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

[AhmedMSedeek]

@bitfreak

Sorry for asking a lot of questions, but in the mini-blockchain paper ther's something called "maintenance fees" that is collected to reduce or eliminate "dust addresses" with no details at all,

Could you please explain -In Detail- How those fees are collected, When, and on what conditions?

It's just an idea, it's not implemented in Cryptonite. We discussed the idea briefly near the bottom of the last page and there's a little bit of info on this wiki page: http://cryptonite.info/wiki/index.php?title=Account_tree_pruning

What about this:

Subtract the smallest possible value from EVERY address EVERY block and add them to CoinBase account, and of course not including every address in the block as that would be crazy on block size.

Don't judge too fast, go ahead and calculate it.

for the current configurations, the smallest value is 0.0000000001 Per block/minute == 0.000000006 per hour == 0.000000144 per day == 0.00005256 per year.

That means it'll take 19000+ years to collect 1 XCN from a given address as Maintenance fees.

And also this ensures that CoinBase account never gets empty.

Another idea is to apply the same rules for transactions to prevent DOS Attacks, That is a transaction fee can be any value but zero, That may imply that most people will use 0.0000000001 as fees.

Think of it and if's OK, What about implementing it in the next release? 

[bitfreak!]

@bitfreak

Sorry for asking a lot of questions, but in the mini-blockchain paper ther's something called "maintenance fees" that is collected to reduce or eliminate "dust addresses" with no details at all,

Could you please explain -In Detail- How those fees are collected, When, and on what conditions?

It's just an idea, it's not implemented in Cryptonite. We discussed the idea briefly near the bottom of the last page and there's a little bit of info on this wiki page: http://cryptonite.info/wiki/index.php?title=Account_tree_pruning

What about this:

Subtract the smallest possible value from EVERY address EVERY block and add them to CoinBase account

As I mentioned on the last page the problem isn't that easy to solve. You can't just subtract coins from every account at the same time, that operation is way too expensive because when you change the balance of an account you need to update the hash. Updating every account in the account tree at the same time every single block is not a plausible solution.

This is why the wiki page I linked to says "The fees would be collected when a withdrawal is made from an account, and included along with the transaction fees. The fee would be calculated based on the age of the sending account.". Using that approach you don't need to update every single account at the same time, you just take an extra fee when they make a transaction.

Of course there are still several issues with that approach also. This isn't a simple issue to solve and requires a lot of careful thinking to make it work properly. I highly doubt we'll see account tree pruning implemented any time soon.

[enerbyte]

@bitfreak!
hi,
Is there somewhere I can download a copy of Cryptonite logo in high resolution? I need it for a small project I'm doing.
Thank you.

[AhmedMSedeek]

that operation is way too expensive because when you change the balance of an account you need to update the hash. Updating every account in the account tree at the same time every single block is not a plausible solution

I agree with that although it'll be part of the mining itself, and the mining Should be costly for the concept of "CryptoCurrency" itself.

The main problem with the other approach is that "burned" addresses will never get back to CoinBase account, and I think that the main purpose of the Account tree pruning should include recovery of burned money!

And I'm glad you're so active and discussing others' ideas

[bitfreak!]

I agree with that although it'll be part of the mining itself, and the mining Should be costly for the concept of "CryptoCurrency" itself.

The problem is that it will become costly for everyone, not just miners. When there are millions of accounts in the tree it will become completely infeasible to update them all simultaneously every block. Instead of doing it all at the same time you enforce the fee when ever a withdrawal is made, that way you aren't putting any extra stress on the network but you still get the same end result. As the wiki mentions "Even if no withdrawals are made from the account we could have a system for allowing the pruning of accounts which would have a non-positive balance had they been paying their account maintenance fees."

The main problem with the other approach is that "burned" addresses will never get back to CoinBase account, and I think that the main purpose of the Account tree pruning should include recovery of burned money!

If you're referring to the approach where accounts get pruned from the account tree once old enough, there is no reason we couldn't make the funds go back to the coinbase account. But the main problem with that approach is what I mentioned on the last page, it takes way too long for it to even have an effect.

[AhmedMSedeek]

I agree with that although it'll be part of the mining itself, and the mining Should be costly for the concept of "CryptoCurrency" itself.

The problem is that it will become costly for everyone, not just miners. When there are millions of accounts in the tree it will become completely infeasible to update them all simultaneously every block. Instead of doing it all at the same time you enforce the fee when ever a withdrawal is made, that way you aren't putting any extra stress on the network but you still get the same end result. As the wiki mentions "Even if no withdrawals are made from the account we could have a system for allowing the pruning of accounts which would have a non-positive balance had they been paying their account maintenance fees."

The main problem with the other approach is that "burned" addresses will never get back to CoinBase account, and I think that the main purpose of the Account tree pruning should include recovery of burned money!

If you're referring to the approach where accounts get pruned from the account tree once old enough, there is no reason we couldn't make the funds go back to the coinbase account. But the main problem with that approach is what I mentioned on the last page, it takes way too long for it to even have an effect.

You got me.

But what I'm referring to is not a direct pruning, it's something that' done frequently and leads to pruning.

For example what about "every block" picking up the address that has the oldest date of last made transaction  and apply some fees to it.

This way you strict the cost for miners.

And what I'm saying is just ideas that may/may not be feasible.

[bitfreak!]

But what I'm referring to is not a direct pruning, it's something that' done frequently and leads to pruning.

I'm talking about the same thing, but instead of taking the fees every block, you take them whenever a transaction is made from an address, so they have to pay the miners fee and a "maintenance fee" at the same time.

For example what about "every block" picking up the address that has the oldest date of last made transaction  and apply some fees to it.

That could possibly be a workable idea... the main issue I see with that approach is that it probably wont enforce fees fairly among everyone, which is sort of why you need to charge the maintenance fee all at the same time. The solution proposed on the wiki is still better because it charges everyone fairly but doesn't do it all at the same time.

[AhmedMSedeek]

you take them whenever a transaction is made from an address

That's exactly why I'm thinking of an alternative, That is "as of the wiki" if the balance is not too low "still positive having fees subtracted from it" and not used for a very long time, it's still there.

the main issue I see with that approach is that it probably wont enforce fees fairly among everyone

I disagree with that, If you have a million accounts the one with the oldest transaction date is the one that is never being used either burned money or stacked money, and that's what is needed to be pruned.

About the dust accounts that the conditions apply on them, they'll be pruned.

On the other hand, the dust accounts that are used, means possible faucets, that's a good thing for the coin that many - if not all - other coins lack.

And of course putting a minimum transaction fees protects the network from DOS.

Every approach have strong/weak points from every person's perspective, what we're searching here is a "feasible acceptable approach" to accomplish "Account tree pruning".

And the fees wouldn't be that much and should be Proportional with total number of addresses as the more addresses there is, the more pruning is needed, the more fees to be collected "and that makes sense as the address that'll have the oldest date should be dead", for example the collected fees may be Total number of addresses multiplied by a fixed amount "that may be 0.0000000001 and that takes us to the same amount that would have been collected if we subtracted 0.0000000001 from each address"

Again, I'm glad that you're active

[AhmedMSedeek]

the main issue I see with that approach is that it probably wont enforce fees fairly among everyone

And of course if the fees is applied on a given address the date changes, so it'll be hard to pay the fees again unless it's already dead

[kalon]

The account tree pruning may be a difficult thing to implement properly but I think it will be an important feature for the long term success of the coin. This may be rehashing ideas which seem unfeasible for Bitfreak but having an open discussion on the possible methods is helpful. I'd hope that we could find someway which would be both technically doable and tenable by most users, sooner rather than later.

[bitfreak!]

I'd hope that we could find someway which would be both technically doable and tenable by most users, sooner rather than later.

There is no need to get it done soon because the account tree is still tiny should remain very small for years to come. I'm not even sure there will ever be a real need to implement it.

[AhmedMSedeek]

I'd hope that we could find someway which would be both technically doable and tenable by most users, sooner rather than later.

There is no need to get it done soon because the account tree is still tiny should remain very small for years to come. I'm not even sure there will ever be a real need to implement it.

As of current price according to http://crypto-prices.com/XCN

Someone who doesn't want the coin to grow up can send the minimum amount "0.00001 XCN" plus the fee "0.0000001 XCN" to 1 BILLION addresses to increase the tree size and that only costs him 5.81 $.

That's why it's needed and I'm sure you understand that as you "the developer" is the first who suggested it.

[bitfreak!]

Someone who doesn't want the coin to grow up can send the minimum amount "0.00001 XCN" plus the fee "0.0000001 XCN" to 1 BILLION addresses to increase the tree size and that only costs him 5.81 $.

That's why it's needed and I'm sure you understand that as you "the developer" is the first who suggested it.

I am the creator of the mini-blockchain scheme, not the developer of Cryptonite. And I believe the original Bitcoin code has some safeguards against that sort of activity but you do have a valid point and that is one of the reasons I suggested it. I just don't really think it's worth worrying about until there's actually a reason to worry about it, because there are far more important things that need to be done first.

[AhmedMSedeek]

Someone who doesn't want the coin to grow up can send the minimum amount "0.00001 XCN" plus the fee "0.0000001 XCN" to 1 BILLION addresses to increase the tree size and that only costs him 5.81 $.

That's why it's needed and I'm sure you understand that as you "the developer" is the first who suggested it.

I am the creator of the mini-blockchain scheme, not the developer of Cryptonite. And I believe the original Bitcoin code has some safeguards against that sort of activity but you do have a valid point and that is one of the reasons I suggested it. I just don't really think it's worth worrying about until there's actually a reason to worry about it, because there are far more important things that need to be done first.

It's your call.

Was just trying to help

[enerbyte]

my first XCN paper wallet. 

           

[bitfreak!]

@enerbyte: nice, that looks to be pretty good quality, how did you get it made?

[enerbyte]

@enerbyte: nice, that looks to be pretty good quality, how did you get it made?

I design with Photoshop, the qr code with an offline generator and private key taken from the xcn client, I will upload the psd file to share  but I like to have the logo in high resolution.

[enerbyte]

Hello everyone!

I share with you the files so that they can create their own paper wallets, just have to look for some offline qr code generator
and then edit the files with any image editor like photoshop, gimp, etc.
Good luck.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B-xG8_wDY16pbDVUUmdUd3pYUm8&usp=sharing

Donation: CX2XwA94yn2yugPkRaLKnrZx2HWc8RQMAw

[bitfreak!]

but I like to have the logo in high resolution.

Sorry I was going to upload it before but I forgot about it. Here is the svg vector logo:

mega.co.nz/#!IB4igDiL!i3FDHKRRnFeRMBTYXOlYOgEhHVUAXCqyFg_0J6ePO7A

[xyzzyx]

... just have to look for some offline qr code generator....

I've used libqrencode by Fukuchi in the past with good results.  The *nix version is at: http://fukuchi.org/works/qrencode/ and a link to the win32 version can be found on that page under the "BINDINGS and PORTS" section.