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

[Amph]

Ok well some of the guys on IRC spent a few days compiling a GPU miner binary for Windows and it looks like they finally got it to work. Can't guarantee it will be bug free or work as well on Windows, but give it a try and see how it goes.

Download Link:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/56lnq52g4gny0m0/AADMJa2QTMSSc4g9gx1BfWIla

error:

Code:

Cryptonite-CudaMiner v1.0.beta
Testing version, use it as your own risks.
Credits:
        Source by catia  (XCN: CUb7RVTzYzb9rUTVELRNQbsb92H1Zxm6Hf)
        Build by Nicknha (XCN: CGqLR7eVdmczM8ACCSJs2odDFnAJ5rTU2t)
        Library by Wolf  (XCN: CUE81doFCUVparUkRxLxdHfndwZhXN5La4)

        Support: catia, Wolf` @ irc.freenode.org/#cryptonite

******************************************************
[2014-08-12 10:51:06]
[2014-08-12 10:51:06] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://xcnpool.1gh.com:7333
[2014-08-12 10:51:06] 6 miner threads started, using 'm7' algorithm.
[2014-08-12 10:51:07] Stratum requested work restart
GPUassert: invalid device symbol cuda_whirlpool512.cu 1357

Probably an old ass GPU. Fermi or something.

On 750Ti driver 337.88
GPUassert: invalid device symbol cuda_whirlpool512.cu 1357

Cryptonite-CudaMiner-compute_35 - works ok

it work but not all gpu are recognized, only 2 of 6 for me wtf?

ok found it -t instead of -d, default -t is 0,1? lame

[1715270133]

1715270133

[1715270133]

1715270133

[1715270133]

1715270133

[1715270133]

1715270133

[Hix]

Yes, 35 - good for 750ti, speed 2500kh

i get 2.4-3.6M ,my friend get 4M  750TI.

I run -t 6 16,5M-17M
if run -t 1 3M

-t 6 x 6(750ti)

[Amph]

Ok well some of the guys on IRC spent a few days compiling a GPU miner binary for Windows and it looks like they finally got it to work. Can't guarantee it will be bug free or work as well on Windows, but give it a try and see how it goes.

Download Link:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/56lnq52g4gny0m0/AADMJa2QTMSSc4g9gx1BfWIla

can i have the source of this? thnx

[restless]

weird... even with latest NV WHQL drivers only _35 version works

On PC1, the card makes 3600KH/s, system is i5@3GH, 8GB ram, driver 340.52
On PC2, 2x750Ti, make ~ 4400KH/s (2200 each), cpu is core2duo@2.2GH, 4GB ram, driver 340.43(latest beta)
But according to task manager cpu is not heavily utilized... Could it be because of cpu ?!
Or driver version ...

[bathrobehero]

Great work!

However, I can't do -t 5 or higher in a 6 card rig:

Code:

GPUassert: out of memory trashminer.cu 515
GPUassert: out of memory trashminer.cu 510

It always starts with -t 4 or less and very rarely starts with -t 5. Memory usage on the cards (750 Ti's) is 0.

[Amph]

Great work!

However, I can't do -t 5 or higher in a 6 card rig:

Code:

GPUassert: out of memory trashminer.cu 515
GPUassert: out of memory trashminer.cu 510

ram? too low virtual memory? had the same problem with 1 giga, rised to two and now it work like a charm

[bathrobehero]

ram? too low virtual memory? had the same problem with 1 giga, rised to two and now it work like a charm

Wow! Amazing, thanks!

I have 4 GB RAM in my rigs with 73% being free and having 3200MB pagefile just in case. Increased the pagefile to 7000 and it started hashing away while 60% RAM and 100% pagefile is available. Guess it's just needs it for initialization.

[-Greed-]

I don't really get it. You guys buy hyped shitcoins from newbie devs and you don't buy absolutely innovate coin from long-term dev.

Cryptonite is below 100th place on CMC I mean it's really cheap now. I believe XCN can go even beyond the 20th.

[viafoto]

Where I can see or how can I calculate existing supply in a month/half-year/year?

[Amph]

I don't really get it. You guys buy hyped shitcoins from newbie devs and you don't buy absolutely innovate coin from long-term dev.

Cryptonite is below 100th place on CMC I mean it's really cheap now. I believe XCN can go even beyond the 20th.

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

and the price is really good already, based on total supply, but maybe not based on current supply

[smooth]

I don't really get it. You guys buy hyped shitcoins from newbie devs and you don't buy absolutely innovate coin from long-term dev.

Cryptonite is below 100th place on CMC I mean it's really cheap now. I believe XCN can go even beyond the 20th.

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

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.

[-Greed-]

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.

[smooth]

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.

[drawingthesun]

How many XCN will there be in four years?

[cubydu]

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

[bitfreak!]

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

Cryptonite bounty thread - ideas and donations for important projects

[bitfreak!]

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.

[dboylc]

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]

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]

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.