rpietila Altcoin Observer

[dga]

Same rules apply to people bashing BBR. Tainting it because of christian developing a private miner?

I think they likely to be quite different. My last post estimated that roughly 2% of XMR coins were mined before the public miner was un-de-optimzied. What is corresponding percentage of BBR coins? Since the emission curve is reasonable I still don't think the number is that large (compared to absurdly instamined coins -- and shills for these coins on this thread you know who you are) but it still may be higher than XMR. Or perhaps not. I haven't really been following it so I don't know.

They're surprisingly similar in terms of %age.  The gap for the de-optimized miner vs a GPU miner was larger (20x gap vs 5x gap), but as we all know, it's easier to bring more GPUs to bear on mining unless you have a botnet.  Boolberry is currently around 5% mined, and it's had a public GPU miner for several weeks.  The timeline for the un-de-optimization can be read pretty clearly from the git commit history on bitmonero:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commits/master/src/crypto/slow-hash.c

Block 1 was mined at 2014-04-18 10:49:53, and Noodle's first optimization was committed into the repository on May 7, but recall that those initial optimizations were still in the 5-10 h/s range.  The more significant one was May 21, and then the current-generation "hyper-optimized" miners came into play a week or so after that.

I think it's important to distinguish between "de-optimized" (which I'd say was the state before the May 21 commit) and "not yet optimized".  What Noodle got things to on May 21 was what a reasonable, sane person might think of as an implementation of CryptoNite.  The things that followed were architecture-specific optimizations, and we can have a separate fight about the degree to which devs should feel required to release vector-optimized code in a first release vs. letting the legions of optimizers handle it for them at the cost of some free coins.

This is around block 50,000 in the XMR blockchain.

mbk's GPU miner for Boolberry was released July 19:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=693118.msg7928171#msg7928171

This is around block 45,000 in the BBR blockchain.

That's frighteningly similar, all things considered.  I hadn't actually done that analysis before -- interesting.

I think it's worth differentiating "unfair" from "the @*ing dev cheated".  I'm not entirely sure why I feel so strongly about this, but I do -- I think it's because it destroys any trust I'd have in the developers, and when you're dealing with *money*, it's important to have a dev team you can trust -- otherwise, what else did they hide in the code that you haven't had a chance to find yet?

I'm pretty convinced that neither the XMR or Boolberry devs cheated in this way.  I'm also pretty convinced that the Bytecoin devs did:  that code was so de-optimized it was a joke, and I think that all of us who touched it concur.  But it's not the XMR team's fault that they inherited something sneaky in the code and acted to root it out.  And the BBR initial implementation was pretty well optimized -- the things that otila and wolf did on top of it take work and are beyond what "the average developer skilled in the art" (but not interesting in to-the-metal optimization) should be expected to do.

[1715583660]

1715583660

[1715583660]

1715583660

[1715583660]

1715583660

[1715583660]

1715583660

[dga]

So basically equivalent to a premine. So much for the fair image.

No - I edited my post a few seconds after posting it to explain why I disagree with this assessment.

There was a biased distribution of the initial, say, 3% of each of these coins, but it wasn't biased towards the devs -- it was biased towards some lucky stiffs who stumbled on them and had the optimization skills to capitalize on it.  Those coins hit the market, the lucky stiffs pocked a few tens or hundreds of BTC, paid Amazon a heck of a lot of money for the privilege, and life goes on.

*shrugs*  Happens.

[drawingthemoon]

I think it's worth differentiating "unfair" from "the @*ing dev cheated".  I'm not entirely sure why I feel so strongly about this, but I do -- I think it's because it destroys any trust I'd have in the developers, and when you're dealing with *money*, it's important to have a dev team you can trust -- otherwise, what else did they hide in the code that you haven't had a chance to find yet?

I'm pretty convinced that neither the XMR or Boolberry devs cheated in this way.  I'm also pretty convinced that the Bytecoin devs did:  that code was so de-optimized it was a joke, and I think that all of us who touched it concur.  But it's not the XMR team's fault that they inherited something sneaky in the code and acted to root it out.  And the BBR initial implementation was pretty well optimized -- the things that otila and wolf did on top of it take work and are beyond what "the average developer skilled in the art" (but not interesting in to-the-metal optimization) should be expected to do.

Brilliant post mate. One of the better posts in this entire thread and there haven't been many despite the number of pages. I have reason to believe thankful_for_today mined most of the coins in the first week. Unless he comes here and chooses to post otherwise. That's all I have to say about that. But 100% true that tacotime and smooth had no unfair advantage via miner optimizations. Keep in mind, optimized test miners were available in #monero via Noodle if you were around. But like the name says, they were "test" versions eventually pushed to github for everyone's benefit like a true honest project should be.

Christian not sharing his miner intentionally in BBR was worse than Bytecoin "minergate" or claymore fees. That just plain blows and it is not crypto. Christian, has been a disservice to BBR, but this is no reason to vilify BBR with a broad brush, unless it is used to paint XMR at the same time.

Im going to dump all the boolberry I got(150,000)

Place a sell order on Poloniex.

[smooth]

There was a biased distribution of the initial, say, 3% of each of these coins, but it wasn't biased towards the devs -- it was biased towards some lucky stiffs who stumbled on them and had the optimization skills to capitalize on it.

If it was the bytecoin folks (or someone in collusion with them) doing it then I wouldn't call them "lucky stiffs" at all. I'd say mining the inevitable clones would have been part of the de-optimization scam from the start.

I don't have any direct evidence of that. Perhaps other people do. But I would be shocked if it didn't happen.

[binaryFate]

There was a biased distribution of the initial, say, 3% of each of these coins, but it wasn't biased towards the devs -- it was biased towards some lucky stiffs who stumbled on them and had the optimization skills to capitalize on it.

If it was the bytecoin folks (or someone in collusion with them) doing it then I wouldn't call them "lucky stiffs" at all. I'd say mining the inevitable clones would have been part of the de-optimization scam from the start.

I don't have any direct evidence of that. Perhaps other people do. But I would be shocked if it didn't happen.

I don't like to be zealot/aggressive against other coins, but the BCN scam stands appart, above all scam stuff that I despise.

So I cannot refrain to mention that this is one more element showing how absurd is the 2 years deepweb story.
You'd have a coin in the wild "in the deepweb" for 2 years, and none in bitcointalk would know it. I think we have many people here that have all kind of connections with all the weirdest part of the web you can imagine. You can serve that story to mainstream medias, but not to the crypto community as a whole.

Now there is more: You'd have a coin that (as the BCN devs said) is actually used as money for 2 years, which gives an incentive to its users/miners to mine it as efficiently/as much as possible. Yet for 2 years nobody would have find that the mining software was so full of crap that it could be made 5x times more efficient, by a single guy looking at the code one day.


Side note, since the self-proclaimed current CN team is serving the same lie, this is a very strong indication for me they were and are part of this scam.

[rpietila]

There was a biased distribution of the initial, say, 3% of each of these coins, but it wasn't biased towards the devs -- it was biased towards some lucky stiffs who stumbled on them and had the optimization skills to capitalize on it.

If it was the bytecoin folks (or someone in collusion with them) doing it then I wouldn't call them "lucky stiffs" at all. I'd say mining the inevitable clones would have been part of the de-optimization scam from the start.

I don't have any direct evidence of that. Perhaps other people do. But I would be shocked if it didn't happen.

I calculated that if the "crime" started from the beginning, lasted for 20 days, coins were generated at half price, hashrate was 43% of that of the rest of the network combined, and the coins were sold in the end of the period, the proceeds of the "crime" were $75k.

If the coins were sold asap, it is only $30k...

If it was a scam from CN developers, I think they expected better upside

[smooth]

There was a biased distribution of the initial, say, 3% of each of these coins, but it wasn't biased towards the devs -- it was biased towards some lucky stiffs who stumbled on them and had the optimization skills to capitalize on it.

If it was the bytecoin folks (or someone in collusion with them) doing it then I wouldn't call them "lucky stiffs" at all. I'd say mining the inevitable clones would have been part of the de-optimization scam from the start.

I don't have any direct evidence of that. Perhaps other people do. But I would be shocked if it didn't happen.

I calculated that if the "crime" started from the beginning, lasted for 20 days, coins were generated at half price, hashrate was 43% of that of the rest of the network combined, and the coins were sold in the end of the period, the proceeds of the "crime" were $75k.

If the coins were sold asap, it is only $30k...

If it was a scam from CN developers, I think they expected better upside

Mining the clones is just a bonus.

Most of the scam is the 82% ninja/pre-mine on BCN, which still has $4 million market cap (why?), but was much higher in May-June when it was clearly being dumped (10-50 BTC volume per day despite <10 BTC/day being mined)

[dewdeded]

Let them cash out and take some stupid money. No rational-minded, objective person, - who at least minimal researches his investment decisions - will prefer BCN over XMR or BBR.
Some one who('s) knowingly invest(ing) in BCN after a self-made decision, between/out of: ...

a) No-Investing, b) Investing in other solid coin, c) Investing in other CN coin and d) invest in BCN.

... has some serious (expert) knowledge problems and should better not invest in Cryptos at all. As it will be a person, who doesnt act fact based and make his investment decisions influence by FUD, gut instinct   , "getting lucky", superstitiousness, .......

99,99% of the time, this person will lose his investment in the crypto scene anyway, be it by being scammed, investing in a P&D scheme, making other bad decisions (no risk spreading, investing in clearly dead coins, ...).


So IMHO, if someone really want's to buy BCN he should be invited, to do his donation to the CryptoNote.org/BCN-crew.
Even if these guys (in charge of the websites/domains now) act strange and weird today, they deserve some $$$$$$ for bringing this wonderful technology plattform in the spotlight. Let's hope the real developers/invetors, behind the tech are happy with the situation (CN adaption, image, distribution of $$$ made by the BCN crew, community/ecosystem dominated by BCN crew/CN.org, ...) today. Maybe, maybe not.

Still interesting to know, in what relationship these people, who manage CN.org/CN foundation/.../BCN now, have/had with the tech mind(s) behind it.

[dEBRUYNE]

Opinions on Cryptonite, the first coin implementing mini-blockchain? Whitepaper here.

Interesting that someone is trying to create something new for a change, but I feel like the PoW algo selection will make it BCN2 or BBR2 as there is/will be a private mining group with GPU miners whereas there's no hope of mining with a high-end desktop CPU. Maybe this won't be an issue as only half of the coins will be mined within the first 10 years, and you can't really mine with a 1 video card desktop anything anyway these days? Another coin forking from Cryptonite with an established PoW algo and miners and pools ready at launch could steal its thunder though, similar to BCN vs XMR.

Who happens to mine these fungible coins is irrelevant.  If other people want them, they simply buy them from those who specialize in optimizing and running miners, or trading.

Cryptonite is a Very Big Deal, representing the third great innovation in cryptocash (minichains) after Bitcoin's blockchain and CryptoNote's ring signatures.  Vertcoin's private addresses come close to making the list, in a distant fourth place.  Proof-of-work may have been a candidate for fifth, but is made obsolete by minichains, so it loses to Primecoin's cool/trippy factor.

Forget those other trash coins.  All that matter right now are Bitcoin, Monero, and Cryptonite. 

(Litecoin is also valuable as a hot-swappable replacement in case Bitcoin breaks, ditto Namecoin and DNS.)

It's fascinating how Monero and Cryptonite are fundamentally incompatible and splitting Bitcoin into private Monero and public Cryptonite niches, like a speciation event!

Economically it makes perfect sense to remove Bitcoin's blockchain bloat to be more efficient for public transactions, while simultaneously putting other bloat to work by ensuring privacy for Monero.

As I finish this post CN is nearing an ATH.  Nice. 

Now just wait until all the kids realize they've been conned by their closed source and/or kludgey CLOAK/DARK/BLACK/XC FailCoins.  See ya'll on the moon...

Any other opinions on cryptonite?

[nakaone]

Opinions on Cryptonite, the first coin implementing mini-blockchain? Whitepaper here.

Interesting that someone is trying to create something new for a change, but I feel like the PoW algo selection will make it BCN2 or BBR2 as there is/will be a private mining group with GPU miners whereas there's no hope of mining with a high-end desktop CPU. Maybe this won't be an issue as only half of the coins will be mined within the first 10 years, and you can't really mine with a 1 video card desktop anything anyway these days? Another coin forking from Cryptonite with an established PoW algo and miners and pools ready at launch could steal its thunder though, similar to BCN vs XMR.

Who happens to mine these fungible coins is irrelevant.  If other people want them, they simply buy them from those who specialize in optimizing and running miners, or trading.

Cryptonite is a Very Big Deal, representing the third great innovation in cryptocash (minichains) after Bitcoin's blockchain and CryptoNote's ring signatures.  Vertcoin's private addresses come close to making the list, in a distant fourth place.  Proof-of-work may have been a candidate for fifth, but is made obsolete by minichains, so it loses to Primecoin's cool/trippy factor.

Forget those other trash coins.  All that matter right now are Bitcoin, Monero, and Cryptonite. 

(Litecoin is also valuable as a hot-swappable replacement in case Bitcoin breaks, ditto Namecoin and DNS.)

It's fascinating how Monero and Cryptonite are fundamentally incompatible and splitting Bitcoin into private Monero and public Cryptonite niches, like a speciation event!

Economically it makes perfect sense to remove Bitcoin's blockchain bloat to be more efficient for public transactions, while simultaneously putting other bloat to work by ensuring privacy for Monero.

As I finish this post CN is nearing an ATH.  Nice. 

Now just wait until all the kids realize they've been conned by their closed source and/or kludgey CLOAK/DARK/BLACK/XC FailCoins.  See ya'll on the moon...

Any other opinions on cryptonite?

I have to admit that I share icebreakers point of view - that said, xcn is very young, buggy, quite expensive already. compared to other coins it offers something new which indeed has value and potential, but I also think that bitcoin can simply clone miniblockchains once they are proven (non-technical perspective). this is the beauty of xmr, there is quite a big niche which probably will never be filled by bitcoin.

[fluffypony]

Any other opinions on cryptonite?

I personally don't have any, but there has been discussion on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2bp3vk/the_miniblockchain_scheme/

[yAmAdA]

Monero was released with an intentionally crippled hash function. Whether the Monero devs realized it or not, the crippled hash was included to give someone an unfair advantage.

So BCN devs could have mined Monero faster. But BCN devs do not appear to care for Monero. Do you have anything that strongly indicates BCN devs mined Monero back then?

If somebody who was not involved in the creation of the hash function optimized it, the fact that it was intentionally crippled instead of accidentally crippled does not matter for fairness.

[r0ach]

Yes.  Monero had one of the most fair launches of any coin.

I definitely would not say that.  The botnet problem is understated if anything.

I was there for Monero launch on the first or second day and got 0 coins mining with two CPUs.  There's just too much CPU power out there for really any CPU coin to be considered "fair" in the current environment.  Same thing happened with that Cryptonite coin.  Some guy posting about how he mined with 30 CPUs on the second day and got 0 coins.  I mean come on, just how many CPUs is one supposed to own to be able to mine a CPU coin?  These things are just charity events for botnets at the moment.

I've mined tons of GPU coins at launch before and even if you only put a single GPU on them, you would still probably get a block.  Thirty CPUs and no block for Cryptonite launch just indicates an invalid mining scheme.  Botnet resources are just far too high for low market cap coins.  It would be much less of a problem for a coin with a large market cap, but all this tells you is that it's completely pointless to launch an "altcoin" utilizing CPU mining instead of GPU.

[kbm]

I definitely would not say that.  The botnet problem is understated if anything.

I was there for Monero launch on the first or second day and got 0 coins mining with two CPUs.  There's just too much CPU power out there for really any CPU coin to be considered "fair" in the current environment.  Same thing happened with that Cryptonite coin.  Some guy posting about how he mined with 30 CPUs on the second day and got 0 coins.  I mean come on, just how many CPUs is one supposed to own to be able to mine a CPU coin?  These things are just charity events for botnets at the moment.

That's weird that our experiences are so different. I was using one i7 processor and got (>>10, <50) blocks with it the first week. Second week I threw about 4 more computers on it, with miserable processors (celerons/pentiums), leaving me with >50, <120 blocks mined after week 2 IIRC. After that, there wasn't much notable solo mining.

[r0ach]

I definitely would not say that.  The botnet problem is understated if anything.

I was there for Monero launch on the first or second day and got 0 coins mining with two CPUs.  There's just too much CPU power out there for really any CPU coin to be considered "fair" in the current environment.  Same thing happened with that Cryptonite coin.  Some guy posting about how he mined with 30 CPUs on the second day and got 0 coins.  I mean come on, just how many CPUs is one supposed to own to be able to mine a CPU coin?  These things are just charity events for botnets at the moment.

That's weird that our experiences are so different. I was using one i7 processor and got (>>10, <50) blocks with it the first week. Second week I threw about 4 more computers on it, with miserable processors (celerons/pentiums), leaving me with >50, <120 blocks mined after week 2 IIRC. After that, there wasn't much notable solo mining.

I tossed two CPUs on it for the entire day and got 0 on the second day from my recollection.  This has been my experience for virtually every CPU coin ever launched.  Can just go and read the Cryptonite thread right now and see the same thing repeating itself.  People with 30 CPUs getting 0 coins.

[iCEBREAKER]

Cryptonite is a Very Big Deal, representing the third great innovation in cryptocash (minichains) after Bitcoin's blockchain and CryptoNote's ring signatures.  Vertcoin's private addresses come close to making the list, in a distant fourth place.  Proof-of-work may have been a candidate for fifth, but is made obsolete by minichains, so it loses to Primecoin's cool/trippy factor.

Forget those other trash coins.  All that matter right now are Bitcoin, Monero, and Cryptonite. 

(Litecoin is also valuable as a hot-swappable replacement in case Bitcoin breaks, ditto Namecoin and DNS.)

It's fascinating how Monero and Cryptonite are fundamentally incompatible and splitting Bitcoin into private Monero and public Cryptonite niches, like a speciation event!

Economically it makes perfect sense to remove Bitcoin's blockchain bloat to be more efficient for public transactions, while simultaneously putting other bloat to work by ensuring privacy for Monero.

As I finish this post CN is nearing an ATH.  Nice. 

Now just wait until all the kids realize they've been conned by their closed source and/or kludgey CLOAK/DARK/BLACK/XC FailCoins.  See ya'll on the moon...

Any other opinions on cryptonite?

I have to admit that I share icebreakers point of view - that said, xcn is very young, buggy, quite expensive already. compared to other coins it offers something new which indeed has value and potential, but I also think that bitcoin can simply clone miniblockchains once they are proven (non-technical perspective). this is the beauty of xmr, there is quite a big niche which probably will never be filled by bitcoin.

XCN is young and expensive, but I haven't seen any bugs yet.  It was tested for over a month prior to release.  My node is totally stable.

Bitcoin cannot "simply" clone minichains any more than other forms of hardfork.  Minichains are unproven and untested; the market demands Bitcoin evolve in a very conservative manner.  There is too much money at stake for a consensus to hardfork to emerge for any reason, except to fix emergent bugs/vulnerabilities.

For all intents and purposes, experimentation and innovation are confined to the altcoins by practical and theoretical reasons.

I am very pleased by the emerging symbiosis between BTC, XCN, and XMR.  BTC preserves wealth, while XCN makes public transactions very cheap and keeps them off XMR, where blockchain real estate is priced at a premium because it provides absolute privacy.

[kbm]

I tossed two CPUs on it for the entire day and got 0 on the second day from my recollection.  This has been my experience for virtually every CPU coin ever launched.  Can just go and read the Cryptonite thread right now and see the same thing repeating itself.  People with 30 CPUs getting 0 coins.

Sorry, I forgot to specify I was referring to Monero, not cryptonite (are we both talking about Monero here?). Cryptonite I didn't even bother mining, been busy . If I ever want that one I guess I'll have to just buy it, unless something funky comes up. It looks like it has some interest from a lot of people here. I think I'm going to try it out today to see how it works, but it looks like the solo-mining window is out of reach now (for me), plus I'm still undecided if I like it. It has had a lot of recognition from the first block. It's crazy that 30 CPU's dont even get one block though, do you think someone's already made a GPU miner for it?

I might have some logs that can help me remember on at least the celeron/pentium HDD's for what I mined with Monero.

[fluffypony]

I definitely would not say that.  The botnet problem is understated if anything.

I was there for Monero launch on the first or second day and got 0 coins mining with two CPUs.  There's just too much CPU power out there for really any CPU coin to be considered "fair" in the current environment.  Same thing happened with that Cryptonite coin.  Some guy posting about how he mined with 30 CPUs on the second day and got 0 coins.  I mean come on, just how many CPUs is one supposed to own to be able to mine a CPU coin?  These things are just charity events for botnets at the moment.

That's weird that our experiences are so different. I was using one i7 processor and got (>>10, <50) blocks with it the first week. Second week I threw about 4 more computers on it, with miserable processors (celerons/pentiums), leaving me with >50, <120 blocks mined after week 2 IIRC. After that, there wasn't much notable solo mining.

Same here - when I managed to get the blockchain downloaded and solo mining to work April 27th or so (10 days after launch) I told othe I mined 17 XMR in 9 hours on a Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1240 v3 @ 3.40GHz. At the time the daemon could do around 10h/s - 11h/s on that Xeon and about 33h/s on an Amazon c3.8xlarge slice, and net hash was around 7000h/s. To put that in real numbers, you'd have needed like 212 of those c3.8xlarge slices to control the entire network. If memory serves, you can fire 50 of them up with the standard EC2 account restrictions (5 in each zone). So I see no evidence of early botnet mining, and this was 10 days after launch.

[Este Nuno]

Cryptonite is a Very Big Deal, representing the third great innovation in cryptocash (minichains) after Bitcoin's blockchain and CryptoNote's ring signatures.  Vertcoin's private addresses come close to making the list, in a distant fourth place.  Proof-of-work may have been a candidate for fifth, but is made obsolete by minichains, so it loses to Primecoin's cool/trippy factor.

Forget those other trash coins.  All that matter right now are Bitcoin, Monero, and Cryptonite.  

(Litecoin is also valuable as a hot-swappable replacement in case Bitcoin breaks, ditto Namecoin and DNS.)

It's fascinating how Monero and Cryptonite are fundamentally incompatible and splitting Bitcoin into private Monero and public Cryptonite niches, like a speciation event!

Economically it makes perfect sense to remove Bitcoin's blockchain bloat to be more efficient for public transactions, while simultaneously putting other bloat to work by ensuring privacy for Monero.

As I finish this post CN is nearing an ATH.  Nice.  

Now just wait until all the kids realize they've been conned by their closed source and/or kludgey CLOAK/DARK/BLACK/XC FailCoins.  See ya'll on the moon...

Any other opinions on cryptonite?

I have to admit that I share icebreakers point of view - that said, xcn is very young, buggy, quite expensive already. compared to other coins it offers something new which indeed has value and potential, but I also think that bitcoin can simply clone miniblockchains once they are proven (non-technical perspective). this is the beauty of xmr, there is quite a big niche which probably will never be filled by bitcoin.

XCN is young and expensive, but I haven't seen any bugs yet.  It was tested for over a month prior to release.  My node is totally stable.

Bitcoin cannot "simply" clone minichains any more than other forms of hardfork.  Minichains are unproven and untested; the market demands Bitcoin evolve in a very conservative manner.  There is too much money at stake for a consensus to hardfork to emerge for any reason, except to fix emergent bugs/vulnerabilities.

For all intents and purposes, experimentation and innovation are confined to the altcoins by practical and theoretical reasons.

I am very pleased by the emerging symbiosis between BTC, XCN, and XMR.  BTC preserves wealth, while XCN makes public transactions very cheap and keeps them off XMR, where blockchain real estate is priced at a premium because it provides absolute privacy.

All the arguments for XMR's blockchain not being a huge issue apply much more for BTC. I don't really feel that the size of the BTC blockchain is a major issue, or is ever going to be. If/When they raise the 1MB limit for blocks it gets potentially more serious. But I still tend to agree with what the XMR devs have argued in this thread before, that a 1TB+ blockchain isn't going to cripple a currency.

So I don't know if people are really going to care enough to use XCN to keep transactions off the BTC chain.

[iCEBREAKER]

I tossed two CPUs on it for the entire day and got 0 on the second day from my recollection.  This has been my experience for virtually every CPU coin ever launched.  Can just go and read the Cryptonite thread right now and see the same thing repeating itself.  People with 30 CPUs getting 0 coins.

Sorry, I forgot to specify I was referring to Monero, not cryptonite (are we both talking about Monero here?). Cryptonite I didn't even bother mining, been busy . If I ever want that one I guess I'll have to just buy it, unless something funky comes up. It looks like it has some interest from a lot of people here. I think I'm going to try it out today to see how it works, but it looks like the solo-mining window is out of reach now (for me), plus I'm still undecided if I like it. It has had a lot of recognition from the first block. It's crazy that 30 CPU's dont even get one block though, do you think someone's already made a GPU miner for it?

I might have some logs that can help me remember on at least the celeron/pentium HDD's for what I mined with Monero.

My sweet 6 core/12 thread i7 cracked several XMR blocks solo, and has got one XCN block too. 

XCN diff rose much more quickly, because it was obvious to those in the know that its mini-blockchains are the perfect complement to XMR's ring sig bloated maxi-blockchain.  Everyone who missed out on (or thoroughly enjoyed) the XMR moon rocket jumped in the XCN pool with both feet.

Speaking of pools, I would be happy to provide a few beefy VPS to anyone wishing to take a crack at getting the XCN pool code running (for public benefit):

Very simple pool software has been developed for anyone wanting to start a pool.

https://github.com/MiniblockchainProject/SimplePool

Requires the latest minerd and wallet code. Pool has a hard limit of about 8000 core connection in current implementation, corresponding to 16k getwork request/second. Updates to minerd would change this 8000 machine connections. Pool just writes share info out to a log file. Parsing thing for payments is up to you. The hard part of that is checking for orphans. Tested insofar that shares are being generated and checked inside of wallet. Have not managed to mine a block with it yet.