Something bad with that pool :/
Sometimes pool hashrate going down from 3.8 MH/s to 1.8MH/s, even my miners go down to the half of my actual hashrate, and it doesn't really matter if I have the keepalived on :/
It doesn't tell much about the problem. Could you PM me more details about it : When did it start, how often does it happen, what's your configuration (how many GPUs and IPs), is your connection stable, does it happen with other pools ? Sent the PM to you, describing the problem what I saw  It all evens out. I noticed this as well but you will see times where your hash is much higher as well. |
|
|
|
Looks like your just looking for hand outs to me. But I don't follow dash so there's that. Monero is a volunteer funded project, hence the slow pace. |
|
|
|
|
Even though I personally think it is foolish to invest in dash I do think "Dash will persist, but on life support" well for a few years anyway.
|
|
|
|
I still dont think ive seen anything about a true hard fork yet. But at this point in time if they do it and roll back a few weeks of transactions, their reputations and the "coin" itself will be destroyed.
Their credibility is already destroyed the bagholders just refuse to comprehend that fact which will just keep it alive longer. The writing is on the wall. |
|
|
|
Why write?
Good English should engage the reader.
Writing what makes you feel good is as easy as it's ineffectual.
It's a JOKE!  |
|
|
|
Is it surprising Hillary Clinton will be first in line for some Monero laundering? And maybe Bill will be 2nd in line for The Smooth Road. Well she is pretty tight with the chinese. And Bill has to have a connect! |
|
|
|
And I thought that this was replacing remote communication as well. Which is a VERY BIG DEAL. But after listening to the Podcast you linked I see that it is intended for interprocess communication currently but Fluffy did say it can be extended for wiring protocol replacement.
In terms of "dev notes", a lot of this stuff goes down on IRC in #monero-dev and sometimes even #monero. The bi-weekly dev meetings are the culmination of these discussions that span thousands of lines of text over many days. Could you post those logs on pastebin? 0MQ is a trivial decision to make, because it's a backend change as you've observed. Our only option is either a messaging system (of which 0MQ is unequivocally the most battle-tested, with the largest number of implementations) or replacing the current HTTP server with something far more performant. Obviously, short of forking nginx, the latter is not really an option. I don't quite understand why there needs to be any wrapper at all for local communication, why not use direct input and add the daemon functionality to say the gui? Is there any reason these need to be separate for end users? I just see this as a injection point where one doesn't need to be. To speak to your other concern: we are definitely looking at replacing the wire protocol. Since we'll have 0MQ in already, and since we want to enable developers to build consensus-compatible implementations in whatever language they'd like, the logical choice is ZMTP ( http://zmtp.org). This is, again, something that is battle-hardened and has implementations in tons of languages. Our other option is picking one of the Tor pluggable transports, something like obfs4, but that's somewhat less desirable for cross-implementation purposes. I do remember this discussion being touched on in this thread I think but I don't remember a decision being announced. Making the product more accessible to a larger is base is laudable as I said I just want to make sure it is not at the cost of security. Especially with the vultures hovering looking for any attack vector they can find. The current home-grown Boost::ASIO wire protocol is significantly more risky than switching to something that is standard. It's entirely possible that there's some weirdness under the hood that we haven't uncovered yet, so swapping it out for something that is well-known and widely used in FOSS projects is extremely desirable. Complexity is the enemy of good security, and in this case custom protocols way worse than well-known standards.
Perhaps more importantly, though, the wire protocol is hardly an attack surface. The major risk it represents is an MITM attack revealing what transactions you were the first to broadcast (mitigated by end-to-end encryption in ZMTP), and fingerprinting attacks being able to correlate your clearnet IP with your i2p address (mitigated by introducing some execution randomness to the i2p connectivity, and completely separating the information shared with nodes on both interfaces). Beyond that, a compromised or poisoned wire protocol won't be able to "do" anything particularly bad. The daemon has no idea what your private keys are. It has some information about your transactions you send out, and the ones you're interested in, but if it were revealing that it would be spotted very quickly.
This is actually my top concern, I want to see how this has been vetted. Call me paranoid but changing a core protocol with off hand remarks is worrisome and I just want to verify that we are not just taking anyone's word on the fact that the crypto in 0MQ is sound and safe when it comes to a currency that cannot be checked for manipulation. http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/01/how-the-nsa-may-have-put-a-backdoor-in-rsas-cryptography-a-technical-primer/BTW we are very close to losing beta status correct? How long will this be tested within the beta phase? I don't know anything about this so I wanted to see a peer review or a word from our scientists that they have verified this is bulletproof. Looking into ZeroMq I see it uses Curve25519 correct? http://zeromq.org/topics:encryptionZeroMQ 4.x has extensible encryption, and comes with CurveZMQ as a built-in security mechanism. Pieter Hintjens has some articles that explain how this works. The only extra dependency is libsodium, which provides the Curve25519 security functions. https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1ms5fu/new_zeromq_4_does_strong_encryption_and_perfect/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve25519
I no longer trust the constants. I believe the NSA has manipulated them through their relationships with industry
— Bruce Schneier, The NSA Is Breaking Most Encryption on the Internet (2013)
*********************************************************************************************************** Will Monero pitch to Anchor into Factom blockchain after they do Ethereum?
Ethereum is for smart contracts Factom is for data and Dash or Monero is for privacy.
Actually I don't know who's better between Dash or Monero and I know there is heated debate about this so not opening that pandoras box because I don't have a horse in the race. Anyway both are experimental technologies in field worthy of pursuit.
Well just looking at XMR's rich list should tell you something.  http://moneroblocks.info/richlistIt could be worse, but there's a hint of smugness to the writing on that page. As there should be, this project is headed by some of the smartest and capable people I've ever seen, they are so advanced they take for granted that we as a community know the things I ask in this thread. I feel like the kid in class that asked the question because others are lost and afraid to. Not to say I don't get lost, my brain is on life support these days. Lol This project gets the hardest scrutiny and has never to my knowledge lied, misled or deceived the community, how many other ones can you say that about? |
|
|
|
I figured I would make a short post about this here given it is an item that has perplexed me a bit (not sure if I'm reading into it the wrong way or not).
The output index (local to the transaction and not the global index) when being written to a file given its type is of size_t is output in hex format.
The way I've known this is that if the real_output_index is 10 or higher it starts to utilize hex characters.
Like 10 = a, 11 = b, 12 = c, etc.
And I just found that odd that when I've written that value to a file or even output to the command line that it shows up in hex.
This is dealing with the portion of the code that does key_image generation.
What I found even more odd is a random loop variable like (for int i = 0...) when outputting i also gets output in hex as well.
Something that perplexed me as i is an integer and not type size_t. So I must be missing something.
I've kind of had to work around it when I run into indexes above 9 that get retrieved for key_image generation.
It's not a huge deal just an interesting oddity I never could figure out while writing the software for the physical coins I've recently released.
Must be from where it's inherited from. I don't know the code but this may help. https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=real_output_index+ bool generate_key_image_helper(const account_keys& ack, const crypto::public_key& tx_public_key, size_t real_output_index, keypair& in_ephemeral, crypto::key_image& ki);
void get_blob_hash(const blobdata& blob, crypto::hash& res); |
|
|
|
Will Monero pitch to Anchor into Factom blockchain after they do Ethereum?
Ethereum is for smart contracts Factom is for data and Dash or Monero is for privacy.
Actually I don't know who's better between Dash or Monero and I know there is heated debate about this so not opening that pandoras box because I don't have a horse in the race. Anyway both are experimental technologies in field worthy of pursuit.
Well just looking at XMR's rich list should tell you something. http://moneroblocks.info/richlist |
|
|
|
Here is a little gem of hypocrisy Tone dug up . Feast your eyes on this 180degree pivot!
Why do you post the same thing in many places? Maybe because to get to a large audience, this is the only place I have seen it. |
|
|
|
Dev the official website domain has expired you should renew it immediately.
Which domain name? bitnet.wang expire time is 2017.09.11 bitnet.cc expire time is 2018.12.02 Thanks. bitnet.cc is better than bitnet.pw Thanks. Bitnet.wang does not resolve. What is IP? |
|
|
|
... A good meme of a guy who just realized he is getting rich with Moneros would be nice, I tried to find one but did not find anything suitable. Anyhow, holding a bag of Moneros and basically doing nothing is ironically the best way to become rich. Too much Trading just makes you lose your coins to the pockets of whales. P.S. Noticed that Monero is about to get some publicity from this guy (read from the comment box): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD9GOslS4zg... but without those who sell low hoping to buy lower the whales will starve. TcTroll, why do you keep shilling this guy. |
|
|
|
...
I think you do good to ask questions. But this post above does sound like a bit alarmist, don't you think?
EDIT:
My point is people should round up more information before getting to this ^^ level of alarm.
If you check my previous posts they all ask for the DEV notes on vetting this change and I still haven't got them. That is why my concern has escalated. BTW I Still have not got them. My main reason for wanting them is not only to make sure they have done their diligence but also when I do my check I don't want to repeat any work they already vetted. But I really cannot do anything until I know what has been done already. See? SHOW ME THE NOTES! All I know about the 0MQ integrating into Monero thing is that its been in progress for a while. So the decision was probably made in 2014. Who knows what kind of notes are available for the decision. I bet it went something like this. "Wow this RPC thing is crap. Whats the best way to do this?" then months of reading, chatting, and talking to people about the best tool for the job. I mean, how did the core team decide on LMDB? No idea. Were those notes ever public? Perhaps conversations on IRC maybe. I mean, hell, Fluffypony , in person, met and chatted with the 0MQ creator / core maintainer / developer on his Monero Mystery Tour. https://getmonero.org/2015/06/29/monero-missive-for-the-week-of-2015-06-29.htmlIf anyone knows the flaws of a piece of code, its the person that created, maintains, actively develops., etc. And if there's ever a venue when they will tell you, truly, about anything thats in the closet, its when you chat in person. And over beers. But in general thanks for bringing that post to everyone's attention. I wouldn't have seen it. Thanks for that link. this seems to be the pertinent part. A lot of the stuff, like the 6 month rolling hard fork, that we've been speaking about now and there is some other stuff that I've been putting down. A lot of that comes out of that conversation between BinaryFate, Peter and myself. I've written this all down in a post that I am putting up on the forum about some other changes that we want to make. But Peter, obviously as the guy behind ZeroMQ, manages and is responsible for a very large open source project and so he has gone through a lot of the pain of dealing with an open source project and dealing with different personalities, people of various skill levels and contributors. You know, all that sort of jazz, and so there was a lot that I was able to take away from that discussion, took back and we didn't discussed as a core team. Some really nice things have come out of that, some really nice ideas and also just a general sense of how difficult it is to manage an open source project and to sort of do so in a way that doesn't offend people that want to contribute and doesn't make the barrier to entry so high, but at the same time acknowledging that this is difficult. It's security software and it's not the sort of thing that we want to leave open to making very many mistakes. So yeah, there was that. Do you have a link to the post fluffy refers to in that? |
|
|
|
...
I think you do good to ask questions. But this post above does sound like a bit alarmist, don't you think?
EDIT:
My point is people should round up more information before getting to this ^^ level of alarm.
If you check my previous posts they all ask for the DEV notes on vetting this change and I still haven't got them. That is why my concern has escalated. BTW I Still have not got them. My main reason for wanting them is not only to make sure they have done their diligence but also when I do my check I don't want to repeat any work they already vetted. But I really cannot do anything until I know what has been done already. See? |
|
|
|
|
I speculate that the sideways will continue and taper off (which is in line with my earlier prediction when I divested).
We shall see.
|
|
|
|
Hueristic that = 0  LOL. Just saying.  |
|
|
|
Trades on exchanges do not result in coins moving on the blockchain. The exchange just credits a different account with the IOU for that coin.
Never said they did. But a coin with that much trading volume should have some utility use, which the low transactions indicates it does not. Which means the Trading Volume is being faked.  Or that people are leaving the coins on Polo as a wallet because they don't want to deal with A CLI. Then how much "utility" are Monero's having if they are sitting on Poloniex ? As much utility as any other coin as long as polo is up. ...They seem like such a scam , I have been ignoring them....
I'm with you there, whenever I see all the kiddies flock to a coin I stay away. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
