to each other, why is one better than the other? And it's not "undefineably huge", it's 184.4 billion coins.i like your concept but also think that a coin supply of around 20 million is much better than this almost undefineable huge number - the reasons for this are practical.
from a normal non-autistic person you need some point of reference to define the value of one unit - maybe some big currency like dollar or euro or what a cup of coffee costs etc. whereas I also think that 600$ per coin is also far from optima, it is bitcoins biggest unit of account, and it is no problem to use a smaller unit like satoshi or bits or whatever. when you start xcn the biggest unit of account will be 1/184400000000 - even if this project is uber successful it will take ages until one unit is accountable for a normal person and to find some reference point.
the rate of distribution is also independent of the unit of account - so I do not see why you need this huge number. it will probably not be a short time killer for the coin but it will definetely hinder wide adoption
July 21, 2014, 11:38:30 AM
184 billions is much better than 21 million.
And it is just ~25 coins for each person on the planet.
And it is just ~25 coins for each person on the planet.
July 21, 2014, 11:37:01 AM
I think 1billion is enough
That's the problem, what you "think" sounds like the right amount is only an arbitrary guess. We're not just picking some random number, we're using the natural upper limit of a 64 bit integer. July 21, 2014, 11:35:36 AM
Coin supply: 2^64-1 units (184.4 billion coins)
its too much
I think 1billion is enough
its too much
I think 1billion is enough
July 21, 2014, 11:33:51 AM
i was silently following your other thread.
i like your concept but also think that a coin supply of around 20 million is much better than this almost undefineable huge number - the reasons for this are practical.
What exactly is practical about 1 BTC being worth more than $600? Instead of sending very small amounts we'll be sending very large amounts to each other, why is one better than the other? And it's not "undefineably huge", it's 184.4 billion coins. i like your concept but also think that a coin supply of around 20 million is much better than this almost undefineable huge number - the reasons for this are practical.
July 21, 2014, 11:25:28 AM
i was silently following your other thread.
i like your concept but also think that a coin supply of around 20 million is much better than this almost undefineable huge number - the reasons for this are practical.
i like your concept but also think that a coin supply of around 20 million is much better than this almost undefineable huge number - the reasons for this are practical.
July 21, 2014, 11:19:11 AM
watching 
July 21, 2014, 11:09:18 AM
I'm not sure I like the total coin supply though, seems like a lot to me.
Whether you have one million coins or one trillion coins it doesn't really make a difference, what really matters is how fast the coins are distributed. With Cryptonite the block reward will gradually halve over the period of 10 years, and the initial block reward is such that it will also take 10 years before half of all XCN has been mined. So when the block reward is 50% of what it started as, that means 50% of all XCN has been mined. July 21, 2014, 10:58:35 AM
This is definitely pretty cool. Interesting ideas backed by a hero member is always a good start.
I'm not sure I like the total coin supply though, seems like a lot to me. There are very few successful coins out there that count in billions. Doge is the only notable exception.
Anyway I'll be watching this thread
Good luck!
I'm not sure I like the total coin supply though, seems like a lot to me. There are very few successful coins out there that count in billions. Doge is the only notable exception.
Anyway I'll be watching this thread
Good luck!
July 21, 2014, 10:57:42 AM
M7 algorithm, no mining can be used to calculate the force that way?
Not sure what you mean.No, read the first page of the thread.
Jump to: