i have 6*280x Vapor-x OC
But speed still slow ((( 350-370 h/s.
Maybe someone can tell me what gpu-mem and gpu-clock must be?
And, this coin is love gpu engine or memory speed?
Are you saying it can be GPU mined now? Sounds interesting. Yes there has a GPU miner for a while. See the first post in this thread. GPU and CPU mining for this coin are both fairly competitive, you can use either or both. |
|
|
|
I want to withdraw some XMR from Polo and noticed there is a 'transaction ID' text field next to the withdraw button now. I thought transactions ID's were only for deposits to exchanges ? I presume I can leave it empty to transfer some XMR's to my wallet ? Or could I use a self made transaction ID to track my transfers from Polo ? If so, what kind of string does it have to be ?
You can leave it empty. The purpose of that field is to have your withdraw deposited at another exchange. |
|
|
|
We're quickly entering a situation where private GPU miners are cornering the market .. not healthy.
+1... I'm confident that the serious investors that are committed to xmr/cryptonight will soon realize that if not "investing" on the development of a more democratic mining infrastructure, their holdings will remain undervalued. Sooner rather than later, I hope... I don't have the funds to add to the bounty, but I pledge a 10% donation of a month's worth of mining proceeds (with my massive 4xGPU rig) to the author of an open source miner for nvidia. Adding to the above, I pledge to offer said author, 1 medium sized pizza, with 3 toppings of his choosing, and optionally 'extra cheese', delivered to his doorstep, provided that pizza delivery is available in his place of residence. (with apologies to fluffy, no dinner for you tonight...)
~ Myagui Haha, I like this post very much. But hmm, I am willing to donate for a BBR gpu miner, or MCN, if that is what this post is about. I can throw 10XMR into the bounty. This thread has nothing to do with BBR. That uses its own miner. MCN should work with the same miner as all the other cryptonote/cryptonight coins (XMR, BCN, etc.) |
|
|
|
Major Bytecoin update Bytecoin source code has been largely updated. 1) The block chain has been moved out of RAM, which cut down the usage from 4 GB to 850 MB. In the next releases it is expected to become as low as 350 MB. 2) The block chain file is now unified across all platforms. When you run the new binaries, the daemon will automatically convert your old block chain to the new format. Your "blockchain.bin" file will be split into 3 files: "blockindexes.dat", "blockscache.dat", "blocks.dat". Next week there will be another significant update! P.S. BCN devs would like to thank all the beta tester from the community that helped them launch this release. https://bytecoin.org/news.php#news1Would we be able to find out how much the low memory load will effect it compared to before and why not done this way in the first place? I browsed the code briefly and it seems to be doing some kind of caching, so the performance should not be affected too badly on the assumptions that: 1) you leave your node running, and 2) most of the block chain is not used, so the portion that is used can still fit in the smaller RAM usage. As for why it wasn't done in the first place, it is slightly more complex and required more code (and testing, etc.). The blockchain-in-RAM approach works just fine as long as the blockchain is small enough, which is the case for every new coin. Only when it gets bigger is something more needed. So the developer or developers probably just deferred it until needed, and then implemented it. Totally reasonable. |
|
|
|
Which we should: The cryptonotes at present present a pretty stark trade between stronger anonymity than any other coin, and a huge blockchain and bandwidth use. I tend to be of the view that things like privacy don't scale with lithography, but bandwidth and memory/disk space do, but the size of, e.g., the full Bytecoin blockchain is pretty impressive -- 1.2GB compressed. I keep hearing anecdotal reports from people in ypool that their XMR daemons are filling their entire upstream home Internet connection, though, of course, that could be user error. There's technical progress on part of this front - the BCN developers just announced a client modification to not store the full blockchain in DRAM - but given that people worry about Bitcoin's ability to scale to high transaction volume, I really wonder what they'd say about CN. A fun challenge to solve, certainly.
bitmonerod sometimes will intermittently kill my internet connection. somewhere in r/monero i read devs are fixing this in the next update. i do hold monero as well but i did not buy as much as i should have. hoping to see a good correction. The cause is likely blockchain downloading by (new) peer nodes. The coin is growing fast. Every new wallet user has to download the blockchain, and most don't use the blockchain archives. So they connect to a random peer (in this case yours) and download the block chain, saturating your upstream. The issues was made worse by: 1) The optimized PoW that makes verifying blocks faster, and 2) more usage (especially pool dust, though that is being fixed too), which makes blocks bigger. tldr: 1) please be patient, it is being fixed, and 2) be happy that your bandwidth is helping bring new users into the network, otherwise the coin would whither and die. |
|
|
|
can somebody tldr; of what's up with the recent rise ?
Mintpal |
|
|
|
Any updated miners ? The GPU now seems to have a massive advantage over CPUs now on monero
Massive advantage how? Claymore reports 600 H/s on a 290x, which is about double what you get on a fast desktop CPU, but it also costs about twice as much. I see no major advantage to GPUs at this point, they are just another reasonable option. |
|
|
|
6. Wait a second, you’re actually telling me my bitcoin private keys allow me to claim æther for free?
16. Wow, this is a cool idea. Couldn’t any alt-coin be re-released with an initial coin distribution equal to the unspent outputs in the bitcoin blockchain? This is the sidechain idea. The sidechain is broken in that it encourages "riches just get richers". Plus, if you want to reinforce the position of BTC and kill diversity, use sidechain. People will soon realised that owning Bitcoin gives you more altcoins for free. A bit like merge-mining. A bit like killing the golden goose. Or maybe, just maybe, a bit like high-PoS coins. But nothing for sure. No, the spin-off idea is slightly different from the side-chain idea in that, at least potentially, once launched a spin-off is completely independent of bitcoin. There could be spin-offs that are merged mined though. Spin-off main thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0 |
|
|
|
I'd like to know when will these problem sorted out. BCN has just got a new update with proper DB replacing blockchain.bin. Once they release the source for this function can Monero use it as reference to speed up the work ?
As far as I can tell, they've got a closed-source implementation that allows for only part of the blockchain to be loaded into RAM at runtime. That is NOT the same as a "proper" embedded DB replacing the flat file. Even so, whilst Monero may have initially been based on Bytecoin's reference implementation, we've already diverged from their reference code. We are well on the way to our own embedded database implementation, so it is unnecessary to implement whatever Bytecoin does. Specifically, we evaluating the performance of several databases for our workload, and will be producing an overview of the results in a few weeks that expounds on the process and on the reasons for choosing one embedded database over another. I think it may be best that you also do something similar.... I know devs want to release things only when there perfect, but if you keep a community waiting, theyll eventually lose interest. Best to release a gui wallet soon even if its not to your 100% liking, you can always update/fix it later, that ensures no losses of interest. There are gui wallets already which arent 100% done but work, why dont u use one of them? And no it makes absoutely no sense to release a half-assed db implementation for us which, it costs more time in the end than writing something proper for long term use. Not only that but we don't even need a database so urgently because our block chain is much smaller. Granted it is growing faster because people are actually using XMR -- and therefore creating transactions -- to a much greater degree. We'll be ready with a well-designed, well-implemented, and well-tested database implementation when it is needed. |
|
|
|
For anyone trying to measure out their "code update" dicks, please consider taking a look at: Monero github : 131 commits, last commit 19 hours ago, 12 contributors, pulse: has one Bytecoin github : 46 commits, last commit May 22, 5 contributors, pulse: non-existant It's not a competition .. I mean don't you have a Bytecoin speculation thread to be posting all these fudnuggets in? Lol. MRO's developers do not merge the code at GitHub. You know why? Becuae they just ctrl+c and ctrl+v chunks of code. They just jerking of in trying to imitate some intense activity, but their commits show that all real changes appear after it had been deposited at BCN. And they do not even care to mention that the code is taken from BCN which (sounds ironically) is mere stealing and violation of open-source technology regulations. Links or STFU. |
|
|
|
I understand CryptoNote is not based on Satoshi code. I do wonder, do you provide compatible interfaces (to the extent possible with the network logic)? Or is it necessary to write completely new client software in order to have it work with CryptoNote networks?
It is not compatible at all. |
|
|
|
Elsewhere they say the difference in speed is 2.2 to 5 times as fast. That is far, far less then an order of magnitude.
CZ decided to launch a testnet, with links to the github weeks before the coin launched. While it seemed like a good idea at the time, to test his coin .. what he actually did was open it wide for people to prey on. I find it not only probable, but instead extremely likely, that there were GPU miners either at launch or within the week after it. His unfamiliarity with the typical nature of this board left his coin extremely vulnerable and he is now left to contemplate a hard fork to stop the abuse. Please note that with this abuse he might not even have the ability to enforce a hardfork due to potential miner take over. Here is what I'm talking about, and this is half of the daily emission. Thus, 50% of mining is done by his software.It does not matter if it's 2.2 to 5 times as fast, the time in which his coin has been exploited vs the time it has not been exploited is very large. Unfortunately, Claymore or another developer did not provide a GPU miner to act as a crutch until such time when an open source one was ready. Fortunately, with the slower emission .. this has a chance to even out over time. I hope the best for him, but I do not believe he grasps the full nature of variables involved in what he's doing .. this is not knocking his ability to program. Hmm, good points. However, he could enforce a hardfork even with a more powerful miner out there, as hardforking only requires that the people using the coin update their software. If for example the dev says, "This is the new version" a rogue miner doesn't need to accept it, true, but if all the services and majority of users stick with the 'official' chain, then the rogue miner would solving blocks that no one else accepts. That sounds like a recipe for chaos, with some users on one chain and other users on the other. It is impossible to get all users to upgrade anything, it just doesn't happen. For such a young coin, hardfork should be possible : the dev needs to coordinate the fork with the exchanges and the pools. That's the point. The pools are controlled by the miners. They won't fork against their interests. He'd probably have to relaunch a new coin to do this. |
|
|
|
Elsewhere they say the difference in speed is 2.2 to 5 times as fast. That is far, far less then an order of magnitude.
CZ decided to launch a testnet, with links to the github weeks before the coin launched. While it seemed like a good idea at the time, to test his coin .. what he actually did was open it wide for people to prey on. I find it not only probable, but instead extremely likely, that there were GPU miners either at launch or within the week after it. His unfamiliarity with the typical nature of this board left his coin extremely vulnerable and he is now left to contemplate a hard fork to stop the abuse. Please note that with this abuse he might not even have the ability to enforce a hardfork due to potential miner take over. Here is what I'm talking about, and this is half of the daily emission. Thus, 50% of mining is done by his software.It does not matter if it's 2.2 to 5 times as fast, the time in which his coin has been exploited vs the time it has not been exploited is very large. Unfortunately, Claymore or another developer did not provide a GPU miner to act as a crutch until such time when an open source one was ready. Fortunately, with the slower emission .. this has a chance to even out over time. I hope the best for him, but I do not believe he grasps the full nature of variables involved in what he's doing .. this is not knocking his ability to program. Hmm, good points. However, he could enforce a hardfork even with a more powerful miner out there, as hardforking only requires that the people using the coin update their software. If for example the dev says, "This is the new version" a rogue miner doesn't need to accept it, true, but if all the services and majority of users stick with the 'official' chain, then the rogue miner would solving blocks that no one else accepts. That sounds like a recipe for chaos, with some users on one chain and other users on the other. It is impossible to get all users to upgrade anything, it just doesn't happen. |
|
|
|
So i have a few VMs that i want to solo mine but only port 80 is open. So they cant connect to peers.
Is it possible to make my laptop for example to be a node for those VMs so they can connect to the network?
If yes how?
You don't technically need incoming ports at all to run a node, though it is preferable. If your node isn't able to work you probably have an old build with the obsolete seed nodes. Try upgrading. Outgoing ports are also closed. Except port 80. Okay, then you can start a daemon somewhere else with --p2p-bind-port 80 and then probably use --add-priority-node or --add-exclusive-node to connect to that daemon |
|
|
|
I think if some miners are interested we can help fund and opensource Claymores GPU miner and the Nvidia one (cant remember the members username) maybe Lucas's and Wolf's projects also.
I think creating a frontend GUI with temperatures (instead of Realtemp and Afterburner) would be a big +1 for newbs to the algo.
The diff should help the price imo.
Im looking longterm for XMR so I invested 30% of my BTC into coins, a private pool (due to DDOS issues) and helped the votes alittle on Mintpal.
Not a dev but I hope I can help the project flourish with a few ideas.
This is a very good idea. cbuchner1 announced that he has a miner. I think it's time to ask them (more than just one of us would be great) what they would consider accepting to open source their projects. This just seems like a crap joke at this point. It's great that claymore made a program .. but it's been described as terribly unoptimized by very knowledgeable sources. It needs to be open source, because claymore does not have the time to optimize it. The problem here is that guys like cbuchner1 could be left with highly optimized miners, and we're just burning GPU power at this point. Mining is getting rough right now and it's really starting to choke off interest. People who aren't mining this right now aren't going to be the one's to come in and ask Claymore and cbuchner these questions .. it's kind of on us. There's one person in particular I know has a serious CPU farm here. I'm sure the private nvidia mining operation is somewhere near that at this point. We need to get on top of this. Update 1: Claymore does not provide open source miners, period. We will need to start a fund for an open source AMD miner. I will kick it off with 150 XMR. I'd like to use an escrow or something if necessary. If you want to crowdfund an open source GPU miner, start a new thread for it and link it here. There should be some discussion first (there), for example what level of performance is required to claim the bounty, etc. |
|
|
|
So i have a few VMs that i want to solo mine but only port 80 is open. So they cant connect to peers.
Is it possible to make my laptop for example to be a node for those VMs so they can connect to the network?
If yes how?
You don't technically need incoming ports at all to run a node, though it is preferable. If your node isn't able to work you probably have an old build with the obsolete seed nodes. Try upgrading. |
|
|
|
I deposited some XMR to Poloniex some minutes ago, but I still don't see it on "Deposit History (Last 25)", how long it takes normally?
EDIT: Received!
15 minutes or a bit more is normal. |
|
|
|
selling 30m for 0.5 BTC (30m minimum) expires end of day UTC 6/18
SOLD |
|
|
|
@GreekBitcoin thanks for the IRC suggestion, will try.
Spoke with the "wallet manager" poloniex guy there. He assured me he will push Tristan on this matter, but nothing else for the moment. He said he couldn't credit my balance back too. So this big withdrawal literrally vanished as of now. well at least i'm not alone. sorry for your loss as well.  edit - not poloniex but transfer of 1.25 XMR from minergate.com never appears in my simplewallet. maybe this is why the coin appears to be dumping a bit... It's not a loss. I've had several of these issues, they always get it worked out. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
