Anyone else seeing pretty much a 1:1 parity with investment on hardware / running costs / mining speeds with the GPU miner? Maybe a little edge on CPU, but the gap is so close.
That's incredible.
Yes, everyone has reported hashrates that would make it 1:1. Although the GPU miner might still have more optimizations to come.. I would imagine both platforms have optimizations to come. Not only the hashrate .. I measured TDP and looked up the purchasing cost too. All pretty close to 1:1 Isn't AMD moving toward APU's? http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/processors/desktop/a-series-apu# |
|
|
|
|
Anyone else seeing pretty much a 1:1 parity with investment on hardware / running costs / mining speeds with the GPU miner? Maybe a little edge on CPU, but the gap is so close.
That's incredible.
|
|
|
|
These people have been thinking about these problems of "wealth concentration" for much longer than us here at Monero (them years-decades, us a month), they are more than us and are much better equipped to actually put the tool to work than us. No. Fiat economics and cryptoeconomics do not play by the same rules. Before bitcoin it was impossible to manipulate the work/reward relationships of money. We cryptocurrency folk are the first people to ever experiment in this arena. Quantitative easing is a mechanism of fractional reserve banking where the central controllers give banks more lending leverage by purchasing their financial assets. The money used to purchase these assets is generated ex nihilo, as is the resulting money that is created from this leverage. That should not in any way be compared to an increase of a proof-of-work based money supply. If the "proof" and "work" scale proportionately, there will be minimal effect on value. I think I have a thought experiment to explain this: Imagine you are the ruler of some midieval kingdom, and you need to somehow turn the economy's 100,000 gold coins into 110,000 gold coins for whatever reason. You have two options: Option 1) you simply mix cheap metals into the gold to create 10,000 more coins, resulting in each coin having 10% less gold. Option 2) you sack a nearby village and steal 10,000 pure gold coins. Both scenarios result in an increased money supply, but only one comes with a significant value cost. Supply inflation in cryptocurrency is like option 2. There's no loss of intrinsic value. Quantitative easing is like option 1. Actually, QE would be closer to creating gold-colored plastic coins and using the plastic coins as leverage for distributing plastic coin certificates  I've got some reading to do on QE for sure, I was trying to point out that the inflated money supply was supposed to spur banks to give out more loans (IE trying to curb concentrations of money by providing incentive to part with it rather than hold it). Clearly it's not the best example. Actually I half-admit it can be seen as a tactic to detract from an argument I didn't have the understanding to debate properly. I did a bit of reading since then, and have reformed my opinion .. and it's much more in line with your stance  Thanks for the debate! Whether the rate of increase of the world's gold supply was historically lower or higher doesn't change the fact that the buying power of gold is (roughly) the same today as it was a thousand years ago, despite centuries of exponential inflation. Why? Because the "work" and the "proof" scaled proportionately.
I had made statements that I hadn't researched properly. Historic gold inflation rate has been 1.3265% based on reasonable studies on gold supplies over >6000 year periods. (Links below). We will never know the minimum effective dose because we will only know when we fail, but never when we succeed. Personally, I'd prefer to overshoot and risk losing a little value each year than underestimate what's necessary and end up with centralized fiat notes in 10 years.
I'd advocate for sticking with what can be agreed on, of a value over or at 1%. Perhaps maybe a little higher. 2% is insanely high: Consider we start with one single pound (as .0005 tons) of gold 6000 years ago. Inflating that 2%/year for 6000 years gives an insane number that we're nowhere near (4.2385050037e+22 tons). Rather, assuming the very first gold deposit/amount collected 6000 years ago (the last source leans toward this claim) were only one pound ... only a 1.3265% inflation rate would give us the amount of gold in circulation today. One point I don't agree with you on is the purchasing power of gold. Over the last few decades, it has not maintained its constant purchasing power. In fact it has swung quite drastically ... perhaps because of no gold standard, the need for it, a hedge against fiat inflation? Sources (If nothing, check out the last one): http://www.numbersleuth.org/worlds-gold/http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Gold_Inflation.asphttp://www.goldfacts.org/en/faqs/#q_how_much_gold_is_left_in_the_groundhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/20/gold-mine-output-idUSL5N0J44T720131120http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/mining/8180569/A-history-of-gold.htmlhttp://www.mining-journal.com/knowledge/Mining-Explainedhttp://www.rapidtables.com/calc/math/exponential-growth-calculator.htmhttp://www.utdallas.edu/~rjstern/egypt/PDFs/SE%20Desert/KlemmAU.JAES01.pdfedit: I'm still trying to build a basis for exactly why it would be a good idea to build what I've seen mentioned as "a robber" into this (constant supply/%) .. and exactly what type of "robber" this is .. my initial opinion needed to be formed by what is happening currently before I could make ground on that though. I've got great links for those (think you've provided some), but it'll probably take a while to go through them all. |
|
|
|
Wow yes Quazarcoin is on the Cryptsy voting list. There is no excuse for Monero to not also be on there.
I can only ask them so many times. Literally anyone who has ever used any of the exchanges is qualified to ask for a coin they want to trade to be on the exchange. This is a place where the number of requests, not the quality of requests apply. If they're not pissed at all the other people asking for a coin to be listed, I doubt they'll start to be bothered now |
|
|
|
Can someone please do this? I would but i don't want my email/account opening the main post. I would recommend we do it quick, as this is already listed : QCN QuazarCoin @ https://www.cryptsy.com/coinvotes/ |
|
|
|
Actually, I sent quite a few requests out Hello xxxxx,
Thank you for introducing me to this coin.
I have submitted your coin to our development team who will review it
to see if it meets our requirements for addition to the Cryptsy exchange.
If there is anything else I can do for you, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Ginny
Cryptsy.com
No follow up. Also got no response from bter:
##- Please type your reply above this line -##
Your request (4638) has been received and is being reviewed by our support staff.
To add additional comments, reply to this email.
|
|
|
|
I said this before in this thread and some people said they didn't want it on Mintpal. I didn't know that someone had tried to ask them. That is a shame that they are not interested. Have you actually recieved a reply from them or did they just not respond?
Hello,
Thanks for your suggestion, however as MRO is not based off bitcoin we cannot currently add it. We will be looking at it again a few months down the line.
Regards,
Jay
MintPal
That was received May 18 |
|
|
|
10 MRO
But shouldn't this be for tacos?
New thread for tacos! |
|
|
|
Plx order flow is slowing to nothing. Looks like China has yet to discover Monero.
Whales from China are coming. Maybe we should consider updating the translated page, and posting the monero missives in that page as well? I don't want them to feel left out .. |
|
|
|
Satishi's paper described how one block is settled on, with the assumption of a random walk (not always correct, but correct to a point). As far as the actual network, there was another paper that measured bitcoin's propagation delays but I can't find it right now. There have also been some threads looking at propagation on ultra-fast coins such as DOGE (60 seconds), but again I can't find the links right now.
Also interesting to play with is a node simulator I remember seeing. I think someone posted a link to one on this thread, but at 200+ pages, it will be hard to find.
Thanks smooth! Is this the propagation paper you were talking about? http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/49318d3f56c1d525aabf7fda78b23fc0/P2P2013_041.pdfGood read on that one. This one wasn't bad either, for a precursor to understanding a node simulator: http://www.cs.sun.ac.za/rw778/files/2014/01/2014T1.pdf |
|
|
|
Monero Missives
Thanks for all the updates, this is a lot of good news! Are you going to put the logo in the OP too? |
|
|
|
 ^^ I'm truthfully being honest and not trolling at this point in the space time continuum... But that logo for Monero, with the orange and black, 2d look with no dimension,depth nothing, and futuristic/childlike font...looks awful...Truthfully truthfully, it looks extremely childish, kind of resembling a pokemon ball...I doubt anyone looking at that logo would take Monero very seriously.... Literally the last thing I even think about is a pokeball. I see a big orange sun coming up over a dark horizon |
|
|
|
There are a number of factors which contribute to orphans but they all stem ultimately from the one minute block time, which just too fast for an ad-hoc p2p type network. If you were running a centrally managed financial backbone (or you want to turn a coin into one) then you can probably optimize everything such that one minute blocks mostly work. But for a decentralized peer-to-peer system, it doesn't work.
If you look at these coins, Monero (1 min) generally has the most orphans and Duck (4 min) the least, though this of course varies according to network conditions. Probably closer to 4 minutes might be right, given the high cost of verification. 2 minutes is the bare minimum.
However, I would add that orphans really aren't as bad as they seem. The block target is determined by the rate of accepted blocks. If there weren't orphans the difficulty would be correspondingly higher. Everything comes out about the same, except more overhead and other secondary factors which aren't great and should be addressed by increasing the block time and optimizing the code in other ways. But it really isn't a "waste" of hashes or anything like that.
Hm, I know that there's a whole lot going on that causes this .. do you have any decent links that I can read up on to understand the situation better? You describe the situation very well, and I'd like to know more about specifically how multiple block solutions propagate through the network vs. which one is ultimately settled on (as well as the type of network infrastructure that it is propagated on) .. but I don't really know where to look. |
|
|
|
The cost of running a pool does increase the more miners you have, as you need more server resource and bandwidth, but it gets more efficient the bigger you get so 2% fees is quite profitable I suspect. Its a free market so miners can direct their hash where they like, perhaps they figure they get a lower orphan rate which compensates for the fee. I moved my pool to its own server with a direct Internet connection when I made it public, hopefully reducing the orphan rate, but then the network hash rate has gone up so much since it hasnt found any blocks so I can't compare to see if there is a difference  Where are all these orphans coming from? It's becoming harder to believe that it's entirely due to the 1 minute block times .. maybe that combined with the incredible mining speed increases we have now changes a few things...? Edit:
To address the orphan issue, it's recommended that you directly connect your daemons to the other major MRO pools, mro.extremepool.org and moneropool.com. You should correspond to those admins so that their nodes are directly connected to you with "--add-priority-node arg", and possibly remove unrelated nodes, so that you can sync faster with these other large pools.
P2P backend code seems poorly optimized and takes a long time to sync as well, coupled with the heavy hashing algo makes orphans inordinately high compared to other networks.
Looks like they're already on it! only a matter of time now. |
|
|
|
It will be interesting to see how MRO does relative to fiat during a BTC moonshot. I expect this to be a pretty tame bubble, if it is one, but LTC has largely lost cred, and MRO might take its place as moon to sun, with value lagging BTC during the early phase, getting whipped up rapidly, and overshooting the gains in BTC relative to fiat, before relaxing again.
Yeah, It will be interesting to watch this one. This low was called well, and now both are going up. Exciting times! With little holding it in place compared to BTC, it will probably easily experience an overshoot. Where will the new floor be? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
