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

[bitfreak!]

Why are we not seeing any copycoins of this one? Is it somehow more difficult to clone?

Yeah it's probably a bit more difficult to clone because the launch procedure is a bit different and you have to know how to deal with the first few weeks where it runs in "bitcoin mode".

[fiatpete]

Why are we not seeing any copycoins of this one? Is it somehow more difficult to clone?

Yeah it's probably a bit more difficult to clone because the launch procedure is a bit different and you have to know how to deal with the first few weeks where it runs in "bitcoin mode".

plus if you're going to do a copycoin for a pump and dump you chose a coin with a high market cap to try and get some of the people who missed out on buying the coin cheaply. But another possibility is a high market cap coin does a merger with xcn like darkcoin nearly did with shadowcoin as the mini blockchain would improve most of the top coins.

[whap]

I try to open crytponited-qt in Windows but it says

Incorrect or no genesis block found. Wrong datadir for network?

Has anybody a hint?

[bitfreak!]

@whap: starting with the -resync option should repair your chain.

@JimDowJones: can't you just copy the wallet file into your data folder?

[fiatpete]

I try to open crytponited-qt in Windows but it says

Incorrect or no genesis block found. Wrong datadir for network?

Has anybody a hint?

I had similar issues when a resync caused corruption issues. Try deleting everything apart the exe, the dll files and the wallet.dat if you have some xcn. You'll then need to do a search for cryptonite in the registry and delete any keys you find. I used regedit. I think the important one is the datadir key which seems to tell cryptonite to do a fresh install. You might also struggle connecting to any peers once it starts up so run 'addnode 206.72.193.148 add' from the console command line in cryptonite.

[whap]

Thanks a lot, worked for me!

[heskey]

Why are we not seeing any copycoins of this one? Is it somehow more difficult to clone?

Yeah it's probably a bit more difficult to clone because the launch procedure is a bit different and you have to know how to deal with the first few weeks where it runs in "bitcoin mode".

Okay, perhaps not a bad thing. But can I ask why the block time isn't set to be faster? If I have understood it correctly, faster blocktime = faster transactions, but bigger blockchain, so it should be suitable for this coin. The long transaction time in Bitcoin is clearly a weakness.

[bitfreak!]

Why are we not seeing any copycoins of this one? Is it somehow more difficult to clone?

Yeah it's probably a bit more difficult to clone because the launch procedure is a bit different and you have to know how to deal with the first few weeks where it runs in "bitcoin mode".

Okay, perhaps not a bad thing. But can I ask why the block time isn't set to be faster? If I have understood it correctly, faster blocktime = faster transactions, but bigger blockchain, so it should be suitable for this coin. The long transaction time in Bitcoin is clearly a weakness.

Because when the block time is too fast it creates too many orphaned blocks. In my opinion a block time of 1 minute is not too long but it's also not too short and doesn't result in an excessive number of orphaned blocks. Once you start getting lower than 1 minute it's not worth the trade off.

[heskey]

Why are we not seeing any copycoins of this one? Is it somehow more difficult to clone?

Yeah it's probably a bit more difficult to clone because the launch procedure is a bit different and you have to know how to deal with the first few weeks where it runs in "bitcoin mode".

Okay, perhaps not a bad thing. But can I ask why the block time isn't set to be faster? If I have understood it correctly, faster blocktime = faster transactions, but bigger blockchain, so it should be suitable for this coin. The long transaction time in Bitcoin is clearly a weakness.

Because when the block time is too fast it creates too many orphaned blocks. In my opinion a block time of 1 minute is not too long but it's also not too short and doesn't result in an excessive number of orphaned blocks. Once you start getting lower than 1 minute it's not worth the trade off.

Okay. I am convinced. It really feels like you have thought every aspect of this project through. Im surprised it hasn't got more attention yet, obviously this market is still too cluttered with sloppy scam attempts. Anyways, I just get more and more comfortable holding this coin.

[marada]

Hi,

I need to roll back some my XCN i used to keep on c-cex due to delisting.

I have built up the walled. Standard things:

Code:

git clone https://github.com/MiniblockchainProject/Cryptonite/
cd Cryptonite
./autogen.sh
CFLAGS="-Wall" ./configure --with-incompatible-bdb --with-incompatible-bdb --with-gui
make -j6

went all right, but after launching I got the error of blockchain loading.
I selected "rebuild" option and got segfault.

What's wrong? It is compiled against libdb5.1 but it used to work (maybe the previous version?).
Bitcoin built up the same way works fine. Just need to specify -datadir (that issue still exists after first Cryptonite launch in it's early days).

[fiatpete]

Is there any thought to centralization of mining? The vast majority of miners seem to be on http://xcn.1gh.com/ with a few on http://xcn.nonce-pool.com/. It looks like we're way beyond the levels that ghash reached with bitcoin which caused such a media storm. Luckily this produced several good proposals to fix bitcoin, just because bitcoin couldn't manage a hard fork to fix their problems it doesn't mean we couldn't do that to make sure xcn is ready with all the solutions.
See http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/06/18/how-to-disincentivize-large-bitcoin-mining-pools/ for one idea. 

[bitfreak!]

went all right, but after launching I got the error of blockchain loading.
I selected "rebuild" option and got segfault.

Did you try deleting the corrupted blockchain from your datadir and resyncing?

[marada]

went all right, but after launching I got the error of blockchain loading.
I selected "rebuild" option and got segfault.

Did you try deleting the corrupted blockchain from your datadir and resyncing?

Thanks, it did the job

[JimDowJones]

Hey bitfreak, this coin is extremely interesting, so I wanted to ask to some questions about you and the coin. First off with the rise of the internet of coins schemes you cant help but think about coins in those terms, I think cryptonite could be very valuable especially for an internet of coins network. I really think XCN has a perfect spot as a fast transfer, possible HFT role and it seems like it was purposeful. XCN goes against the current landscape of coins in that while everyone is working on a swiss army knife approach where their coin does 10-15 things all half completed you went a different route and built a coin that had one brilliant feature and it works really well.

What was your longterm vision for XCN?

Did you build XCN to fit into an internet of coins scheme?

[bitfreak!]

What was your longterm vision for XCN?

The longterm vision is a truly scalable cryptocurrency which will remain decentralized long into the future. With improved scalability you get more transaction bandwidth and better support for micro-transactions, which are important properties for any cryptocurrency which wants to support a large user base.

Did you build XCN to fit into an internet of coins scheme?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "an internet of coins scheme", but I designed Cryptonite to fill a certain niche in the altcoin scene, so it can do things that other alts cannot do and it will probably have applications that I have not foreseen when it comes to interaction between different altcoins.

[JimDowJones]

What was your longterm vision for XCN?

The longterm vision is a truly scalable cryptocurrency which will remain decentralized long into the future. With improved scalability you get more transaction bandwidth and better support for micro-transactions, which are important properties for any cryptocurrency which wants to support a large user base.

Did you build XCN to fit into an internet of coins scheme?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "an internet of coins scheme", but I designed Cryptonite to fill a certain niche in the altcoin scene, so it can do things that other alts cannot do and it will probably have applications that I have not foreseen when it comes to interaction between different altcoins.

I was referring to something like supernetwork and blocknet. Has anyone from the financial sector contacted you about high frequency trading?

[bitfreak!]

I was referring to something like supernetwork and blocknet. Has anyone from the financial sector contacted you about high frequency trading?

As I said Cryptonite may have certain advantages that make it useful in a supernet type of system. I haven't really been following the progress of the supernet stuff and I'm uncertain exactly how it all works so I can't give you a good answer. And no I haven't been contacted about HF trading. Typically exchanges handle the trading, especially high frequency trading. Even if Cryptonite can better handle more transactions there is no reason to make all those HF trades as real transactions when you can let exchanges handle that stuff off the chain.

[iCEBREAKER]

Typically exchanges handle the trading, especially high frequency trading. Even if Cryptonite can better handle more transactions there is no reason to make all those HF trades as real transactions when you can let exchanges handle that stuff off the chain.

The danger of off-chain trades on exchanges is that you are exposed to the exchanges' regulatory/institutional/counterpary risk.

By using multisig and keeping as much as possible on-chain, users are protected for localized catastrophic failures.

[bitfreak!]

Typically exchanges handle the trading, especially high frequency trading. Even if Cryptonite can better handle more transactions there is no reason to make all those HF trades as real transactions when you can let exchanges handle that stuff off the chain.

The danger of off-chain trades on exchanges is that you are exposed to the exchanges' regulatory/institutional/counterpary risk.

By using multisig and keeping as much as possible on-chain, users are protected for localized catastrophic failures.

Yes exchanges are clearly the weakest link in the whole cryptocurrency ecosystem, so I can understand the desire for a decentralized trading platform. Over the last few years I've read about at least a dozen such platforms but I'm not sure how many of those actually manifested into a real solution. I'm fairly sure there is at least one P2P trading solution in existence right now but this is another topic I haven't been keeping an eye on lately. The main problem with any decentralized trading platform is the inherent latency which P2P networking brings with it. Although Cryptonite can handle a larger number of transactions I don't think it would have a low enough latency to handle high frequency trading and I still don't think it would be a great idea to cram all the HF trades into the blockchain. The best solution would probably be to create a specialized side chain to hold all the trading transactions because then you can easily solve the problem of how to create trading pairs between different altcoins, you just need the sidechain to be connected to multiple altcoins and the ability to track which type of assets exist in the side chain. Now that I start thinking about this topic more I'm getting all sorts of ideas about how to design such a side chain.

EDIT: actually I think the mini-blockchain scheme would probably be the ideal type of system to use in such a side chain because when you think about it, trading just boils down to balances. When you're trading on an exchange all you really care about is your coin balances. When you make a trade one of your balances will decrease and another will increase because you're selling one type of asset in return for another type. So when it comes to trading I don't think there is a need for advanced scripting capabilities. The mini-blockchain scheme uses a simple balance system instead of scripting so it seems like the ideal solution to this problem. We don't really need the withdrawal limit feature in this type of side chain, so we could just use the withdrawal limit field in the account tree to represent the type of asset. So for example a value of 0 might be BTC, a value of 1 might be LTC, a value of 3 XCN, etc. That way it would be super easy to know how much of each coin you are holding and it allows us to track which coins are being sent into and out of the side chain. To trade between different coins you'd just need to create a transaction with the appropriate outputs signed by all parties involved in the trade.

[iCEBREAKER]

Yes exchanges are clearly the weakest link in the whole cryptocurrency ecosystem, so I can understand the desire for a decentralized trading platform. Over the last few years I've read about at least a dozen such platforms but I'm not sure how many of those actually manifested into a real solution. I'm fairly sure there is at least one P2P trading solution in existence right now but this is another topic I haven't been keeping an eye on lately. The main problem with any decentralized trading platform is the inherent latency which P2P networking brings with it. Although Cryptonite can handle a larger number of transactions I don't think it would have a low enough latency to handle high frequency trading and I still don't think it would be a great idea to cram all the HF trades into the blockchain. The best solution would probably be to create a specialized side chain to hold all the trading transactions because then you can easily solve the problem of how to create trading pairs between different altcoins, you just need the sidechain to be connected to multiple altcoins and the ability to track which type of assets exist in the side chain. Now that I start thinking about this topic more I'm getting all sorts of ideas about how to design such a side chain.

EDIT: actually I think the mini-blockchain scheme would probably be the ideal type of system to use in such a side chain because when you think about it, trading just boils down to balances. When you're trading on an exchange all you really care about is your coin balances. When you make a trade one of you balances will decrease and another will increase because you're selling one type of asset in return for another type. So when it comes to trading I don't think there is a need for advanced scripting capabilities. The mini-blockchain scheme uses a simple balance system instead of scripting so it seems like the ideal solution to this problem. We don't really need the withdrawal limit feature in this type of side chain, so we could just use the withdrawal limit field in the account tree to represent the type of asset. So for example a value of 0 might be BTC, a value of 1 might be LTC, a value of 3 XCN, etc. That way it would be super easy to know how much of each coin you are holding and it allows us to track which coins are being sent into and out of the side chain. To trade between different coins you'd just need to create a transaction with the appropriate outputs signed by all parties involved in the trade.

Good stuff.  I understand block/propagation times are a constraint for on-chain HF trading.  Now that I think about it, tx fees would also add friction as the equivalent of a Tobin Tax!  Perhaps we will see the emergence of hyper-localized coins with extremely short block times.  NASDAQcoin, NYSEcoin, and COMEXcoin would be limited to NYC and Chicago based nodes and feature <1 second blocks, low (or zero) tx fees, etc.  The very low latency HFT networks already exist; we just need to provide the tools so they can create beneficial blockchain overlays which replace their current (problematic) centralized clearinghouse model.

Of course these specialized coins should be non-malleable sidechains of XCN...if we build it they will come!  

Another approach would be to metacast tx across several interoperable/compatible chains, so it's a safe bet at least one of them will pop a block very soon afterwards.  Maybe Supernet type schemes will provide such functionality.