[ANN] INTENSE COIN - Blockchain backed decentralized VPN - Hybrid PoW

[valiant1]

Need to cmake .. from build dir, not cmake in the main src dir. Also please try only cmake with the new options first, before you modify the makefile.

Tried it. Did not help.
The binary daemon itself does not start.

Code:

./intensecoind: error while loading shared libraries: libboost_system.so.1.64.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

Install http://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_64_0.html

Code:

./intensecoind
Illegal instruction

Please try this version, built with -DSTATIC=1 -DPORTABLE=1 in cmake, and also modified CXX_FLAGS in CMakeLists.txt to have -mno-sse4.1 and -mno-sse4.2: https://github.com/valiant1x/intensecoin/releases/download/v1.0/intensecoin-miner-linux64.tar.gz

If that doesn't work for you, please provide the output of this command:

Code:

cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -m1 'flags'

[SyrioForElle]

The VPNs most people use are purchased through centralized VPN companies.
...

Could you answer my question above:

what's the difference between this project and Tor except that Tor nodes are free for everyone and still are decentralised?

Tor is dreadfully slow, and Tor is linked to an entire different network (onion/deepweb). It's also much more common to use Tor solely for browser proxifying rather than as a VPN, in which every connection on your computer proceeds through the network. Again, Tor might have the capability to handle non-HTTP/HTTPS apps if they are designed correctly, but they will suffer significant speed penalties. Conversely, ITNS has no initial plans to network via deep web. As I told someone on Slack, the dark/deep web has very negative connotations. People hear deep web and think of hitmen, while people hear VPNs and think of the matrix. Think of your average PC user, not highly technical and well-educated technophiles like most people on BCT. Furthermore, part of the reason Tor is slow is because it's free. There's no incentive for people to host exit nodes, other than some interest in perpetuating a free internet (not many altruistic people are out there that do this). ITNS proposes to incentivize sharing your internet connection rather than doing it "for the good" of internet anonymity and security.

Another aspect to consider with the VPN service is bandwidth control. General surfing / browsing via a VPN running through a connection is one thing, streaming 4K UHD movies is quite another. I think there needs to be something built into the product that allows a VPN provider to cap the bandwidth usage.

Good point, our proposed billing model for the client/server relationship will be in time (pay per minute) rather than bandwidth, but an option should exist for data caps. I'm glad you brought this up.

So to tie both these points together - dev is right. Tor is awfully slow. Intense rectifies that by giving a financial incentive to help maintain the VPN. It doesn't just require altruism and so it has an advantage over Tor for that reason.

Moreover to the point of streaming 4k UHD movies...why not? You could design the system so that someone who wants to stream a 4k UHD movie just ends up having to pay more for that VPN bandwidth. And network operators will receive more compensation for putting a 4k movie through the web. All the while anonymity is maintained.

That said dev I'm not convinced blockchains necessarily have a better reputation than Tor. The thing most commonly associated with blockchain is bitcoin and...bitcoin is what people seem to use on Tor to buy drugs / hire hitmen.

Regardless, this is the project I'm most excited about. It's perfectly suited for the blockchain. And it has the potential to transform the internet...in an era when only privacy has become a scarce commodity.

[SyrioForElle]

will it work , I mean we already have VPNs, we pay for it, so why we invest in this COIN? , I just want a good logical answer

The VPNs most people use are purchased through centralized VPN companies. Most people don't want their activities, information and identity known by VPN companies. After all, most people use VPNs for anonymity. ITNS will offer a solution to this, and offer VPN anonymity because the endpoint of your VPN is not some large provider forced to keep records on clients. In most cases it will be a user at their house, or someone with dedicated or VPS hosting. We cut out the middleman of requiring a VPN company and instead make the VPN a Peer-to-Peer (P2P) process. Furthermore, the P2P mechanism allows users to generate revenue (in ITNS) for allowing others to use their connection, creating a consumer-driven marketplace.

Also consider that centralized VPN providers allow companies and countries to easily perform sweeping blocks toward IPs used by the VPN company. This defeats the purpose of using a VPN since the nodes are inaccessible. With a P2P decentralized VPN network, it's impossible to categorically ban IPs as being accessed for providing VPN services. Consider this in the context of China, NK and other countries banning VPN use. The potential of a distributed, decentralized, P2P VPN system is much greater in terms of broad accessibility than single centralized providers.

It sounds great, and VPN's on the blockchain are only inevitable, I also love the fact this is A. on Cryptonight and B. PoW...That being said, allowing people to be peer-to-peer VPN's is great and all, but doesn't that pose a risk if someone else is doing malicious activities on their end through you? So you essentially get PoS/Stake by allowing others to utilize your server/wallet/peer network but that also assumes some risk doesn't it? Also, I'm not happy to see a standard "cryptonight whitepaper" on the site, this project should have a detailed whitepaper of their own.

Operating VPNs is indeed a risk, no way around that. We have plans for a whitepaper in our roadmap (October).

Dev given all the interest this project is generating, and all the ideas that people are throwing around, might I suggest you post a draft whitepaper for comment first, integrate any comments, ideas, or feedback that you agree with, and then release a final version of the whitepaper? If you want to truly make the process sophisticated when you release the final whitepaper you could also release an accompanying document summarizing the feedback you received on the draft whitepaper and why you did or didn't incorporate the suggestions.

It's an unconventional way to do things for alt coins but it has several advantages:
- You could get potentially useful feedback
- It would be a show of confidence in the community - and this is the kind of project that'll benefit from community involvement

Just a suggestion to throw out there.

[cryptomaxsun]

Please try this version, built with -DSTATIC=1 -DPORTABLE=1 in cmake, and also modified CXX_FLAGS in CMakeLists.txt to have -mno-sse4.1 and -mno-sse4.2:

in more detail, in which place to insert?

If that doesn't work for you, please provide the output of this command:

Code:

cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -m1 'flags'

Did, I do not help all the same mistake.

[bitekoin]

I had an address much earlier when the coin came out with some coins. How come my key cannot be imported to the new wallet?

[valiant1]

Please try this version, built with -DSTATIC=1 -DPORTABLE=1 in cmake, and also modified CXX_FLAGS in CMakeLists.txt to have -mno-sse4.1 and -mno-sse4.2:

in more detail, in which place to insert?

If that doesn't work for you, please provide the output of this command:

Code:

cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -m1 'flags'

Did, I do not help all the same mistake.

I'm sorry but I need to see the output of the cat command.. please provide it so I can give you a proper binary or give you instructions on what type of binary to generate. Without that information we're just guessing as to what features your processor has.

Instructions with more detail ---

Edit the file CMakeLists.txt, in the top-level directory. On line 80, change

Code:

set(CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS "${CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS} -std=c++11 ${MINGW_FLAG} ${WARNINGS} ${CXX_WARNINGS} ${ARCH_FLAG} -maes")

to

Code:

set(CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS "${CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS} -mno-sse4.2 -mno-sse4.1 -mno-sse4 -std=c++11 ${MINGW_FLAG} ${WARNINGS} ${CXX_WARNINGS} ${ARCH_FLAG} -maes")

If your processor also lacks sse3 (and/or ssse3), you need to also include `-mno-sse3` and `-mno-ssse3`.

instead of running `cmake ..` in the build directory, instead, run `cmake -DSTATIC=1 -DPORTABLE=1 ..`

[valiant1]

Dev given all the interest this project is generating, and all the ideas that people are throwing around, might I suggest you post a draft whitepaper for comment first, integrate any comments, ideas, or feedback that you agree with, and then release a final version of the whitepaper? If you want to truly make the process sophisticated when you release the final whitepaper you could also release an accompanying document summarizing the feedback you received on the draft whitepaper and why you did or didn't incorporate the suggestions.

It's an unconventional way to do things for alt coins but it has several advantages:
- You could get potentially useful feedback
- It would be a show of confidence in the community - and this is the kind of project that'll benefit from community involvement

Just a suggestion to throw out there.

I like this idea! I think it further perpetuates our emphasis on the community. We have placed a great deal of our attention on ensuring we have strong community relations, as we think that is hugely important in this arena - you are the miners after all, and miners make the network what it is. I will say that the whitepaper was always planned to be released under the intentions of receiving feedback to modify as appropriate. If we said we wanted to do XYZ but the community was outraged, or proposed a better solution, we would shift to ABC anyway!  Perhaps more concrete planning on this will follow. Whitepaper details still in the works.

I had an address much earlier when the coin came out with some coins. How come my key cannot be imported to the new wallet?

When is the address from, specifically (date)?

[cryptomaxsun]

Code:

cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -m1 'flags'
flags           : fpu de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx lm nopl pni cx16 hypervisor lahf_lm abm

Edit the file CMakeLists.txt, in the top-level directory. On line 80, change.

Code:

intensecoin-master# cmake -DSTATIC=1 -DPORTABLE=1 ..
CMake Error: The source directory "/home/max" does not appear to contain CMakeLists.txt.
Specify --help for usage, or press the help button on the CMake GUI.

[Speedie]

Moreover to the point of streaming 4k UHD movies...why not? You could design the system so that someone who wants to stream a 4k UHD movie just ends up having to pay more for that VPN bandwidth. And network operators will receive more compensation for putting a 4k movie through the web. All the while anonymity is maintained.

My $0.02: I was throwing 4K streaming out there as it's a notorious bandwidth hog. The larger point wasn't to introduce any kind of censorship or limits to the VPN concept itself, but rather to give both providers and consumers a choice.

For example if I was offering VPN services through a connection measured in Gbps then I may very well be prepared to offer VPN services up to 200Mbps either individually or in aggregate (100 x 2Mbps VPNs, 8 x 25Mbps VPNs etc). If I was on 25Mbps cable then I might only want to make 2Mbps of that available for VPNs. Still adequate for general surfing purposes, but if a provider-defined cap doesn't exist then a single 4K stream could saturate my connection.

With both time AND bandwidth components in the proposed marketplace, providers and consumers are both free to decide what they want to offer / receive and the free market will sort out the rest. The end user who wants to surf for an hour can filter for providers offering 1 hour chunks at (e.g.) 5Mbps max and another who wants to stream 4K movies would need to look for providers offering 2-3 hours at 20-25Mbps+. The latter would doubtless pay more than the former.

Ultimately everybody wins in terms of a competitive marketplace and quality of service.

[what-is-in-it]

great suggestions all around! good to see the community chipping in and the Devs taking that on board!
not too worried about exchanges tbh - well thats more instant gratification.. if the product is solid, the devs and community on board, exchanges will come looking as well (bittrex, case in point).

keep up the good work, guys!

[Oceat]

WTS 40k for 300sats each. PM me.

Will sell 100K coins for 100 sats each. PM me. 

LOL, the price will be low. if the miner sell large of number coin. 

Yes, people are asking crazy prices, it will probably be around 30 sat at the start if difficulty stays the same. No MNs or any other reason for miners to hold it.

Probably around 30 sat - just pulled that out of your ass?

Difficulty has nothing to do with the price, just saying. Demand does.

Any update about the price yet? How many coins do you have guys to be exact before you wanted to sell it? I am just wondering if you guys have it a lot on your blockfolio.

[valiant1]

Code:

cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -m1 'flags'
flags           : fpu de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx lm nopl pni cx16 hypervisor lahf_lm abm

Edit the file CMakeLists.txt, in the top-level directory. On line 80, change.

Code:

intensecoin-master# cmake -DSTATIC=1 -DPORTABLE=1 ..
CMake Error: The source directory "/home/max" does not appear to contain CMakeLists.txt.
Specify --help for usage, or press the help button on the CMake GUI.

Again - cmake is supposed to be run from build directory, not from top-level. You also don't have sse3 so you need to include the aforementioned options to compile without sse3.

[altfinance]

I recently heard about Intense coin and I'm mining it right now to test things out. I'm into 30 minutes of mining and I can see my hash rate in the mining pool site. However, I still can't see any pending balance. Is this normal? Should I wait an hour or more?

[valiant1]

I recently heard about Intense coin and I'm mining it right now to test things out. I'm into 30 minutes of mining and I can see my hash rate in the mining pool site. However, I still can't see any pending balance. Is this normal? Should I wait an hour or more?

It takes a full 60 blocks for pending balance to begin registering. This is generally anywhere from 1 to 3 hours time. So your balance is always a bit behind because mined coins don't unlock right away.

[altfinance]

I recently heard about Intense coin and I'm mining it right now to test things out. I'm into 30 minutes of mining and I can see my hash rate in the mining pool site. However, I still can't see any pending balance. Is this normal? Should I wait an hour or more?

It takes a full 60 blocks for pending balance to begin registering. This is generally anywhere from 1 to 3 hours time. So your balance is always a bit behind because mined coins don't unlock right away.

Thank you for that information. After I read your post, I checked again and there it is, my pending balance.

[nsmallt]

I have the same  but my balance is showing fine.

[Dr.Lecter]

The idea of this project is great!
I`ll follow and will mine it.

would you like o try our pool? - fee 0.1%
http://intensecoinpool.sytes.net/#

happy mining!

[Dr.Lecter]

The OP has been updated. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2090765.msg20885571#msg20885571

We have added the following three Mining Pools:

https://intensemining.pro/

http://itns.globalpool.cc/

http://intensecoinpool.sytes.net/



Enjoy hashing! ^_^

thank you so much,  Alex ^^ 

[Qumiu]

mining in itns gives a little convenience, because there we can see uncomfirmed balance. I feel a little certainty there.

[e6ug]

any news about potential exchange?