|
Last time I checked (and this may have changed), ZeroCash depends on a trusted party to generate a master key, which is utterly stupid and defeats the entire purpose of an anonymous currency.
|
|
|
|
Regarding Bitmonero, I wouldn't consider Bitcoin style distribution to be "good economics." We've learned a lot in 5 years and should definitely be doing things differently to improve adoption and increase trade. Also, most coins (including BTC) have characteristics that favor treating them as investments rather than as a medium of exchange.
Do we need another fork? Absolutely. We need a coin that will be just as accessible in 50 years as it will be the day it launches. I don't think we've seen that yet, and even if we have, there's nothing wrong with letting the market decide what characteristics it wants in a currency. The more forks, the better. Let the cream rise to the top.
This is actually interesting. Do you mean a non-decreasing block reward? Or significant perpetual inflation of some other sort? That is exactly what I mean. Wow. I thought I was being vague. You either took a random stab in the dark or you see the fundamental flaw of almost every cryptocurrency out there. A fixed money supply with a decreasing block reward is destined to fail. You can't have proof of work with infinite work and only finite proof. What happens when the proof runs out? Miners won't work for free, and transaction fees won't cut it by themselves. New work must yield new proof. There are room for all kinds, as he said. That I agree with. I also agree with you that BTC's investment model is part of its success, and it should be self evident that its success far eclipses all others. Is that solely first-mover advantage or does it have something to do with the economics? I don't know. Let the best coin win. Every coin that dies makes the survivors stronger. In fact you can argue that's the only thing that makes them strong. We'll see how it works out.
I think the popularity growth of said coins has more to do with a lack of understanding of the economics than the long term implications of them. A decentralized, trustless system of exchange sounds great. A fixed money supply that absolutely cannot inflate sounds great... but it's not sustainable, and it definitely won't remain decentralized. Everyone argues about how coins should be distributed at the beginning (BCN has been out for 2 years and noone knew? How unfair.) We should be much more concerned with how a coin will be distributed 20 or 30 years from now. Here's a hint: if the difficulty is high and the block reward is low, then the currency is in deep shit. Unfortunately, the type of coin that sees success in the exchanges is not the type of coin that will succeed long-term as a currency. We also can't count on the masses to know what is good for them. The masses will always believe in simple logic and only follow what's popular or trending. They will never engage in the critical thinking required to truly understand how these systems work. This is why I believe we have a responsibility to know our domain inside and out... because the coins we choose to embrace will be the ones they eventually adopt. |
|
|
|
I'm working on a BCN fork that will simplify and polish the coin's usage to better prepare it for long term use as an exchange medium. Don't expect anything revolutionary in terms of the tech, just a major improvement to the distribution method and miner payouts. Of course, no pre-mine or taxes or IPO. Also, it will launch with an easy GUI miner and wallet, and it will have a name that people can take seriously. Two people are working on it, but we'd like one more dev on board, so if anyone is interested, PM me.
Is is really wise to create Yet Another Fork? Bitmonero had a clean launch and has decent economics. True it didn't launch with a GUI but the reward schedule on it is so slow there is really no harm in releasing those soon. Less than 0.1% of the coin has been mined; it's essentially still in launch phase. There are a few things I would tweak but its okay and not worth another fork. There are a few of us talking about renaming it and improving the marketing a bit without making any other changes. That has a better chance to overcome BCN's lead than throwing a million new forks out there (Honey Boo Boo coin, etc.). Regarding Bitmonero, I wouldn't consider Bitcoin style distribution to be "good economics." We've learned a lot in 5 years and should definitely be doing things differently to improve adoption and increase trade. Also, most coins (including BTC) have characteristics that favor treating them as investments rather than as a medium of exchange. Do we need another fork? Absolutely. We need a coin that will be just as accessible in 50 years as it will be the day it launches. I don't think we've seen that yet, and even if we have, there's nothing wrong with letting the market decide what characteristics it wants in a currency. The more forks, the better. Let the cream rise to the top. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not saying BCN is perfect. It's a great proof of concept for annonymous txs but I think big improvements can be made in terms of the economics.
I'm working on a BCN fork that will simplify and polish the coin's usage to better prepare it for long term use as an exchange medium. Don't expect anything revolutionary in terms of the tech, just a major improvement to the distribution method and miner payouts. Of course, no pre-mine or taxes or IPO. Also, it will launch with an easy GUI miner and wallet, and it will have a name that people can take seriously. Two people are working on it, but we'd like one more dev on board, so if anyone is interested, PM me.
|
|
|
|
Any CPU only coin is useless. Just a get rich quick scheme for botnet owners controlling 50,000 computers. Either the algorithm has to be changed, or it has to go myriadcoin style somehow.
I mined BMR on day 2 and got 0. God forbid someone tries to CPU mine it a month from now. Coin is dead in the water until it's not CPU only.
Do you think Bitcoin has good wealth distribution? Do you think it's a good thing that all newly minted coins are immediately distributed to the wealthy folks who own ASIC farms? Can you explain the economic theory that makes your statements even remotely believable? "OMG botnets" seems to be the only argument anyone can ever devise against CPU-only coins, and frankly, it's tiring. |
|
|
|
|
Ultimately the point I was trying to get across was that we should give a coin the best name possible, regardless of what TLDs are available.
|
|
|
|
We are already contacted BCN developers. So basically, BCN will never be traded on comkort. |
|
|
|
The problem with all these variants is the issue of hijacking and confusion. If you don't own the main names, someone else does, and that's a problem.
I agree it makes no sense to discuss the new name on a public forum, but if there is agreement on moving forward with a new name then it should be discussed in private among those interested in helping to choose one.
Again, using any ICANN sanctioned domain is pointless because the domain can be seized and the coin can be maliciously forked. Do you know any non-ICANN sanctionned domain name that the general public can have access to? The bigger question is, what is the best way to distribute binaries that would safeguard against malicious takeovers? At this point I don't really have an answer that would be scalable. But I do think we need to get out of the habit of hosting binaries on dot org sites, especially when it pertains to privacy focused cryptos. |
|
|
|
The problem with all these variants is the issue of hijacking and confusion. If you don't own the main names, someone else does, and that's a problem.
I agree it makes no sense to discuss the new name on a public forum, but if there is agreement on moving forward with a new name then it should be discussed in private among those interested in helping to choose one.
Again, using any ICANN sanctioned domain is pointless because the domain can be seized and the coin can be maliciously forked. |
|
|
|
There may be no pre-mine, but not a single step was taken to make this coin any more accessible than BCN. An easy GUI miner is super critical for early adoption, as is a cross-platform wallet that can be used out of the box. So now the only miners are the same few people willing to fuss around in the command line. Next week I will start my own fork of Bytecoin - another coin based on CryptoNote technology. It will be started from scratch (from block zero). I will write an anouncement today ot [ANN] subforum. Emission schedule will be more flat and block target will be reduced to 60 sec.
If we're going to create a bcn derivative, I think we need to have a serious community discussion about possible changes and improvements in the next iteration. The only community discussion this coin saw (regarding the reduced block time) the developer ignored outright. It was made pretty clear that moving to 60 second blocks was not the best approach and had zero long-term benefit. ... It's a valid point that shorter block times will increase a solo miner's chances of finding a block, but even with a cpu-only coin it's only a matter of time before pooling becomes a necessity. At that point the shorter block time yields no benefit to the miners, but you're still left with the additional orphan blocks and wasted work.
I'm also baffled as to why the developer was in such a hurry to get this coin out the door. I suppose he was trying to capitalize on BCN's trending popularity, but unfortunately the big picture was lost. I thought the reason for this fork was that BCN had already been 80% mined, and that we could start fresh and make the coin more accessible to everyone from the beginning, while making improvements to BCN that its devs may not have forseen 2 years ago. If that wasn't the reason for this fork, then my post should be disregarded. |
|
|
|
But we got all puzzles and info about bytecoin from bytecoin.org. Even the last message. So it hard to believe that bytecoin.org does not belongs to Community.
This is what I believe to be the single greatest vulnerability to all cryptocurrencies. Any coin can be effectively destroyed by an individual who manages to get get control of an official domain and fork the blockchain. The implications are scary. As long as binaries are hosted on ICANN sanctioned domains, no cryptocurrency is safe from takeover. |
|
|
|
|
The idea of BCN being 80% pre-mined is a bit hasty. Just because the developers didn't want to stir up attention and make an announcement on the largest cryptocurrency forum on the net doesn't mean it's pre-mined. It just means you were late.
That said, I am interested in knowing the rationale behind BCN's unusually fast minting process.
|
|
|
|
|
When I started mining a few weeks ago I was averaging about 100k/day (4.5 H/s). Right now I'm getting around 35k/day.
|
|
|
|
|
c 2e7d2c03a9507ae265ecf5b5356885a53393a2029d241394997265a1a25aefc6
e 96405086c84eeee31fb6d2df699bc36a0a74f6bcd604c8c6f4c2a6ac894f1218
n 7b8b965ad4bca0e41ab51de7b31363a1
t b5d2099e49bdb07b8176dff5e23b3c14
o 07e17b52d3e62985c512482c683d10ddb544910aabcd4472e953db4f1a7e48662ddb4751c7e0bb9 8fe5e0b7f75439e28d474d57c1359060d2322e08f9f8d3c12
s 62f0dfda58e1d1d608e8456643a8acf8e3a3fe87af028e4e
o 0f0f9344
r 44762ecccb285040aa94ecdc84320efa4d031683bff3eadf068dcd4e
g 874ad08ad072fd0c0481e5e9d9373abaf86c99ec2d635f32c83064273f2d267c91afd7c7a8e3f4a e
w e5c4ef5f6cfaa10ac3410dc4fac9a95f4a338ed0805220e2583022f704f9c056
y 80bfa2589f3219c0ec0846a52404b53c6d97d243290d337b1a919d22a3f83580
w aa66509891ad28030349ba9581e8c92528faab6a34349061a44b6f8fcd8d6877a67b05508983f12 f8610302d1783401a07ec41c7e9ebd656de34ec60d84d9511
l 638065faf5d4de3b7d0fe29b011a835882bdd15f59150ac9b9a94a27718b0fdc
f 76d32be0
? 9b6ad4fc35fff4044212f2df098b4ef2
p 13af8f6829ce11f6ac7f253414e8da63566d1574c702d3fc4008cf270547831a
p aaeef6e6670af3df5fe9db64188f1906c3ae67a45e1b753d
e 8d182905e535537a32cc0c475403d1fe78ee541a40d61e0b306d7541ed8dbb63d550dab383d0fca 0e23448af99bffe10
y 95cb0bfd2977c761298d9624e4b4d4c72a39974a
o 613b1d25
u bc0fa59409d92e77348b4356ea51742c
? b5fd6c7b3a613b289daeeda6d9d0c158
b e9d71f5ee7c92d6dc9e92ffdad17b8bd49418f98
c b4c0b67ea493b58d47d74e4487efa9d6
n 99c4b4d5444c9d4cfdd5f450f2da4e141b40879d46ed1cf2a6fa7e4b898ee70b5b6f8b3ddca07e7 56f0002bedbd72b14e0c0bea5cf67fc1635fa89f11e59200e
a f9333e45d857f5d90a91bab70a1eba0cfb1be4b0783c9acfcd883a9134692925
d 06c9f71496e24dec6acc44895648cf9ec40b5cebb7bc4858a3c69f25
d 00650065
r 015f6180d05a9bb472a3f2e9093732c4514e61f6
e 3fee557f60ed498c711f92d81204b575
s 9dcde2a89f9afd1a7c9024ace9a075df13c584f1
s 229ea20d2bf86760822b890608a8f455
The two hashes in question are:
9b6ad4fc35fff4044212f2df098b4ef2
b5fd6c7b3a613b289daeeda6d9d0c158
The second one I guessed was 'r' but I wasn't able to find it in any hash tables.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. "centosorgwywlfpppeyourbcnaddress" was exactly the answer I got yesterday. I even found a user on centos.org named wywfl that I private messaged my bcn address to. So far no "prize". Haha
|
|
|
|
|
I figured out all but 2 parts, but I'm sure it'll take significant digging to get the rest.
|
|
|
|
... ASIC-resistant part of the "CryptoNight" is what bothers me the most  What bothers you about it? |
|
|
|
What do we need for the start:
1) Block explorer
2) Graphic wallet (similar to Bitcoin-QT).
Anything else?
An easy GUI miner. I personally think this is more important than the first 2. |
|
|
|
About the mining; you know you can use the deamon to mine to another wallet? bytecoind --start-mining address, this way you can setup a personal pool (if you have enough resources like cloud mining etc)
I'm a little confused about this. How do you specify the number of threads? If I say 'threads=4' after the address, show_hr gives me a hashrate like there is only one thread running. Just the number after the address, like this: start_mining akjduIUSBIbiasijadiUAHBd 4 Will begin mining with 4 threads |
|
|
|
It also influences the chance to get block in solomining: with the same total hashrate it's twice easier to find block with 60 sec block target than with 120 secs. Solo mining gives decentralization. This way faster blocks lead to more decentralized network in the beginning.
From another point of view faster block are smaller (less transactions per block). Small blocks are easier to propagate through network.
You raise an interesting question. I've seen the argument that faster block times increase centralization because of orphans. But it is true that the blocks will be smaller so the correct comparison is orphans with twice the block time and double the block size (plus header) versus half the block time and half the block size (plus header). I don't think I've seen that comparison. Also, any coin that is successful wont be feasible to solo mine eventually. The orphan effect has to dominate. I agree. It's a valid point that shorter block times will increase a solo miner's chances of finding a block, but even with a cpu-only coin it's only a matter of time before pooling becomes a necessity. At that point the shorter block time yields no benefit to the miners, but you're still left with the additional orphan blocks and wasted work. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
