The access pattern hints only matter for virtual memory that gets paged, which shouldn't happen. The prefill hint might matter, but only during warmup, after that they should be the same. The hugepage stuff should result in the same speed on Windows as Linux, if everything is working correctly, though I understand this is trickier to arrange on Windows. There might be other issues, such as how threading is being handled, I'm not sure.

I'm pretty sure a good Windows programmer could fix this (as claymore appears to have done) but I'm not one by choice so I can't directly help.

Of course it is possible.

Also, you can probably just encode the addresses right into the username using commas or something.

However, bear in mind that merged mining with Monero is somewhat illegitimate and a bit of an exploit, since the community voted against it, but amphibian disregarded that and implemented it anyway. Attitudes on the Monero team on the matter range from indifferent to opposed (I'm pretty sure no one actively supports it). So you might be wasting your money if Monero removes support for merged mining, which might happen, though I don't see this as a priority right now. Merged mining support in the pool software could still be used with Bytecoin (and QCN), in any case.

Yeah I don't really understand why Linux would be faster, and I can't come up with a good reason for it, but I never use Windows any more so it isn't something I'm going to work on.

The concept itself. I doubt that attaching non-trivial value to an arbitrary attribute such as color can be secure. In fact one of my biggest doubts about bitcoin is that this sort of non-fungibility might ultimately destroy it, and only systems with stronger fungibility (zerocash, etc.) can survive.

Nobody seems to be doing careful testing with complete environment data so we can't be sure, but there is a screen shot for this miner showing >300 on a 4770k. I have no idea if that is overclocked or anything else difficult to reproduce.

If it is cross platform, maintainable and open source you might get crowd funding for it. Otherwise I doubt it. Best to stick with the 0.2% fee until a free GUI wallet becomes available. I frankly doubt 0.2% is going to net you much over that time period but everyone has a right to pick his own business model.

Minergate is screwing themselves and you by running obsolete code. Switch to a better pool.

I'm skeptical of the security model of either, unless the asset exchange is merely a toy for assets with negligible value (say microcap scam stocks).

I don't see why it would be since it claims 270 H/s on a 4770 and this one claims 300+, and on top of that Claymore takes 5% of your hash rate. I guess Claymore has a fan base though, so perhaps people use it.

His low CPU mode looks interesting though, I wonder what that is doing.

Sort of. First off, the cost to mine a block does not exclude the miners who didn't get a block. They'll get another block, covering their costs.

Second, there is no direct link between the cost to mine a block and the value of the block, except insofar as the market creates one. That's essentially Satoshi's model. Instead of trying to peg the value of the coin to some intrinsic value, you set the value of a block at 50 otherwise-worthless credits, and let the market adjust.

But in theory, the market can adjust to just about anything, as other coins have shown. As long as the coin doesn't fail altogether, then the market has adjusted to its reward schedule, and non-failed coins with all sorts of reward structures exist. So you can't really argue the reward structure must be one way or another on this basis.

The argument for non-trivial perpetual rewards is that coins without them would actually fail. Miners wouldn't mine, or would only do so under conditions that are otherwise viewed as dysfunctional, such as monopolization and transaction hoarding. That's somewhat speculative, but I do think it is pretty clearly possible to set up a coin that fails. If it is possible to do by design it is also possible to do so by mistake, and perhaps easier.

It's not like exactly like fiat regardless of the inflation number, as you correctly explained, because the rules can't be changed, at least not without some sort of consensus. They certainly can't be changed "by fiat."

It is, in a way, except that it's exactly Satoshi's trick that makes these coins possible. Since the network has no access to resources from outside the network, it can only rely on internal resources to reward miners. Which basically comes down to issuing coins out of thin air. No one disputes that this is how PoW coins work. The only issue is what happens "in a long time" when the rewards diminish to near zero or zero.

If you don't like issuing coins out of thin air, then you really can't like Satoshi-style PoW coins. You wouldn't be alone, BTW, there are plenty of critics.

In a competitive market prices converge to marginal cost. In the case of transactions, this includes things like the cost of electricity to actually verify the transactions as valid, bandwidth, and the increased risk of orphans if you include more transactions in your block. It does not include the cost of performing proof-of-work. The only way miners who are "paid by transactions" are able get paid for performing proof-of-work is by overcharging by the transactions themselves, and they can only do this if they have some sort of market power. Thus it is impossible for mining to be competitive if proof-of-work is paid by transaction fees. It also results in further destructive incentives, as miners try to scoop up and horde transactions (for example using a sybil attack), since transactions are no longer competitively priced, but no represent a source of profit to be "mined."

There is also the free rider argument. If long-term-holders just hold and don't perform transactions (i.e. generate fees), miners won't do work, and the block chain won't be secure. The holders could do the mining themselves, but again only if they collude. Individually the incentive is for each holder to sit out and let the others holders pay the costs. The higher transactions fees go (to pay for proof of work, remember?), the greater the incentive to just sit on your coins and not pay them. This only reaches an equilibrium if some individual or group acquires all or most of the long-term holdings, so that individual or group can pay the mining costs without being exploited by free riders. Failing that, you have insufficient security, and likely such a coin will never become very successful (this includes bitcoin, although I think its possible now that bitcoin becomes a version of fiat).

So no structural mining reward means either extreme concentration of power, either in mining or holdings or both. One way to look at a structural reward is a consensus among the holders to share costs (since all holdings are being diluted by inflation) instead of relying on individual decisions to incur costs and suffer from a free rider problem.

Pricing remains an issue though, as no one has come up with a good model for how much mining should be performed, and how it should be paid for. "None" is clearly wrong though, in the proof-of-work model. Using proof-of-stake (if that can be made to actually work) or something else is another question.

I have had zero luck trying to do this locally through craigslist. I've had several responses to my ad, they all seem to disappear when I make it clear I know how to authenticate what I'm buying. Likely scams. Be careful.

True, but that's not really the reason. In fact most exchanges recommend sending payments with a mixin of 0, which means the sender is not really anonymous.

The reason for the difference in handling of deposits is that bitcoin (and clone) wallets make it easy to create one more more new deposit addresses for each user account. Deposits can then be identified by the address to which they are sent. This coin does not make that easy, so the payment ID mechanism is required.

I come at this not from a macroeconomic point of view (I consider virtually all macroeconomics to be junk science) but from a practical one. I want to continue to pay miners without relying on transaction fees, because the latter forces consolidation, and worse, to give miners the market power to charge more than marginal cost. 

If you don't have inflation (or demurrage, which I consider equivalent) how are you going to pay miners?

Not really. Just people with more computers than you.

Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.

You'll probably get a better answer on the BBR thread. Monero is essentially a "vanilla" Cryptonote-based coin, based closely on the bytecoin "reference implementation" (though it has already diverged and will continue to diverge). BBR made a bunch of user-visiable changes, along with changing the PoW function.

Supersedes all previous offers

selling 30m for 0.8 BTC (30m minimum) expires end of day UTC 6/12