Hm, what's the novel thing here? We already got a lot of CPU-only coins lately, snowblossom, Deft...
Any real-world usecase you are targeting that would make the coin interesting to non-miners to buy and hold?
This is a cpu-only variant of the cryptonight algorithm. RingCT signatures on a cpu-only coin are only implemented by NERVA, aside from this project. Cryptonote coins lack that aspect of design, otherwise.
so in short no real world use case at the moment. just another variant of altcoin. without actual usage most of the time, an altcoin will just fall in the trading.
and without strong community backing that coin, this is too easy to die.
unless the dev team has other plans as ive seen so many reserved posts here?!
Well, what's XMR's use-case? Monero's design has failed in terms of decentralization. So has bitcoin's. Solving a previously unsolved problem is hardly the way superior technology comes to dominate a market. Rather, a superior solution comes along to disrupt a previous solution, and makes it inferior (usually based on design or expansion of capabilities in solving future problems).
That devil's advocacy aside... Yes, there are bigger plans and your reserved post observation is an astute one.
You consider Monero a failed design? The market has spoken so far and entrusts networks like Bitcoin and Monero with hundreds of billions of dollars. Even if it's CPU only, what if the tech giant fire up their warehouses full of hardware and mine with that? Fully preventing centralization from happening is probably impossible to do.
I didn't say they were "failed designs". In my opinion, they failed to reach their goal of a scaled and truly decentralized network. All one has to do is look at what's happened with pooling to see that. I mean, look at the
distribution over the past few days from MineXMR.com . Does that look like a decentralized network to you?
Moreover, a community rallying behind something does not mean that it is fulfilling its initial design goal... much less, hundreds of billions of dollars hasn't anything to do with decentralized architecture. Usually, that kind of valuation is an indication of the opposite (cartels and market power). I'd even bet that they're correlated on a near 1.0 R-squared relationship. To quote Vitalik Buterin... "proof of work necessarily operates on a logic of massive power incentivized into existence by massive rewards". Centralization is the only way that this can occur. I agree with you that fully preventing centralization is probably impossible. But that doesn't mean that we should repeat the mistakes that have been revealed to be clear and burdensome design flaws (...that constantly need adjusted to keep attack area manageable).
