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

[smooth]

it is pretty hard to understand, the white paper could use some diagrams.

It is quite perplexing why James keeps getting the same feedback from different people independently, yet isn't willing to rewrite the white dark paper to make it more comprehensible and get rid of the confusing pirate theme. It is almost as if he wants keep it hard to understand for some reason.

Hi everyone James put the pirate things in there because people we complaining that it was too hard to understand, that way he tried to make it easier. Afaik he doesn't want to rewrite it because he prefers to code and thinks he is not good at writing academic papers. He makes dozens of posts every day answering questions so the assumption that he doesn't want people to understand what he is doing is very wrong from my pov.

Making dozens of posts per day answering questions when you could write it up once in a more understandable manner seems like an inefficient use of time. No, it doesn't need to be an academic paper. That has been one criticism, yes, but many others have said that it is simply hard to understand.

EIL5 does not mean using pirate references, princess references, or any other childhood heros or villains. It means make it understandable.

[1714716273]

1714716273

[1714716273]

1714716273

[1714716273]

1714716273

[jl777]

I have introduced your coin to james @ btcd (jl777) and he has shown some interest in cryptonite. bitfreak could have a bit of a read up over at btcd and see if yous can work something out in the way of being part of the anom system.

Linky: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=684090.msg8580794#msg8580794


Together btcd and cryptonite combined is unstoppable! Solving all the problems bitcoin faced. James has staded that cryptonite could handle many more teleports, due to its tiny blockchain

The telepod idea does seem very interesting, especially if the anonymity scheme it uses is better than coin mixing and ring sigs. I had a brief look at the way it works and it is pretty hard to understand, the white paper could use some diagrams. But I would be interested in seeing how compatible it is with the mini-blockchain scheme, keeping in mind that the mini-blockchain scheme does not use scripts at all and BTCD apparently has full turing complete scripting.

EDIT: ok well I think I understand it a bit better now, but I can't really understand why this isn't just a long winded way of making a normal tx. It seems to ensure that a new address will always be made for receiving payments, which is great for anonymity, but generating new addresses for receiving payments isn't exactly difficult to do without an elaborate system like this. Maybe I'm still not fully grasping the concept.

EDIT: also worth noting is that we actually discourage the use of sending coins to addresses which haven't been seen by the network before, because it increases the size of the account tree. To help prevent dust from bloating up the account tree we don't allow the output value to be lower than the tx fee if the receiving address doesn't exist in the account tree.

Teleport can be viewed as like a 2FA, it adds to whatever security a coin already has.

I designed it to be compatible with existing coins, so of course I have to use a normal tx for this.
Teleport is highly resistant to timing analysis. This is due to the anon set being all of the cloning events during the average clonesmear time window. But with the time window different for every user, it is actually not possible to precisely define even the exact members of the potential cloning events to consider. It is probabilistic.

Due to this, the sender enjoys dramatically larger privacy as the anon set is the sum of all cloning events from the time the sender cloned. If you let it age for months, the anon set would be the vast majority of everybody else

This is assuming a 1:1 correlation between teleports and clonings. However, some small fraction will utilize trusted teleports and simply spend what was received without ever hitting the blockchain in any form. Due to this, it will not be possible to even know how many transactions have happened, let alone to correlate it.

Teleport is also designed to be resistant to an attacker that is able to log all traffic from all nodes. In addition to using fully encrypted onion layered packets via random hops of random depth, it is possible to split each teleport into M of N (up to 254) fragments. By using M of around 40%, say 4 hops, then with an 85% randomly generated probability to route the packet, it makes receiving a tx, routing a tx and originating a tx look the same. So, even an attacker with a complete log of all packets between all nodes will have a big challenge to identify which nodes are actually even sending any info to each other. Basically every node will be sending some amount of white noise to all the other nodes.

Teleport is also designed to resist Quantum Computers from the future that can crack today's encryption. The reason is that there is no permanent blockchain to record all tx just waiting to be decrypted. What does not exist cannot be decrypted! Short of the attacker keeping a permanent log of all the M of N onion layered packets or simply confiscating all the users computers to reconstruct the blockchain, I cannot see a way for the encrypted data to be obtained to be analyzed.

So yes, it is quite a long winded way to send a normal tx

And generating new addresses is just one of the smallest details. probably some custom API would be required to minimize the impact on the miniblockchain. I might also need to add some options to the teleport API to not use standard denominations, but that does open up the mantissa attack, so not sure it is a good idea.

James

[waterlily456]

2% Withdrawal fee on Bter
Feels like I'm getting robbed...

What's the deal with this whole "bter code redeem" thing? I don't get the point.

Please also note 1 % bonus will be granted when you deposit xcn on Bter.   

How to Use Bter Code Option

On the withdrawal page, you will see a”Bter Code” option. You can withdraw any asset on your balance as Bter code

by checking the box besides it. No fee will be charged. The withdrawal option is only applied to transfer asset

among Bter users. If you want to send coin to a specific account outside Bter, you may not chose this option.

If you want to transfer any asset from one Bter account to another Bter account or the same account, you may use the

Bter code option.

Just copy the code generated on the withdrawal record and enter it to the Redeem Bter Code page (Account > Bter Code

Redeem). Then the asset represented by the code will be credited to the account balance.

[waterlily456]

Besides,you can also take interest for xcn, too.

How to take your interests on Bter

Sending coins to Bter can receive daily interests, which is from Bter’s trading fee.

You can take your interest every 24 hours by visiting Account > My Interest https://bter.com/myaccount/interest page and clicking “take interest”button to take it.

If you do not take your interest dailt, it will not accumulate.

After taking the interest, a record will be listed on the My Daily Interest page. And the interests will be added to your coin balance for the specific asset.

[bitfreak!]

You can take your interest every 24 hours by visiting Account > My Interest https://bter.com/myaccount/interest page and clicking “take interest”button to take it.

That is a pretty nice feature, wish I had of known about it earlier though. Lol.

[bitfreak!]

So yes, it is quite a long winded way to send a normal tx

Well I guess my point was, if normal transactions are happening at the end of the day, it's not clear how the tx's are delinked so that you cannot follow the flow of coins. I guess it has something to do with the way transactions are handled offline, but I'm having a hard time understanding it. It would help if you could explain that part of it in more detail, using terminology generally used when talking about offline transactions.

[jl777]

So yes, it is quite a long winded way to send a normal tx

Well I guess my point was, if normal transactions are happening at the end of the day, it's not clear how the tx's are delinked so that you cannot follow the flow of coins. I guess it has something to do with the way transactions are handled offline, but I'm having a hard time understanding it. It would help if you could explain that part of it in more detail, using terminology generally used when talking about offline transactions.

if there is a tx on the blockchain from a fresh acct and no history, all you can do is trace back until you finally get to the initial creation of the input. So the identity of this initial creation of the telepod can be identified. Now, if they are funding using an anon coin, mixers, etc. it is possible to not even be knowing this, but this is a separate issue.

going back to the transfer. The part that is at first not easy to understand is that since the receiver of the telepod controls the timing (or even whether to clone), there is not even a 1:1 correlation between transfers and blockchain events. Even without trusted teleports and a 1:1 correlation, the identity of who is controlling the new acct is unknown. Short of announcing, "hey I just make the tx with txid", how will anybody know who made it?

Extracting the telepods back to the public blockchain is tricky, but for that we are making an anon debit card, so you just send to the card and extract funds from ATM in fiat cash or just use it for online purchase. No personal info is needed for the anon debit card. Alternatively, you can sell back the telepod to its original creator (it is expected there will be vendors of telepods) and when this is done, it is either resold or if it is withdrawn to the public blockchain all that is seen is a loop of tx that starts and ends with the same person.

I hope that makes sense. I tried to use the pirates to explain more clearly in the DarkPaper

James

[smooth]

So yes, it is quite a long winded way to send a normal tx

Well I guess my point was, if normal transactions are happening at the end of the day, it's not clear how the tx's are delinked so that you cannot follow the flow of coins. I guess it has something to do with the way transactions are handled offline, but I'm having a hard time understanding it. It would help if you could explain that part of it in more detail, using terminology generally used when talking about offline transactions.

Since I actually forced myself to read and understand his paper (and I repeat that he should make it easier for people to understand if he wants people to understand), I'll explain it.

If you trust the sender not to double spend, then you don't need to put the transaction on the blockchain at all. You can just pass the signed tx along as a bearer instrument to someone else, entirely off the blockchain. If they trust you, then they may accept it without commiting it to the blockchain, and so on. At which point the transaction is far removed from the original spender.

As far as I can tell, that's the only way transactions get unlinked.

I don't really find this compelling, because the trust premise seems largely if not entirely implausible to me, but given the spending limits in XCN it could possibly have some workability. If the spending limit is deep enough (as in really f'n deep) then maybe you trust the sender and just pass the transaction along. And then maybe the recipient sees that deep spending limit still there and passes it along again. Maybe. This assumes (somewhat, at least) spending limits are secure.

James does have a valid point that it just adds to what a coin already does, so it can't hurt (other than adding extra complexity and resource usage and therefore cost, but perhaps that would be small). Worst case everyone just submits the bearer instruments to the blockchain as normal transactions without passing them around.

[jl777]

So yes, it is quite a long winded way to send a normal tx

Well I guess my point was, if normal transactions are happening at the end of the day, it's not clear how the tx's are delinked so that you cannot follow the flow of coins. I guess it has something to do with the way transactions are handled offline, but I'm having a hard time understanding it. It would help if you could explain that part of it in more detail, using terminology generally used when talking about offline transactions.

Since I actually forced myself to read and understand his paper (and I repeat that he should make it easier for people to understand if he wants people to understand), I'll explain it.

If you trust the sender to to double spend, then you don't need to put the transaction on the blockchain at all. You can just pass the signed tx along as a bearer instrument to someone else, entirely off the blockchain. If they trust you, then they may accept it without commiting it to the blockchain, and so on. At which point the transaction is far removed from the original spender.

As far as I can tell, that's the only way transactions get unlinked.

I don't really find this compelling, because the trust premise seems largely if not entirely implausible to me, but given the spending limits in XCN it could possibly have some workability. If the spending limit is deep enough (as in really f'n deep) then maybe you trust the sender and just pass the transaction along. And then maybe the recipient sees that deep spending limit still there and passes it along again. Maybe. This assumes (somewhat, at least) spending limits are secure.

James does have a valid point that it just adds to what a coin already does, so it can't hurt (other than adding extra complexity and resource usage and therefore cost, but perhaps that would be small). Worst case everyone just submits the bearer instruments to the blockchain as normal transactions without passing them around.

Also it is important to note that it is optional. Like using 2FA, you are not forced to if you dont want an extra step.

[iCEBREAKER]

Actually some of the most successful coins have changed their names.  XMR, XC, DRK come to mind.  Mini block coin (MBC or XMB) is the obvious, kitsch-free, technically pure, name.

Also "cryptonite"  misleadingly implies association with the technology of cryptonote protocol coins, the hash algorithm of which is typically cryptonight.

Aminorex is correct, as usual.  It's still early enough to change the name, and such a change is warranted.  ((((BitFreak)))), please hear our case:

The market cap is piddling and the thread is barely 100 pages.  Yes, we are asking BitFreak to accept pushback from the community and endure no small amount of PITA hassle, but aminorex and I are in agreement on the matter and we are not noobs who would request such a great favor lightly.

I don't hate 'cryptonite' but it's silly to resign ourselves to entirely avoidable confusion with, and resentment from, the cryptonOte/CryptoNight camps.

Why do my favorite two altcoins, xmr and xcn, have to use names that are non-interchangable homophones?  

As much as I love to complain without suggesting solutions, this time is different.  I have divined for us the perfect new name and taken the initiative to register it:

MINI-BLOCKCHAIN + BITCOIN = MINICOIN

There was a briefly a previous MiniCoin (just as there was briefly a previous ByteCoin), but it's gone and never coming back.  These domains belong to us now:

MiniCo.in (general information)

MiniCoin.info (blockchain explorer)

MiniCoin.io (web wallet)


Changing the name of a very new coin with a tiny market cap and limited community mindshare is not convenient, but not a hard fork either.

IMO changing the XCN's name to MiniCoin or MiniChain at community behest would demonstrate great maturity and forbearance on BitFreak's part, which in turn would reflect very positively on his exceedingly innovative and brilliantly executed mini-blockchain project.

As a Hodor of >1 day worth of XCN mining I share a goodly sum of the non-trivial risk of re-branding, but am nevertheless confident ditching 'cryptonite' in favor of 'MiniCoin' (or 'MiniChain') is a smart move for the medium/long term, even at considerable cost in the short term.

BitFreak has a million things to do for XCN besides entertaining name changes, but perhaps he can be persuaded by conditional pledges of support contingent on a nomenclature rethink.

I am willing to escrow 25,000 XCN, to be released to the dev fund (IE catia) upon abandonment of the sub-optimal initial 'cryptonite' brand.

I know and do not discount the fact that BF & Co put a lot of time and effort into choosing 'cryptonite' but maintaining a label isn't the point of this experiment.

Luckily the press (not even CoinDesk) has yet to say much about CryptoNote, CryptoNite, CryptoNight, and CryptoKnight.  Thus, we may still avoid an upcoming crypto-imbrogio which has the potential to reduce all but the sharpest aminorex/Satoshi/Linus types to quivering heaps of uncertainty.

[suchnekky]

I think the name cryptonite is perfect! You have to have something wrong with you if you read your "I" as "o's"


Name is fine, development is key.


Id love to see this coin part of the btcd supernetwork, bitfreak is one of the best developers I know, and has solved some real world problems in crypto.


Imagine the future possibilities? Apple/android entire cryptonite blockchain on your mobile? Mobile staking? The innovation of this coin is simple amazing, join forces with btcd and my words cant even explain how perfect this will be.

[yellowduck2]

why not have a poll to decide if re-branding is needed ? As far as i can tell, the community wants re branding but developer doesn't want to. Therefore developer is ignoring community request ? Shall we make a poll to find out ?

[surfer43]

why not have a poll to decide if re-branding is needed ? As far as i can tell, the community wants re branding but developer doesn't want to. Therefore developer is ignoring community request ? Shall we make a poll to find out ?

This will not work as 0-post sockpuppets can vote...

[yellowduck2]

why not have a poll to decide if re-branding is needed ? As far as i can tell, the community wants re branding but developer doesn't want to. Therefore developer is ignoring community request ? Shall we make a poll to find out ?

This will not work as 0-post sockpuppets can vote...

i don't think newbie account can vote. They need certain activity level to vote

[enerbyte]

cryptonite is fine for me, but if we want to attract serious investors, I think a name change would be fine as the proposed @iCEBREAKER

[jl777]

Actually some of the most successful coins have changed their names.  XMR, XC, DRK come to mind.  Mini block coin (MBC or XMB) is the obvious, kitsch-free, technically pure, name.

Also "cryptonite"  misleadingly implies association with the technology of cryptonote protocol coins, the hash algorithm of which is typically cryptonight.

Aminorex is correct, as usual.  It's still early enough to change the name, and such a change is warranted.  ((((BitFreak)))), please hear our case:

The market cap is piddling and the thread is barely 100 pages.  Yes, we are asking BitFreak to accept pushback from the community and endure no small amount of PITA hassle, but aminorex and I are in agreement on the matter and we are not noobs who would request such a great favor lightly.

I don't hate 'cryptonite' but it's silly to resign ourselves to entirely avoidable confusion with, and resentment from, the cryptonOte/CryptoNight camps.

Why do my favorite two altcoins, xmr and xcn, have to use names that are non-interchangable homophones?  

As much as I love to complain without suggesting solutions, this time is different.  I have divined for us the perfect new name and taken the initiative to register it:

MINI-BLOCKCHAIN + BITCOIN = MINICOIN

There was a briefly a previous MiniCoin (just as there was briefly a previous ByteCoin), but it's gone and never coming back.  These domains belong to us now:

MiniCo.in (general information)

MiniCoin.info (blockchain explorer)

MiniCoin.io (web wallet)


Changing the name of a very new coin with a tiny market cap and limited community mindshare is not convenient, but not a hard fork either.

IMO changing the XCN's name to MiniCoin or MiniChain at community behest would demonstrate great maturity and forbearance on BitFreak's part, which in turn would reflect very positively on his exceedingly innovative and brilliantly executed mini-blockchain project.

As a Hodor of >1 day worth of XCN mining I share a goodly sum of the non-trivial risk of re-branding, but am nevertheless confident ditching 'cryptonite' in favor of 'MiniCoin' (or 'MiniChain') is a smart move for the medium/long term, even at considerable cost in the short term.

BitFreak has a million things to do for XCN besides entertaining name changes, but perhaps he can be persuaded by conditional pledges of support contingent on a nomenclature rethink.

I am willing to escrow 25,000 XCN, to be released to the dev fund (IE catia) upon abandonment of the sub-optimal initial 'cryptonite' brand.

I know and do not discount the fact that BF & Co put a lot of time and effort into choosing 'cryptonite' but maintaining a label isn't the point of this experiment.

Luckily the press (not even CoinDesk) has yet to say much about CryptoNote, CryptoNite, CryptoNight, and CryptoKnight.  Thus, we may still avoid an upcoming crypto-imbrogio which has the potential to reduce all but the sharpest aminorex/Satoshi/Linus types to quivering heaps of uncertainty.

I know I am just visiting, but I am somewhat active trader and familiar with crypto in general
I just dont have time to spend researching about every coin and to be honest when I heard cryptonite I though someone was talking about the cryptonote PoW. But when I realized they meant a coin, I just assumed it was yet another cryptonote fork like the quazar, fantom, duck coin, when does it stop? If you make a coin, it should at least do something new.

Only recently did I realize cryptonite was not a cryptonote coin. The fact its symbol is syntactically so close to all the other crytonotes doesnt help either.

So, as a pretty objective feedback, I think this confusion will be an issue and prevent establishing a clear Brand position. The more "distance" there is in the name from others, the better and if it also happens to convey the unique advantage of the Brand, even more so.

It also doesnt have to make any direct sense and actually something indirect could be more Brandable.

I just realized I never bought any cryptonite so I just got a few.

James

P.S. What about a name to mean small, like "Nano" or even "Pico" or "Femto"

[iCEBREAKER]

I think the name cryptonite is perfect! You have to have something wrong with you if you read your "I" as "o's"


Name is fine, development is key.


Id love to see this coin part of the btcd supernetwork, bitfreak is one of the best developers I know, and has solved some real world problems in crypto.


Imagine the future possibilities? Apple/android entire cryptonite blockchain on your mobile? Mobile staking? The innovation of this coin is simple amazing, join forces with btcd and my words cant even explain how perfect this will be.

This coin is 100% proof of work.  There will be no "mobile staking."  Full nodes on mobiles is eminently possible, however.

The name is OK but could use benefit from improvement.  In either case, I agree that development is key.

If there is something to BTCD's 'teleport' and 'telepods' that can make XCN anonymous, these coins may work together like peanut butter and chocolate.

Poll:

1) Cryptonite is fine, and we're stuck with it anyways.   
2) Cryptonite is confusing, let's change it to MiniCoin or MiniBlock before it's too late.   
3) Isn't Cryptonite the proof of work that Monero uses? 
4) No, Cryptonite is the technology proposal that Bytecoin implemented.   
5) Wait - whut?!?  LAWL!(?)   

[bitfreak!]

If you trust the sender to to double spend, then you don't need to put the transaction on the blockchain at all. You can just pass the signed tx along as a bearer instrument to someone else, entirely off the blockchain. If they trust you, then they may accept it without commiting it to the blockchain, and so on. At which point the transaction is far removed from the original spender.

As far as I can tell, that's the only way transactions get unlinked.

I don't really find this compelling, because the trust premise seems largely if not entirely implausible to me, but given the spending limits in XCN it could possibly have some workability. If the spending limit is deep enough (as in really f'n deep) then maybe you trust the sender and just pass the transaction along. And then maybe the recipient sees that deep spending limit still there and passes it along again. Maybe. This assumes (somewhat, at least) spending limits are secure.

Yes that's what I thought, and I don't find it very compelling either. But you make an interesting point about withdrawal limits maybe being able to make it more workable, at least in that situation the receiver can safely wait some period of time before claiming the transaction.

[bitfreak!]

There was a briefly a previous MiniCoin (just as there was briefly a previous ByteCoin), but it's gone and never coming back.

See the thing is, we purposely avoided choosing any name which had already been used by another coin. I'm sure that even if MiniCoin is totally dead, there are still many remnants of it on the internet which will cause confusion for people. It took us a very long time to find a good name which hadn't already been used, and the domain was still available. I also really like the logo we have, which I paid to have made. At this point it would be a total pain to change the name, but if you want to call it MiniCoin as a secondary name and redirect one or more of those domains to cryptonite.info I wouldn't be against it. Personally I just don't think changing the name would really benefit us very much, I think there are far more important things to focus on, and if the name is good enough now I see no reason to mess with it.

[jl777]

If you trust the sender to to double spend, then you don't need to put the transaction on the blockchain at all. You can just pass the signed tx along as a bearer instrument to someone else, entirely off the blockchain. If they trust you, then they may accept it without commiting it to the blockchain, and so on. At which point the transaction is far removed from the original spender.

As far as I can tell, that's the only way transactions get unlinked.

I don't really find this compelling, because the trust premise seems largely if not entirely implausible to me, but given the spending limits in XCN it could possibly have some workability. If the spending limit is deep enough (as in really f'n deep) then maybe you trust the sender and just pass the transaction along. And then maybe the recipient sees that deep spending limit still there and passes it along again. Maybe. This assumes (somewhat, at least) spending limits are secure.

Yes that's what I thought, and I don't find it very compelling either. But you make an interesting point about withdrawal limits maybe being able to make it more workable, at least in that situation the receiver can safely wait some period of time before claiming the transaction.

OK, it seems clear no interest

Supernetwork IPO on Poloniex
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=762346.msg8592943#msg8592943

James