[PRE-ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine

[neutraLTC]

watching 

[1714627275]

1714627275

[1714627275]

1714627275

[1714627275]

1714627275

[nakaone]

i was silently following your other thread.

i like your concept but also think that a coin supply of around 20 million is much better than this almost undefineable huge number - the reasons for this are practical.

[bitfreak!]

i was silently following your other thread.

i like your concept but also think that a coin supply of around 20 million is much better than this almost undefineable huge number - the reasons for this are practical.

What exactly is practical about 1 BTC being worth more than $600? Instead of sending very small amounts we'll be sending very large amounts to each other, why is one better than the other? And it's not "undefineably huge", it's 184.4 billion coins.

[loveller]

Coin supply: 2^64-1 units (184.4 billion coins)

its too much

I think 1billion is enough

[bitfreak!]

I think 1billion is enough

That's the problem, what you "think" sounds like the right amount is only an arbitrary guess. We're not just picking some random number, we're using the natural upper limit of a 64 bit integer.

[dance]

184 billions is much better than 21 million.
And it is just ~25 coins for each person on the planet.

[nakaone]

i was silently following your other thread.

i like your concept but also think that a coin supply of around 20 million is much better than this almost undefineable huge number - the reasons for this are practical.

What exactly is practical about 1 BTC being worth more than $600? Instead of sending very small amounts we'll be sending very large amounts to each other, why is one better than the other? And it's not "undefineably huge", it's 184.4 billion coins.

from a normal non-autistic person you need some point of reference to define the value of one unit - maybe some big currency like dollar or euro or what a cup of coffee costs etc. whereas I also think that 600$ per coin is also far from optima, it is bitcoins biggest unit of account, and it is no problem to use a smaller unit like satoshi or bits or whatever. when you start xcn the biggest unit of account will be 1/184400000000 - even if this project is uber successful it will take ages until one unit is accountable for a normal person and to find some reference point.

the rate of distribution is also independent of the unit of account - so I do not see why you need this huge number. it will probably not be a short time killer for the coin but it will definetely hinder wide adoption

[Rage19420]

I think 1billion is enough

That's the problem, what you "think" sounds like the right amount is only an arbitrary guess. We're not just picking some random number, we're using the natural upper limit of a 64 bit integer.

I understand what you are saying, but it seems billion count coins don't fair very well these days.

No?

[bitfreak!]

whereas I also think that 600$ per coin is also far from optima, it is bitcoins biggest unit of account, and it is no problem to use a smaller unit like satoshi or bits or whatever.

There's no reason you can't do the opposite thing and use larger units to denominate values.

I understand what you are saying, but it seems billion count coins don't fair very well these days.

Maybe that's just because there have been no innovative coins which use billions of coins? I don't think having billions of coins really has anything to do with why a coin will fail.

[nakaone]

whereas I also think that 600$ per coin is also far from optima, it is bitcoins biggest unit of account, and it is no problem to use a smaller unit like satoshi or bits or whatever.

There's no reason you can't to the opposite thing and use larger units to denominate values.

I understand what you are saying, but it seems billion count coins don't fair very well these days.

Maybe that's just because there have been no innovative coins which use billions of coins? I don't think having billions of coins really has anything to do with why a coin will fail.

bytecoin has - look I own 1.8 million bytecoin - this is worth somewhat 40$ or 0.08 btc - imagine I buy a coffee or a pizza with this or take the opposite I would try to buy a house with bytecoin - this is really really horrible even for a math oriented person to calculate.

I do not think we should spam this wonderful project with this, from a technical perspective, minor problem but you should really consider this.

[catia]

The only practical difference is where you put the decimal point. There's actually 18 quintillion "units" in a 2^64 unit coin. Bitcoin has 2 trillion units only because of problems representing larger numbers using floating point values.

I don't think anyone is arguing against the increased divisibility and precision available in 64-bit coins. So the only remaining argument is that it is somehow different if i send you

2.865 coins vs
28.65 vs
286.5

Like whats the big deal? Much the same way as BTC has had to adopt alternate units like mBTC and uBTC, we are considering adding KXCN and MXCN to the GUI client so that people are free to put the decimal point wherever they please.

[Rage19420]

whereas I also think that 600$ per coin is also far from optima, it is bitcoins biggest unit of account, and it is no problem to use a smaller unit like satoshi or bits or whatever.

There's no reason you can't to the opposite thing and use larger units to denominate values.

I understand what you are saying, but it seems billion count coins don't fair very well these days.

Maybe that's just because there have been no innovative coins which use billions of coins? I don't think having billions of coins really has anything to do with why a coin will fail.

bytecoin has - look I own 1.8 million bytecoin - this is worth somewhat 40$ or 0.08 btc - imagine I buy a coffee or a pizza with this or take the opposite I would try to buy a house with bytecoin - this is really really horrible even for a math oriented person to calculate.

I do not think we should spam this wonderful project with this, from a technical perspective, minor problem but you should really consider this.

Fair enough, im intrigued and will participate. Good luck!

[Bfljosh]

Looks good, good luck!

[discodancer]

Here goes my checklist:
Non-newbie member - Check
OP which talks about features and not only block/hashing algo - Check
Fair Launch - Yet to see
No IPO - Check

Btw, there is one thing I am wondering - multisig - what kind of size are we talking about when implementing something with n > 3, ie say 5 key multisig. Will it work well with the chain?

[go6ooo1212]

Its verry interesting to me , I would like to know how could you mine this algo with cpu. Im following ... 

[ivcelmik]

Its verry interesting to me , I would like to know how could you mine this algo with cpu. Im following ... 

When it starts and how could we mine this witn Nvidia Gpus and also with Amd Gpus

Thx in advance

[statdude]

How to mine 

[bitfreak!]

As mentioned previously in the thread, a GPU miner will probably not be available upon launch, but there will be one eventually. It's better if the coin remains CPU only for a period of time anyway because it makes it fairer.

[devanh]

The massive coin supply is a problem for one reason; It's difficult to trade. At the lowest possible price (1 satoshi) the coin's cap would be 1840btc. Any increase from there would give all owners a 100% gain - not stable growth at all - as there is no way to trade in smaller intervals unless you use litoshi markets. That's a bad idea because it requires people to buy LTC just to trade this coin, which many smaller alt exchanges do not have the liquidity for. The result is no one trades the coin. I'd suggest cutting the cap down to 10 Billion at the most.

Love the coin's concept. Please don't let a huge supply kill it before it even has a chance.

[bitfreak!]

Ok after carefully considering all your concerns about the total coin supply we decided to do something about it. We had several options but ultimately we decided not to lower the total coin supply, instead we decided to stretch out the time it takes for all the coins to be mined. So instead of having a 10 year half life, we have increased it to 100 years, meaning it will take 100 years before half of all the coins are mined. That should mean about 1 billion coins mined in the first year.

There are several reasons we decided to take this approach, first of all it's the easiest, and it mimics the same type of coin scarcity we would get simply by lowering the total coin supply. Secondly, this type of ultra long mining period will ensure a very fair distribution of coins over a very long period of time. Thirdly, a it's a more organic solution to the problem because we don't have to mess around with any constants and it comes with some advantages such as fairer distribution.