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

[djm34]

I live for a day when developers will actualy launch a coin which is as promised in announcement. So far, the only non-instamined coin out there is also the first one - Bitcoin.
Any other coin was instamined and XCN is not exception. Developers who can implement killer features in their coin surely know what starting difficulty should they go with to
really prevent instamine but, as it can be seen again, that is actualy not in their interest. Nor it is in their interest to provide optimized CPU / GPU miners and 100% working wallet
at the very start of mining.

"The first couple of hours were bit of a bumpy ride, the first Windows binaries released were buggy and caused a bunch of mini-forks to break out, preventing Windows users
from participating in the network until we released a fix."

Pathetic scumbags.

are you joking ? How many people were running on bitcoin at start... It is certainly the coin which has been the most intamined

Listen retarded noob, you need to learn how to read blockchain explorer data first in order for you and me to have any meaningful debate on the matter. Until then just STFU.

Sorry old moron who can't take a joke, I don't listen to your kind in general but your comment is just pathetic

[1714126886]

1714126886

[smooth]

are you joking ? How many people were running on bitcoin at start... It is certainly the coin which has been the most intamined

Instamined can mean a lot of things to a lot of people but I tend to view it as having an unusual rate total coins mined at the beginning (usually due to bad difficulty adjustment algorithms).

If that happened with bitcoin it would have been most severe in the first two weeks  (before the first adjustment). If we look at block 1, that is January 9, 2009. Block 2016 is January 27, which is 18 days later, or somewhat slower than the 14 day target. Block 4032 was February 12, which is right on target.

This is not instamined, it is just lack of interest to mine. Which is to say that nobody thought the damn thing would be worth anything (you can also see this if you view the generally negative reaction on the cryptography mailing list). They were wrong in hindsight, but they had every opportunity to mine if they wanted to.

There was no instamine or premine on bitcoin, just misjudgment by early miners (and more importantly potential miners) as to its value.

[blaaaaacksuit]

The coin emission here is probably going to crush the coins value for quite a while, like XMR.

[AizenSou]

New Mining Pool  1% Fees!

http://pool.minichain.info pays out once a day proportional to the number of shares (share difficulty = 512)
Also check out the blockexplorer at http://minichain.info It might be down sporadically over the next few days if I'm working on it more

If I get enough interest, I'll release the source code for both

That's nice. But could you change the payout to every hour or at least 3, 4hours. Once per day just taking too long for every miners.

[smooth]

The coin emission here is probably going to crush the coins value for quite a while, like XMR.

It is a lot worse than XMR in that respect.

I think this coin is profoundly overvalued at current prices even if you fully ignore the launch/PoW issues and even if you fully believe in the unique value proposition, both of which I find questionable.

[earnabit]

New Mining Pool  1% Fees!

http://pool.minichain.info pays out once a day proportional to the number of shares (share difficulty = 512)
Also check out the blockexplorer at http://minichain.info It might be down sporadically over the next few days if I'm working on it more

If I get enough interest, I'll release the source code for both

That's nice. But could you change the payout to every hour or at least 3, 4hours. Once per day just taking too long for every miners.

I'll change it to 4 hours

[smooth]

The coin emission here is probably going to crush the coins value for quite a while, like XMR.

It is a lot worse than XMR in that respect.

I think this coin is profoundly overvalued at current prices even if you fully ignore the launch/PoW issues and even if you fully believe in the unique value proposition, both of which I find questionable.

Cryptonite should not be compared with Monero since Bytecoin was the first ever cryptonote coin and Cryptonite is a whole different concept. Launch is over now, miners are mining, traders are trading. What can you do about it?

If you think the launch is bad enough and the developer refuses to relaunch it then you fork it. That is what happens in open source when the developer loses the confidence of the community. I don't know whether that is the case here but it was exactly the case for Bytecoin/Monero.

In the end, the market decides how much XCN should be worth.

Yup, I'm betting much lower before (possibly) much higher. And by which I mean I am literally betting that.

[mmmaybe]

Cpuminer on xcn.1gh.com updated now, 40%+ speedup.

Thanks   I think I have less booo's too now

[cubydu]

coinmarketcap.com added XCN

[djslick]

okay so i'm trying out http://xcn.1gh.com/ with the CPU miner D program

seem to be getting a lot of rejects, is there a list of arguments i can toy with? never done cpu mining before

[dga]

I'm rather a fan of the PoW, seeing as how i wrote it and all. I think nobody has really sat down to think about how hard that "silly multiplication" is for GPU's and ASIC, and there is no evidence that a GPU miner has been created. I'm working on one in spare time to prove how much it will suck. I mean it will work, but won't be massively faster than CPU. Especially if someone sits down to optimize CPU for AVX. The ultimate combination is probably GPU for hashing and CPU for multiply. Might get somewhere doing that but it's a whole new kind of rig to have that kind of balance.

Lemme give you some numbers:

750ti = 160 32x32 bit multipliers @ 1gz = 160B 32bit per second
4770k = 16 64x64 bit multiplication per clock @ 3.6ghz = 57.6B 64bit muls ~= 330.4B 32bit per second

Theres no fighting that. It is raw ALU power.

You're underestimating the fraction of time spent in the hashes vs the multiply.  Less than 12% of the current execution time is in gmp bignum functions with your current code, with 88% in hashing (22% of that in one hash function -- easy target for optimization, which I'm sure wolf or someone else has already done).  The one saving grace there is that gmp is avx2 optimized on my platform already, and none of your hashes are yet.  But that leaves things at still < 30% of time in bignum once everything's on an equal optimization footing.  And it's likely that there's some low-hanging optimization possible, given that 6.7% of the time is spent in __gmpz_export and that there's no effort taken to avoid unnecessary allocation and deallocation of the mpzs.  Hint:  there are faster ways to get the data out of gmp if you don't care about portability.

Taking that all together, I'd guess that at most 15-20% of the eventual optimized runtime will be in the multiplication.  The GPUs will win.  You've created a *great* target for Claymore, though, with his pre-built library of bignum routines from writing the XPM miner.

(And to those reading this, no, I don't have an optimized miner - I ran it through a profiler to see what it was, but decided I was bored of miner tweaking this week.)

((p.p.s - no, GPU for hashing and CPU for multiply would be horrible.  You'll just saturate your PCIe bandwidth.))

[wzsaou]

New Mining Pool  1% Fees!

http://pool.minichain.info pays out once a day proportional to the number of shares (share difficulty = 512)
Also check out the blockexplorer at http://minichain.info It might be down sporadically over the next few days if I'm working on it more

If I get enough interest, I'll release the source code for both

That's nice. But could you change the payout to every hour or at least 3, 4hours. Once per day just taking too long for every miners.

I'll change it to 4 hours

The use of Windows Miner, CPU why not working at full speed?

[catia]

I'm rather a fan of the PoW, seeing as how i wrote it and all. I think nobody has really sat down to think about how hard that "silly multiplication" is for GPU's and ASIC, and there is no evidence that a GPU miner has been created. I'm working on one in spare time to prove how much it will suck. I mean it will work, but won't be massively faster than CPU. Especially if someone sits down to optimize CPU for AVX. The ultimate combination is probably GPU for hashing and CPU for multiply. Might get somewhere doing that but it's a whole new kind of rig to have that kind of balance.

Lemme give you some numbers:

750ti = 160 32x32 bit multipliers @ 1gz = 160B 32bit per second
4770k = 16 64x64 bit multiplication per clock @ 3.6ghz = 57.6B 64bit muls ~= 330.4B 32bit per second

Theres no fighting that. It is raw ALU power.

You're underestimating the fraction of time spent in the hashes vs the multiply.  Less than 12% of the current execution time is in gmp bignum functions with your current code, with 88% in hashing (22% of that in one hash function -- easy target for optimization, which I'm sure wolf or someone else has already done).  The one saving grace there is that gmp is avx2 optimized on my platform already, and none of your hashes are yet.  But that leaves things at still < 30% of time in bignum once everything's on an equal optimization footing.  And it's likely that there's some low-hanging optimization possible, given that 6.7% of the time is spent in __gmpz_export and that there's no effort taken to avoid unnecessary allocation and deallocation of the mpzs.  Hint:  there are faster ways to get the data out of gmp if you don't care about portability.

Taking that all together, I'd guess that at most 15-20% of the eventual optimized runtime will be in the multiplication.  The GPUs will win.  You've created a *great* target for Claymore, though, with his pre-built library of bignum routines from writing the XPM miner.

(And to those reading this, no, I don't have an optimized miner - I ran it through a profiler to see what it was, but decided I was bored of miner tweaking this week.)

((p.p.s - no, GPU for hashing and CPU for multiply would be horrible.  You'll just saturate your PCIe bandwidth.))

I don't disagree with any of this in principle. There is just no thorough analysis of exactly how it will end up on GPU. Sure maybe multiplication is 20% on CPU but that means what 60-80% on GPU? we know it will slow down there and a lot of it depends on how things are implemented. XPM has lamo big integer, the things almost always can be fit in registers. These are too large. And i think 2048bit * 32*256 is way too large for local memory. So where CPU is doing some fast 64bit multiplies in registers and has that nice data cache, GPU is executing handful of operations and having to hit global memory to do the same work. Implementing on GPU is quite difficult if you do it the GMP way which is karatsuba i believe.

Keep in mind X11 is not so much faster on GPU. Maybe 3x. Throw a wrench into the works that takes 60% of time and I think that metric will suffer. I can't guarantee it. Maybe not so much, maybe a little. Not even sure it matters. It's just a PoW. People will work it with whatever they have.

[earnabit]

New Mining Pool  1% Fees!

http://pool.minichain.info pays out once a day proportional to the number of shares (share difficulty = 512)
Also check out the blockexplorer at http://minichain.info It might be down sporadically over the next few days if I'm working on it more

If I get enough interest, I'll release the source code for both

That's nice. But could you change the payout to every hour or at least 3, 4hours. Once per day just taking too long for every miners.

I'll change it to 4 hours

The use of Windows Miner, CPU why not working at full speed?

Make sure you use --threads 16 or set it to whatever gives you the best result.  Generally, you want to set the threads to be the number of CPU's you have

[djslick]

hey i just saw this:

https://twitter.com/CoinJesus/status/495755688006938624

i just wish the price was lower, i'd grab some

[dga]

I don't disagree with any of this in principle. There is just no thorough analysis of exactly how it will end up on GPU. Sure maybe multiplication is 20% on CPU but that means what 60-80% on GPU? we know it will slow down there and a lot of it depends on how things are implemented. XPM has lamo big integer, the things almost always can be fit in registers. These are too large. And i think 2048bit * 32*256 is way too large for local memory. So where CPU is doing some fast 64bit multiplies in registers and has that nice data cache, GPU is executing handful of operations and having to hit global memory to do the same work. Implementing on GPU is quite difficult if you do it the GMP way which is karatsuba i believe.

Keep in mind X11 is not so much faster on GPU. Maybe 3x. Throw a wrench into the works that takes 60% of time and I think that metric will suffer. I can't guarantee it. Maybe not so much, maybe a little. Not even sure it matters. It's just a PoW. People will work it with whatever they have.

X11 nvidia is 6x cpu, just to keep the record straight, though it's always possible that some of C&C's groestl optimizations could be applied to avx2 as well.  That's not the magic of nvidia, it's good programming and optimization.

There's no way a good implementation of this would hit global in a non-streaming way -- such a design would be silly and doing it wrong.  Yes, it might be optimal to stream all of the result hashes to memory, read them back in a different kernel with fewer threads per block, do the 2048 bit math, and then stuff them back into global for the final sha256, but two full streams of the hashes is well within the bandwidth capacity of the GPU for the speed of hashing and math we're talking about.

You could imagine some fun ways of parallelizing it, given that the multiplication is commutative - that sha256 and haval would combine nicely in one big parallel multiply across nonces to produce a 512 bit next operand.  Fun thought experiment. :-)

GPU would likely just use schoolbook.  GMP's multiplication algorithm used depends a little on the bit sizes involved, but it's probably Toom-Cook at these sizes.  (It's a little tricky because you know that one of the operands is always <= 512 bits, and I don't know how gmp optimizes that case.)  Karatsuba and TC are tricky, but they're not magic, just code.

(I have no philosophical or financial horse in this race -- I think the excessive pursuit of CPU-only coins is silly, and I do agree with you that the large bit size is a deterrent;  I haven't seen, e.g., any public gpu miners for riecoin, and the bit size is one of the big reasons.  But if the coin goes moonward, it'll be done, and I think it'll put the CPUs out to pasture.)

[wzsaou]

New Mining Pool  1% Fees!

http://pool.minichain.info pays out once a day proportional to the number of shares (share difficulty = 512)
Also check out the blockexplorer at http://minichain.info It might be down sporadically over the next few days if I'm working on it more

If I get enough interest, I'll release the source code for both

That's nice. But could you change the payout to every hour or at least 3, 4hours. Once per day just taking too long for every miners.

I'll change it to 4 hours

The use of Windows Miner, CPU why not working at full speed?

Make sure you use --threads 16 or set it to whatever gives you the best result.  Generally, you want to set the threads to be the number of CPU's you have

Set the --threads MAX, but CPU use rate was only 10%

[iCEBREAKER]

coinmarketcap.com added XCN

Too soon?

[drawingthesun]

How many coins are being mined per day? And this amount will be half in ten years correct?

[smooth]

hey i just saw this:

https://twitter.com/CoinJesus/status/495755688006938624

i just wish the price was lower, i'd grab some

Just be patient. It will be.