That is the reason we should invest in XMR!!! XMR devs give us a lot of support. Please go away. In case anyone is wondering (though frankly I doubt it), the XMR devs have nothing to do with this newbie shill campaign. |
|
|
|
Is there any interest within the Monero community for a pool that has the option to send earnings directly to an exchange?
Dwarfpool is already offering this afaik. Have a look at http://dwarfpool.com/xmr, left column under the graphs. And if you look at the Top 20 miners on the same page it is clear there is definitely interest in using this feature. |
|
|
|
How many coins are being mined per day? And this amount will be half in ten years correct?
1440 blocks per day, about 243 coins per block, and yes 10 years. |
|
|
|
Just be patient. It will be. |
|
|
|
I am starting to look at VIA because I hear it will be a treechain testbed, and because it intends to serve as a 2.0 platform with PoW.
Once again looking to Reddit indicates a bit of shitcoin-ness behind the hype. Quotes from Peter Todd, allegedly hired by them as his "Chief Scientist," etc. Frankly I don't know much about Viacoin, so I can't comment yet. They simply asked me to do research on treechains and were willing to pay for it. My contract with them is such that all work will remain free of patents and be opensourced.
...
Same rate I charge any project for work done for the public good that'll be open-sourced, $50/hr.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2c9700/peter_todd_hired_by_viacoin_to_work_on_tree_chains/cjde4vtComparing the tone and content of that with the press release version and I find the gap a bit scary: http://blog.viacoin.org/2014/07/31/viacoin-hires-peter-todd.htmlTechnology might be okay, I really have no idea, but trying a bit too hard to sell it for my tastes. |
|
|
|
The coin emission here is probably going to crush the coins value for quite a while, like XMR.
It is a lot worse than XMR in that respect. I think this coin is profoundly overvalued at current prices even if you fully ignore the launch/PoW issues and even if you fully believe in the unique value proposition, both of which I find questionable. Cryptonite should not be compared with Monero since Bytecoin was the first ever cryptonote coin and Cryptonite is a whole different concept. Launch is over now, miners are mining, traders are trading. What can you do about it? If you think the launch is bad enough and the developer refuses to relaunch it then you fork it. That is what happens in open source when the developer loses the confidence of the community. I don't know whether that is the case here but it was exactly the case for Bytecoin/Monero. In the end, the market decides how much XCN should be worth.
Yup, I'm betting much lower before (possibly) much higher. And by which I mean I am literally betting that. |
|
|
|
The coin emission here is probably going to crush the coins value for quite a while, like XMR.
It is a lot worse than XMR in that respect. I think this coin is profoundly overvalued at current prices even if you fully ignore the launch/PoW issues and even if you fully believe in the unique value proposition, both of which I find questionable. |
|
|
|
are you joking ? How many people were running on bitcoin at start... It is certainly the coin which has been the most intamined
Instamined can mean a lot of things to a lot of people but I tend to view it as having an unusual rate total coins mined at the beginning (usually due to bad difficulty adjustment algorithms). If that happened with bitcoin it would have been most severe in the first two weeks (before the first adjustment). If we look at block 1, that is January 9, 2009. Block 2016 is January 27, which is 18 days later, or somewhat slower than the 14 day target. Block 4032 was February 12, which is right on target. This is not instamined, it is just lack of interest to mine. Which is to say that nobody thought the damn thing would be worth anything (you can also see this if you view the generally negative reaction on the cryptography mailing list). They were wrong in hindsight, but they had every opportunity to mine if they wanted to. There was no instamine or premine on bitcoin, just misjudgment by early miners (and more importantly potential miners) as to its value. |
|
|
|
The argument is that some will always archive the whole chain. But that is what you also get with SPV. You can verify the chain yourself (at least to some level of confidence) but without the full chain, and there are still some full nodes "somewhere" with the full chain (perhaps only in large data centers).
SPV adds an increment of trust which MBC avoids. The experts seem not to think so, or at least are unconvinced. I'm interested in your (or others') independent analysis that disagrees, not claims from the developers own wiki and white paper. (nullc = gmaxwell) The ideas there aren't new ones— much more comprehensive things, with better and clearly stated security assumptions, have been proposed elsewhere... but short of some massive improvements in ZKP technology an system that super-linearly reduces the amount of data transferred to a node must reduce the security model.
If you find reduced security acceptable— bitcoin has SPV already, which has near optimal performance.
Things which are in between may well be interesting, but they need to be able to clearly express what their security model and tradeoffs are (e.g. if it's no better than or even worse than SPV, why bother?) and thats a place where this proposal was lacking considerably a few months ago. (emphasis added) http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2bp3vk/the_miniblockchain_scheme/cj86zhj |
|
|
|
most of time is spent in hashes on CPU, but that can change if somebody optimizes the difficult hash functions, and is only true because the The hash implementations looked reasonably decent to me. Perhaps that is not the case, I haven't looked carefully, but it is at least trying to be fast. See Tuning at http://www.saphir2.com/sphlib/There might be some advantage on the 512 hashes to dump the upper bits of output since I think they are not used. I'm not sure how far back into the hash algorithm this is effective, but my guess is not that far. Reorder is working on something with midstate on 1GH. Can be improved further I believe. Can also prepad the hashes. Bunch of things can be done. sph is not bad just doing things that don't need to be done repeatedly. All bits of the hashes are used. The product is some nearly 3000 bit number which is hashed into sha256 Okay I agree midstate will have some benefit here. I don't know how much. It is a long way to go before the multiply becomes a bottleneck. Thank you for the correction on the multiply output being fully used. That does help. |
|
|
|
The block headers are kept as a PoW record but all old transactions can be discarded.
I need my old transactions archived and verifiable, what do I do? The argument is that some will always archive the whole chain. But that is what you also get with SPV. You can verify the chain yourself (at least to some level of confidence) but without the full chain, and there are still some full nodes "somewhere" with the full chain (perhaps only in large data centers). |
|
|
|
"Scale horizontally" means adding more nodes. I guess you are talking about a future where individual blockchains constitute nodes in a greater cryptomoney gestalt? Yes that is exactly what I mean. If XCN truly "adds little if anything" to SPV, BitFreak wouldn't have gone through the trouble and expense of creating, launching, and nurturing it, nor gathered so much support along the way.
He claims it does, but I'm neutral to somewhat leaning toward listening to those with greater expertise. Yes I have read the white paper. In any case at close to $100 million fully mined I think it is overvalued relative to its current state of (im)maturity. I expect a pricing realignment. |
|
|
|
most of time is spent in hashes on CPU, but that can change if somebody optimizes the difficult hash functions, and is only true because the The hash implementations looked reasonably decent to me. Perhaps that is not the case, I haven't looked carefully, but it is at least trying to be fast. See Tuning at http://www.saphir2.com/sphlib/There might be some advantage on the 512 hashes to dump the upper bits of output since I think they are not used. I'm not sure how far back into the hash algorithm this is effective, but my guess is not that far. |
|
|
|
I'm rather a fan of the PoW, seeing as how i wrote it and all. I think nobody has really sat down to think about how hard that "silly multiplication" Have you actually profiled it? I have, and most of the time is currently being spent in the hash functions, not the multiply. Granted that is CPU not GPU, but I'm skeptical that multiply will be a major bottleneck. Someone may prove me wrong, we'll see. |
|
|
|
But the government could require such checks for bitcoin, since the cashier has to connect to the internet anyway in order to accept a bitcoin payment.
They can't actually do that, since either they are unsuccessful (much likely) or nobody would bother use this coin anymore, since its purpose would have been defeated (so they weren't able to control it, only to destroy it). Don't give them any ideas. |
|
|
|
This shit is going down the drain as soon as someone forks it and make a fair release with gpu miner at very launch. This is DRK all over again..Price after only 4 days passed is just ridiculous. Anyone still dumb enough to buy will just be a bagholder.
Just fork it and use a different PoW. If you want people to be able to mine at all on CPUs while also having GPU miners, use Cryptonight (from Monero), otherwise just use whateever X-blah variant is popular now or even Scrypt or SHA. If the mini-blockchain is the thing that makes this valuable then there is no legitimate reason to concoct a brand new PoW. I'd also suggest the slow-start reward thing I mentioned several pages back. Ramp up the rewards over the first week or two so whatever initial launch issues there might be (bad builds, not enough seeds, etc.) get fixed before the full reward kick in. |
|
|
|
BBR has no chance! Monero to the Moon!
Monero will win this race! For sure.
Monero is the objectively superior coin man, dont get scammed.
This is the most bizarre string of newbie accounts and postings I've ever seen. Is someone trying to set Monero up for a shill accusation? Maybe they're just fans. Perhaps they saw the naked pictures of me that got posted online. That would explain it. |
|
|
|
In the event of a dollar collapse type black swan, Bitcoin would either have to scale to petabyte levels and/or be relieved of less important transactions by XCN.
I see another possibility which is simply many separate blockchains, along with highly liquid and safe trading between them (probably decentralized). If bitcoin can't scale up and there is huge demand for crypto then what will happen is that some number of alts (and maybe that number is very high) will also gain in value and liquidity. i.e. scale horizontally. EDIT: regarding XCN, the people who actually understand the technology better than you and me have weighed in and said that it adds little if anything on top of bitcoin-type chains with SPV. |
|
|
|
Even without any direct legal issues, fungibility may be an issue at the point of acceptance.
Would you accept bitcoins from a known drug dealer or terrorist?
I would not. I would also be reluctant to accept them from someone I didn't believe to be so careful about not doing so.
Fungibility is an essential property of any currency. We agree on that part. Traceability is an obstacle. |
|
|
|
These articles may be misleading. The body of court practice and precedent is large and complex, but fairly clear. How it will be applied to crypto is less clear, but the natural and direct application can be quite disruptive. Even without any direct legal issues, fungibility may be an issue at the point of acceptance. Would you accept bitcoins from a known drug dealer or terrorist? I would not. I would also be reluctant to accept them from someone I didn't believe to be so careful about not doing so. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
