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

[sempyper]

"Crypton" is still available without stealing.

This. Just wanted to highlight it, as the debate is heating up and people will miss a lot of earlier action. Time for a poll?

+1 crypton seems perfect. similar to last name so no one will confuse it, without the confusing note nite dilema. plus you can use the same ticker XCN. lets do this. would be good to see. plus a designer to do an overhaul on the the whole website and design in the op, some real sleek graphics.  id be willing to donate towards this.

[heskey]

"Crypton" is still available without stealing.

This. Just wanted to highlight it, as the debate is heating up and people will miss a lot of earlier action. Time for a poll?

But Krypton is the home-planet of superman, so it wouldn't be much of a change. Kryptonite is the ore which "drained Superman of his strength, whilst giving humans superhuman powers" - lol that's money in a nutshell.

Therefore, Cryptonite is a beautiful way of incorporating this subliminal message into the coin

[dboylc]

"Crypton" is still available without stealing.

This. Just wanted to highlight it, as the debate is heating up and people will miss a lot of earlier action. Time for a poll?

But Krypton is the home-planet of superman, so it wouldn't be much of a change. Kryptonite is the ore which "drained Superman of his strength, whilst giving humans superhuman powers" - lol that's money in a nutshell.

Therefore, Cryptonite is a beautiful way of incorporating this subliminal message into the coin

Khorium

[mmmaybe]

"Crypton" is still available without stealing.

This. Just wanted to highlight it, as the debate is heating up and people will miss a lot of earlier action. Time for a poll?

I like it too 

[heskey]

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

Woop woop!

[mikenz]

I like it too 

me too. Crypton is a great catchy brand name

[surfer43]

WTB up to 2,000,000 at 750 satoshi. PM.

[zflan]

the  dev,how  about the  online  wallet?

[iCEBREAKER]

Those tales are clearly exaggerations, and even if completely true I have no desire to cater to such imbeciles. Lol. Seriously though it really isn't that hard to explain the name. I just explain it as "Cryptonite with a C instead of a K" and I might go onto further explain "so it starts with crypto as in cryptography". Some people may ask if it's related to Cryptonote or their cryptonight PoW algorithm and the answer is simple: no.

"Imbeciles?" Really?  Wow, you need to adjust that snobby attitude ASAP.  Anyone who has even heard of XCN at this early date is a total crypto nerd, not an "imbecile."  Great coins like BTC/LTC/PPC/XMR succeeded thanks to the network effect because they are inclusive, not exclusive.

Those tales may be exaggerations, but they are using humor to illustrate a valid point.

Right now only a few of the most dedicated cryponauts know that XCN exists, but in the future many more normal people (AKA "imbeciles") will hear the name and be confused.  Do you really want XCN to be automatically associated with the dubious Cryptonote camps, rather than being known for its unique merits?

My MiniCoin proposal is intended more to be preventative of this future confusion than reactive to the limited confusion occurring thus far.

The phonetic equivalence (IPA: ˈkrɪptənʌɪt) and near-exact spellings of Cyptonite/Cryptonight and Cryptonote are confusing noobs, and it's just going to get worse as XCN gains exposure. 

I didn't have to wait long, or go very far, to find a sterling example of this:

Nice signature.

LTC: selling misinformation (at best) or flat out lies since when there was chance for an altcoin to exist.
Monero, boolberry, cryptonite: all based on same tech, all apparently having something not quite right.

LOL, lots of people are getting the false impression that Cryptonite is a Cryptonote-based coin, but it's not. 

XCN is based on mini-blockchains, which are completely incompatible with CN's ring signatures.

I'm trying to get BitFreak to change the name to something less tremendously confusing to non-specialists, and more distinct and descriptive (such as 'MiniCoin') but it's like pulling teeth.

You'd think no coin had ever successfully changed it's name/ticker before, despite the example of BitMonero/Monero/MRO/XMR.

You'd think no coin had ever successfully recycled an abandoned name before, despite the example of ByteCoin.

You'd think a simple re-branding of an obscure month-old coin, with scant volume on a mere handful of exchanges, is equivalent to a hard fork and re-launch, but it isn't.

(XPOSTed to XCN thread)

[polanskiman]

Those tales are clearly exaggerations, and even if completely true I have no desire to cater to such imbeciles. Lol. Seriously though it really isn't that hard to explain the name. I just explain it as "Cryptonite with a C instead of a K" and I might go onto further explain "so it starts with crypto as in cryptography". Some people may ask if it's related to Cryptonote or their cryptonight PoW algorithm and the answer is simple: no.

"Imbeciles?" Really?  Wow, you need to adjust that snobby attitude ASAP.  Anyone who has even heard of XCN at this early date is a total crypto nerd, not an "imbecile."  Great coins like BTC/LTC/PPC/XMR succeeded thanks to the network effect because they are inclusive, not exclusive.

Those tales may be exaggerations, but they are using humor to illustrate a valid point.

Right now only a few of the most dedicated cryponauts know that XCN exists, but in the future many more normal people (AKA "imbeciles") will hear the name and be confused.  Do you really want XCN to be automatically associated with the dubious Cryptonote camps, rather than being known for its unique merits?

My MiniCoin proposal is intended more to be preventative of this future confusion than reactive to the limited confusion occurring thus far.

The phonetic equivalence (IPA: ˈkrɪptənʌɪt) and near-exact spellings of Cyptonite/Cryptonight and Cryptonote are confusing noobs, and it's just going to get worse as XCN gains exposure. 

I didn't have to wait long, or go very far, to find a sterling example of this:

Nice signature.

LTC: selling misinformation (at best) or flat out lies since when there was chance for an altcoin to exist.
Monero, boolberry, cryptonite: all based on same tech, all apparently having something not quite right.

LOL, lots of people are getting the false impression that Cryptonite is a Cryptonote-based coin, but it's not. 

XCN is based on mini-blockchains, which are completely incompatible with CN's ring signatures.

I'm trying to get BitFreak to change the name to something less tremendously confusing to non-specialists, and more distinct and descriptive (such as 'MiniCoin') but it's like pulling teeth.

You'd think no coin had ever successfully changed it's name/ticker before, despite the example of BitMonero/Monero/MRO/XMR.

You'd think no coin had ever successfully recycled an abandoned name before, despite the example of ByteCoin.

You'd think a simple re-branding of an obscure month-old coin, with scant volume on a mere handful of exchanges, is equivalent to a hard fork and re-launch, but it isn't.

(XPOSTed to XCN thread)

The one with the attitude is you dude. We understood your point. No need to repeat the same thing over and over. You are cluttering this thread for nothing with your novels.

[iCEBREAKER]

The one with the attitude is you dude. We understood your point. No need to repeat the same thing over and over. You are cluttering this thread for nothing with your novels.

Calling people who understandably confuse Cryptonite with Cryptonote "imbeciles" is the wrong approach.  Why would you defend such toxic behavior?

If my posts are too long for your short attention span, don't read them.   

[polanskiman]

The one with the attitude is you dude. We understood your point. No need to repeat the same thing over and over. You are cluttering this thread for nothing with your novels.

Calling people who understandably confuse Cryptonite with Cryptonote "imbeciles" is the wrong approach.  Why would you defend such toxic behavior?

If my posts are too long for your short attention span, don't read them.  

I am not defending that. I am simply saying that you have already made your point a few times (in a not so pleasant manner, if I must add). In fact I'm am pro for a name change but no need to repeat things over and over.

People seem to be ganging up against Bitfreak and THAT IS toxic. No wonder why he is reacting that way. People don't seem to understand that the name was not chosen out of a lucky draw but was the fruit of a well thought process. Learn how to read what has been said by Bitfreak himself and stop acting like it's the end of the world!

Yes your messages are too long when all you are saying the same thing over and over. WE GOT IT.

[polokiost]

need a miner for amd's gpu 

[iCEBREAKER]

I am not defending that. I am simply saying that you have already made your point a few times (in a not so pleasant manner, if I must add). In fact I'm am pro for a name change but no need to repeat things over and over.

People seem to be ganging up against Bitfreak and THAT IS toxic. No wonder why he is reacting that way. People don't seem to understand that the name was not chosen out of a lucky draw but was the fruit of a well thought process. Learn how to read what has been said by Bitfreak himself and stop acting like it's the end of the world!

Yes your messages are too long when all you are saying the same thing over and over. WE GOT IT.

Please accept my apology.  It seemed to me like you were attacking me for calling out BF's intemperate "imbeciles" slur.  Thanks for clarifying.

When BF stood firm against the calls for a re-launch because of some tiny initial problems, I completely supported his stance.  There was no reason to let the endless quest for a Great Launch be the enemy of a Good Launch.

And previous to that, I greatly admired his principled flexibility in accommodating the cries for a smaller (nominal) total emission by moving the decimal.

But resolving the naming issue with a re-brand is not (IMO) equivalent to calls for hard forks and relaunches.

I was studiously polite until the "imbeciles" comment.  I'm too heavily invested in the MBC project to just let crap like that slide.

I don't appreciate being told that we'll only re-brand with a Great Name, when 1) the existing name is demonstrably very shitty and 2) I've gone out of my way to provide a Less Shitty/Good Enough alternative in the form of MiniCoin.

As a marginalist, I am motivated by comparative advantage.  I am far from alone in making the case that XCN's disadvantages outweigh its advantages/inertia.  That's not "ganging up" on BF, although it may be perceived that way.

Again, I personally was never confused by the I/O distinction but have since been persuaded to be sympathetic to those putative "imbeciles" who were and will be in the future.  Please, don't tell us yet again about the "well thought process" that resulted in the selection of 'Cryptnite' because WE GOT IT.

We're not saying the name was carelessly chosen at random; we're asking for remedy to the current situation where Cryptonote is taking the BTC world by storm and already creating mistaken first impressions.  I like to back up my claims with evidence, so when a noob posted a spot-on illustration of my point in a neighboring thread, I felt compelled to crosspost it and my response here.

XCN will do just fine without a name change, but we will save some headaches if we re-brand.  If you think my long-winded posts are annoyingly repetitive, how are you going to like seeing the same 'IS THIS A CRYPTONOTE COIN LIKE BYTECOIN BECAUSE I HEARD BYTECOIN WAS A SCAM??" posts here until the Second Coming of Satoshi?   

[jwinterm]

need a miner for amd's gpu 

Or someone could just fork the coin, give it a decent name like minibit or microblock, and replace the m7 algo with dual merge mining sha and scrypt like huntercoin; or even better triple merge mining with qubit or something gpu friendly too, to give the coin a wider distribution. I don't see the reason here for a new algo (m7) except to have private miners, so that a select few can have a mining advantage while the block reward is at its maximum.

[darkota]

need a miner for amd's gpu  

Or someone could just fork the coin, give it a decent name like minibit or microblock, and replace the m7 algo with dual merge mining sha and scrypt like huntercoin; or even better triple merge mining with qubit or something gpu friendly too, to give the coin a wider distribution. I don't see the reason here for a new algo (m7) except to have private miners, so that a select few can have a mining advantage while the block reward is at its maximum.

The early miners only got a small amount of coins(Less than 1mill). Around only 5million coins have been mined so far(1 month after the first day mining incident) , and the total supply is 1.8billion.

[jwinterm]

need a miner for amd's gpu  

Or someone could just fork the coin, give it a decent name like minibit or microblock, and replace the m7 algo with dual merge mining sha and scrypt like huntercoin; or even better triple merge mining with qubit or something gpu friendly too, to give the coin a wider distribution. I don't see the reason here for a new algo (m7) except to have private miners, so that a select few can have a mining advantage while the block reward is at its maximum.

The early miners only got a small amount of coins(Less than 1mill). Around only 5million coins have been mined so far(1 month after the first day mining incident) , and the total supply is 1.8billion.

You're right, I'm not trying to exaggerate and make it sound like a huge problem - the coin is emitted over a very long period of time. However, it's not really incorrect to say that there was and probably still is private miners when the block reward was at its maximum either, since the reward is constantly decreasing. I mean, there's no premine, so gotta get your coins somehow I guess, but I don't see any other reason for not just going with an established hashing algorithm, if not merge mining with one or several of them.

[bitfreak!]

I don't appreciate being told that we'll only re-brand with a Great Name, when 1) the existing name is demonstrably very shitty and 2) I've gone out of my way to provide a Less Shitty/Good Enough alternative in the form of MiniCoin.

Why would I change the name to something less than great? I have no reason to go to all the effort required if the new name isn't great, and so far most of the names suggested are very sub-par. You're lucky I'm even entertaining the idea of a name change at all, I've already wasted more than 12 hours of my life contemplating names and finding something which wasn't already taken. Now it's like I have to go through all that crap again because some people are worried about a little overlap with another popular coin. The name is only shitty if you believe that overlap is very problematic, and I don't. Have you ever thought that maybe that popularity could cause more people to check out Cryptonite?

[iCEBREAKER]

I don't appreciate being told that we'll only re-brand with a Great Name, when 1) the existing name is demonstrably very shitty and 2) I've gone out of my way to provide a Less Shitty/Good Enough alternative in the form of MiniCoin.

Why would I change the name to something less than great? I have no reason to go to all the effort required if the new name isn't great, and so far most of the names suggested are very sub-par. You're lucky I'm even entertaining the idea of a name change at all, I've already wasted more than 12 hours of my life contemplating names and finding something which wasn't already taken. Now it's like I have to go through all that crap again because some people are worried about a little overlap with another popular coin. The name is only shitty if you believe that overlap is very problematic, and I don't. Have you ever thought that maybe that popularity could cause more people to check out Cryptonite?

You should change the name to something less than great because the current name is resulting in precisely the kind of confusion and brand dilution you tried so hard to avoid.  IOW, just about anything is better than yet another [IPA: ˈkrɪptənʌɪt] variant.

It's not "a little overlap."  And Cryptonote is not "another popular coin."  Cryptnote is a family of popular coins, most of which greatly exceed XCN in volume.

It's a stretch to call XCN "popular" at this point, when the market cap is a trivial $23,000 $50,000 and its thread is barely 100 pages.

I know XCN is destined for great things.  That's why I'd like to re-brand now, while the hassle factor is minimal.

You're lucky to have already have such a proactive, helpful community willing to hand you a better name on a silver platter.

We're trying to fix the naming collision, and you are being snotty by dismissing these efforts as "crap" after voluntarily assuming the role of MBC facilitator.

Yes, I considered the possible benefit of riding CryptoNote's linguistic coattails.  But CryptoNote does not exactly enjoy a sterling reputation, and it's best we sidestep the mistaken identity entirely.  Just for the benefit of not confusing the press/media imbeciles, if nothing else.  

I know, let's change the name to BiteKoin.  It's spelled different, so nobody except imbeciles could possible confuse us with ByteCoin!  

[surfer43]

Just want to point out the market cap is more like $50k. The coin supply is wrong on coinmarketcap because minichain.info is still down. Current supply is ~11 million.