Bitcoin Forum
April 24, 2018, 07:16:00 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 [79] 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 ... 192 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine  (Read 575992 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1041



View Profile
August 12, 2014, 01:53:03 PM
 #1561

the launch wasn't that good, and private miners with gpu were mining like no tomorrow, better to give them bounty and make it public, if you really want to donate
I guess you meant it wasn't fair. There was a public beta you could make GPU miner too so don't complain. And I think there is no such thing as fair distribution. People on here are always complaining about unfair distribution/no pools/no windows wallet/premine/instamine/low trading volume/scrypt algo/missing train/etc. There is no perfect coin, man.

and the price is really good already, based on total supply, but maybe not based on current supply
Not even total supply. Just look at one year supply and the coin is somewhere around #20.
Supply increases pretty slowly and the price can be much higher in short-term IMO.

Anything can happen short term, that's for sure. I think it tripled or more within the last 24 hours (though it gave some back).

If you're talking about longer term value from innovation and ongoing development you need to look at the longer term market cap as well. I don't find the current price particularly attractive on that basis. This does not mean it can't go up a lot (and then, likely, down) short term.
1524597360
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524597360

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524597360
Reply with quote  #2

1524597360
Report to moderator
1524597360
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524597360

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524597360
Reply with quote  #2

1524597360
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1524597360
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524597360

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524597360
Reply with quote  #2

1524597360
Report to moderator
1524597360
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524597360

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524597360
Reply with quote  #2

1524597360
Report to moderator
drawingthesun
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 12, 2014, 02:23:52 PM
 #1562

How many XCN will there be in four years?
cubydu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250


View Profile WWW
August 12, 2014, 02:52:53 PM
 #1563

https://cryptrader.com/charts/bter/xcn/btc

bitfreak!
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1535
Merit: 1000


electronic [r]evolution


View Profile WWW
August 12, 2014, 02:54:48 PM
 #1564

I have created a thread to help organize bounties for important Cryptonite projects:

Cryptonite bounty thread - ideas and donations for important projects

XCN: CYsvPpb2YuyAib5ay9GJXU8j3nwohbttTz | BTC: 18MWPVJA9mFLPFT3zht5twuNQmZBDzHoWF
Cryptonite - 1st mini-blockchain altcoin | BitShop - digital shop script
Web Developer - PHP, SQL, JS, AJAX, JSON, XML, RSS, HTML, CSS
bitfreak!
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1535
Merit: 1000


electronic [r]evolution


View Profile WWW
August 12, 2014, 03:05:59 PM
 #1565

If a GPU miner was possible to be created, XCN should have never been launched until the GPU miner was ready. This was a major mistake and a very valid reason to call this an unfair launch IMO.
We already spent 4 months developing the core of Cryptonite, we didn't have the time or money required to delay launch by another week or two to develop a GPU miner. Plus we wanted the CPU guys to have a fair chance in the beginning. I can tell you with 99% certainty there was no GPU miner for at least the first few days. The source was not released during the month of public testing, so there's virtually no chance at all someone created a GPU miner ready for launch. Even if we did have a secret GPU miner you need to remember that less than 1% of the coin supply has been mined so far (less than half of 1% actually). The real scam coins are the pre-mined coins, they usually mine more than 1% of the total coin supply before anyone even has a chance, it's probably the most profitable scam in the history of man kind. So if you want to call our launch unfair, so be it, but you need to look at the larger picture before making baseless speculations.

XCN: CYsvPpb2YuyAib5ay9GJXU8j3nwohbttTz | BTC: 18MWPVJA9mFLPFT3zht5twuNQmZBDzHoWF
Cryptonite - 1st mini-blockchain altcoin | BitShop - digital shop script
Web Developer - PHP, SQL, JS, AJAX, JSON, XML, RSS, HTML, CSS
dboylc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 153
Merit: 100

mine for future~


View Profile
August 12, 2014, 03:36:59 PM
 #1566

If a GPU miner was possible to be created, XCN should have never been launched until the GPU miner was ready. This was a major mistake and a very valid reason to call this an unfair launch IMO.
We already spent 4 months developing the core of Cryptonite, we didn't have the time or money required to delay launch by another week or two to develop a GPU miner. Plus we wanted the CPU guys to have a fair chance in the beginning. I can tell you with 99% certainty there was no GPU miner for at least the first few days. The source was not released during the month of public testing, so there's virtually no chance at all someone created a GPU miner ready for launch. Even if we did have a secret GPU miner you need to remember that less than 1% of the coin supply has been mined so far (less than half of 1% actually). The real scam coins are the pre-mined coins, they usually mine more than 1% of the total coin supply before anyone even has a chance, it's probably the most profitable scam in the history of man kind. So if you want to call our launch unfair, so be it, but you need to look at the larger picture before making baseless speculations.
Yes! No gpu from the begining,
and now , it only has CUDA miner(easy to rewrite from cpu miner).
And the EC2 AWS rent, you can do the math. Not profitable!
mine for future.
bitfreak bring us more project~ that's nice.
I think soon after,we'll have a strong community.
cubydu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250


View Profile WWW
August 12, 2014, 03:40:14 PM
 #1567

If a GPU miner was possible to be created, XCN should have never been launched until the GPU miner was ready. This was a major mistake and a very valid reason to call this an unfair launch IMO.
We already spent 4 months developing the core of Cryptonite, we didn't have the time or money required to delay launch by another week or two to develop a GPU miner. Plus we wanted the CPU guys to have a fair chance in the beginning. I can tell you with 99% certainty there was no GPU miner for at least the first few days. The source was not released during the month of public testing, so there's virtually no chance at all someone created a GPU miner ready for launch. Even if we did have a secret GPU miner you need to remember that less than 1% of the coin supply has been mined so far (less than half of 1% actually). The real scam coins are the pre-mined coins, they usually mine more than 1% of the total coin supply before anyone even has a chance, it's probably the most profitable scam in the history of man kind. So if you want to call our launch unfair, so be it, but you need to look at the larger picture before making baseless speculations.

@bitfreak! don't spend time for him.You made great work.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1041



View Profile
August 12, 2014, 04:07:01 PM
 #1568

If a GPU miner was possible to be created, XCN should have never been launched until the GPU miner was ready. This was a major mistake and a very valid reason to call this an unfair launch IMO.
We already spent 4 months developing the core of Cryptonite, we didn't have the time or money required to delay launch by another week or two to develop a GPU miner. Plus we wanted the CPU guys to have a fair chance in the beginning. I can tell you with 99% certainty there was no GPU miner for at least the first few days. The source was not released during the month of public testing, so there's virtually no chance at all someone created a GPU miner ready for launch. Even if we did have a secret GPU miner you need to remember that less than 1% of the coin supply has been mined so far (less than half of 1% actually). The real scam coins are the pre-mined coins, they usually mine more than 1% of the total coin supply before anyone even has a chance, it's probably the most profitable scam in the history of man kind. So if you want to call our launch unfair, so be it, but you need to look at the larger picture before making baseless speculations.

1. My speculations are not "baseless." As I said, I have direct evidence pointing to a day one GPU miner. I do not wish to release this evidence because I think more may come out about this situation over time and I'm happy to let the secret miner make statements contradicted by the evidence, further pointing to deception. And further because doing so may give future clandestine GPU-on-launch miners some ideas on how to avoid detection. However, I might be convinced to share the evidence with a trusted third party, in confidence.

2. Was the testnet version stripped of symbols (on every OS) and compiled without debugging tags? The default Linux build I got from github upon release included debugging tags. If you used this build configuration for the testnet version, disassembly and/or decompilation would have been fairly trivial.

3. Even without disassembly or decompilation, is it possible the PoW could have leaked? Did you treat the PoW as a tightly guarded secret and not discuss it with anyone nor collaborate with anyone during development?

4. I agree with you that in reality this is not that big a deal in terms of the number of coins mined, the overall integrity of the coin and so forth. There are coins where FAR more than 1% have been deceptively mined (82% in one case that comes to mind). However, if people are concerned, which clearly some are, I disagree with dismissing out of hand the substance of their concerns, especially when I have some confidence that in fact a secret GPU miner was used.

bitfreak!
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1535
Merit: 1000


electronic [r]evolution


View Profile WWW
August 12, 2014, 04:15:27 PM
 #1569

My speculations are not "baseless." As I said, I have direct evidence pointing to a day one GPU miner. I do not wish to release this evidence because I think more may come out about this situation over time and I'm happy to let the secret miner make statements contradicted by the evidence, further pointing to deception. And further because doing so may give future clandestine GPU-on-launch miners some ideas on how to avoid detection. However, I might be convinced to share the evidence with a trusted third party, in confidence.
Well my comment wasn't directed at you for a start, but you just made a baseless accusation because you failed to provide any evidence. If you do have some information worth sharing then just release it, don't beat around the bush.

Even without disassembly or decompilation, is it possible the PoW could have leaked? Did you treat the PoW as a tightly guarded secret and not discuss it with anyone nor collaborate with anyone during development?
Only 4 people had access to the source code during development, and I'm very sure none of them leaked it.

XCN: CYsvPpb2YuyAib5ay9GJXU8j3nwohbttTz | BTC: 18MWPVJA9mFLPFT3zht5twuNQmZBDzHoWF
Cryptonite - 1st mini-blockchain altcoin | BitShop - digital shop script
Web Developer - PHP, SQL, JS, AJAX, JSON, XML, RSS, HTML, CSS
deathmul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 472
Merit: 250



View Profile
August 12, 2014, 04:21:37 PM
 #1570

Any GPU miner for AMD?

jmumich
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 206
Merit: 100


View Profile
August 12, 2014, 04:37:22 PM
 #1571

I guess you meant it wasn't fair. There was a public beta you could make GPU miner too so don't complain. And I think there is no such thing as fair distribution. People on here are always complaining about unfair distribution/no pools/no windows wallet/premine/instamine/low trading volume/scrypt algo/missing train/etc. There is no perfect coin, man.

Cheesy Perfection? No, we've reached a point that all of the above are just basic requirements.

If a GPU miner was possible to be created, XCN should have never been launched until the GPU miner was ready. This was a major mistake and a very valid reason to call this an unfair launch IMO.
Smiley


To give you an example on AWS:

A 32 vCPU core EC2 instance costs ~0.27 $/hr and produces around 1700+ KH/s
A 1 GPU + 8 vCPU core EC2 instance costs ~0.065 $/hr and produces 1800+ KH/s (CPU + GPU mining -- using the non optimized GPU miner)

If you do the math, you realize that it was at least 4-5 times more possible for those who had the private GPU miner on AWS to find a block than the rest, provided that both had spent the same amount of $ to rent instances. Now if we think outside AWS and take into consideration that GPU farms could have been used, the advantage becomes much bigger.

So, please, this is not about a small detail regarding perfection. Smiley

PS: Also, since I deleted some messages of mine earlier and since someone had mentioned it, I'd like to say again that I never said anywhere that wolf's optimizations are a problem. 10-15% advantage is not a problem at all. But 400-500% advantage is was a clear possible problem (EDIT: at launch).



The problem with your assumption is that there are far fewer available G2 instances than there are available 32 core CPU instances.  And it ignores 16 core, 8 core, etc, all of which were available at a similar price per core.   Your hypothetical miner could never have run 4-5x as many GPU instances and maintained the same price of the G2 instances. 

The early mining from large miners is consistent with a miner using a large number of Amazon EC2 instances for CPU mining.   



Youghoor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


★Nitrogensports.eu★


View Profile WWW
August 12, 2014, 04:38:31 PM
 #1572

Any GPU miner for AMD?

not yet have to wait for it


           █████████████████     ████████
          █████████████████     ████████
         █████████████████     ████████
        █████████████████     ████████
       ████████              ████████
      ████████              ████████
     ████████     ███████  ████████     ████████
    ████████     █████████████████     ████████
   ████████     █████████████████     ████████
  ████████     █████████████████     ████████
 ████████     █████████████████     ████████
████████     ████████  ███████     ████████
            ████████              ████████
           ████████              ████████
          ████████     █████████████████
         ████████     █████████████████
        ████████     █████████████████
       ████████     █████████████████
▄▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██     
██
██
▬▬ THE LARGEST & MOST TRUSTED ▬▬
.BITCOIN SPORTSBOOK
   ▄▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██     
██
██
             ▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄
     ▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀        ▀▄▄▄▄          
▄▀▀▀▀                 █   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄
█                    ▀▄          █
 █   ▀▌     ██▄        █          █        
 ▀▄        ▐████▄       █        █
  █        ███████▄     ▀▄       █
   █      ▐████▄█████████████████████▄
   ▀▄     ███████▀                  ▀██
    █      ▀█████    ▄▄        ▄▄    ██
     █       ▀███   ████      ████   ██
     ▀▄        ██    ▀▀        ▀▀    ██
      █        ██        ▄██▄        ██
       █       ██        ▀██▀        ██
       ▀▄      ██    ▄▄        ▄▄    ██
        █      ██   ████      ████   ██
         █▄▄▄▄▀██    ▀▀        ▀▀    ██
               ██▄                  ▄██
                ▀████████████████████▀



    CASINO    DICE    POKER  
     ▬▬  24 hour Customer Support  ▬▬   
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1001



View Profile
August 12, 2014, 04:40:14 PM
 #1573

at least this thing is still profitable, better to mine some before amd guys arrive
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1041



View Profile
August 12, 2014, 04:53:42 PM
 #1574

Even without disassembly or decompilation, is it possible the PoW could have leaked? Did you treat the PoW as a tightly guarded secret and not discuss it with anyone nor collaborate with anyone during development?
Only 4 people had access to the source code during development, and I'm very sure none of them leaked it.

Was the testnet version stripped of symbols and debug tags (on all OSs)?

Was the PoW design discussed with other people? That could have been enough to put together a rough miner to be tweaked with details upon release. The miner in question did not start mining until approximately block 150. That would have been enough time to finish a miner that was already mostly implemented.

I guess it is also possible that someone with experience and a good library of GPU hash functions and bignum multiplication could have thrown a miner together in 2-3 hours without a head start. That's another possibility I suppose.
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1001



View Profile
August 12, 2014, 05:01:48 PM
 #1575

Even without disassembly or decompilation, is it possible the PoW could have leaked? Did you treat the PoW as a tightly guarded secret and not discuss it with anyone nor collaborate with anyone during development?
Only 4 people had access to the source code during development, and I'm very sure none of them leaked it.

Was the testnet version stripped of symbols and debug tags (on all OSs)?

Was the PoW design discussed with other people? That could have been enough to put together a rough miner to be tweaked with details upon release. The miner in question did not start mining until approximately block 150. That would have been enough time to finish a miner that was already mostly implemented.

I guess it is also possible that someone with experience and a good library of GPU hash functions and bignum multiplication could have thrown a miner together in 2-3 hours without a head start. That's another possibility I suppose.


was the nethash that big at block 150?
bitfreak!
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1535
Merit: 1000


electronic [r]evolution


View Profile WWW
August 12, 2014, 05:32:37 PM
 #1576

The miner in question did not start mining until approximately block 150. That would have been enough time to finish a miner that was already mostly implemented.
You're obviously referring to the large miner who started mining at block 146. Just because they had such a large amount of hashing power doesn't prove they had a GPU miner. But I agree there is a chance someone got a GPU miner whipped up within 150 blocks, because they had a lot of time to prepare for our release. Either way they've stopped mining quite some time ago now and we have more important issues to focus on.

XCN: CYsvPpb2YuyAib5ay9GJXU8j3nwohbttTz | BTC: 18MWPVJA9mFLPFT3zht5twuNQmZBDzHoWF
Cryptonite - 1st mini-blockchain altcoin | BitShop - digital shop script
Web Developer - PHP, SQL, JS, AJAX, JSON, XML, RSS, HTML, CSS
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1041



View Profile
August 12, 2014, 05:39:47 PM
 #1577

was the nethash that big at block 150?

Probably not, I don't know, I didn't even start mining at all until later.

The miner in question was still getting a very high percentage of blocks (in some cases several blocks in a row) well into the thousands (i.e. days later) when the hash rate had gone up a lot.

cubydu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250


View Profile WWW
August 12, 2014, 05:44:01 PM
 #1578

The miner in question did not start mining until approximately block 150. That would have been enough time to finish a miner that was already mostly implemented.
You're obviously referring to the large miner who started mining at block 146. Just because they had such a large amount of hashing power doesn't prove they had a GPU miner. But I agree there is a chance someone got a GPU miner whipped up within 150 blocks, because they had a lot of time to prepare for our release. Either way they've stopped mining quite some time ago now and we have more important issues to focus on.

Fu...k!  I'm tired of all this. I started mine with 100 c3.8xlarge after 2 hours after launch. After 2 hours because I couldn't make daemon  from src

discodancer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


Time is Money - Benjamin Franklin


View Profile
August 12, 2014, 06:20:52 PM
 #1579

The miner in question did not start mining until approximately block 150. That would have been enough time to finish a miner that was already mostly implemented.
You're obviously referring to the large miner who started mining at block 146. Just because they had such a large amount of hashing power doesn't prove they had a GPU miner. But I agree there is a chance someone got a GPU miner whipped up within 150 blocks, because they had a lot of time to prepare for our release. Either way they've stopped mining quite some time ago now and we have more important issues to focus on.

Fu...k!  I'm tired of all this. I started mine with 100 c3.8xlarge after 2 hours after launch. After 2 hours because I couldn't make daemon  from src
c3.8xlarge still profitable? Tongue
cubydu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250


View Profile WWW
August 12, 2014, 06:24:35 PM
 #1580

The miner in question did not start mining until approximately block 150. That would have been enough time to finish a miner that was already mostly implemented.
You're obviously referring to the large miner who started mining at block 146. Just because they had such a large amount of hashing power doesn't prove they had a GPU miner. But I agree there is a chance someone got a GPU miner whipped up within 150 blocks, because they had a lot of time to prepare for our release. Either way they've stopped mining quite some time ago now and we have more important issues to focus on.

Fu...k!  I'm tired of all this. I started mine with 100 c3.8xlarge after 2 hours after launch. After 2 hours because I couldn't make daemon  from src
c3.8xlarge still profitable? Tongue

no, only first 2-3 days

Pages: « 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 [79] 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 ... 192 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!