Try running -resync and adding the nodes listed below. Also try doing what CasualSam mentioned: sync using cryptonited and then once fully synced switch to cryptonite-qt. It'll probably sync more smoothly and faster that way.

92.234.72.146:8253
58.58.56.226:8253
47.55.147.150:8253
77.58.253.73:8253
119.81.51.10:8253

Cryptonite has a dynamic maximum block size, meaning the block capacity will increase as the transaction rate increases.

I never rejected such an idea, I just said I'm not willing to run an official pool, I'd rather leave it to the professionals. But if a pool is willing to just give us a percentage of their revenue of course we would accept it and give them "official sponsorship" in return.

On an unrelated note, I just fixed a bug with the block explorer causing recently confirmed transactions to be briefly hidden on the address details page. For anyone running MiniExplorer just update the /inc/pages/address.inc.php file with the new one on github.

Yes I believe the CoinShuffle protocol (with some slight changes) would be compatible with the mini-blockchain scheme. The only issue I see with CoinShuffle is that it requires the generation of fresh output addresses, which will bloat the account tree. CoinShuffle kind of just spits out your mixed coins into a fresh address, and if I'm not mistaken the level of anonymity achieved really depends on how many people participate in the mixing process. I don't think it's a perfect match for the mini-blockchain scheme but it may prove to be the best possible solution because I'm not sure something better exists.

Like I have said numerous times already, I simply don't have the funds necessary for a good marketing campaign, I've already spent a huge amount of money on development. Donate to the address at the bottom of the opening post if you want to help us change that. Or simply help spread the word yourself. This is a community open source project, don't expect us to do everything. We aren't a corporation trying to market a product, our focus is on innovation and development, not convincing you to buy our product. Even if I had thousands of dollars to spend on marketing I doubt it would make much difference, the altcoin scene is just so saturated right now, it's hard to tell the clone coins from the good stuff, 90% of the claims made by altcoins is exaggerated nonsense.

Having said that however, there may be some good exposure in the near future. I have recently been discussing a potential interview on the Beyond Bitcoin podcast (part of the Let's Talk Bitcoin Network). I believe that is quite a popular podcast and if I manage to get an interview it should help shine a bit more light on Cryptonite. But like I said there's only so much I can do, my personal funds are limited and my focus is not primarily on marketing. Keep in mind that community efforts can be very powerful, look how effectively all the DogeCoin fan boys spread the word of that stupid coin and some how made it popular. The world just isn't rational, society often likes stupid things but ignores things that are worth paying attention to.

What are you talking about, what is the "minority"? You can easily buy XCN on a number of different exchanges for what I believe is a very undervalued price. These miners with cheap energy are keeping the price low, so it's extremely easy to get.

Nah I wont get around to that for a while, got some other stuff I need to deal with first.

I think the wallet starts with one address, obviously it has a zero balance, but the private key for that address will be backed up when you backup your wallet. You have to generate a new address each time you need a new receiving address, and in that case you should create a new backup. This applies to any cryptocurrency, because you need the private key for an address in order to spend from that address. You can re-use the same address over and over again, especially in the mini-blockchain scheme, since each address has a corresponding balance in the account tree. We actually discourage sending coins to an address which doesn't already exist in the account tree (aka an empty address) because it increases the size of the account tree.

Too many things to worry about with running a pool, it's not a simple undertaking if done properly, and I'd rather not have to concern myself constantly with the smooth operation of pool, I've already got enough things to worry about. It's best left to the people with experience in running pools imo.

I doubt it has 90% of the hash rate just because it's at the top of a list, it's pretty hard to miss the other pools just under it. I'm guessing the real reason has more to do with the fact that 1GH is the most widely supported pool in GPU miners.

They are simply listed in the order they were created, gives a bit of incentive for new services to get in early.

I'm not a supporter of NXT, but that is a common misconception. The OP used what appears to be a list of lowercase English words. It's quite easy to build a brute forcer which cracks those types of pass phrases. You have to think about each word as if it was a single letter in an alphabet, because that's how the cracker would work, it would shift through words instead of letters. Now when you think about it that way it's easy to see why the OP's password was weak. EDIT: well actually no, it would be hard to crack, but I think it would be possible.

Nice work, link has been added to thread and website.

For anyone attempting to set this up on their own server, I just realized that the /cron/parse_txs.php script has a bug which prevents it from working correctly when called by a cron job. If you were wondering why new tx's weren't showing up on our official block explorer that is why. Should be working now though, and a fixed version of parse_txs.php has been uploaded to github.

A few interesting things worth noting about the block explorer:

Withdrawal limit update transactions are correctly displayed in the explorer. For example if you look at the transactions associated with this address you'll see that the withdrawal limit has been changed several times. When changing the withdrawal limit on an address you'll still need to pay a transaction fee (this is to help prevent DoS attacks).

The other interesting thing I wanted to point out was the genesis block. You'll notice that it contains a single transaction with no inputs and one output which sends the total coin supply to "the coinbase account" (aka CGTta3M4t3yXu8uRgkKvaWd2d8DQvDPnpL). If you take a look at the transactions associated with that address you'll notice it's a list of every block reward ever paid out to miners.

In 99% of other altcoins, the block reward is sort of "minted" when the block is solved, the coins aren't sourced from anywhere, there is no input. However, unlike all those other altcoins, Cryptonite has a concept of balances, that is what the trie.dat file is, it's a list of all non-empty addresses in the network and their balances. The inputs and outputs simply point to addresses in that balance sheet, instead of pointing to other transactions as they do in most other altcoins.

When a block is mined in Cryptonite, the block reward is actually subtracted from the balance of the coinbase account, and that is why the transaction in the genesis block sends the total coin supply to the coinbase account. The address for the coinbase account does not have a known private key because it's derived from a public key hash consisting of all 0's. But even if the private key was discovered it still couldn't be used because it's only allowed to make coinbase transactions.

Since transactions don't have inputs and outputs which link together like in other altcoins, there is no reason to store old Cryptonite transactions. ALL transactions can be forgotten after some period of time (it's a week in Cryptonite), there is no reason we'll ever need to go back and find unspent outputs, because in some sense all Cryptonite transactions instantly become "spent" after they are applied to the balance sheet / account tree.

Hmmm well I probably need to take a look at your database to see what's going on. It looks like the keys haven't been inserted into the database correctly for some reason. The script should save a backup of each private key to disk before inserting them into the database, so you might still be in luck. But if your RSA key isn't working properly for some reason then you may be out of luck. I wont really know until I can take a closer look. Send me a PM and we can discuss it further.

Lol obviously I am aware it's not manual voting.

What a ridiculously elaborate scheme. It uses voting among nodes to reach consensus, that makes it instantly flawed in my opinion. Cryptocurrency is supposed to be trustless, based on math and not votes. Also, Cryptonite already supports secure 0-conf transactions using far better approach which is more secure and less complicated. But to be fair that solution only applies to mini-blockchain coins.

Nah that guy only got 1 or 2 million if I remember correctly. I don't think he has all of it in a single address anymore.

I believe that is a Bter exchange address.