[ANN][BMR] Bitmonero - a new coin based on CryptoNote technology - LAUNCHED

[eizh]

Hey thankful, any update on this?

By the way, I agree with x0rcist that maybe you could just block time to change after a certain block height. 1 minute in the solo mining phase (~1 month) and 2-2.5 minutes afterwards.

[1714187246]

1714187246

[1714187246]

1714187246

[1714187246]

1714187246

[1714187246]

1714187246

[1714187246]

1714187246

[sorryforthat]

Has there been anything new about this coin? Has it been put on hold or is it still schedule for release. Also a name?

[smooth]

Has there been anything new about this coin? Has it been put on hold or is it still schedule for release. Also a name?

I'm starting to doubt there is really a good reason for this besides people wanting to pump and dump. The original is starting to get more and more traction in the community (beyond what may or may not exist on the darknet). It will be hard for a clone to overcome that lead.

If anything I'd propose a bitcoin spin-off clone instead. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0

Better chance of adoption to overtake the original, maybe.

[sorryforthat]

Has there been anything new about this coin? Has it been put on hold or is it still schedule for release. Also a name?

I'm starting to doubt there is really a good reason for this besides people wanting to pump and dump. The original is starting to get more and more traction in the community (beyond what may or may not exist on the darknet). It will be hard for a clone to overcome that lead.

If anything I'd propose a bitcoin spin-off clone instead. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0

Better chance of adoption to overtake the original, maybe.

To be honest I would rather the latter part of your comment to be true. I wonder how BCN would cohabitate on exchanges with BTC and the long list of forks.

[eizh]

Has there been anything new about this coin? Has it been put on hold or is it still schedule for release. Also a name?

I'm starting to doubt there is really a good reason for this besides people wanting to pump and dump. The original is starting to get more and more traction in the community (beyond what may or may not exist on the darknet). It will be hard for a clone to overcome that lead.

If anything I'd propose a bitcoin spin-off clone instead. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0

Better chance of adoption to overtake the original, maybe.

There are very good reasons for having a fork instead. With BCN we have a coin that refused to show itself for 2 years and has been 80% mined. Why would the markets accept that? Crypto distribution is absurdly bad (most, even big ones like LTC, have ~50% of coins held in the top 100 wallets). But this is taking it to a whole new level. Not to mention we have a dev team that we can't interact with and a very poorly chosen dispersement speed, with 80% mined in such a short time (compare to BTC distribution which extends into decades). Don't underestimate "instamining" stigma - it annihilated Quark and continues to plague DRK. A currency (exchange medium) is no good if many people don't want anything to do with it.

A fresh start pre-announced start gives a known market history, a fairer and longer distribution, and active development with feedback.

That said, I'm disappointed in what this thread turned out to be. We should've had discussion on the name and the parameters and other things and yet thankful_for_today is nowhere to be seen 4 days from the supposed launch.

[sorryforthat]

There are very good reasons for having a fork instead. With BCN we have a coin that refused to show itself for 2 years and has been 80% mined. Why would the markets accept that? Crypto distribution is absurdly bad (most, even big ones like LTC, have ~50% of coins held in the top 100 wallets). But this is taking it to a whole new level. Not to mention we have a dev team that we can't interact with and a very poorly chosen dispersement speed, with 80% mined in such a short time (compare to BTC distribution which extends into decades). Don't underestimate "instamining" stigma - it annihilated Quark and continues to plague DRK. A currency (exchange medium) is no good if many people don't want anything to do with it.

A fresh start pre-announced start gives a known market history, a fairer and longer distribution, and active development with feedback.

That said, I'm disappointed in what this thread turned out to be. We should've had discussion on the name and the parameters and other things and yet thankful_for_today is nowhere to be seen 4 days from the supposed launch.

Refused to show itself? Peopel refused to see it and were blind by the bitcoin craze, but this didnt stop it from growing.

80% mined without a clue of the user base, for all we know it has a user base equel to bitcoin. It is bad for the people who are looking at it now, but until we know more, its hard to really say.

It wasnt instamined though? You make it seem like a fork is needed so that people who got to BCN late can feel relavent with the creation of new coin. Say the dev team was available, you now how much they would have to deal with considering how big this has grown. Not to mention it would contradict their reasoning for a more anonymous currency.

[smooth]

Why would the markets accept that?

I can't answer that. I try not second guess the markets, just observe. It seems the original coin is getting more and more uptake, for whatever reason.

Clones always have an uphill battle, as I'm sure you know.

Crypto distribution is absurdly bad (most, even big ones like LTC, have ~50% of coins held in the top 100 wallets).

And yet, LTC is the most successful alt by far...

Don't underestimate "instamining" stigma - it annihilated Quark and continues to plague DRK. A currency (exchange medium) is no good if many people don't want anything to do with it.

I don't disagree necessarily, like I said I'm just observing. If this coin turns out not to work the technology is out there and can be used for something else.

[eizh]

Refused to show itself? Peopel refused to see it and were blind by the bitcoin craze, but this didnt stop it from growing.

You don't seem to know what the darknet is. Please read up.

[sorryforthat]

Refused to show itself? Peopel refused to see it and were blind by the bitcoin craze, but this didnt stop it from growing.

You don't seem to know what the darknet is. Please read up.

Fully aware of what it is, but to say that is justification. It didn't try to be hidden, it was on the web all along.

[smooth]

It didn't try to be hidden, it was on the web all along.

I'm not sure about that. i looked in wayback and most of the sites are only a few months old. Maybe I missed something, or wayback did.

[eizh]

Why would the markets accept that?

I can't answer that. I try not second guess the markets, just observe. It seems the original coin is getting more and more uptake, for whatever reason.

Clones always have an uphill battle, as I'm sure you know.

Crypto distribution is absurdly bad (most, even big ones like LTC, have ~50% of coins held in the top 100 wallets).

And yet, LTC is the most successful alt by far...

Don't underestimate "instamining" stigma - it annihilated Quark and continues to plague DRK. A currency (exchange medium) is no good if many people don't want anything to do with it.

I don't disagree necessarily, like I said I'm just observing. If this coin turns out not to work the technology is out there and can be used for something else.

I wasn't observing that poor distribution leads to a lack of success, but that it's simply bad for any exchange medium. We here in altcoin-land are only concerned with profits so we don't think about it, but presumably in the end what we want is a universally accepted currency. But what we're looking at it with BCN is probably a distribution that's horrible even by cryptocurrency standards -- and that's just scary territory.

Right now BCN is being mined as a novelty, but there are complete nonsense coins that get more attention than it in shorter timeframes. Considering how revolutionary the technology is, I think that's explained by the fact that it wasn't "properly launched" from the perspective of the community.

I've been mining BCN and I'll support it just because I firmly believe in the need for anonymity, but there would be a tinge of regret that we could've had something better.

[sorryforthat]

I wasn't observing that poor distribution leads to a lack of success, but that it's simply bad for any exchange medium. We here in altcoin-land are only concerned with profits so we don't think about it, but presumably in the end what we want is a universally accepted currency. But what we're looking at it with BCN is probably a distribution that's horrible even by cryptocurrency standards -- and that's just scary territory.

People should read the Whitepaper and not rely so much on what they see all over this forum.

Right now BCN is being mined as a novelty, but there are complete nonsense coins that get more attention than it in shorter timeframes. Considering how revolutionary the technology is, I think that's explained by the fact that it wasn't "properly launched" from the perspective of the community.

Temporary exchanges have been set up, although archaic in a sense, they have been succesful for the coin as of late.

I've been mining BCN and I'll support it just because I firmly believe in the need for anonymity, but there would be a tinge of regret that we could've had something better.

At any point in time all the calculations that we have to go on could have been off. Maybe something was missed or just not understood. So at this point in time the fact that there is 80% is in my mind and estimate that could be far less than we think.

[Snail2]

I like the idea so I'm going to keep an eye on this topic.

[btc-mike]

BCN looks more like a proof-of-concept than a functioning cryptocurrency. My theory is the "Creators" (math geeks, mathematicians, aliens) developed Cryptonote and needed a way to test. They created BCN and kept it to themselves during testing. They released the info once they knew it worked. And by release, I mean put up a few websites and left CN & BCN there.

I have been following BCN but not mining. The origins and beginning years are unknown. The "Creators" and participants are unknown. I will let them keep their coin.

If a developer comes along and wants to create a new cryptocurrency using CN, I may participate but I will not be using BCN.

[sorryforthat]

BCN looks more like a proof-of-concept than a functioning cryptocurrency. My theory is the "Creators" (math geeks, mathematicians, aliens) developed Cryptonote and needed a way to test. They created BCN and kept it to themselves during testing. They released the info once they knew it worked. And by release, I mean put up a few websites and left CN & BCN there.

It has been stated that the Cryptonote team has nothing to do with BCN multiple times on their forums

I have been following BCN but not mining. The origins and beginning years are unknown. The "Creators" and participants are unknown. I will let them keep their coin.

If a developer comes along and wants to create a new cryptocurrency using CN, I may participate but I will not be using BCN.

Adaption is not far from us at this point, so there is a chance that a fork is around the corner. And not the one in this thread. So if you are not currently mining, I suggest atleast getting a few while its growing.

Currently up for votes on the following exchanges:

http://comkort.com/vote/#BCN

http://cryptoaltex.com/index.php?page=newcoin

[x0rcist]

It didn't try to be hidden, it was on the web all along.

I'm not sure about that. i looked in wayback and most of the sites are only a few months old. Maybe I missed something, or wayback did.

Spot on! There was no data available on the clearweb till a few months back

[thankful_for_today]

Looks like everything is ready.
Bitmonero will be launched in 24 hours => Launch time 17 April, 22:00

[JjCcc]

Looks interesting, good luck with this one.

[sorryforthat]

It didn't try to be hidden, it was on the web all along.

I'm not sure about that. i looked in wayback and most of the sites are only a few months old. Maybe I missed something, or wayback did.

Spot on! There was no data available on the clearweb till a few months back

From the FAQ of the wayback machine

Why isn't the site I'm looking for in the archive?

Some sites may not be included because the automated crawlers were unaware of their existence at the time of the crawl. It's also possible that some sites were not archived because they were password protected, blocked by robots.txt, or otherwise inaccessible to our automated systems. Siteowners might have also requested that their sites be excluded from the Wayback Machine.

[Querying whois.publicinterestregistry.net]
[whois.publicinterestregistry.net]
Domain Name:BYTECOIN.ORG
Domain ID: D162497614-LROR
Creation Date: 2011-06-11T03:36:44Z
Updated Date: 2014-04-11T14:16:56Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2014-06-11T03:36:44Z
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 48

[smooth]

It didn't try to be hidden, it was on the web all along.

I'm not sure about that. i looked in wayback and most of the sites are only a few months old. Maybe I missed something, or wayback did.

Spot on! There was no data available on the clearweb till a few months back

From the FAQ of the wayback machine

Why isn't the site I'm looking for in the archive?

Some sites may not be included because the automated crawlers were unaware of their existence at the time of the crawl. It's also possible that some sites were not archived because they were password protected, blocked by robots.txt, or otherwise inaccessible to our automated systems. Siteowners might have also requested that their sites be excluded from the Wayback Machine.

[Querying whois.publicinterestregistry.net]
[whois.publicinterestregistry.net]
Domain Name:BYTECOIN.ORG
Domain ID: D162497614-LROR
Creation Date: 2011-06-11T03:36:44Z
Updated Date: 2014-04-11T14:16:56Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2014-06-11T03:36:44Z
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 48

When the domain name was created doesn't tell us anything about what was actually on the site or when. Wayback offers us an independent third part verification of what was on the site a few months ago, but nothing earlier. Do you have something?