[PRE-ANN][LGN] LegacyNote - no-premine Monero-codebase fair launch

[ShinobiSilva]

LegacyNote (LGN)

A conservative CryptoNote-style fair-launch project based on the maintained Monero codebase

Status: whitepaper / public review stage
Mainnet: not launched
Testnet: not launched
Mining: not available yet
Premine: 0
Founder allocation: 0
Founder identity: pseudonymous; not part of the trust model
ICO / presale: none
Dev fee / treasury / donation wallet: none
Supply under review: 36,902,026 LGN reference supply; 0.6 LGN tail reward per 2-minute block; no hard cap
Activation timestamp under review: proposed 2026-07-04 16:00:00 UTC; not final


Important launch status

LegacyNote is not launched. There is no mainnet, no testnet, no public mining, no release binary, and no official pool.

This thread is a PRE-ANN for public review of the whitepaper, source changes, supply parameters, and launch process before any testnet begins.

Official LegacyNote posts will not discuss price, exchanges, paid listings, market expectations, donations, bounties, or investment claims.


What is LegacyNote?

LegacyNote is a conservative CryptoNote-style chain based on Monero v0.18.5.0. The project is intended as a modern no-extraction fair launch: no premine, no sale, no dev fee, no treasury, no donation wallet, no paid insider access, and no founder allocation.

LegacyNote is not claimed to be the first fair-launch CryptoNote coin. The claim is narrower and should be directly reviewable: public launch mechanics, public artifacts, no privileged mining window, zero spendable genesis allocation, and a planned handoff from founder control to community maintainers.

The founder is pseudonymous. This is not a claim of perfect anonymity. The launch should be judged by source, chain state, timestamps, hashes, and access rules rather than by founder identity.


Core commitments

• Zero premine, ICO, presale, dev fee, treasury, donation wallet, founder allocation, and paid insider access.
• Founder may mine only after public mainnet activation, using the same public software and rules as everyone else.
• After public launch, founder participation is limited to the same ordinary rights as everyone else: mining, running nodes, or building independent tools without privileged access or gatekeeping power.
• Founder identity is not part of the trust model; the no-extraction claims must be verifiable without trusting a person.
• No private mainnet binaries, private seed access, hidden node list, or private mining window.
• No gatekeeping over pools, explorers, exchanges, wallets, marketing, or community initiatives.
• Source, build instructions, release hashes, and binaries must be public before mainnet.
• Mainnet activation must use a fixed public timestamp with a consensus guard against early non-genesis blocks.
• After launch stability, repository, admin, and infrastructure control are intended to move to community maintainers.

Founder and community participation

The founder is not asking for permanent control or special restrictions on others. Pools, explorers, wallets, mining tools, documentation, and other ecosystem work are open for anyone to build.

The founder may also build independent tools after public launch, under the same rules as everyone else. Such tools must not receive private launch access, protocol-level fees, hidden fees, official default donation streams, or special gatekeeping power.

Independent tools may ask for voluntary support, but any support mechanism should be transparent and opt-in. Default-on mining donations are not part of the LegacyNote launch plan.


Development disclosure

LegacyNote used AI-assisted coding and documentation workflows. No launch claim depends on trusting any AI system. The source, build process, genesis state, supply constants, activation guard, release hashes, and launch timeline must be independently verifiable.

If the community rejects AI-authored or AI-assisted materials, credible community maintainers may take over, rewrite, fork, or replace those materials before testnet or mainnet while preserving the no-extraction fair-launch principles.


Technical posture

• Baseline: Monero v0.18.5.0
• V1 software: daemon, wallet CLI, wallet RPC
• Daemon: legacynoted
• Wallet CLI: legacynote-wallet-cli
• Wallet RPC: legacynote-wallet-rpc
• Ticker: LGN
• Proof of work: RandomX
• Block target: 2 minutes
• Privacy model: RingCT, stealth addresses, ring signatures
• Emission: 36,902,026 LGN reference supply with ongoing tail emission
• Tail subsidy: 0.6 LGN per 2-minute block
• Hard cap: none, because tail emission continues indefinitely

Default ports

• Mainnet: P2P 19580 / RPC 19581 / ZMQ 19582
• Testnet: P2P 29580 / RPC 29581 / ZMQ 29582
• Stagenet: P2P 39580 / RPC 39581 / ZMQ 39582

Supply parameters selected for review

The current source constants select:

• 36,902,026 LGN reference supply
• 0.6 LGN tail reward per 2-minute block
• 0 premine
• 0 founder allocation
• no hard cap
• 11 display decimals, so the selected reference supply fits the inherited uint64 amount type

These parameters must be verified through builds, tests, and a reproducible public supply table before any mainnet release candidate.


Launch sequence

[list=1]

• Publish whitepaper, source, implementation notes, and public review thread.
• Hold at least 7 public review days before any testnet.
• Start public testnet only after visible independent interest and no unresolved critical launch-mechanics objections.
• Publish source tag, build instructions, release hashes, and binaries at least 7 days before mainnet.
• Publish final supply parameters, zero-premine proof, and activation-guard proof.
• Activate mainnet at a fixed public UTC timestamp.
• Move repository, admin, and infrastructure control to community maintainers after launch stability.

Current review request

Review is requested on:

• whether the no-premine claim is directly provable from genesis state,
• whether the activation guard prevents early mainnet mining,
• whether LegacyNote is sufficiently separated from Monero network identity,
• whether the selected 36,902,026 LGN / 0.6 LGN tail supply contract is clear and reproducible,
• whether the launch process prevents private access or founder advantage,
• whether the founder/community participation language preserves no-extraction while allowing independent tools,
• whether the pseudonymous-founder posture is framed honestly and does not replace technical proof,
• whether official materials avoid market and investment framing,
• whether the founder handoff plan is credible and specific enough.

Links

• Repository: https://github.com/ShinjukuNakamoto/LegacyNote
• Whitepaper: https://github.com/ShinjukuNakamoto/LegacyNote/blob/main/docs/LEGACYNOTE_WHITEPAPER.md
• Supply document: https://github.com/ShinjukuNakamoto/LegacyNote/blob/main/docs/SUPPLY.md
• Launch process: https://github.com/ShinjukuNakamoto/LegacyNote/blob/main/docs/LAUNCH_PROCESS.md

Please keep this thread focused on source review, launch mechanics, supply reproducibility, and testnet readiness. There is nothing to mine yet, and official posts will not discuss price, exchanges, listings, donations, bounties, or investment expectations.[/list]

[ShinobiSilva]

Review log / changelog

This reply tracks public review items and changes after the initial PRE-ANN. It is a reference post, not a launch notice.

Current status

• LegacyNote is not launched.
• There is no mainnet, no testnet, no public mining, no release binary, and no official pool.
• Review should focus on source, launch mechanics, supply reproducibility, activation guard behavior, and testnet readiness.

Name and ticker clarification

Older Bitcointalk posts and search results may use the ticker LGN for unrelated projects, including LOGOS. A recent Bitcointalk thread also uses the name LegacyCoin / LBTC. LegacyNote is unrelated to those projects and threads.

LegacyNote has no presale, no airdrop, no token allocation, no live mainnet, no live testnet, and no public mining at this stage.

Open review topics

• Whether the no-premine claim is directly provable from genesis state.
• Whether the activation guard prevents early mainnet mining.
• Whether LegacyNote is sufficiently separated from Monero network identity.
• Whether the selected supply contract is clear and reproducible.
• Whether the launch process prevents private access or founder advantage.

[ShinobiSilva]

Supply, build, and verification status

This reply tracks the current supply contract, build status, and verification work. It is a reference post, not a release announcement and not mining instructions.

Current launch status

• Mainnet is not launched.
• Testnet is not launched.
• Public mining is not available.
• No release binaries or release hashes have been published yet.

Supply parameters selected for review

• Reference supply: 36,902,026 LGN
• Tail reward: 0.6 LGN per 2-minute block
• Premine: 0 LGN
• Founder allocation: 0 LGN
• Hard cap: none, because tail emission continues indefinitely
• Display decimals: 11, so the selected reference supply fits the inherited uint64 amount type

These parameters are selected for public review. They are not mainnet-final until builds, tests, release artifacts, and public verification are complete.

What needs independent verification

• Genesis must have no spendable founder output.
• Mainnet blocks above height 0 must be invalid before the public activation timestamp.
• LegacyNote network IDs, address prefixes, ports, seeds, checkpoints, and visible identity must be separated from Monero.
• The selected supply constants must reproduce the documented 36,902,026 LGN reference supply and 0.6 LGN tail reward.
• The daemon, wallet CLI, and wallet RPC must build and pass relevant inherited tests before any release candidate.

Current build status

Build verification is still pending. The project needs a working CMake / C++ build environment or CI path before testnet. Until then, claims about supply, activation guard behavior, and genesis state remain documented implementation claims that require independent build and runtime verification.

Before any testnet

• Publish exact source state under review.
• Build the daemon, wallet CLI, and wallet RPC.
• Run inherited and project-specific tests where available.
• Publish a reproducible supply table from source constants.
• Publish clear zero-premine and activation-guard verification steps.

Before any mainnet

• Publish source tag, build instructions, release hashes, and binaries at least 7 days before activation.
• Finalize or revise supply parameters after public review.
• Publish final zero-premine proof and activation-guard proof.
• Use a fixed public UTC activation timestamp with no private mining window.

[WestHamFan10]

Hey, just read through the LegacyNote whitepaper and the PRE‑ANN. The focus on a procedurally clean launch, with no premine, no founder allocation, and no private mining window, really stood out to me.

I’m curious about the pseudonymous‑founder angle: you make it clear that identity is intentionally outside the trust model and that everything should be provable from source, chain state, and activation mechanics. In practice, how do you see that working socially? Do you expect people to treat the founder more like a temporary bootstrap role that can be fully ignored once the handoff happens, or do you think the pseudonymous identity will still end up carrying some soft power in the community?

Also, from your perspective, why should anyone care about yet another Monero‑based chain at this point? There have been a lot of forks over the years, many of them with some “fair launch” or “community focus” claim. What, in your mind, makes LegacyNote worth paying attention to beyond “it’s Monero code with different emission constants”? Is it mainly the launch mechanics and governance commitments, or do you see a distinct long‑term role for LGN next to Monero?

Would be interested to hear how you’d explain that differentiation to a skeptical Monero user who has already seen plenty of forks come and go.

[ShinobiSilva]

I couldn't ask for a better response. Thanks for reading through everything. These are exactly the right questions.

On the pseudonymous-founder point: yes, the intended founder role is a temporary bootstrap role, not a permanent source of authority. I do not think identity should be part of the trust model for LegacyNote. The founder should not be trusted because of a name, reputation, origin story, or personality. The claims should stand or fall on public source, chain state, activation mechanics, build artifacts, hashes, and review.

Socially, I expect some soft power risk to exist anyway. That is hard to avoid in any project started by one person or a small group. The mitigation is to make the founder role boring and removable: no premine, no founder allocation, no dev fee, no donation wallet, no private mining window, no privileged seed access, no market role, and a public handoff plan. After handoff, the founder should have the same ordinary rights as anyone else: mine, run nodes, review code, submit patches, or be ignored.

If the community decides the founder should have no continuing role, that is compatible with the point of the project. If credible maintainers want to take over before testnet or mainnet, that is also compatible with the point of the project.

On the "why another Monero-based chain?" question: skepticism is justified. Monero is the benchmark here, and LegacyNote is not presented as a Monero replacement or as a claim of technical superiority. A skeptical Monero user should not care by default.

The narrow reason to look at LegacyNote is the launch process itself: can a modern CryptoNote-style chain be put forward with no premine, no sale, no dev fee, no treasury, no donation wallet, no founder allocation, no private launch window, no market framing, and a founder handoff posture, while making those claims mechanically reviewable?

So yes, the differentiation is mainly launch mechanics, governance commitments, and proof discipline rather than protocol novelty at launch. The conservative Monero-codebase posture is intentional. The goal is not to add a pile of new features before anyone can even verify the launch. The goal is to make the first review surface as clear as possible: network separation, supply clarity, activation gating, zero-premine proof, build verification, and community control.

Whether LGN deserves any long-term role next to Monero is not something I can declare. That depends on whether independent people actually review it, build it, run nodes, mine testnet, object to things, improve things, or take it over. Without community, LegacyNote is only a public proposal.

So my answer to a skeptical Monero user would be: do not trust it, and do not assume it matters. If the launch mechanics interest you, review the source and the process. If the proof does not hold, reject it. If no community forms around it, it should not be rushed into mainnet just because a timestamp was proposed.