Yes that has always been the plan.

I didn't mean it that way. You code it so that only after a sufficient number of miners are running the new code does it go into effect. As long as they upgrade, it flips over at some automatically-determined point, but if for some reason they don't, everything stays the way it is. There is no failed hard fork.

Of course we can discuss this in the community first and if there is strong opposition not do it, but I really don't see why anyone would be strongly opposed. I could be wrong though.


Kind of unavoidable. It's the golden rule. The miners are spending the money to run the network (even if in some cases they are stealing it), so in a sense they get to make the rules.  You can sort of run interference against the miners by blocking relaying in the nodes, but it doesn't really work that well except in the most extreme cases.

Selling 1000 for 0.2 btc, min 500

Not really. Everybody gets orphans so the effect is to make the difficulty lower than it would otherwise be. You get more blocks, but more of them are orphaned, so the end result is about the same. It is annoying, inefficient, and confusing, but it doesn't really affect mining output.

I mine solo and I get plenty of orphans. It's perfectly normal for a 60 second block time. It's probably a little worse with pools, because the pool layer adds more latency, but that's shouldn't be a huge factor.

This won't work in the obvious way since there is already a dynamic scaling mechanism in cryptonote for block size (and therefore transactions per block). It is probably possible to create a stable scaling mechanism that uses both dependent variables, but how to do this is not really obvious. The choice of ideal block interval is not entirely a function of transaction volume, it is also a function of latency and propagation.

In the short term the easy and relatively uncontroversial fix is to go to something 2 or 2.5 minutes. Pretty much everyone who has actually studied the problem has concluded something in that range is the smallest interval that works well today, and indeed that Satoshi's choice of 10 minute was not excessive. Including, I suspect crytponote/bytecoin, when they picked 2 minutes.

Any hard fork is effectively a poll of miners anyway, since it won't be adopted if the majority of hash power doesn't adopt it.

I can tell you are a lot of people mining solo, I'm one of them, and I have a significant number of high performance computers. I do this not only in part because the returns are better mining solo (since the pools and pool miners are not quite fully there yet) but also to help keep the coin decentralized. The more solo miners there are, the harder it is for any of the pools to become too dominant. If we are lucky there will continue to be a lot of solo miners, although other coins have struggled with this.

This has little if anything to do with orphans though. As I explained in my other post, a high rate of orphans comes with 60 second blocks. That is just too fast.

Whether using pools or not, this coin has a lot of orphaned blocks. When the original fork was done, several of us advised against 60 second blocks, but the warnings were not heeded.

I'm hopeful we can eventually make a change to more sane 2- or 2.5-minute blocks which should drastically reduce orphans, but that will require a hard fork, so not that easy.

I suggest reviewing the materials at cryptonote.org. They do a nice job of explaining what the protocol does or doesn't do. In particular anonymous is a pretty vague term and to their credit cryptonote rarely uses it, if at all. Instead they use more precise terms such as "unlinkable" and "blockchain analysis resistance." Have a look.


Yes it has a block chain and each block has a reward. I assume the block explorer is adding those up from the genesis block to the most recent block but you would have to ask the developer of the explorer to be sure.


Monero and Bytecoin are both open source. The source is available on github, linked from the first post on this thread.


Masternodes are superfluous and indeed many have pointed out that they can't really be trusted. Cryptonote does mixing in an entirely different way that does not require a trusted third party, using ring signatures. 

As for the rest, it is certainly possible to create forks. That is part of what it means to be open source. What forks are useful or become popular only time will tell.

I had some trouble withdrawing BTC once. It was some kind of temporary glitch and it cleared itself, but meanwhile I had put in a support ticket. They did get back to me and seem to genuinely trying to be helpful. At this point I wouldn't be terribly worried, but certainly cautious.

SFT I respect most of your posts even though we seldom agree, but here you've gone off the deep end. There was no 250 diff, that was testnet data on a pool web site.  The correct diff chart is here: http://monerochain.info/charts/difficulty

A week ago, when Monero not on an exchange (in fact not even any rumors of being on a major exchange soon -- poloniex was a surprise to all of us), the diff was 17 million, which is almost 3x the current BCN hash rate.

FYP

Notice the question mark at the end. Well-worn tabloid technique, and obvious attempt to pump this coin on its new exchange.

As long as it doesn't get vandalized, sure. 

Each thread/core works on its own. For example, it is fine to use multiple instances of simpleminer (a single threaded application), up to one for each hardware thread.

I don't know. We need a volunteer to maintain a mining hardware comparison, but I don't think anyone has stepped up to do it yet.

Good approach. CPU coins and GPU coins can be very complimentary.

When doing this it is usually best to reduce the priority on your CPU coin BTW (using nice or the Windows equivalent) and/or reduce threads by one or two.

^^^^^^^^^ Someone who finally gets it.

Thank you for getting it.

You are a little too caught up in the mindset of altcoin marketing wars about "unique features" and "the team" behind the latest pump and dump scam.

In fact this coin is really little more than BCN without the premine. "The team" is anyone who contributes code, which includes anyone contributing code to the BCN repository, because that will get merged as well (and vice-versa).

Focus on the technology (by all accounts amazing) and the fact that it was launched in a clean way without 80% of the total world supply of the coin getting hidden away "somewhere." That is the unique proposition here. There also happens to be a very good team behind the coin, but anyone trying too hard to market on the basis of some "special" features, team, or developer is selling you something. Hold on to your wallet.

Thank you for the kind words friend.