Yeah I thought the interview went quite well. There are a few interesting bits cut out of the published version but overall I think Arthur did a good job of editing and cutting out the irrelevant parts. I should also amend one incorrect comment I made near the end of the discussion. I said the maximum transaction rate for bitcoin is 7 tx's per block which is obviously too low, it's 7 tx's per second.

Micro-transactions are fine in most cases but unlike Bitcoin we tend to discourage arbitrary creation of new addresses, which is why it's harder to send micro-transactions to addresses which don't already exist in the account tree. When we get millions of non-empty addresses the account tree may grow to a few gigabytes in size, but we're talking possibly decades or more before we actually hit the 1GB mark. The trie structure used should be perfectly capable of handling such large numbers.

I'd need to know how many non-empty bitcoin addresses exist, which isn't exactly an easy task. I did these calculations a while ago but I'd have to go back and find it. I believe there are 3844 non-empty addresses in the Cryptonite network right now and the trie is currently about 150kB.

@kalon: catia made a comment on that issue a few pages back:

Current block reward is about 239.46 XCN. At 1 block per minute that's about 345k XCN per day (239.46×60×24).

@joelao95: sorry I've been busy working on some other jobs, but I did just finish creating a basic APi for the block explorer. The changes have been committed to the github repo and I'll update our official block explorer shortly. Next job is to keep track of pruned blocks and add some useful charts to the block explorer. Then after that I'll bring my attention back to the web wallet. Meanwhile catia should be working on optimizing slice sharing and then move onto bug fixing. Another important feature we still need to add at some point is the prune/purge command which will let users delete old blocks from disk without having to resync or restart the client.

The Beyond Bitcoin discussion on Cryptonite was recorded today, it should be published some time next week.

Keep an eye on: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/category/beyond-bitcoin

Awesome, I have added your shop link to our list of services. It would be really cool if a service like CoinPayments.net could accept XCN because that would help other shops easily accept it too.

Yes that's the contract idea I briefly mentioned. Some people think contracts may be necessary to create truly secure 0-conf transactions but I personally think the best approach is just to make sure that pools always give older tx's a higher priority, especially when dealing with a bunch of tx's which use the same input address, and discourage people from using pools which don't follow those rules. Most people tend to use a vanilla daemon anyway so if we can make the protocol rules good enough regarding the priority of older tx's then I believe we wont even need to use contracts.

Yes that should be a fairly easy task. We could also implement a SPV client similar to the MultiBit client so it wouldn't have to rely on a 3rd party server like Electrum. Since new nodes only need to download the last 10k blocks to sync with the network I don't see much need for a SPV client, but for those people who don't want to wait any length of time downloading the blockchain it could be a good option. Of course the node would still need to download the header chain and possibly the account tree, but that should take only a few minutes The account tree can be verified simply by comparing its master hash against the master hash in the block headers. If SPV nodes have a copy of the account tree they will even be able to check the balance of any address in the network.

I think you're misunderstanding what I meant. We could package up the rpc web wallet and distribute it as a binary, with the goal being to replace qt with our own rpc based wallet because it would be easier to manage and it would be much less prone to bugs. The qt wallet isn't just a simple rpc wallet and it's hard to make it sync and run smoothly because the synchronization process is so different from Bitcoin. Anyone running cryptonited instead of qt will notice that it's extremely stable, especially on Linux systems. We've had nodes running since launch without a hitch.

But ultimately I do agree with you, I would prefer to keep Qt and just fix those bugs because it has certain features I may not be able to properly replicate in a web wallet and it's nice to have a variety of wallet options available.

This is a post catia made a few pages back:

Looks about right. More specific details about point 1 and 2:

WEB WALLET:

* create variant of wallet with client side encryption
* deal with tx fees in case of insufficient balance
* add more extensive multi-sig transaction tools

BLOCK EXPLORER:

* add public API to block explorer
* display list of pruned blocks
* add some charts

Yes I agree, we could use more frequent updates. We just haven't done much on the core code lately, my focus has been on the web wallet and block explorer. Optimized "slice sharing" will be the next update and then after that I want to focus on fixing important bugs, especially that wallet corruption issue which seems to affect the Qt wallet on Windows machines. Catia thinks we should completely scrap Qt in favor of a web based rpc wallet but I'm not sure that's a good idea because that approach comes with its own set of problems. In any case it'll be a while before we start focusing on anonymity.

Yes I completely agree, although I'm uncertain why the price just started to fall, considering I just announced I'll be doing a Beyond Bitcoin interview and creating a booth at an upcoming virtual cryptocurrency conference. People are constantly saying we need more promotion and coverage, and as soon as I do something about it the price falls. So much for good news having a positive affect on the price.

As I mentioned a page or two ago, the CoinShuffle protocol is compatible with the MBC Scheme, and at some point we will start focusing on anonymity features, but it's not a high priority for us right now. The anonymity scheme proposed by the supernet people just wasn't convincing to me and many other people felt the same way, so I'd rather play it safe until they have proven the supernet can work as they claim.

Well it's not that hard to understand really if you understand how withdrawal limits work. The basic idea is that when a transaction comes from an address which has a withdrawal limit preventing the address from being quickly emptied, then a merchant can have much more confidence in any transactions received from that address since the merchant knows how many blocks they have before the customers address can be emptied out. As long as the merchant can get the transaction they received from the customer into a block before that amount of time, the merchant is guaranteed to get paid.

The one issue with the idea is that an attacker may be able to prevent the merchant from getting their transaction into a block by flooding the network with high-fee transactions which may get priority status from miners. The general approach for solving this problem is to make sure that older transactions always get priority over new transactions, although I'm unsure exactly how well it's implemented in Cryptonite and how well it will work in practice because I haven't done a whole lot of testing with withdrawal limits. Another approach recently suggested involves contracts between merchants and pools, but I forget the details.

I decided to create a new video explaining the MBC Scheme, it should be clearer and easier to understand than the last video.

Overview of the Mini-blockchain Scheme

That's because starting a currency code with an X is the ISO standard for a currency which is global/nationless.

I was offered a spot to speak at the upcoming virtual conference, but there's nothing I can say which isn't already explained in the wiki and the video I uploaded earlier. I'd rather have a real time conversation about the mini-blockchain scheme, which is what I plan to do on Beyond Bitcoin. I will create a virtual booth but I doubt I will speak, I'd rather do the speaking on Beyond Bitcoin.

Looks like the Beyond Bitcoin interview will be happening. I also plan to create a "virtual booth" in an upcoming virtual cryptocurrency conference. Hopefully these two events should do quite a bit to help boost the awareness of Cryptonite. This is really the type of exposure we need, not paid advertisements which everyone ignores.

@psychofractor: try the same thing I told hamer-xx to do.