In the beginning, everyone was mining with a single CPU, and that is exactly why the network was truly community-oriented. Everyone had a chance to earn rewards, which encouraged participation. Hash power was growing organically, and the network was expanding. The sense of community strengthened, and people did not stop running nodes because everyone stayed on the network with the feeling of “I can win.” With balanced reward distribution, no one could dominate the network alone. In short, if the network had maintained the single-CPU-per-node model from the start, many more people would have participated, the community would have been stronger, and the project would have gained a solid foundation both technically and from a listing perspective. A project that drifts toward centralization also loses investor confidence on exchanges. This is because exchanges and investors look at one key question: Is the network truly decentralized, or is it controlled by just a few participants?

The fair and sustainable approach is to enforce a one-CPU-per-node model. Otherwise, from the very first day, the network can be taken over by a single actor with access to hundreds or even thousands of CPU cores. For example, if someone connects a 1,600-core server, they don’t just increase their own rewards — they effectively suffocate the network and eliminate the earning opportunities of everyone else. At that point, the project stops being a community blockchain and becomes the chain of whoever owns the biggest machine.

In the beginning, when everyone was mining with a single CPU, rewards were distributed naturally and fairly. The network’s hash power was growing organically through real participation. That is what a community-built blockchain should look like.

However, once a few high-core miners joined, they started capturing most of the rewards. This pushed regular participants out of the system. When people stopped earning, they shut down their nodes, and the network gradually shifted from being powered by many individuals to being controlled by a few powerful servers.

As a result, Lumenyx now faces the risk of turning into a hardware-dominated network rather than a truly decentralized, community-driven blockchain. If the goal is to build a chain where everyone can contribute and benefit, the system must be designed in a way that prevents large server owners from monopolizing the network.

If this cryptocurrency has a community-based promise, and there's also an option like a relaunch, then my recommendation would be this:
A Fair Mining Model for Lumenyx: Community Power or Server Power?
Lumenyx was launched with a clear promise:
to build a decentralized, CPU-friendly network where everyone can participate.
However, the current mining structure is moving in the opposite direction.
Today:
.High-core cloud servers are dominating block production.
.Individual users are leaving because they can no longer earn rewards.
.Network security is becoming dependent on server capacity instead of real community participation.
.This trend risks turning Lumenyx into a centralized, hardware-driven system controlled by a few powerful actors.
The Core Issue
In CPU-based Proof-of-Work systems:
.Performance scales directly with the number of CPU threads.
.This gives cloud servers an overwhelming advantage over regular home computers.
.Difficulty adjusts only to raw computing power, not to real user participation.
.The result is simple:
.The more cores you have, the more rewards you get.
.This is not fair, and it discourages true decentralization.
Why This Matters
This imbalance leads to:
Declining participation
→ Smaller miners leave the network.
Centralized reward distribution
→ A few powerful servers receive most of the rewards.
Weaker network resilience
The centralized structure will hinder investor acquisitions.
→ Instead of thousands of independent nodes, the network relies on a handful of strong machines.
This model is neither sustainable nor aligned with Lumenyx’s decentralized vision.

 Path Toward Fair CPU Mining
1. Introduce a Thread / Core Limit per Node
Each validator node should be restricted to a maximum number of CPU threads.
This would:
Prevent rented servers from overwhelming the network
Restore competitive balance for individual participants
Encourage wider and healthier decentralization
By determining difficulty levels based on participation rate, this rewards not only the power of the hardware but also the power of the community.

The Vision
The future of Lumenyx should be built on:
Community power, not server power.
A truly decentralized network is one where everyone has a fair chance to participate and earn.
If mining continues to reward only the strongest hardware:
Lumenyx will evolve into a server competition.
But if fairness is prioritized:
Lumenyx can become a global, community-driven network with real decentralization at its core.

Never mind, buddy, even with live support, we spent over an hour on my end. Constant errors, errors... I still stand by what I said. This is currently unusable for the average miner. So, it's a complete failure.

This will never work. Developers are mining using multi-core technology while other miners receive no rewards. Their response was "Do it yourself." How ridiculous. Their goal is to take all the rewards. Once their bags are full, they'll update the version. This cryptocurrency is currently centralized, and never buy it in the future. A greedy, deceitful developer.
 
NEVER BELIEVE IT WAS A FAIR START. RIGHT NOW, ALL THE REWARDS ARE GOING TO THE PRIVILEGED. THEY WILL PROBABLY DISTRIBUTE IT TO WALLETS LATER AND UPDATE THE VERSION. BE CAREFUL, THEY WILL PRETEND TO HAVE SOLVED THE PROBLEM AFTER ACQUIRING ENOUGH COINS.

You're not acting in good faith. If you were, you would have already released a multi-threaded version and made things fair to everyone. I've been trying for hours and haven't been able to do anything. Yes, I don't know. If you care about fairness, or pretend to, then compile it. Are we programmers?
You should release a compiled version and provide a fair mining opportunity for everyone. We're not programmers; we could barely mine even with the current version, and now you're asking us to compile it? Instead of decorating and embellishing this nonsense you wrote with shapes and emojis, you could have compiled the code.

Say what you will, my friend, this is a deliberately restrictive, unfair, and terrible launch. I even considered buying it with cash initially, but it's not worth it. To hell with the developer. They wasted my time.

Restricting the community to single-core mining, while others operate in the background with more powerful and privately compiled builds, has completely ruined the launch.
From this point on, this project functions less like a community-driven blockchain and more like a hidden premine system.
I do not believe such a critical detail was “accidentally” omitted.
Everything about this looks intentional.

Using ChatGPT... That's not the important thing.
You call it a fair launch, yet with the tools provided to the community it is practically impossible to mine competitively. Limiting mining to a single CPU core effectively stops ordinary users, while those running privately compiled builds gain a clear and unfair advantage.
This is not a launch — it is a controlled reward distribution.
If the majority of the early block rewards are being collected by one or only a few addresses, then the chain was centralized from the moment it was born.
The community appears to be mining, but in reality the rewards are flowing only to selected builds. This is not merely a technical limitation; it is a deliberately designed reward monopoly.
This issue is far too serious to be dismissed as a simple oversight. Claiming otherwise is absurd.

Disabling multi-core CPU mining intentionally creates a structure that goes against the principle of a fair launch.
In an open-source chain, while the community is limited to using only a single core, anyone running a privately compiled build in the background can mine at significantly higher performance — and that makes this effectively a premine.

The compiled version of the code was not publicly available at launch. Although it was labeled “open source,” the critical parts of the mining implementation were not shared initially.

As a result, over 90% of the block rewards generated in the first days after genesis are being accumulated by a small number of addresses.

At this point, it is no longer possible to claim that “there was no premine.”

They deliberately left out the multi-core processor option. They did this to keep the majority of the reward for themselves. There's no other explanation. As I said, right now one or a few people are mining with ASICs using a method most people wouldn't understand. Even if you update the code later and release it to the community, it's pointless now. This is now pre-mining.

They'll probably do what you said after collecting enough COINS. Then they'll say things like, "We didn't mine beforehand, we had a good start." Right now, all the BLOCKS belong to them. I'm sure this is being done intentionally. Human greed has been proven once again.

There's no point in presenting it to the community after filling their bags with coins. Right now, this coin is no different from pre-mining. Not everyone is a coding expert. The launch didn't start on a level playing field.

Like you said, things didn't start fairly, my friend. Programmers are taking over everything now. I'm quitting mining. Now collect the money without leaving anything for anyone. You cheated.

Those with technical expertise are privileged. This code doesn't include everyone. The privileged are being centralized. Why didn't you offer this option to everyone from the beginning?

The difficulty level, which was around 300 with five people, increased to around 32,000 with seven people. We suspect this is due to the ASIC.

Why did the difficulty suddenly increase from a few hundred to tens of thousands?

2026-01-17 19:51:42 ⚡ Difficulty: 32603 -> 31139 (-% change)
2026-01-17 19:51:42 🆕 Imported #7480 (0xb56c…56ca → 0xe518…2e9c)
2026-01-17 19:51:42 ⚡ Difficulty: 31270 -> 31725 (+% change)
2026-01-17 19:51:42 🏆 Imported #7484 (0x2dd4…b3bf → 0xbdbc…9153)
2026-01-17 19:51:42 ⚡ Difficulty: 31640 -> 30845 (-% change)
2026-01-17 19:51:42 🆕 Imported #7482 (0x3bfa…3513 → 0x3388…1d99)
2026-01-17 19:51:43 ⚡ Difficulty: 32089 -> 31025 (-% change)
2026-01-17 19:51:43 🆕 Imported #7481 (0x1cd0…e665 → 0xf761…33e5)
2026-01-17 19:51:43 ⚡ Difficulty: 31270 -> 31725 (+% change)
2026-01-17 19:51:43 🆕 Imported #7484 (0x2dd4…b3bf → 0xf66d…20e4)
2026-01-17 19:51:43 ⚡ Difficulty: 32089 -> 30983 (-% change)

I can't see the coins at this address. Could someone check using a browser? I'd at least like to know if I'm mining anything.

5GHhBpDDJyThzRzm3aP1HXpmbvYawgW1wXhbk8bPxdB89eEh
  Wallet:   5GHhBpDD...B89eEh
  Balance:  offline LUMENYX
  Block:    #offline
  Status:   ● MINING
  Peers:    0

As long as the exchange remains dependent on a bridge that can be minted by its owner, it remains problematic. Transparency is irrelevant. Who can guarantee you won't suddenly print money and deplete the exchange's liquidity? We don't know your intentions. But as long as the token is used, that's the situation for now. And transfers can only be made from exchanges to wallets or from wallets to exchanges with your approval. And that approval can take days. Maybe it will never happen because you are in control. Given this, it's only natural for people like me to ask questions. However, if the bridge closes in the future and transfers become possible through its own network, everything I've said will become irrelevant. I agree.

Will the project be published on miningpoolstats?

---

I withdrew money from the exchange to my wallet address, but it hasn't been reflected in my balance for about 24 hours. Could you please check?
0xb357AD59857e9d72Ac9bB20E6872708a4856fAc4

---

What I bought from the stock market is still not reflected as XPARA in the wallet balance section. It's been 37 hours   https://polygonscan.com/token/0xeb2c021a78568b5a19fc3843900456f38ac00ee9?a=0xb357AD59857e9d72Ac9bB20E6872708a4856fAc4