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

[Xdragon]

Looks very promising. I am in  . Also there is coin with almost same name https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=606682.0

[1714645845]

1714645845

[1714645845]

1714645845

[bitfreak!]

Thanks a lot LazyCoins Exchange! I appreciate your consideration of our coin for your exchange. Your platform is well designed and seems to have some impressive security features so I look forward to trading XCN on it. We are both just getting started so hopefully we can help each other succeed.

[catia]

I am still wondering how much of the multisig will go hand in hand with this coin. While bitcoin can still process keys > 3, it certainly is a pain. will this coin handle say 6-7 keys at a time during multisig? If yes, what about the size and fees which will go along with it?

Signatures can handle up to 255 signers. The signature size is 20 bytes for every potential signer and an extra 45 for every actual signer. So for example a 2 of 3 would be, 3*20 + 2*45 + 1 = 151 byte signature. Transaction fees are set by miners and are paid by rounding up to nearest 1000 byte chunk. Default fee is 1 satoshi per byte, so your looking at minimum fee of 1000 satoshi's for even quite large multisig transactions. 

[billotronic]

been testing this off and on for a month now and I must say it is super awesome to of seen this project come together!

To those who don't know: bitfreak and catia seem to have one hell of a dynamic between them and this coin could not be backed by a better dev team. I very anxiously look forward to launch day!

[catia]

did you change your mind regarding the m7 (I can't find that on the wiki page  ).

I think sha256/sha512 is a bit redundant
Why not replacing sha256 by skein512 (also it will be crypting only half of the hash, so placing it in the first position doesn't seem a good idea)

The page on the PoW is here http://cryptonite.info/wiki/index.php?title=M7_PoW

The thing about hashing less bits with some of the hashes doesn't really matter because the hashes are not chained. Multiplication preserves all entropy, at least if you don't allow 0 hashes, kind of like XOR the hashes together. So in this way we can safely use hashes of different lengths. Using both sha256/sha512 isn't counter productive because they use separate constants, it's analogous to taking sha256(X) ^ sha256(X + salt), which is not any more secure that just a salted hash, but it is not any worse. Since one of the goals here is to increase the amount of hardware an ASIC would require, using both hashes suits that purpose quite well since there is no way to reuse a sha512 core to compute sha256.

Btw, big fan of your miners. 

[Uran0s]

How many members @ dev team?

[baseke]

innovations are good.

[provenceday]

will mine some for sure.

[wadili89]

promising. will be watching this one

[bitfreak!]

How many members @ dev team?

It's basically just catia, we do have another developer but he doesn't get much time to work with us and catia ended up doing the vast majority of the work. But honestly catia is a genius so he didn't really need much help along the way, he understood what needed to be done and made it happen remarkably quickly. When we go fully open source we'll be able to expand the dev team and get more eyes on the code.

[btccoffee]

come soon！！

[coinsolidation]

When we go fully open source we'll be able to expand the dev team and get more eyes on the code.

After many discussions with all sectors of the community, we came to the conclusion that the following approach had many benefits https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki/IPM-Pool

Please do consider the proposal as it may help ensure the balance and longevity of your coin.

Best Wishes, Mark

[sleepdog]

BitFreak, please consider this:

Make possible to use multiple computers on a single server for solo mining. To same wallet.
Bytecoin for example, had no such option from beginning, every comp needs own wallet and there is no conf file for daemon.

This would be greatly appreciated here too.

[Joshuar]

This coin looks interesting. But by halving in 100 years, I'm afraid that the result would be big inflation for too much time.

100 years?! I must of mislooked that wow...Vertcoin's 2 year halving is driving it's price into the ground, from 6 dollars to 13 cents in 1 1/2 months..

Yea, halving less than every 1 year is optimal..

[bitfreak!]

This coin looks interesting. But by halving in 100 years, I'm afraid that the result would be big inflation for too much time.

100 years?! I must of mislooked that wow...Vertcoin's 2 year halving is driving it's price into the ground, from 6 dollars to 13 cents in 1 1/2 months..

Yea, halving less than every 1 year is optimal..

I highly doubt that has anything to do with why the value of vertcoin is plummeting, 2 years is a rather short half life. It is not our goal to have a short mining period and then make all the early adopters rich because it becomes so hard to mine later on, that is a pump and dump in my books. And this way we can perhaps please those people who want infinite inflation, without actually having infinite inflation. And let me also be clear about one thing, the block reward will not halve after 100 years. The block reward drops slightly with every new block, and it will take 100 years before it has dropped enough that the block reward is half of what it started as.

[aaaxn]

I think inflation looks like this:

Code:

year  inflation
1	99%
2	49%
3	33%
4	25%
5	20%
6	16%
7	14%
8	12%
9	11%
10	10%
11	9%
12	8%
13	7%
14	7%
15	6%
16	6%
17	6%
18	5%
19	5%
20	5%

[GTO911]

Please lower the total coins

We have a possible Monero killer here but total supply is too much, a balanced total is best

No too much nor too scarce, keep it within 1 billion

I garuntee you this can outrun Monero but only if the coins have a digestable total

Dont ruin this winner, please

[bitfreak!]

Well it's important to remember that normal inflation is a lot cheaper than cryptocurrency inflation. In order to create new cryptocurrency one must expend electrical energy, which is not the case for typical fiat currencies. The coin distribution mechanism is not going to change any further, we've already modified it to please as many people as possible and to be as fair as possible. Most aspects of Cryptonite are designed from a long-term perspective, and a super long mining period fits that philosphy.

Unfortunately not everyone can be pleased, but that's why we're releasing the source code, so people can change things to their liking. In fact I wouldn't mind seeing a variant of Cryptonite where the coins are super rare, but that's just not what we're aiming for with Cryptonite. This is going to be the first implementation of the mini-blockchain scheme so I want to focus on long term feasability and fairness, while still trying to please as many people as possible. It's not easy but we've done the best we can.

[Joshuar]

Well it's important to remember that normal inflation is a lot cheaper than cryptocurrency inflation. In order to create new cryptocurrency one must expend electrical energy, which is not the case for typical fiat currencies. The coin distribution mechanism is not going to change any further, we've already modified it to please as many people as possible and to be as fair as possible. Most aspects of Cryptonite are designed from a long-term perspective, and a super long mining period fits that philosphy.

Unfortunately not everyone can be pleased, but that's why we're releasing the source code, so people can change things to their liking. In fact I wouldn't mind seeing a variant of Cryptonite where the coins are super rare, but that's just not what we're aiming for with Cryptonite. This is going to be the first implementation of the mini-blockchain scheme so I want to focus on long term feasability and fairness, while still trying to please as many people as possible. It's not easy but we've done the best we can.

Ah I see. Couldn't the 184.4billion total # be changed to something more aesthetically pleasing? A lot of members dont even touch coins that have extremely huge coin supplies just because they dont like how it looks , I guess because everyone is used to smaller total #'s from using Bitcoin with its 21million cap.

[bitfreak!]

May I refer you back to this post:

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.