now when mining in testnet, currency::get_blob_longhash takes 75% of CPU time, and 75% of CPU time in that function is spent in doing div instructions due to size() and operator[], not quite memory-hard  The block chain is tiny right? Probably all in near cache EDIT: div cycle count on Sandy Bridge depends on divisor, bigger divisors take more time (latency: 30-94 cycles). As a comparison, L2 cache minimum latency is 11 cycles. Right but memory is much higher latency. The idea is for the block chain data to (eventually) be in memory, not L2. I agree replacing div by something faster is probably a good idea, but I haven't looked at this code at all. |
|
|
|
Smooth, Lucas said he fixed the compiling issues with node-multi-hashing so give it another try.
I started with a clean new Ubuntu 13.10 install and followed the directions very carefully, with the same result: npm http 404 https://registry.npmjs.org/multi-hashing/0.0.8
npm ERR! Error: version not found: 0.0.8 : multi-hashing/0.0.8
npm ERR! at RegClient.<anonymous> (/usr/share/npm/node_modules/npm-registry-client/lib/request.js:269:14)
npm ERR! at Request.self.callback (/usr/lib/nodejs/request/main.js:119:22)
npm ERR! at Request.<anonymous> (/usr/lib/nodejs/request/main.js:525:16)
npm ERR! at Request.EventEmitter.emit (events.js:95:17)
npm ERR! at IncomingMessage.<anonymous> (/usr/lib/nodejs/request/main.js:484:14)
npm ERR! at IncomingMessage.EventEmitter.emit (events.js:117:20)
npm ERR! at _stream_readable.js:910:16
npm ERR! at process._tickCallback (node.js:415:13)
npm ERR! If you need help, you may report this log at:
npm ERR! <http://bugs.debian.org/npm>
npm ERR! or use
npm ERR! reportbug --attach /home/ubuntu/pool/npm-debug.log npm
npm ERR! System Linux 3.11.0-20-generic
Something does not appear to be working on Ubuntu 13.10. What OS are other people using? |
|
|
|
now when mining in testnet, currency::get_blob_longhash takes 75% of CPU time, and 75% of CPU time in that function is spent in doing div instructions due to size() and operator[], not quite memory-hard The block chain is tiny right? Probably all in near cache |
|
|
|
I was totally joking with that last part. Tacotime said he was going to propose a hard fork to address this very issue. I brought the matter to the Monero thread so our whole community could be aware of it and discuss possible solutions.
That is a fair point. Your comment in response to the specific proposal to set a floor of 1 atomic unit on the subsidy is reasonable. The problem is that it is certainly clear there is no consensus of what the actual best approach actually is. I would suggest that starting a thread (or continuing) a discussion somewhere more focused on "best practices for structuring long term block chain mining incentives" (which, again, applies to many different coins) and then referencing whatever ideas come out of that discussion is preferable to having that complex debate right here mixed in with people asking question about setting up their wallets. I agree completely. However, I thought transparency of the issue would be good, especially considering interested parties have already been accused of "conspiring" behind the community's back. I also wanted knowledgable followers of the thread to be aware of the issue, especially if they have interest in MRO. I'm completely open to relocate the debate. It is mentioned in the first post, so there should be some awareness A minimum subsidy may be implemented in the future with <1% inflation to preserve mining incentives It is certainly reasonable even to reply to that comment and say that you don't think that <1% will be enough. But when it turns into a debate back and forth, complete with references and links in support of each position, it's time to move to a different thread. EDIT: Keyboard-Mash has taken the liberty of continuing the conversation over in the Monero economy thread. That was originally more about price speculation but price, money supply, and sustainability are certainly related, making that not a terrible place for it. |
|
|
|
Besides, this entire thread is essentially the same questions repeated over and over again:
What's the difference between Monero and BitMonero?
Is there a pool yet?
How is Monero any better than BCN?
Are there any pools yet?
What do these weird messages mean in my miner daemon?
Pool status?
Exactly! This is an announcement thread, for people to learn about this (somewhat) new coin, get help setting it up, post subsequent announcements about new releases, post announcements about other related threads being opened (bounties, exchanges and other new services, polls/discussions, etc.). It is not really a good place for debates about the economics of block chains. |
|
|
|
Tacotime said he was going to propose a hard fork to address this very issue. I brought the matter to the Monero thread so our whole community could be aware of it and discuss possible solutions.
That is a fair point. Your comment in response to the specific proposal to set a floor of 1 atomic unit on the subsidy is reasonable. The problem is that it is certainly clear there is no consensus of what the actual best approach actually is. I would suggest that starting a thread (or continuing) a discussion somewhere more focused on "best practices for structuring long term block chain mining incentives" (which, again, applies to many different coins) and then referencing whatever ideas come out of that discussion is preferable to having that complex debate right here mixed in with people asking question about setting up their wallets. |
|
|
|
no, this bytecoin was a bitcoin fork/copy
So why do they have the same name? this is different, first bytecoin.
Uh... what? is the first and original Bytecoin. Every other Bytecoin came later and chose to have the same name; maybe unintentionally. There is no maybe about it. If this coin in fact did come first, the later uses of the name were quite clearly unintentional. No relevant web site at bytecoin.org existed at the time the other clone(s) were created, nor is there any evidence of information available about this bytecoin anywhere else. The current bytecoin.org is around six months old. Any claims about what happened prior to that are thus far 100% unsupported. and any claims about what didn't happen prior to that are 100% unsupported as well. If we could find the originators of the BTE bytecoin, we could ask them if they were aware of this bytecoin. But is that really worth the effort? There is zero evidence they would have been aware of it. The lack of available evidence despite several people looking for it is evidence (though inconclusive) that such evidence does not exist. The weight of the evidence very strongly points away from anyone choosing the same name as this coin after and intentionally doing so. |
|
|
|
It's a non-problem. The market will fix it. Miners will mine the txns with the best fees.
Uh... that's exactly why it is a problem. If payers have to enter a bidding war to get their transactions included, they might as well go back to fiat. It's actually flattering that you think this obscure little altcoin is so important as to make this the appropriate venue to debate these important questions, but in reality these exact same issues apply to every single coin based on Satoshi's basic block chain concept, and indeed many will need to address them in practice much sooner than MRO. In fact BCN being twice as fast and two years ahead will confront them much sooner. It is absurd to think this discussion should take place on the thread for every coin to which they apply, because that's all of them. So I would respectfully request that you guys take it over to the Economics subforum or somewhere else a bit more focused. There are MRO-specific topics to discuss here. I'm sorry, I was under the impression we actually wanted to do things better than the other coins. Perhaps it's being discussed here because we think Monero has the potential to solve these problems early and be a leader in providing long-term solutions. How silly of me for being so optimistic. I'm not saying Monero won't do things better, just that the discussion about what is "better" should take place somewhere else. Being impartial for a moment here, just take a quick look at the quoted context above. You think one thing is better, aminorex thinks something else. I'm just asking that you take that discussion elsewhere. That doesn't mean we aren't interested in such a discussion or its outcome. |
|
|
|
|
It seems that for whatever reason people still want to use this thread.
Updated with two new prefunded sell orders.
|
|
|
|
no, this bytecoin was a bitcoin fork/copy
So why do they have the same name? this is different, first bytecoin.
Uh... what? is the first and original Bytecoin. Every other Bytecoin came later and chose to have the same name; maybe unintentionally. There is no maybe about it. If this coin in fact did come first, the later uses of the name were quite clearly unintentional. No relevant web site at bytecoin.org existed at the time the other clone(s) were created, nor is there any evidence of information available about this bytecoin anywhere else. The current bytecoin.org is around six months old. Any claims about what happened prior to that are thus far 100% unsupported. |
|
|
|
It's a non-problem. The market will fix it. Miners will mine the txns with the best fees.
Uh... that's exactly why it is a problem. If payers have to enter a bidding war to get their transactions included, they might as well go back to fiat. It's actually flattering that you think this obscure little altcoin is so important as to make this the appropriate venue to debate these important questions, but in reality these exact same issues apply to every single coin based on Satoshi's basic block chain concept, and indeed many will need to address them in practice much sooner than MRO. In fact BCN being twice as fast and two years ahead will confront them much sooner. It is absurd to think this discussion should take place on the thread for every coin to which they apply, because that's all of them. So I would respectfully request that you guys take it over to the Economics subforum or somewhere else a bit more focused. There are MRO-specific topics to discuss here. |
|
|
|
Eligius does it too right? They don't guarantee it 100% of the time but most payments are made that way.
EDIT: To clarify how this works, the miners who contribute to mining a block don't necessarily get paid from that block, their shares get credited like any other pool and upon reaching a minimum payment threshold their eventual payments are made using some future block's coinbase. That avoids the issues p2pool has with dust payouts vs. minimum share value.
Right - that works for big pools that find blocks often. If you aren't a huge pool then payment variance (or just payment waiting period) would not make miners happy :p Well as I said even eligius doesn't guarantee all payouts to be done that way. You could just make a regular payout if you go too long in between blocks. Of course if the pool isn't finding blocks then you aren't going to be making payouts period (unless PPS). |
|
|
|
I'm seeing this in my p2pool output, from both workers on my node:
> Worker xxxxxxxxxxxxx submitted share more than once!
One address is mine. All workers are Ants pointing to the same address. I'm assuming two ants submitted the same share? That's disconcerting if they are.
M
My Ant S2 does this. If I point it at my p2pool, I get the "submitted share more than once" messages. If I point it at a public pool, I get duplicate share stats. I don't think my S1s do it, but I'm not sure. |
|
|
|
Hi Ho Silver, awayyyyyyyyyyy
Not sure what that means but rapeghost sent me a loan proposal in PM that was several paragraphs long. I have been too busy to carefully review it so I must decline. As far as other loans, the loan window is open but I can only consider simple loan requests. Tell me in two lines how much you want to borrow and how the lender is going to be protected in terms of collateral. If it takes longer than to to explain it, you are better off approaching other lenders. |
|
|
|
there is now yet no pools?
Pool software is in testing now. You can follow the progress on the pool bounty thread (see original post on this thread for link). |
|
|
|
Smooth, Lucas said he fixed the compiling issues with node-multi-hashing so give it another try.
Also regarding the payments in coinbase talk. That isn't practical to do with a normal Bitcoin-based pool for a few reasons - and there are even more reasons why its not practical to do with this new cryptocurrency. Its what p2pool does and it's part of the reason p2pool has its drawbacks compared to a central mining pool.
Eligius does it too right? They don't guarantee it 100% of the time but most payments are made that way. EDIT: To clarify how this works, the miners who contribute to mining a block don't necessarily get paid from that block, their shares get credited like any other pool and upon reaching a minimum payment threshold their eventual payments are made using some future block's coinbase. That avoids the issues p2pool has with dust payouts vs. minimum share value. |
|
|
|
It is poosible modified bitminored for add more one transaction of generation ?
I think is more simple and more efficace for make payout if miner is payed direct in the block
I would advise caution here. This is a brand new code base and there is no way to know without testing it if all the pieces would handle coinbase payouts correctly. The ill-advised attempt to do merged mining has already broken things twice. Coinbase payouts are definitely a desirable feature, I'm just advising a yellow light here, not red. |
|
|
|
They just lowered it to 2.5%.
What a great deal! Seems some people think so. They have 10 TH/S on BTC mining.  yikes |
|
|
|
They just lowered it to 2.5%.
What a great deal! I'm pretty sure we are going to see better and cheaper pools very soon thanks to the Monero project. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
