Topic: [PRE-ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine - page 8. (Read 24098 times)

PLEASE READ:

Ok folks, it has become highly apparent to us that stretching out the mining period as a solution to the huge coin supply issue is not very satisfying for all parties. As a result of the concerns raised we are revising the specs one last time in an effort to please all parties. First of all we are reverting the half life of the block reward back to 10 years like it was it was originally, so that investors don't feel so worried about the long term inflation. Then to appease those people who don't like seeing huge unsightly numbers, we have shifted the decimal 2 places to the left, meaning there will be a total of 1.84 billion XCN, each with 10 decimal places of divisibility instead of 8. We didn't want to scrap the 64 bits of divisibility because we kind of tout that as a feature of the coin, and shifting the decimal place didn't require us to break the current protocol (although reverting back to a 10 year half life did). And before anyone says "but 10 decimal places is unseemly", the numbers can always be rounded down to something more presentable if necessary, and coins such as Monero already use 12 decimal places for each coin.

@Dev ,when will this coin be launched?any plan?

This is really smart bitfreak!, and if I may give my two satoshis, I'd like to chip in as well.  As someone who has followed this project from about the time you started testing, I'm really glad you're making this, and like others, see the potential in it.  I really respect the time, money and resources that you've put into it and can see that your vision for the coin has driven all of the decisions about fair release, distribution etc.

I think there is a good reason to reconsider the 184.4B supply, but I think most of the reasons provided by others so far are irrelevant and illogical.  The main reason to lower would be to simplify the product.  I would argue that this is the most innovative coin this year, but I think everything needs a certain appeal.  Some call it marketing, but really I just mean simplicity.  You want the focus of the project to be on the innovation and its capabilities.  By making the supply 184.4B and half life of 100 years, I have to stop for a second and think about what that means.  Logically, there is nothing wrong with this.  And after brief consideration, any bright person would realize this is an extremely, if not overly, fair distribution.  But still, it sours things just a bit, because I have to focus on something other than the innovation.  So, I think merely for simplicity's sake(which goes a long way), you might want to reconsider(again), changing the numbers.  You don't have to sacrifice any of the current ratios, but just make the numbers more intuitive.

Either way, I really appreciate this project and the time and effort you've spent into it.  I certainly wouldn't have thought of such a fair way to distribute it, nor all of the innovative advantages of the mini-blockchain.

The only reason it couldn't is because we'll probably have much better cryptocurrencies in 100 years. But as I mentioned before, mining cryptocurrency doesn't necessarily devalue the rest of the coins, because it costs a lot of money to mine the coins, unlike normal inflation. In a purely logical world the value of XCN would be no less than the cost of the electricity used to generate them, which is perfectly fine in my book. All that really matters is that the inflation doesn't cause the value of the coin to drop, and it doesn't if the coins are expensive to mine.

And furthermore, I think having such a long mining period ensures that future miners are getting rewarded well, because the difficulty tends to grow, where as the block reward tends to drop, and that creates an upward pressure on the market which causes the price to increase. But when too many people try to mine, it becomes too hard and not profitable enough, so many miners stop mining. So based on that logic, by having a longer mining period, we also maintain a higher network hash rate for a longer period of time because more miners can participate.

It's not linear, it's exponential decay.

Ok so let me be blunt. The bottom line is people want to be able to invest and profit because they can see the potential of this coin, but we're not offering many ways to do that. After some discussion we've decided that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it has some potential benifits. Whenever somebody profits it just takes money out of the coin. If you limit opportunities to dump it then it can have value based on it's utility. If people have less reason to hold then it promotes spending and commerce. We have decided that our approach is the most logical if we want to create a transaction tool and not an investment tool.

But having said that, I honestly think a slowly decreasing block reward wont keep it from increasing in price if people find it useful enough. Many altcoins have proven that the value of a coin can rise and fall very independently from the level of inflation. What really causes the price of a coin to shift is popularity, the level of demand will really determine the value, especially if the level of demand greatly outmatches the level of inflation. Now I know not everyone is happy with this decision, and I'm betting the first clone of Cryptonite will be one with a smaller coin supply and faster distribution rate, and that's fine with us.

If we didn't want people making variants of Cryptonite then we wouldn't release the source. If another variant of Cryptonite turns out to be more popular than the original Cryptonite then so be it, but I'm not convinced they will be more popular unless they can offer something new. What I would really like to see is some sort of good anonymity/mixing scheme which is compatible with the mini-blockchain scheme, I'm sure that would be really popular because many anonymity schemes dramatically bloat the blockchain but with the mini-blockchain scheme the old transactions can be forgotten and it becomes much more manageable.

That doesn't apply here because of the network effect. Bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency, the most used, the most known, and because of that, it's daily price can be retained even though its emission rate is large and the block halvings are far apart... Bitcoin cannot be compared to Any altcoins at this moment. What worked for Bitcoin(staying in relative obscurity, far and inbetween block halving) Will not work for Altcoins. You cant base this coin upon what Bitcoin has done, if you are doing so, then you are preparing this coin for immediate failure..

huh

The Bitcoin block reward has remained at 25 BTC for more than two years, and will not drop until 2017. It started at 50 but during that time not many people knew about it, by the time Bitcoin really got noticed the block reward was already at 25. It seems to me bitcoin has done a fine job of increasing in price even though the block reward hasn't changed for a long time. At least with Cryptonite the block reward slowly drops with every block instead of doing it suddenly after a long period of time and upsetting the established ecosystem of the network. Even if I'm wrong we're a bit past the stage where we can make such a change to the protocol, we're set to launch in about 3 days and the specs have already been revised once.

I think your math needs work. A larger percentage of the bitcoin total coins are mined everyday than would be Cryptonite. Bitcoin doesn't need 100's of thousands of BTC worth of investment everyday to maintain price, so why does that not apply here? Many coins do not even have a finite limit to minting, so how is an ever decreasing reward worse than that?

We're working to have KXCN listed on exchanges instead of XCN, so there's really only 184 million of those.You must not be familiar with the metric system. Perhaps you can also write a rant about how the gram is not good enough because it's so much smaller than the pound. Having to use kilograms is just ridiculous. /Sarcasm off

If you don't like looking at large numbers then you can always use a different notation. Having 1 BTC be worth more than $600 isn't practical either, but we deal with it by representing our bitcoin values in millibits or something similar. You're basically dismissing a whole coin based on an aesthetic argument. And once again I must point out it doesn't halve after 100 years, it slowly drops every block, taking 100 years to drop to half of what it started as.

Plenty of coins have much longer halving times and they are doing just fine. In fact some coins even have infinite inflation and they are doing ok too. If the value of vertcoin has dropped that much recently, it indicates a much larger problem than the block reward. You do realize that many other factors play a role in how the value of a coin is determined? I would even bet that the all-time-high was a pump phenomena and it's simply back to where it wants to be.

The block reward halving every 100 years is ridiculous...You're practically labeling this a dead coin before it's even launched...

If this coin even gets to be worth anything near a "decent price", the amount of btc needed to sustain it's daily price would be skyhigh (in the 100s of thousands) and it wouldn't be cut in half until 100 years passed Lol. Look at vertcoin, it has a high emission rate with over 20k vtc mined per day and it halves every 2 years(compared to this coin's 100 years), and it's price has dropped more than 600% from it's ATH. Imagine what would happen to this coin then, if even Vertcoin dropped because it didnt halve quickly enough, then this coin is doomed before it even begins.


Sorry, but the specs of this coin killed it before it even started.

I'm also "out".

Your argument makes no sense, if we're not using it in 100 years then it doesn't really matter either way does it.

Still..Bitcoin isnt even likely to be widely used in the next 20 years(it could be replaced by another cryptocurrency), The whole cryptocurrency scene could die off in the next 5 years... IMO, 100 years is Wayyyyyyy x10, too long...That alone would probably drive away a lot of people from using this coin. It's good to think longterm(like next 5-10 years especially since cryptocurrency is so fluctual), but 100...

How would you feel if decimal point was moved and instead of 184 billion coin with 8 decimal places we would have 1.84 billion coins with 10 decimal places. Would it be better?

There will only be a mammoth huge amount of coins after a mammoth huge amount of time, and by the time all the coins have been mined, the vast majority of them will be lost because the people who owned them are long dead. It seems to me what people really have a problem with is that we're not dropping the block reward fast enough, but I think the graph posted by aaaxn shows a very reasonable level of inflation over a fair period of time.

So looks like he doesnt want it to be a winner, good luck with mammoth huge amount of coins

184 Billion lol

Im out

May I refer you back to this post:

Ah I see. Couldn't the 184.4billion total # be changed to something more aesthetically pleasing? A lot of members dont even touch coins that have extremely huge coin supplies just because they dont like how it looks , I guess because everyone is used to smaller total #'s from using Bitcoin with its 21million cap.

Well it's important to remember that normal inflation is a lot cheaper than cryptocurrency inflation. In order to create new cryptocurrency one must expend electrical energy, which is not the case for typical fiat currencies. The coin distribution mechanism is not going to change any further, we've already modified it to please as many people as possible and to be as fair as possible. Most aspects of Cryptonite are designed from a long-term perspective, and a super long mining period fits that philosphy.

Unfortunately not everyone can be pleased, but that's why we're releasing the source code, so people can change things to their liking. In fact I wouldn't mind seeing a variant of Cryptonite where the coins are super rare, but that's just not what we're aiming for with Cryptonite. This is going to be the first implementation of the mini-blockchain scheme so I want to focus on long term feasability and fairness, while still trying to please as many people as possible. It's not easy but we've done the best we can.

Please lower the total coins

We have a possible Monero killer here but total supply is too much, a balanced total is best

No too much nor too scarce, keep it within 1 billion

I garuntee you this can outrun Monero but only if the coins have a digestable total

Dont ruin this winner, please