Bitcoin Forum
September 19, 2020, 10:36:05 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 [186] 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite - NEW Thread | 1st mini-blockchain coin | Bounties!  (Read 210758 times)
gnasirator
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 174
Merit: 113


View Profile
March 20, 2018, 08:13:26 AM
 #3701

I have bought a handful of coins to test network, but would somebody willing to test it setting up a 10-20 nodes to sent it to them simultaneously.

Without it, it's hard to test with 2-3 computers, throughput of network. I can't make a couple of VMs, but it won't be enough.
I am interested in such a kind of performance test and would like to participate, but in the next weeks I have not so much time for it. In mid to late April, it would be possible for me. I'll confirm in 2-3 weeks.

It would be reasonable to use a test network for that. Is there currently a XCN testnet running?

I don't think so but we can quickly set it up.
Thanks.

well, just using the live net would be doable, too. TX fees are literally nothing, so would be interesting to compare testnet vs live.
I'm surprised about the initial report of having 8-10 min confirmation time. Whenever I did a transfer, it was visible the same instant (sent around the world, NZ -> Germany while talking on phone) and confirmed within the next block.
Keep in mind that with withdrawal limits in place, technically, no confirmation is required and instant tx is possible. This feature needs more support in the wallet to be actually usable but the foundation is there!

I don't know why it was like that maybe ot confirmed faster, but in client it showed first confirmation after 8 min, and I checked it. 5 confirmations more come in 5 min, so it was strange.
Btw. do you think that if it would be rebranded, you could change from PoW to PoS? I mean 4 years distrubution is a lot, and PoS could be more robust, and more energy efficient.

With 1 minute block times, when the global hash drops by 85% it will take that long until the diff lowers.

Ah yes, Mr 10 GH could've been the culprit there ...
Nevertheless, the tx should appear as unconfirmed pretty much right away.

XCN: CJSECkHi7tTTTA1ze9qYRkkUCKfFiF8EEG
AWARD-WINNING
CASINO
CRYPTO EXCLUSIVE
CLUBHOUSE
1500+
GAMES
2 MIN
CASH-OUTS
24/7
SUPPORT
100s OF
FREE SPINS
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
muf18
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 310


View Profile
March 20, 2018, 09:30:00 AM
Last edit: March 20, 2018, 10:38:27 PM by muf18
 #3702

It appeared as unconfirmed instanetly. But 1 conf has taken 8 min.

Guys - I want to ask one more time, is it possible to make it PoS, or hybrid PoW/PoS? I mean it would be also energy efficient at the same time?
60 sec target block is also the fastest it can be? Cant it be 30-45 sec?

I have thought about android wallet, it could show the power of mini-blockchain scheme.
david.Bauman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 21, 2018, 10:23:57 AM
 #3703

https://tothemoon.live/?IsPast=False&Page=1&Month=0&Year=0&CoinTypes=Komodo+%28KMD%29&SortBy=0
Hey. Have a some news for this coin?
pallas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1091


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
March 21, 2018, 10:32:24 AM
 #3704


What does Komodo have to do with Cryptonite?

chrysophylax
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1086


--- ChainWorks Industries ---


View Profile WWW
March 21, 2018, 12:43:58 PM
 #3705


A promotion on the CryptoNite thread!

That's what!

#crysx

Exchange - https://www.zapple.com/exchange/ . CWI-Thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1563601 . EMail - crysx@gnxs.com . CWI-WebSite - https://chainworksindustries.com/ . CWI-Mine - http://chrysolite.chainworksindustries.com/ . CWI-Pyroxene (theMine) - http://pyroxene.chainworksindustries.com/ . GRN - Gfz2cXMkhMZYWSFvLEMnM8bXk7X5Mtq2J2
tbearhere
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1003


Zano https://zano.org/ ____ Algo ProgPowZ


View Profile
March 22, 2018, 12:22:53 AM
 #3706


A promotion on the CryptoNite thread!

That's what!

#crysx
So that guy is advertising on pallas's thread.  Angry Kick that guy out pallas!   Grin

ZANO New Sources|1st ProgPowZ|PoW/PoS Hybrid|Scalable|Private|Contracting https://zano.org/
e6ug
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 773
Merit: 508


Bitcore (BTX) - The Future is Now


View Profile
March 23, 2018, 04:52:32 AM
 #3707


A promotion on the CryptoNite thread!

That's what!

#crysx

haha that sneaky little bastard  Cheesy
It appeared as unconfirmed instanetly. But 1 conf has taken 8 min.

Guys - I want to ask one more time, is it possible to make it PoS, or hybrid PoW/PoS? I mean it would be also energy efficient at the same time?
60 sec target block is also the fastest it can be? Cant it be 30-45 sec?

I have thought about android wallet, it could show the power of mini-blockchain scheme.

android wallet would be cool, but pls do not take away my precious XCN mining!

gnasirator
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 174
Merit: 113


View Profile
March 23, 2018, 09:28:28 AM
 #3708

Personally, I'm in 2 minds about POS vs POW.
I love the idea of getting rid of "wasting energy".
On the other hand, it's that "wasted" energy that gives the token additional undisputable value and is therefore a great layer of trust, next to the current trade prices on the exchanges.
Same effect as with gold. It's expensive to mine, hence it's rare, hence it's valuable. In theory, there should be some market-driven self adjustment happening to how much energy a coin consumes and I think that's what's happening. So POW isn't necessarily bad. Also, there are many voices warning against pure POS as there seem to be some issues with that, too.

I've thought about that topic a while ago, too and my feeling is that a new POW/hybrid POW/POS approach that somehow incentivizes contribution to coin network health might be a good approach. E.g. instead of just having the tokens "at stake", the POW part could be about providing network bandwidth (e.g. forwarding new transactions) or transaction history lookups. I'm not sure yet how to encapsulate these tasks in a way so that it can be verified independently that a node has done it. But it must be possible, SETI@home is somehow verifying processed packages as well.
The POS part could stay more or less the same as having tokens at stake I guess.

XCN: CJSECkHi7tTTTA1ze9qYRkkUCKfFiF8EEG
pallas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1091


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
March 23, 2018, 09:45:14 AM
 #3709

Personally, I'm in 2 minds about POS vs POW.
I love the idea of getting rid of "wasting energy".
On the other hand, it's that "wasted" energy that gives the token additional undisputable value and is therefore a great layer of trust, next to the current trade prices on the exchanges.
Same effect as with gold. It's expensive to mine, hence it's rare, hence it's valuable. In theory, there should be some market-driven self adjustment happening to how much energy a coin consumes and I think that's what's happening. So POW isn't necessarily bad. Also, there are many voices warning against pure POS as there seem to be some issues with that, too.

I've thought about that topic a while ago, too and my feeling is that a new POW/hybrid POW/POS approach that somehow incentivizes contribution to coin network health might be a good approach. E.g. instead of just having the tokens "at stake", the POW part could be about providing network bandwidth (e.g. forwarding new transactions) or transaction history lookups. I'm not sure yet how to encapsulate these tasks in a way so that it can be verified independently that a node has done it. But it must be possible, SETI@home is somehow verifying processed packages as well.
The POS part could stay more or less the same as having tokens at stake I guess.

I agree with your comments on POW and POS.
Maybe POW is expensive in terms of energy, but it's what makes it work; and let's remember bitcoin is the biggest coin, the first and it still works pretty fine, regardless of all the attacks it got over the years.
Hybrid POW/POS could be a nice solution, but I'm not sure it's a good thing to introduce in a coin like XCN: I mean, what if those huge chinese xcn holders start staking? No coins for new users, no coins for small investors.
Furthermore, there is a technical problem to solve: miniblockchain is about removing transaction history and keeping a balance sheet of accounts instead, which clashes with the POS concept of "coin age"; since every node needs to verify the stake transactions, they would need to know the coin age and history of those coins. I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that we need to rethink it and adapt to mini-blockchain.
About SETI@home, they probably verify the packages in a centralised manner.

chrysophylax
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1086


--- ChainWorks Industries ---


View Profile WWW
March 23, 2018, 12:55:21 PM
 #3710

Personally, I'm in 2 minds about POS vs POW.
I love the idea of getting rid of "wasting energy".
On the other hand, it's that "wasted" energy that gives the token additional undisputable value and is therefore a great layer of trust, next to the current trade prices on the exchanges.
Same effect as with gold. It's expensive to mine, hence it's rare, hence it's valuable. In theory, there should be some market-driven self adjustment happening to how much energy a coin consumes and I think that's what's happening. So POW isn't necessarily bad. Also, there are many voices warning against pure POS as there seem to be some issues with that, too.

I've thought about that topic a while ago, too and my feeling is that a new POW/hybrid POW/POS approach that somehow incentivizes contribution to coin network health might be a good approach. E.g. instead of just having the tokens "at stake", the POW part could be about providing network bandwidth (e.g. forwarding new transactions) or transaction history lookups. I'm not sure yet how to encapsulate these tasks in a way so that it can be verified independently that a node has done it. But it must be possible, SETI@home is somehow verifying processed packages as well.
The POS part could stay more or less the same as having tokens at stake I guess.

I agree with your comments on POW and POS.
Maybe POW is expensive in terms of energy, but it's what makes it work; and let's remember bitcoin is the biggest coin, the first and it still works pretty fine, regardless of all the attacks it got over the years.
Hybrid POW/POS could be a nice solution, but I'm not sure it's a good thing to introduce in a coin like XCN: I mean, what if those huge chinese xcn holders start staking? No coins for new users, no coins for small investors.
Furthermore, there is a technical problem to solve: miniblockchain is about removing transaction history and keeping a balance sheet of accounts instead, which clashes with the POS concept of "coin age"; since every node needs to verify the stake transactions, they would need to know the coin age and history of those coins. I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that we need to rethink it and adapt to mini-blockchain.
About SETI@home, they probably verify the packages in a centralised manner.

Agreed ...

As for SETI - they do.

I used to be number one in the Australiasian region for SETI until all the processing started for Crypto Wink

#crysx

Exchange - https://www.zapple.com/exchange/ . CWI-Thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1563601 . EMail - crysx@gnxs.com . CWI-WebSite - https://chainworksindustries.com/ . CWI-Mine - http://chrysolite.chainworksindustries.com/ . CWI-Pyroxene (theMine) - http://pyroxene.chainworksindustries.com/ . GRN - Gfz2cXMkhMZYWSFvLEMnM8bXk7X5Mtq2J2
pallas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1091


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
March 23, 2018, 12:57:22 PM
 #3711

some pow/pos stuff
some other pow/pos stuff

Agreed ...

As for SETI - they do.

I used to be number one in the Australiasian region for SETI until all the processing started for Crypto Wink

#crysx

What about the M7 pool? Is it still in the works? May I/we help you in setting it up?

chrysophylax
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1086


--- ChainWorks Industries ---


View Profile WWW
March 23, 2018, 01:08:39 PM
 #3712

some pow/pos stuff
some other pow/pos stuff

Agreed ...

As for SETI - they do.

I used to be number one in the Australiasian region for SETI until all the processing started for Crypto Wink

#crysx

What about the M7 pool? Is it still in the works? May I/we help you in setting it up?

Well ...

The new servers are up and running. The test pool is online but the we are ironing out a couple of issues with the Obsidian installation under Centos 7. It is working in Debian. When this is done, we will test the GRN pool on the new servers, as well as iron our more smaller issues, and test comprehensively before starting to install all the pools on the new system.

The new CWI-Pool System is fast! Blazing fast! The servers have been setup such that there should be no lag between communication in the backend (private networking between sevrers) and in the event of any attacks (like DDOS), the frontend will be the only thing affected and mitigated, while the backend Obsidian (stratum), DB and Daemons will remain steadfast with almost no effect on mining.

If we can get these smaller issues sorted in the next few days, we will start on the compilation of the daemons and subsequent creation of the pools on the new CWI-InfraStructure. CryptoNite was one of the coins we had issues with compiling under Cetnos 7 x64, so your help will certainly be needed in that area when we get running. In fact, when there is time this week, the compilation of the daemon will begin, and see what errors it spits out.

So the answer in short - Yes to both your questions Wink

#crysx

Exchange - https://www.zapple.com/exchange/ . CWI-Thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1563601 . EMail - crysx@gnxs.com . CWI-WebSite - https://chainworksindustries.com/ . CWI-Mine - http://chrysolite.chainworksindustries.com/ . CWI-Pyroxene (theMine) - http://pyroxene.chainworksindustries.com/ . GRN - Gfz2cXMkhMZYWSFvLEMnM8bXk7X5Mtq2J2
muf18
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 310


View Profile
March 23, 2018, 03:15:47 PM
 #3713

Personally, I'm in 2 minds about POS vs POW.
I love the idea of getting rid of "wasting energy".
On the other hand, it's that "wasted" energy that gives the token additional undisputable value and is therefore a great layer of trust, next to the current trade prices on the exchanges.
Same effect as with gold. It's expensive to mine, hence it's rare, hence it's valuable. In theory, there should be some market-driven self adjustment happening to how much energy a coin consumes and I think that's what's happening. So POW isn't necessarily bad. Also, there are many voices warning against pure POS as there seem to be some issues with that, too.

I've thought about that topic a while ago, too and my feeling is that a new POW/hybrid POW/POS approach that somehow incentivizes contribution to coin network health might be a good approach. E.g. instead of just having the tokens "at stake", the POW part could be about providing network bandwidth (e.g. forwarding new transactions) or transaction history lookups. I'm not sure yet how to encapsulate these tasks in a way so that it can be verified independently that a node has done it. But it must be possible, SETI@home is somehow verifying processed packages as well.
The POS part could stay more or less the same as having tokens at stake I guess.

I agree with your comments on POW and POS.
Maybe POW is expensive in terms of energy, but it's what makes it work; and let's remember bitcoin is the biggest coin, the first and it still works pretty fine, regardless of all the attacks it got over the years.
Hybrid POW/POS could be a nice solution, but I'm not sure it's a good thing to introduce in a coin like XCN: I mean, what if those huge chinese xcn holders start staking? No coins for new users, no coins for small investors.
Furthermore, there is a technical problem to solve: miniblockchain is about removing transaction history and keeping a balance sheet of accounts instead, which clashes with the POS concept of "coin age"; since every node needs to verify the stake transactions, they would need to know the coin age and history of those coins. I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that we need to rethink it and adapt to mini-blockchain.
About SETI@home, they probably verify the packages in a centralised manner.

You know, that PoW, isn't so secure on alts in reality, because they have rather small processing power.
Stakers can secure coin, even if it's small, cause it's almost impossible to gather so large supply of coins in one hands.
And PoW always have limitation, as we can with Bitcoin - it's unsustainable, and it's getting absurd, when miners flew from one country to another, because they are forbidding them (for a good cause - tremendous energy waste is absurd, for sha256 algorythm, that don't contribute to humanity in anyway, nor it can be really used as a global super computer, because it's not designed so, and calculations of sha256, wouldn't have much usage).
pallas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1091


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
March 23, 2018, 03:45:06 PM
 #3714

Personally, I'm in 2 minds about POS vs POW.
I love the idea of getting rid of "wasting energy".
On the other hand, it's that "wasted" energy that gives the token additional undisputable value and is therefore a great layer of trust, next to the current trade prices on the exchanges.
Same effect as with gold. It's expensive to mine, hence it's rare, hence it's valuable. In theory, there should be some market-driven self adjustment happening to how much energy a coin consumes and I think that's what's happening. So POW isn't necessarily bad. Also, there are many voices warning against pure POS as there seem to be some issues with that, too.

I've thought about that topic a while ago, too and my feeling is that a new POW/hybrid POW/POS approach that somehow incentivizes contribution to coin network health might be a good approach. E.g. instead of just having the tokens "at stake", the POW part could be about providing network bandwidth (e.g. forwarding new transactions) or transaction history lookups. I'm not sure yet how to encapsulate these tasks in a way so that it can be verified independently that a node has done it. But it must be possible, SETI@home is somehow verifying processed packages as well.
The POS part could stay more or less the same as having tokens at stake I guess.

I agree with your comments on POW and POS.
Maybe POW is expensive in terms of energy, but it's what makes it work; and let's remember bitcoin is the biggest coin, the first and it still works pretty fine, regardless of all the attacks it got over the years.
Hybrid POW/POS could be a nice solution, but I'm not sure it's a good thing to introduce in a coin like XCN: I mean, what if those huge chinese xcn holders start staking? No coins for new users, no coins for small investors.
Furthermore, there is a technical problem to solve: miniblockchain is about removing transaction history and keeping a balance sheet of accounts instead, which clashes with the POS concept of "coin age"; since every node needs to verify the stake transactions, they would need to know the coin age and history of those coins. I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that we need to rethink it and adapt to mini-blockchain.
About SETI@home, they probably verify the packages in a centralised manner.

You know, that PoW, isn't so secure on alts in reality, because they have rather small processing power.
Stakers can secure coin, even if it's small, cause it's almost impossible to gather so large supply of coins in one hands.

If the coin is small, then getting a large part of it is easy and cheap.
Besides, I've never seen a 51% attack on an altcoin yet. It is possible in theory, but making use of it is not easy. For example, if exchanges have 30 confirmations for altcoins, making a successful hashrate attack means having 99% of the hashrate for a long time.
Of course I'm not counting those dead coins where you can mine 30 blocks in a few minutes because no one is mining at that moment in time.

And PoW always have limitation, as we can with Bitcoin - it's unsustainable, and it's getting absurd, when miners flew from one country to another, because they are forbidding them (for a good cause - tremendous energy waste is absurd, for sha256 algorythm, that don't contribute to humanity in anyway, nor it can be really used as a global super computer, because it's not designed so, and calculations of sha256, wouldn't have much usage).

True, but I don't think that POS is the answer.
POW is a waste of energy but it works.

muf18
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 310


View Profile
March 23, 2018, 04:19:12 PM
 #3715

And PoS doesn't work? Cheesy
I think that scalability wise, PoS or DPoS are much better solution.
pallas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1091


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
March 23, 2018, 04:30:02 PM
 #3716

And PoS doesn't work? Cheesy
I think that scalability wise, PoS or DPoS are much better solution.

I didn't say that PoS doesn't work.
PoW vs PoS is a long debate, they both have plus and minus.
Let's concentrate on a possible PoS mini-blockchain implementation, or other alternatives.

go6ooo1212
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000


quarkchain.io


View Profile
March 24, 2018, 09:41:37 AM
 #3717

@Pallas , would you tell , which source , I could build a linux wallet from , pls...
pallas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1091


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
March 24, 2018, 09:43:16 AM
 #3718

@Pallas , would you tell , which source , I could build a linux wallet from , pls...

https://github.com/pallas1/Cryptonite

poer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 508
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
March 26, 2018, 03:12:51 AM
 #3719

duplicate magi coin

chrysophylax
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1086


--- ChainWorks Industries ---


View Profile WWW
March 26, 2018, 03:42:05 AM
 #3720

duplicate magi coin

How so?

#crysx

Exchange - https://www.zapple.com/exchange/ . CWI-Thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1563601 . EMail - crysx@gnxs.com . CWI-WebSite - https://chainworksindustries.com/ . CWI-Mine - http://chrysolite.chainworksindustries.com/ . CWI-Pyroxene (theMine) - http://pyroxene.chainworksindustries.com/ . GRN - Gfz2cXMkhMZYWSFvLEMnM8bXk7X5Mtq2J2
Pages: « 1 ... 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 [186] 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!