I'm making a new snapshot and will post it ASAP. Here it is: https://mega.nz/#!UNZD1Ywa!eKKwKjgEN7vFTi8B32G2M13qkl282ZbmNswiGMHeoKM |
|
|
|
It is not only BCCT. It is supposed to be all chinese exchanges.
But they are not shutting down for international customers. We'll see what happens. The news was a ban on ICO's (initial coin offerings). The exchanges will probobly be regulated like in the US. viabtc is closing as well, and more will come. of those that announced their closing, none of the two is keeping open for international customers. with this move, the chinese are loosing opportunities that other countries will get, so good for us in the long run. |
|
|
|
I'm making a new snapshot and will post it ASAP. |
|
|
|
Why does poloniex not give xcn output? Wrote them in support many times, in response to silence. Can anyone know what's the matter?
I and many other users bogged poloniex about this for months. I once thought it was a good exchange, but let's keep it friendly as we might manage to get into there again in the future. |
|
|
|
|
I got a proposal to compile the wallet for Linux and Raspberry Pi in exchange for a reward.
I'm not sure it is useful now, nor what kind of reward that could be worth, but I wanted to let you know nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
how's your cryptonite.conf? |
|
|
|
That's an interesting thought. Nodes could test each other for availability and send each other certificates asserting a certain uptime which then could be used as a foundation for POS minting.
That way, the more certificates a node collects, the higher the chance for minting.
That approach would not only reward uptime but also connectivity, e.g. the more connections to other nodes a node has, the more certificates it receives per time.
And if the certificates have some kind of points system, the ping time between the nodes could be used as a bonus multiplier. The lower the ping times, the more points each node gets from the others.
Interesting idea, but we must ensure everyone is incentivized; for example, why would a node send certificate to other nodes? they would, for example, need to benefit from it, at least in part. And it must be possible for all the other nodes to check it some way, or there is no consensus and one could send certificates back and forth between his nodes. Yes, agree. One incentive for sending the certificates is that the node wants the others to also send certificates back. If A sends a cert to B and B doesn't send one to A, a surely wouldn't send another one to B in the next round -> incentive for B. The part about all the other nodes to check it is where I don't know enough about current POS systems and how they work. In normal POS, other nodes also must get a consensus about how much stake a node has accumulated and the resulting odds for minting. I think the same mechanism applies here. Problem is that ping and uptime measurement may differ from node to node, difficult to have consensus on those. I don't think that's a problem. Let's assume we want to establish the total amount of points for node A. So node A gets a certificate form B. The connection between A and B is pretty good. Low ping. And the uptime of A is really long. So B is going to send back a certificate containing a lot of points. Node C has just come online and has a bad connection. It pings A, slow, and can only assert an uptime for A that is equal to C's own uptime. So it's going to send a certificate with only very few points. Both certificates are signed by the senders so that other nodes can easily confirm the validity using publicly known public keys (I'm thinking of a system similar to PGP/GPG where people can sign messages using their private key and others can easily confirm the signatures using the signee's publicly known key). That way, in the end, every node would collect a number of certificates per round from its neighbours and therefore have a total sum of points and every other node could request the total number of points and confirm the validity by confirming each certificate's signature. Would that make sense? the other nodes will need to verify the ping and uptime values, not just the signature of the certificate. otherwise one could put up two nodes, then send valid certificates with random ping and uptime values between themselves. |
|
|
|
That's an interesting thought. Nodes could test each other for availability and send each other certificates asserting a certain uptime which then could be used as a foundation for POS minting.
That way, the more certificates a node collects, the higher the chance for minting.
That approach would not only reward uptime but also connectivity, e.g. the more connections to other nodes a node has, the more certificates it receives per time.
And if the certificates have some kind of points system, the ping time between the nodes could be used as a bonus multiplier. The lower the ping times, the more points each node gets from the others.
Interesting idea, but we must ensure everyone is incentivized; for example, why would a node send certificate to other nodes? they would, for example, need to benefit from it, at least in part. And it must be possible for all the other nodes to check it some way, or there is no consensus and one could send certificates back and forth between his nodes. Yes, agree. One incentive for sending the certificates is that the node wants the others to also send certificates back. If A sends a cert to B and B doesn't send one to A, a surely wouldn't send another one to B in the next round -> incentive for B. The part about all the other nodes to check it is where I don't know enough about current POS systems and how they work. In normal POS, other nodes also must get a consensus about how much stake a node has accumulated and the resulting odds for minting. I think the same mechanism applies here. Problem is that ping and uptime measurement may differ from node to node, difficult to have consensus on those. |
|
|
|
Apparently, btc38 claims that you (Pallas) "haven't responded": Hello, because the amount of blocks and algorithm is wrong, however XCN officials didn't respond, we are not sure, so temporary not restore deposits/withdrawals, if there is any inconvenient for you, please you understanding, thank you for your support, I wish you a happy life. I'm working with bitfreak to clear all their doubts, maybe they want me to say hi every day :-) |
|
|
|
That's an interesting thought. Nodes could test each other for availability and send each other certificates asserting a certain uptime which then could be used as a foundation for POS minting.
That way, the more certificates a node collects, the higher the chance for minting.
That approach would not only reward uptime but also connectivity, e.g. the more connections to other nodes a node has, the more certificates it receives per time.
And if the certificates have some kind of points system, the ping time between the nodes could be used as a bonus multiplier. The lower the ping times, the more points each node gets from the others.
Interesting idea, but we must ensure everyone is incentivized; for example, why would a node send certificate to other nodes? they would, for example, need to benefit from it, at least in part. And it must be possible for all the other nodes to check it some way, or there is no consensus and one could send certificates back and forth between his nodes. |
|
|
|
I've been trading XCN, I like XCN but I can't mine XCN, for two reasons:
1. Your pools are too small you need a pool on minergate or somewhere to attract attention for it to be worth mining the last time I tried to mine it I made such a small amount that I never bothered to even cash it in.
2. Your wallets are not very intuitive, a wallet like jaxx or alternative sourced wallets that do not require P2P or torrent style distribution where the number of online users determine the distribution is a key factor and to find a simple place to pick up a miner for AMD cards NVidia cards and a miner that will mine a chunk of CPU power across all cores but not jam a single core to 100% or all cores to 100% is hard to find. These are things that minergate has already addressed and dealt with.
The fact is if you want to reach a greater audience you have to make these things idiot proof and worth it, otherwise nobody will bother. These are the greatest factors of anything that is successful anything that takes too long or is too complex and non flexible to accomidate different hardware and uses is not worth the time and as we know time is precious.
These are facts of life.
I like XCN I have traded a lot of it and find it one of the best alt coins to trade but it needs more spread across different exchanges.
I don't like new alt coins because they are the subject to pump and dumps early on in their launches which see the developers profit then cease to care about their creation once they have extracted their wealth from it. Which is why I stay well clear of new alt coin derrivatives plus I do not deem most of these coins, alt coins, but perscoins (personal coins), made with the sole intention of pumping, dumping and running.
There are bounties for both amd miner and android wallet. Thing is it's not trivial because XCN is not the usual copy paste coin, it contains some advanced tech, unique to cryptonite, that must at least in part be dealt with when writing a miner and an alternative wallet. There once was an amd miner but it doesn't work with current pools or solo and is closed source (Claymore's). Having said that, I agree with you. |
|
|
|
|
Different algorithm, (much) different hashrate.
Same card, 1Gh/s on one algo and 500Kh/s on another.
|
|
|
|
I have a question about the parameter "-s 1" (--scantime=1):
I use actual 2.2.1-version for solomining with the wallet. Because of the lack of stratum in local wallets,
i noted with default setting (scantime 10) i "lost" often many seconds after a new block can be mined.
On ethereum i have the "--farm-recheck 200" function, which polls very fast the wallets, but
in case of ccminer i see on the continous flowing stats, that by using a scantime of 1 second
the avg. hashrate is only 700-900 kbit instead of 20 MHs / card ??
Now my question is: Is this only a "optical problem" by no longer showing the correct avg. hashrate,
or is the mining really restarting in 1 second steps (which make the scantime=1 function totaly useless...) ?
When itīs possible, i think it can make sense, that an parameter like --farm-recheck <msec>
can be added to the actual developement version. Reducing the polling to a minimum of 100 - 200 msec,
instead smallest with 1 second right now, can help a lot to get "new work" really quicker and rise
the chance for solo mining blockfinding - because user has a little more calculation time left ?
lower scantime values will not interrupt gpu work: it is checked when work is normally returned from the kernels. probably the wallet is taking some time to return from the getwork() call, leading to lost hashrate. try higher values of -s, I usually prefer 2 or 3, also depending on coin blocktime. |
|
|
|
|
I agree with most of the things that you said, but I don't think that a giveaway will attract a lot of miners. Most of the people that you are going to reach on Facebook (or twitter) are crypto enthusiasts of various kinds. Miners come from other sources (this forum, whattomine, suprnova homepage, etc.) and I don't think we need to go after them.
|
|
|
|
its sad to see the coin vanishing again after latest cameback and fixes
Vanishing? It is healthy and you will see the price going up again soon ;-) Meanwhile, everyone can promote the coin. I will setup the new giveaway ASAP. you are cool, pallas, but i think you cant do everything on your own. latest fixes to wallet were great, kudos to the team. i can only help with a spanish translation if needed. That's true, I can't do it all, but everybody can help by spreading the word: post about xcn on your social profiles, tell friends, speak to the public :-) |
|
|
|
its sad to see the coin vanishing again after latest cameback and fixes
Vanishing? It is healthy and you will see the price going up again soon ;-) Meanwhile, everyone can promote the coin. I will setup the new giveaway ASAP. |
|
|
|
Give it up with cudaminer, it's over 3 years out of date. The only algos it supports are either dead or taken
over by ASICs. The code won't compile with new tools and won't run on new hardware when compiled with
old tools.
Use one of the many forks of ccminer that are actively developped.
... not actually helpful. I'm using an NVIDIA GPU, and I'm given to understand that cudaminer is optimized for that. It was suggested to me that I use it because of my GPU and because I couldn't get CGMiner to work since it doesn't support GPUs anymore. I just want to know how to fix the file paths so it will look in the right location. If it still doesn't work after that, then I might try another miner. Try this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770064.0 |
|
|
|
XCN is also traded on novaexchange.com but have 0 volume. Maybe the exchange should be promoted better.
No one wants to send their coins to nova with all their wallet issues and zero volume. Nova has been mentioned a ton of times, especially with btc38 being down for soon two months. 0 volume is also because the price is much higher on btc38: when it opens the wallet, people will buy cheap coins an all the other exchanges to sell on btc38. |
|
|
|
Lets hope the news are false. China might supposedly ban fiat to crypto trading on all Chinese exchanges. If it is true, that would surely impact the XCN price, seeing btc38 (on which XCN has crashed as well) only trade XCN to CNY.
BTC38 only has CNY pairs, if the news is true they will need to change their pairs or close doors. Surely they will do the former. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
