[FCN] Fantomcoin. CN based, anonymous. Merge mine with BCN, XMR, QCN, duck.

[smooth]

It's a merged mining coin, the way I see it, it completely relies on the main coins which are so far doing good. I highly doubt that dev will abandon this coin.

Quite the opposite. Merged mining normally has no reliance at all. It's just the same work used in two places via a commitment. The things that FCN is merged with can stop existing and FCN would continue along fine (which is also demonstrated by FCN not caring at all).

The fact the merged mining is a non-trivial protocol change should be interesting— right now it generally seems that the bytecoin ecosystem as a whole doesn't have a lot of hard core technical attention on it, which is concerning, considering some of the issues in the system (e.g. the completely unhinged blocksize controls)... the fact that FCN has people working on it who are willing and able to do lowlevel protocol work is a positive sign.

The blocksize controls are being addressed by Monero. Not quite there yet, but the path is understood and the work is in progress.

[1715119063]

1715119063

[gmaxwell]

The blocksize controls are being addressed by Monero. Not quite there yet, but the path is understood and the work is in progress.

Where is this being discussed? (sorry for the OT, but I suppose the changes are relevant for all the derivatives)

[smooth]

The blocksize controls are being addressed by Monero. Not quite there yet, but the path is understood and the work is in progress.

Where is this being discussed? (sorry for the OT, but I suppose the changes are relevant for all the derivatives)

Private discussion between developers for now.

There will eventually be a code fork with proposed changes to review, and they can easily be adopted by the other variants if they choose.

[gmaxwell]

Private discussion between developers for now.
There will eventually be a code fork with proposed changes to review, and they can easily be adopted by the other variants if they choose.

Thats really disappointing, I thought that sort of lack of transparency in Bytecoin was what justified your fork in the first place?  Not to mention the practical ramifications— the brokeness of the current behavior was instantly obvious to me when I saw it, but too bad it was in an already deployed system.  You do no one any favors developing in secret.

[graphfox]

Private discussion between developers for now.
There will eventually be a code fork with proposed changes to review, and they can easily be adopted by the other variants if they choose.

Thats really disappointing, I thought that sort of lack of transparency in Bytecoin was what justified your fork in the first place?  Not to mention the practical ramifications— the brokeness of the current behavior was instantly obvious to me when I saw it, but too bad it was in an already deployed system.  You do no one any favors developing in secret.

It would be funny if they were doing this in hopes of just one-upping the BCN devs and their 2 year head start. That's not what's happening here right? I hope they include you. Would be a huge mistake to not. It's almost like these people have never been involved with Bitcoin development. I mean, I can understand plans for BCN still being secretly discussed at this time, but to do that with community-oriented clones? What a joke.

[gmaxwell]

It would be funny if they were doing this in hopes of just one-upping the BCN devs and their 2 year head start. That's not what's happening here right?

It sounds to me that it is.

I hope they include you. Would be a huge mistake to not.

I'm not interested in participating in a secret process. I'll comment on public proposals, as I have time available and if they're remotely interesting.

It's almost like these people have never been involved with Bitcoin development. I mean, I can understand plans for BCN still being secretly discussed at this time, but to do that with community-oriented clones? What a joke.

They haven't, as far as I know.

In the case of exploitable vulnerabilities keeping people safe can be at odds with transparency. In Bitcoin what we've tried to do is narrow any vulnerability down the a non-consensus behavior where implementations would reasonably expect to differ, or the smallest 'bad' behavior, the corner case the attack requires that no one had previously considered, and narrowly fix that... The idea is that the broad behavior of the system is part of the contract between all of the users that no one has the right or ability to just unilaterally change—  but some "it crashes in this case" wasn't part of the contract, and if we carefully remove only the crash via a not-very-transparent change which is compatible with people continuing to run the old code, then we've done the minimum evil there.

Changes to the long term, broad scale behavior, stuff which isn't an immediately exploitable vulnerability— that stuff absolutely must be discussed in the open. It's hard enough getting quality review for complex design decisions in cryptographic protocols which are openly discussed, moving in the shadows is suicide.  It's true that in theory people can suss out the behavior of these things from the code-drop patches and decide to run them or not— call the alarm bells that the developers have hidden some kind of concerning change, but the cost of reliably finding that stuff is high. If a situation is created where a publicly used cryptocurrency has a cabal that is making large design changes in secret, then thats not a really decenteralized system. Technical compeition isn't an excuse for undermining the decentralization that supposedly makes this stuff valuable in the first place, it's just another example of the shittyness of the altcoin space— they're often developed by greedy people who put their profit first.  This has been a complain I've raised a couple times with the Bytecoin-forks, their openness-relative-to-bytecoin sales pitch doesn't really seem to agree with their behavior.

Of course, that kind of hyper competitive approach also makes it hard to report actual vulnerabilities— the more competition there is, the more concern that if you report it to them they'll just use it to attack each other.

In this case perhaps the brain damaged block sizes are more immediately exploitable that I suspected, I was expecting it to be discussed in the open because I believed it was only a long term disaster, not also a short term one too. If so, I'm sorry for whining that the development of the fixes isn't in the open; though I'd still encourage everyone to separate narrow fixes from more substantive changes.

[smooth]

It would be funny if they were doing this in hopes of just one-upping the BCN devs and their 2 year head start. That's not what's happening here right?

It sounds to me that it is.

I hope they include you. Would be a huge mistake to not.

I'm not interested in participating in a secret process. I'll comment on public proposals, as I have time available and if they're remotely interesting.

It's almost like these people have never been involved with Bitcoin development. I mean, I can understand plans for BCN still being secretly discussed at this time, but to do that with community-oriented clones? What a joke.

They haven't, as far as I know.

That is largely true and part of the reason is that bitcoin developers tend to self-select out of working on most altcoins, for a number of reasons. The reasons are interesting and in some ways self-fulfillling. They are certainly welcome and even more certainly not intentionally excluded, but they often decline to participate. Bitcoin developers not participating doesn't make the development not happen though.

This is certainly off topic though for FCN though. I would encourage taking it elsewhere. It would be interesting if there were a place to discuss the practice and politics of bitcoin and altcoins, since there are now a bunch of altcoins that actually have real value, which wasn't always the case. rpietila altcoin thread is actually fairly intelligent for now, BTW.

[Karn]

Can Wolf's minerd be used for solo and or merged mining? If so could some one give me an idea what the .bat should look like. I can't seem to get it working.

[followtheboss]

Can Wolf's minerd be used for solo and or merged mining? If so could some one give me an idea what the .bat should look like. I can't seem to get it working.

No, unfortunatly, you can't. You need to use minerc that is given in the 1st post

[Karn]

Can Wolf's minerd be used for solo and or merged mining? If so could some one give me an idea what the .bat should look like. I can't seem to get it working.

No, unfortunatly, you can't. You need to use minerc that is given in the 1st post

Cool thank you, been using minerc was just looking for more speed

[jc12345]

Guys why are there no trading volume?

[bitcoinbear]

Price is also mostly set by the market supply and demand. It's seems the demand is low as the volume on exchanges are lows.
I guess FCN need advertising for more traders / investors and pools for more miners.

cheers

Agreed.

Going to talk to amphibian about the coin marketing since I have plenty of free time atm and it will also free him from the forum.

[amphibian]

Hey guys,

Recently we’ve talked with bitcoinbear about the marketing of the coin and he made a lot of valid points regarding the coin’s current state.

Unfortunately ATM I don’t have enough time for developing and marketing. I’ll surely visit forum once/twice per day to answer technical questions if there will be any.

So that’s pretty much it, don’t hesitate to contact bitcoinbear in case of any questions and also feel free to help him out.

Cheers!

[bitcoinbear]

Hey guys,

Recently we’ve talked with bitcoinbear about the marketing of the coin and he made a lot of valid points regarding the coin’s current state.

Unfortunately ATM I don’t have enough time for developing and marketing. I’ll surely visit forum once/twice per day to answer technical questions if there will be any.

So that’s pretty much it, don’t hesitate to contact bitcoinbear in case of any questions and also feel free to help him out.

Cheers!

I’ll try my best. Merged mining is a great feature and hopefully I will be able to deliver it’s greatness to more and more people.

As the first step in marketing campaign (lol) I would like to ask the community it’s opinion: What would you change/introduce in FCN to make it more valuable?

I’ve made a couple of points in that thread but I would love to hear from you.

[Spekulatius]

Hey guys,

Recently we’ve talked with bitcoinbear about the marketing of the coin and he made a lot of valid points regarding the coin’s current state.

Unfortunately ATM I don’t have enough time for developing and marketing. I’ll surely visit forum once/twice per day to answer technical questions if there will be any.

So that’s pretty much it, don’t hesitate to contact bitcoinbear in case of any questions and also feel free to help him out.

Cheers!

I’ll try my best. Merged mining is a great feature and hopefully I will be able to deliver it’s greatness to more and more people.

As the first step in marketing campaign (lol) I would like to ask the community it’s opinion: What would you change/introduce in FCN to make it more valuable?

I’ve made a couple of points in that thread but I would love to hear from you.

Thank you both for being courageous and humble enough to pass on the torch and for stepping up to the challenge! It takes effort and time on bitcoinbear's end of the commitment and humility on amphibian's part to let go of the prestige as main dev of this project. Im optimistic that these decisions will greatly benefit further development of this unique project.

The second part of my post addresses the challenges ahead. It's a pleasant suprise for me that bitcoinbear takes the open approach of engageing the community like this to collect ideas and advise to hopefully together form a common vision for this project. I wish that the first steps in this direction will lead the way in its nature for future developments as much as possible.

Im sure we will gather many good ideas here to make this project unique among the CryptoNote competition. For that I would like to suggest that whatever we end up with, we should be focussed on a few features and sub projects not to loose oversight and direction. We should also favor unique propositions that set this project apart from others in the field.
+

[c789]

Best wishes to amphibian, and thank you for all that you've done! I know you'll still be involved on some level, and I look forward to your further contributions.

Best of luck to bitcoinbear. From your posts, you seem knowledgeable, so from that and from amphibian's confidence in you, I am completely fine with this transition.

As far as suggestions for the coin, please know that these are casual suggestions. I have not put a lot of research into these so I may be completely wrong, and if so, I welcome people's correction. These are just some of the requests that I've noticed from the thread:

• Implement a pool. I know the main devs don't have to be the ones to do this. In fact, if anyone here has the time, resources, and knowledge to implement a FCN pool, my guess is that the devs would provide guidance and assistance.
• While I personally don't care, it seems that many more people will use a coin if it has a GUI wallet (for PC and/or phone apps). A wallet without having to download the blockchain would be great for phones.
• I know a logo contest is ongoing, and a good logo seems to be a necessity.
• Maybe a slower emission curve so as to encourage the coin's long-term use
• Maybe a longer block time (2-3 minutes) to discourage orphan blocks. For coins purposed for anonymity on a peer-to-peer network, it seems that >60s offers better chain efficiency.

I really haven't done a lot of research on the last 2 points so I could be way off. Just my 0.02.

Keep up the great work!

[Spekulatius]

Best wishes to amphibian, and thank you for all that you've done! I know you'll still be involved on some level, and I look forward to your further contributions.

Best of luck to bitcoinbear. From your posts, you seem knowledgeable, so from that and from amphibian's confidence in you, I am completely fine with this transition.

As far as suggestions for the coin, please know that these are casual suggestions. I have not put a lot of research into these so I may be completely wrong, and if so, I welcome people's correction. These are just some of the requests that I've noticed from the thread:

• Implement a pool. I know the main devs don't have to be the ones to do this. In fact, if anyone here has the time, resources, and knowledge to implement a FCN pool, my guess is that the devs would provide guidance and assistance.
• While I personally don't care, it seems that many more people will use a coin if it has a GUI wallet (for PC and/or phone apps). A wallet without having to download the blockchain would be great for phones.
• I know a logo contest is ongoing, and a good logo seems to be a necessity.
• Maybe a slower emission curve so as to encourage the coin's long-term use
• Maybe a longer block time (2-3 minutes) to discourage orphan blocks. For coins purposed for anonymity on a peer-to-peer network, it seems that >60s offers better chain efficiency.

I really haven't done a lot of research on the last 2 points so I could be way off. Just my 0.02.

Keep up the great work!

Lets start the discussion for new festures in the thread for it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=636074.new#new

So this thread stays clear for other things.

[ciocgun]

is there a pool for this coin?

[hakertajniak]

There is no pool for this coin yet...
I think that it's a matter of time

[bitcoinbear]

Changes in logo contest - 0.5 BTC reward, 3 prize places https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=606048.msg7107496#msg7107496