Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 117. (Read 387551 times)

I personally don't have any, but there has been discussion on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2bp3vk/the_miniblockchain_scheme/

I have to admit that I share icebreakers point of view - that said, xcn is very young, buggy, quite expensive already. compared to other coins it offers something new which indeed has value and potential, but I also think that bitcoin can simply clone miniblockchains once they are proven (non-technical perspective). this is the beauty of xmr, there is quite a big niche which probably will never be filled by bitcoin.

Any other opinions on cryptonite?

Let them cash out and take some stupid money. No rational-minded, objective person, - who at least minimal researches his investment decisions - will prefer BCN over XMR or BBR.
Some one who('s) knowingly invest(ing) in BCN after a self-made decision, between/out of: ...

a) No-Investing, b) Investing in other solid coin, c) Investing in other CN coin and d) invest in BCN.

... has some serious (expert) knowledge problems and should better not invest in Cryptos at all. As it will be a person, who doesnt act fact based and make his investment decisions influence by FUD, gut instinct   , "getting lucky", superstitiousness, .......

99,99% of the time, this person will lose his investment in the crypto scene anyway, be it by being scammed, investing in a P&D scheme, making other bad decisions (no risk spreading, investing in clearly dead coins, ...).


So IMHO, if someone really want's to buy BCN he should be invited, to do his donation to the CryptoNote.org/BCN-crew.
Even if these guys (in charge of the websites/domains now) act strange and weird today, they deserve some $$$$$$ for bringing this wonderful technology plattform in the spotlight. Let's hope the real developers/invetors, behind the tech are happy with the situation (CN adaption, image, distribution of $$$ made by the BCN crew, community/ecosystem dominated by BCN crew/CN.org, ...) today. Maybe, maybe not.

Still interesting to know, in what relationship these people, who manage CN.org/CN foundation/.../BCN now, have/had with the tech mind(s) behind it.

Mining the clones is just a bonus.

Most of the scam is the 82% ninja/pre-mine on BCN, which still has $4 million market cap (why?), but was much higher in May-June when it was clearly being dumped (10-50 BTC volume per day despite <10 BTC/day being mined)

I calculated that if the "crime" started from the beginning, lasted for 20 days, coins were generated at half price, hashrate was 43% of that of the rest of the network combined, and the coins were sold in the end of the period, the proceeds of the "crime" were $75k.

If the coins were sold asap, it is only $30k...

If it was a scam from CN developers, I think they expected better upside

I don't like to be zealot/aggressive against other coins, but the BCN scam stands appart, above all scam stuff that I despise.

So I cannot refrain to mention that this is one more element showing how absurd is the 2 years deepweb story.
You'd have a coin in the wild "in the deepweb" for 2 years, and none in bitcointalk would know it. I think we have many people here that have all kind of connections with all the weirdest part of the web you can imagine. You can serve that story to mainstream medias, but not to the crypto community as a whole.

Now there is more: You'd have a coin that (as the BCN devs said) is actually used as money for 2 years, which gives an incentive to its users/miners to mine it as efficiently/as much as possible. Yet for 2 years nobody would have find that the mining software was so full of crap that it could be made 5x times more efficient, by a single guy looking at the code one day.


Side note, since the self-proclaimed current CN team is serving the same lie, this is a very strong indication for me they were and are part of this scam.

If it was the bytecoin folks (or someone in collusion with them) doing it then I wouldn't call them "lucky stiffs" at all. I'd say mining the inevitable clones would have been part of the de-optimization scam from the start.

I don't have any direct evidence of that. Perhaps other people do. But I would be shocked if it didn't happen.

Brilliant post mate. One of the better posts in this entire thread and there haven't been many despite the number of pages. I have reason to believe thankful_for_today mined most of the coins in the first week. Unless he comes here and chooses to post otherwise. That's all I have to say about that. But 100% true that tacotime and smooth had no unfair advantage via miner optimizations. Keep in mind, optimized test miners were available in #monero via Noodle if you were around. But like the name says, they were "test" versions eventually pushed to github for everyone's benefit like a true honest project should be.

Christian not sharing his miner intentionally in BBR was worse than Bytecoin "minergate" or claymore fees. That just plain blows and it is not crypto. Christian, has been a disservice to BBR, but this is no reason to vilify BBR with a broad brush, unless it is used to paint XMR at the same time.


Place a sell order on Poloniex.

No - I edited my post a few seconds after posting it to explain why I disagree with this assessment.

There was a biased distribution of the initial, say, 3% of each of these coins, but it wasn't biased towards the devs -- it was biased towards some lucky stiffs who stumbled on them and had the optimization skills to capitalize on it.  Those coins hit the market, the lucky stiffs pocked a few tens or hundreds of BTC, paid Amazon a heck of a lot of money for the privilege, and life goes on.

*shrugs*  Happens.

They're surprisingly similar in terms of %age.  The gap for the de-optimized miner vs a GPU miner was larger (20x gap vs 5x gap), but as we all know, it's easier to bring more GPUs to bear on mining unless you have a botnet.  Boolberry is currently around 5% mined, and it's had a public GPU miner for several weeks.  The timeline for the un-de-optimization can be read pretty clearly from the git commit history on bitmonero:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commits/master/src/crypto/slow-hash.c

Block 1 was mined at 2014-04-18 10:49:53, and Noodle's first optimization was committed into the repository on May 7, but recall that those initial optimizations were still in the 5-10 h/s range.  The more significant one was May 21, and then the current-generation "hyper-optimized" miners came into play a week or so after that.

I think it's important to distinguish between "de-optimized" (which I'd say was the state before the May 21 commit) and "not yet optimized".  What Noodle got things to on May 21 was what a reasonable, sane person might think of as an implementation of CryptoNite.  The things that followed were architecture-specific optimizations, and we can have a separate fight about the degree to which devs should feel required to release vector-optimized code in a first release vs. letting the legions of optimizers handle it for them at the cost of some free coins.

This is around block 50,000 in the XMR blockchain.

mbk's GPU miner for Boolberry was released July 19:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7928171

This is around block 45,000 in the BBR blockchain.

That's frighteningly similar, all things considered.  I hadn't actually done that analysis before -- interesting.

I think it's worth differentiating "unfair" from "the @*ing dev cheated".  I'm not entirely sure why I feel so strongly about this, but I do -- I think it's because it destroys any trust I'd have in the developers, and when you're dealing with *money*, it's important to have a dev team you can trust -- otherwise, what else did they hide in the code that you haven't had a chance to find yet?

I'm pretty convinced that neither the XMR or Boolberry devs cheated in this way.  I'm also pretty convinced that the Bytecoin devs did:  that code was so de-optimized it was a joke, and I think that all of us who touched it concur.  But it's not the XMR team's fault that they inherited something sneaky in the code and acted to root it out.  And the BBR initial implementation was pretty well optimized -- the things that otila and wolf did on top of it take work and are beyond what "the average developer skilled in the art" (but not interesting in to-the-metal optimization) should be expected to do.

Thanks! Will do!

Heh 

It's Pure "CoinMarketCap" API feed.

However, I'm not smart enough to make it work automatically. I copy paste the values to my table daily. Mostly just an experiment!

Anyways, PM or Skype me to discuss further. I KNOW there is a site doing this already but can't find it.

Figures it would be a guy named statdude!!!

Where do you get the figures?

Mining does serve as a sort of recruiting, to bring people into the network when the network otherwise consists of basically no one other than the original developer.

Trading servies likewise to bring in investors who can't or don't want to mine.

They are not full substitutes, though. The populations are somewhat distinct (perhaps largely distinct).

Possibly a coin with highly concentrated or perhaps close to monopolized early mining can still succeed though. Litecoin and Bitcoin are possible examples of that. If anything they are worse in this respect than many of the shitcoins launched with existing PoW (especially Scrypt pre-ASIC), which probably did have more decentralized mining.

Who happens to mine these fungible coins is irrelevant.  If other people want them, they simply buy them from those who specialize in optimizing and running miners, or trading.

Cryptonite is a Very Big Deal, representing the third great innovation in cryptocash (minichains) after Bitcoin's blockchain and CryptoNote's ring signatures.  Vertcoin's private addresses come close to making the list, in a distant fourth place.  Proof-of-work may have been a candidate for fifth, but is made obsolete by minichains, so it loses to Primecoin's cool/trippy factor.

Forget those other trash coins.  All that matter right now are Bitcoin, Monero, and Cryptonite. 

(Litecoin is also valuable as a hot-swappable replacement in case Bitcoin breaks, ditto Namecoin and DNS.)

It's fascinating how Monero and Cryptonite are fundamentally incompatible and splitting Bitcoin into private Monero and public Cryptonite niches, like a speciation event!

Economically it makes perfect sense to remove Bitcoin's blockchain bloat to be more efficient for public transactions, while simultaneously putting other bloat to work by ensuring privacy for Monero.

As I finish this post CN is nearing an ATH.  Nice. 

Now just wait until all the kids realize they've been conned by their closed source and/or kludgey CLOAK/DARK/BLACK/XC FailCoins.  See ya'll on the moon...

it is getting somewhat rediculous regarding unfair launch - afaik the whole team of developers are holding together an amount of around 50k xmr; the otc started immediately; cryptonote shortly after then poloniex. I followed the project from the very beginning, maybe I am dead wrong but I do not think that there are miners who a) mined huge amount and b) hold them for the entire time.

same holds true for bbr, but in that case there was a miner with an unfair advantage, but he stated to dump anything above 10k bbr.

I realize it isn't exactly what you describe here, but I have been doing this in a way manually to track RSI (includes LTC - I had found a site that does this, damnit, but never could find it again despite days of googling!):

In that case we are talking like $500 in damages...

1. I am very much for a fair launch, unfair launch is a dealbreaker when I invest.
2. $500 is the least unfair launch in all of history.

I really don't care what point you think you're trying to make, that's a pretty misogynistic way to express it.

roy