Can somebody explain the difference between BitMonero and Monero and what happened in the past?
It is reasonably well explained here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6645981#msg6645981It is odd given TFT's sentiments about the name change (linked above, quoted below) and hard forks these questions are still being asked again and again, but you have to understand that the world of cryptocoins has become rampant with FUD campaigns, puppet accounts and all sort of dirty tricks. It is sad that people want to operate that way instead of focusing on building the best technology and products, but there is nothing we can do about it, except minimize the disruption they cause. Fortunately most of their efforts are pretty transparent and ineffective (see comments a page or two back on this thread, or better yet don't). Hi! I'm ok about renaming. But I'm not ok about proposed hardfork without support of at least 50% of miners. See new OP for comments. |
|
|
|
I just have a question regarding operating systems, which system is the best to run the p2pool node on I have a Mac and a Ubuntu the Mac has 4gig RAM the Ubuntu has 2 gig?
Doesn't matter really. I'd go for whichever has the SSD.  M Non of them have SSD the Mac is 2009 Mac mini Ubuntu machine is about 4 years old both are duel core intel CPU and both 64 bit OS, I have just heard Ubuntu runs a lot better. Swap out the HD on the PC for a small SSD (or add SSD as second drive). 120 GB should be plenty you can get those for around $60 on sale. |
|
|
|
For you guys merge mining more than the usual combo of BTC, IXC, DEV, & NMC, where are you (going to) exchange your coins?
I don't see HUC, GRP, FSC or I0C on Cryptsy or BTC-e.
My long-term/mid-term goal is to exchange to BTC when rates are good for long-term "hodling". I don't want to waste any cycles/memory/time on crap coins that have no exchange value to BTC or LTC.
Most times the web site for each coin tells you where it is traded. For example the HUC site lists: |
|
|
|
The world’s first exchange for Monero just opened! A beta test was done in partnership with the Monero developers and the end result was very satisfying. The exchange is operational and new features will be released soon. Inauguration bonus: - The first 10 first users will be credited 10 MRO each.
- The 10 first depositers will be credited 20 MRO.
- Beta testers will receive a little surprise in their account after they sign up again.
(forum thread pending) This exchange doesn't invalidate the OTC thread. The OTC thread is still open and the price chart will still be update for the time being. I definitely encourage people to switch over to the exchange but I will continue to maintain this thread and perform escrow on p2p trades for as long as there is interest. EDIT: This does not constitute an endorsement of the reliability of the honesty of the exchange, as I have no information. My encouragement is entirely self-motivasted as I would like to get back to having a life after running this thread (and the BCN thread, though that was has been much less work) for a few weeks. |
|
|
|
The world’s first exchange for Monero just opened! A beta test was done in partnership with the Monero developers and the end result was very satisfying. The exchange is operational and new features will be released soon. Inauguration bonus: - The first 10 first users will be credited 10 MRO each.
- The 10 first depositers will be credited 20 MRO.
- Beta testers will receive a little surprise in their account after they sign up again.
(forum thread pending) A ... MA ... ZING! Great work!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
Just got back and I have several updates to make to the outstanding orders and a few trade requests received via PM. It will be a little while before I can catch up on everything. Stand by.
|
|
|
|
1. Yes the possibility of orphans create an advantage for large pools. But I wouldn't say it will ever be the case that it is "likely" your blocks will be orphaned. It is more like a small increase in the percentages. You have to trade that off against the pool fees, the possibility that the pool gets hacked or is dishonest and the increased late share latency. How that all works out is not clear, but it will certainly never be impossible to solo mine. (Extreme patience will always be required though. If you want instant gratification solo mining of any mature coin is not for you.) 2. We have gone out of our way to ensure the the first developed pool software is open source so people can use those packages to create as many pools as they want. This should not and almost certainly will not require coding but it will require admin skills and perhaps web design skills. with the upcomming pool technology for this coin I have some questions concerns
1. with the transaction time of 1 minute. will the pool make it impossible to mine solo as a solo miner will be competeting against a pool. Meaning, the solo miner may find a block but given the transaction time so low, it will likely be orphaned and thus wasted work and energy.
2. will you create a mechanism so that a poole can be created by many. otherwise if there are only 1-2 pools, will this not essentially centralize the currency. exactly the opposite of what its goal is aimed to be.
to the current devs. with the current activity and creation of bcn forks in the last few weeks alongside the newbie accounts who are bashing this coin sowing confusion, this coin has execptional potential. Please consider the above and assure your success.
I would like to create a pool, and I am sure others would like to as well. as the technology was made easily available to you, can you do the same now and carry the ball even further than where cryptonote/bytecoin left it. make it now more available to those that do not know coding to any level near your ability. essentially I am asking for a walkthrough step by step.
|
|
|
|
Why this coin have to trade like this ..Maybe It's a coin with innovate..but i wish it can trade on exchange like mintpal or Bittrex
Because it is all new code, not a bitcoin clone. So not easy to add to exchanges like most other clone coins. They will do it eventually but it takes time. |
|
|
|
There is strange temporary error on mega, can't download osx wallet. Dev, please make a complete guide for dummies how to build it on latest ubuntu server 14. Much problems there, I can build other coin wallets smoothly, but something wrong with monero. I know that's different.
Have you tried the instructions on the web site: http://monero.cc/getting-started/#debian-based-linux |
|
|
|
I have been reviewing my escrow records and I believe this order is an error (I got a request from the buyer to spend the 1.2 BTC a higher price instead and forgot to remove this one) and I have now removed it from the order book. 0.000550 / 2181.82 MRO / 1.2 / contact OP
If you believe this order is not an error and I have 1.2 BTC of yours, then please contact me. |
|
|
|
|
Updated with new trade and I'm going offline for a while.
|
|
|
|
Need help:wallet failed to connect to daemon!!!  1. Make sure daemon has fully synced. If not, wait. 2. Type "save" in the daemon window. 3. Try wallet again. |
|
|
|
How many threads does this coin need?
You can give it as many threads as your hardware has (number of cores or number of cores times two if your processor supports hyperthreading). Fewer threads will probably mine slower (but test it, this is not always the case) but will generally result in less fan noise, power usage, and heat. |
|
|
|
Awesome, GUI and an exchange! I was able to compile Monero with Intel C++ Compiler for linux, but got no improvement for 2nd generation optimizations. I'm going to test compiling with different settings soon. Did you tried with SSE3 (/QxSSE3)? Did you turn on all Optimization and Optimization[intell C++ 14.0] options (screenshots here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5l3t5gysk4uhu7n/screenshots_intel_options.rar). Did you used at least value 8 for "loop unrolling"? Did you removed the unneeded divisions in the slow_hash function: add: uint8_t temp_i_max = MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE; at the beginning of the function, and then replace in TWO places: for (i = 0; i < MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE; i++) with: for (i = 0; i < temp_i_max; i++) Did you also compiled boost with the Intel compiler for Pentium M processor (SSE3) (see here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6622637#msg6622637) (you could add -j4 or -j8 for this compilation, because otherwise it takes forever)? Actually this code looks wrong. unit8_t is only 8 bits. MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE is 8192. Assuming this actually compiles, which I think it does (I don't remember the rules on these truncations but it should at least give a warning I think) temp_i_max would be 0. So this may be faster because it has changed (broken) the algorithm. Won't work. |
|
|
|
add:
uint8_t temp_i_max = MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE;
at the beginning of the function,
and then replace in TWO places:
for (i = 0; i < MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE; i++)
with:
for (i = 0; i < temp_i_max; i++)
That won't matter because because this is a constant expression. Your other suggestions seemed good. An optimizing compiler should do it by itself, but that's not always the case (sometimes the compiler is just not doing what it should do - it prefers another optimization instead and don't spot this optimization). Someone reported on this thread, that he had better performance in linux compile when removed the divisions. I've had many examples when doing this manually gave a speed boost. I've also had examples with C, where using: if (a != b) do something else do other Is 30% faster (yes, 30%!) than if (a == b) do other else do something This is true but constant expressions (where every part of the expression is a compile-time constant) are part of the language, so it is less likely the compiler won't get them right (and if it doesn't it is likely a bug). This is subtly different from cases where the expression is logically a constant and can get pulled out of the loop but not syntactically at compile time. In those cases sometimes the compiler may miss it or there may be something subtle like aliasing that make the optimization impossible for the compiler as the code is written (in which case as you say modifying it may help). But that's not the case here. |
|
|
|
BTW love how you and Noodle be dumping  I'm mining a lot, I suspect he is too. Nothing wrong with selling some. |
|
|
|
add:
uint8_t temp_i_max = MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE;
at the beginning of the function,
and then replace in TWO places:
for (i = 0; i < MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE; i++)
with:
for (i = 0; i < temp_i_max; i++)
That won't matter because because this is a constant expression. Your other suggestions seemed good. |
|
|
|
|
Also, one more thing. If you PM someone and they don't reply or say their order is no good any more, post it and I will will remove the order (after giving a fair chance to reply).
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
