Yes both those fixes and a few other things will be included in the next release. Should be out within the week.

I was recently made aware of a fairly serious bug in the admin area which can occur when updating the SCI settings. The bug can cause the callback secret value to become invalid, so this will only affect those using the coinbase API. I will release a new version of BitShop within a few days with the patch but for now the issue can be fixed by replacing line 38 of inc/admin/settings.inc.php with the following line:

  $_POST['cbcb'] = ($_POST['cbcb'] == '******') ? $callback_secret : $_POST['cbcb'];

Let me quote what catia posted on the last page:

Qt probably wasn't working for you because you forgot the -testnet flag or didn't download the dll's.

Keep in mind you're using cryptonited, you should download cryptonite-qt if you want to use the GUI.

You need to open a command prompt and cd to your desktop folder. Then type: win64_cryptonited_14072614.exe -testnet

I believe it will start at about 243 XCN per block.

1.84 billion is perfectly fine, there is nothing "unstable" about it. We've done all we can to make people happy, the specs are now absolutely final and wont be changing. So lets move on to discussing other issues please.

lazycoins.com has contacted us about adding Cryptonite onto their exchange. Hopefully that'll be setup shortly after release.

Yes well I wouldn't have risked changing the specs this close to release if we weren't basically just reverting back to what we originally announced. Changing the position of the decimal place isn't actually a change to the protocol, all the numbers are stored as integers internally, so representing them as floats isn't even really necessary. Catia said if it were up to him we'd display no decimal place at all, lmao.

Yes I don't think many of the arguments are very solid, and honestly I'd rather if we could focus on more important aspects of the coin, but some of the arguments made are semi-valid and many people are expressing the same opinion, so that is ultimately why we have decided to revise the specs for a 2nd and final time. I think this latest solution will make most people happy, and if doesn't, then I don't know what will. In any case it isn't going to change again, we've flip flopped on it enough.

PLEASE READ:

Ok folks, it has become highly apparent to us that stretching out the mining period as a solution to the huge coin supply issue is not very satisfying for all parties. As a result of the concerns raised we are revising the specs one last time in an effort to please all parties. First of all we are reverting the half life of the block reward back to 10 years like it was it was originally, so that investors don't feel so worried about the long term inflation. Then to appease those people who don't like seeing huge unsightly numbers, we have shifted the decimal 2 places to the left, meaning there will be a total of 1.84 billion XCN, each with 10 decimal places of divisibility instead of 8. We didn't want to scrap the 64 bits of divisibility because we kind of tout that as a feature of the coin, and shifting the decimal place didn't require us to break the current protocol (although reverting back to a 10 year half life did). And before anyone says "but 10 decimal places is unseemly", the numbers can always be rounded down to something more presentable if necessary, and coins such as Monero already use 12 decimal places for each coin.

The only reason it couldn't is because we'll probably have much better cryptocurrencies in 100 years. But as I mentioned before, mining cryptocurrency doesn't necessarily devalue the rest of the coins, because it costs a lot of money to mine the coins, unlike normal inflation. In a purely logical world the value of XCN would be no less than the cost of the electricity used to generate them, which is perfectly fine in my book. All that really matters is that the inflation doesn't cause the value of the coin to drop, and it doesn't if the coins are expensive to mine.

And furthermore, I think having such a long mining period ensures that future miners are getting rewarded well, because the difficulty tends to grow, where as the block reward tends to drop, and that creates an upward pressure on the market which causes the price to increase. But when too many people try to mine, it becomes too hard and not profitable enough, so many miners stop mining. So based on that logic, by having a longer mining period, we also maintain a higher network hash rate for a longer period of time because more miners can participate.

It's not linear, it's exponential decay.

Ok so let me be blunt. The bottom line is people want to be able to invest and profit because they can see the potential of this coin, but we're not offering many ways to do that. After some discussion we've decided that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it has some potential benifits. Whenever somebody profits it just takes money out of the coin. If you limit opportunities to dump it then it can have value based on it's utility. If people have less reason to hold then it promotes spending and commerce. We have decided that our approach is the most logical if we want to create a transaction tool and not an investment tool.

But having said that, I honestly think a slowly decreasing block reward wont keep it from increasing in price if people find it useful enough. Many altcoins have proven that the value of a coin can rise and fall very independently from the level of inflation. What really causes the price of a coin to shift is popularity, the level of demand will really determine the value, especially if the level of demand greatly outmatches the level of inflation. Now I know not everyone is happy with this decision, and I'm betting the first clone of Cryptonite will be one with a smaller coin supply and faster distribution rate, and that's fine with us.

If we didn't want people making variants of Cryptonite then we wouldn't release the source. If another variant of Cryptonite turns out to be more popular than the original Cryptonite then so be it, but I'm not convinced they will be more popular unless they can offer something new. What I would really like to see is some sort of good anonymity/mixing scheme which is compatible with the mini-blockchain scheme, I'm sure that would be really popular because many anonymity schemes dramatically bloat the blockchain but with the mini-blockchain scheme the old transactions can be forgotten and it becomes much more manageable.

The Bitcoin block reward has remained at 25 BTC for more than two years, and will not drop until 2017. It started at 50 but during that time not many people knew about it, by the time Bitcoin really got noticed the block reward was already at 25. It seems to me bitcoin has done a fine job of increasing in price even though the block reward hasn't changed for a long time. At least with Cryptonite the block reward slowly drops with every block instead of doing it suddenly after a long period of time and upsetting the established ecosystem of the network. Even if I'm wrong we're a bit past the stage where we can make such a change to the protocol, we're set to launch in about 3 days and the specs have already been revised once.

If you don't like looking at large numbers then you can always use a different notation. Having 1 BTC be worth more than $600 isn't practical either, but we deal with it by representing our bitcoin values in millibits or something similar. You're basically dismissing a whole coin based on an aesthetic argument. And once again I must point out it doesn't halve after 100 years, it slowly drops every block, taking 100 years to drop to half of what it started as.

Plenty of coins have much longer halving times and they are doing just fine. In fact some coins even have infinite inflation and they are doing ok too. If the value of vertcoin has dropped that much recently, it indicates a much larger problem than the block reward. You do realize that many other factors play a role in how the value of a coin is determined? I would even bet that the all-time-high was a pump phenomena and it's simply back to where it wants to be.

Your argument makes no sense, if we're not using it in 100 years then it doesn't really matter either way does it.

There will only be a mammoth huge amount of coins after a mammoth huge amount of time, and by the time all the coins have been mined, the vast majority of them will be lost because the people who owned them are long dead. It seems to me what people really have a problem with is that we're not dropping the block reward fast enough, but I think the graph posted by aaaxn shows a very reasonable level of inflation over a fair period of time.

May I refer you back to this post:

Well it's important to remember that normal inflation is a lot cheaper than cryptocurrency inflation. In order to create new cryptocurrency one must expend electrical energy, which is not the case for typical fiat currencies. The coin distribution mechanism is not going to change any further, we've already modified it to please as many people as possible and to be as fair as possible. Most aspects of Cryptonite are designed from a long-term perspective, and a super long mining period fits that philosphy.

Unfortunately not everyone can be pleased, but that's why we're releasing the source code, so people can change things to their liking. In fact I wouldn't mind seeing a variant of Cryptonite where the coins are super rare, but that's just not what we're aiming for with Cryptonite. This is going to be the first implementation of the mini-blockchain scheme so I want to focus on long term feasability and fairness, while still trying to please as many people as possible. It's not easy but we've done the best we can.

I highly doubt that has anything to do with why the value of vertcoin is plummeting, 2 years is a rather short half life. It is not our goal to have a short mining period and then make all the early adopters rich because it becomes so hard to mine later on, that is a pump and dump in my books. And this way we can perhaps please those people who want infinite inflation, without actually having infinite inflation. And let me also be clear about one thing, the block reward will not halve after 100 years. The block reward drops slightly with every new block, and it will take 100 years before it has dropped enough that the block reward is half of what it started as.