I believe linux monero simplewallet should ask for a password confirmation when creating a wallet. It's not that hard to make a typo on a linux console!
Good suggestion. I created an issue for it here: https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/issues/864On another hand: poloniex asks me a payment ID to withdrawal XMR. How do I get it? I am using simplewallet.
edit: oh that's just a message you might attach to a payment.
Yes you only need that when sending to an exchange or other service that uses a shared wallet. Sending to your own wallet it is not required (this includes sending to a MyMonero wallet -- payid NOT required). When Monero halving?
There is no halving. The block reward declines a tiny amount every block. The effect is to reduce it by half every 18 months or so. We passed the first 18 month cycle several months back. What has been the ATH in USD for XMR?
All time high was something silly like $6, which was hit only for a very short time early on when the supply was tiny and volatility was huge. Ignoring that very early period I'm not sure of the exact USD ATH but the current price is reasonably close (in part due to BTC being worth more now). We also have a thread for speculation and price talk: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=753252.0 |
|
|
|
Unclear whether the signature even checks out. May be fake. ===== BEGIN SIGNED MESSAGE =====
To the DAO and the Ethereum community,
I have carefully examined the code of The DAO and decided to participate after finding the feature where splitting is rewarded with additional ether. I have made use of this feature and have rightfully claimed 3,641,694 ether, and would like to thank the DAO for this reward. It is my understanding that the DAO code contains this feature to promote decentralization and encourage the creation of "child DAOs".
I am disappointed by those who are characterizing the use of this intentional feature as "theft". I am making use of this explicitly coded feature as per the smart contract terms and my law firm has advised me that my action is fully compliant with United States criminal and tort law. For reference please review the terms of the DAO:
"The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation."
A soft or hard fork would amount to seizure of my legitimate and rightful ether, claimed legally through the terms of a smart contract. Such fork would permanently and irrevocably ruin all confidence in not only Ethereum but also the in the field of smart contracts and blockchain technology. Many large Ethereum holders will dump their ether, and developers, researchers, and companies will leave Ethereum. Make no mistake: any fork, soft or hard, will further damage Ethereum and destroy its reputation and appeal.
I reserve all rights to take any and all legal action against any accomplices of illegitimate theft, freezing, or seizure of my legitimate ether, and am actively working with my law firm. Those accomplices will be receiving Cease and Desist notices in the mail shortly.
I hope this event becomes an valuable learning experience for the Ethereum community and wish you all the best of luck.
Yours truly,
"The Attacker"
===== END SIGNED MESSAGE =====
Message Hash (Keccak): 0xaf9e302a664122389d17ee0fa4394d0c24c33236143c1f26faed97ebbd017d0e
Signature: 0x5f91152a2382b4acfdbfe8ad3c6c8cde45f73f6147d39b072c81637fe81006061603908f692dc 15a1b6ead217785cf5e07fb496708d129645f3370a28922136a32 |
|
|
|
|
This reminds me very much of the arguments I used to have 5 years ago when people denied that pool hopping worked at all.
It was tedious then and it is tedious now. The problem is that logical falacies involving probability are subtle and difficult to explain convincingly if you lack a formal background.
I may return to the discussion later, or I may not. Either way, I'm pretty sure you are incorrect, but I'm not the one working on a project based on a faulty model, so its not really my problem. It may also be fixable without drastic changes (your later post that showed up while I was typing this may be sufficient, or close enough), but it will almost certainly be more complicated and probably still vulnerable to something. It is also possible, somewhat, that I'm still misreading what you are proposing. I don't think so though.
BTW, I was always assuming a constant difficulty for each share for simplicity of description, but that doesn't change anything in general.
|
|
|
|
If Polo won't commit to them, I will be finding another exchange and encouraging others to do the same.
Centralized exchanges have their role and finding another one may the right call for you, but either way I would still encourage trying to build liquidity on bitsqaure. I've had offers on there at times but I was often alone on the order book and didn't get any fills. I'll continue to list when I have the opportunity to do so. How solid is the Bitsquare platform? Does it rely on "smart" contracts?  Very solid, I have made a few trades on it. You need to get used to the interface and the trade mechanic. No smart contracts...but it does use multisig.How long until it supports advanced features like margin trading? That is probably a way out. It needs more developers.Is there a testnet version to try out? There may be a test net version, but the main net works fine.Once Bitsquare is somewhat comparable/competitive feature-wise, I'd be happy to offer some XMR there at a discount, to coax volume away from the morally hazardous exchange under the command of ETH Fed Chairman Vitalik "Helicopter" Buterin. Yeah that's the main reason I don't have offers open more often. I wish there was a command line version I could easily run on a server, and script up to notify my if a trade matches. Maybe there is but i missed it? |
|
|
|
I'm an anarchist as well, and never mentioned or would advocate for regulation. People should have the freedom to make mistakes or lie to others and I should have the freedom to call them out on it and warn others. Ok cool.  To clarify that was not me writing on a sock puppet, but reading it I thought it was |
|
|
|
No it doesn't. The probability that a block will be found on the next attempt (ignoring various constant scaling factors) is 1/D. It is independent of M.
By "on the next attempt" do you mean on the next share, or on the next level of the DAG, or something else? If you mean on the next share, then you need to multiply by M/N to correct for the expected number of shares per DAG level. According to PPLNS, your share only gets kicked off after a certain number of DAG levels, so you get multiple "attempts" per level. Are all shares paid equally, or is this a scoring-based system? I think if I am reading correctly, all shares are paid equally. That means during periods that M is higher due to random variation, the value of mining on the pool is lower. During periods that M is lower, the value of mining on the pool is higher. The steady-state average is not what matters here because the miner can choose to participate only during certain system states. If you attempt to apply a score to correct for this, you can do that, but then you have the issue of how to score multiple shares at the same level. To do this fairly and unexploitably, you need an order. Back to square one. |
|
|
|
If Polo won't commit to them, I will be finding another exchange and encouraging others to do the same.
Centralized exchanges have their role and finding another one may the right call for you, but either way I would still encourage trying to build liquidity on bitsqaure. I've had offers on there at times but I was often alone on the order book and didn't get any fills. I'll continue to list when I have the opportunity to do so. |
|
|
|
Deleted off topic shillinghttp://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/2104/how-does-lisk-differ-from-ethereum/3176#3176
@tayvano: Unfortunately, I can't comment directly. I need "50 reputation" for this. Therefore I will write it as a new answer.
I don't know as much about Serpent, but it appears to have the same goals and purpose as Solidity, but is meant to be similar to Python (and therefore be great for Python devs.) This, along with the range of clients, also showcases the dedication that Ethereum has to being appealing to a wide range of developers, not just Javascript developers.
The range of clients at Ethereum in Go, C++, Python, JavaScript, Java and other languages is a support disaster. Right now it may work OK, but once Ethereum attracts a critical mass there will be 1 (or maybe 2) clients which will be used by 99% of the users. Otherwise, it's just not feasible.
You also say that Ethereum is trying to appeal a wide range of developers. Lisk tends to focus on the JavaScript group, it's just a fact that this is a huge crowd already. Lisk removes friction, it's very hard to get developers for a platform. If they now need to learn a new language (besides the whole blockchain concepts) attracting them will be even more difficult. Lisk is all about staying lean, efficient and focused.
Btw. JS is extremely powerful: asmjs.org, pyjs.org etc.
Above only covers Smart Contracts for Etheruem; what about the more fully-encompassing "Dapp"?
Here is the difference between Lisk and Ethereum. Ethereum is doing smart contracts which are all saved on one blockchain. If you want to develop a dapp in Ethereum you need to connect the functionalities of several smart contracts.
In Lisk you get a complete package. You don't develop single smart contracts. You build an entire application which is running on its own blockchain. It's like you develop a new crypto-currency platform with an extended feature-set, the platform itself is already finished and provided by our Lisk SDK. As a developer you just need to implement the necessary new features on top of the already existing platform.
So, for Lisk to be implying that Javascript developers cannot create Dapp for Ethereum is a bit misleading. They can absolutely use primarily Javascript for the Dapp and then Solidity (which is so close to Javascript) for smart contracts.
We never said that JavaScript developers cannot create dapps for Ethereum. Of course they can, but they need to learn a new language first. This is like you would say a plumber cannot paint walls.
At Ethereum they can use JavaScript for the dapp front end, and Solidity for the dapp back end. It's not like they are using JavaScript "for the [complete] dapp" as you said. No, only for the front end.
The difference is that Lisk is entirely Javascript (and node.js) through and through, Ethereum has a large number clients in different languages[2], has two custom-written languages for smart contracts, and still allows for Javascript where you need it most (the UI).
Yes, we tend to focus on one technology. Focus is key.
Your statement that Ethereum "allows for JavaScript where you need it most (the UI)", is really only the case for Ethereum. JavaScript is globally accepted for many different tasks on the front and back end (e.g. NodeJS). Not just for "the UI". You are making JavaScript smaller as it is, only to get more arguments for Solidity.
Javascript numbers are....not the greatest or most reliable. Especially when we are dealing with a crypto-currency, you really want your numbers to be on point. Basically JS uses floating point which means some things get approximated and digits get lost in certain cases.
We are only using integers at Lisk. For big numbers we are using bignumber.js. It's not about the language you choose, it's about your coding skills. If you know what you are doing JavaScript is entirely fine. However, yes this is a weakness. But a weakness which is manageable.
Javascript uses weak dynamic typing. If you are not careful, you can pass strings instead of numbers.
Honestly, if you are building a serious project you should at least get this thing right. Otherwise, every JavaScript project would fail according to your argument.
Lisk has "rules" that they ask contract developers have to follow to avoid breaking consensus.
Yep. It seems Ethereum has these "rules" directly embedded into their compiler, at Lisk developers just have to follow them. The biggest difference here is, if they do a mistake and the consensus is broken, then the dapp needs a hard fork. But Lisk itself is entirely fine, because the dapp is only running in a sidechain.
This is a huge security advantage. If a dapp fails, the Lisk network doesn't even hiccup. However, if one smart contract fails at Ethereum, it can mean game over for Ethereum.
Disadvantages of Solidity
Other disadvantages may be that it's a very young language and therefore unproven. Also there is very little documentation available, and even less developers know this language.
On the blockchain
You are mixing up different things now. You download the Bitcoin client also from an HTTP link. However it "cannot be corrupted, can be audited, cannot be changed, can reach consensus". That means all these important properties you mention are also valid for Lisk. If you change a dapp code, your node will end up on a fork. Same as if you change the Bitcoin code.
The HTTP link is only the way to distribute a dapp source code. Later on we will integrate decentralized storage methods (e.g. IPFS), so the distribution itself can be decentralized as well.
However, the distribution model doesn't define if an application is centralized or decentralized. Or do you say that every crypto-currency on the market is centralized? Because you download the clients from a centralized location? If yes, then how can Ethereum dapps even be decentralized, if the network itself is centralized? Wink
Your line of arguments is wrong here. Another important fact is, that this method allows Lisk to scale massively easier than Ethereum. Besides the huge advantages our sidechains already bring to the table.
I don't know much about Crypti, but they did have a presale and they did get a decent amount of money (at least $200k USD) but I can't find the exact figures because everything has been wiped. Nothing came of Crypti. Literally. So...that's scary. The lack of transparency, also scary.
We are not associated with Crypti anymore. However, saying that everything is wiped and that there is no transparency is a huge lie. There are over 600 pages on Bitcointalk (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=654463) and dozens of blog posts (https://blog.crypti.me) which contain ALL information.
Additionally, if you say that "nothing came of Crypti" then you are completely wrong. Crypti developed a working dapp platform, the huge success of Lisk is proving this. The only thing which just didn't work at Crypti was marketing. That means nobody knows about Crypti. There was also a big lack of leadership at Crypti.
So I guess the main difference I want to point out between Ethereum and Lisk here is that Lisk is two guys who rebranded a previous coin that had a presale and delivered nothing while Ethereum has Vitalik Buterin, a large team of well-known, community-engaged, crazy talented developers, and a large community of developers creating Dapp and third-party wallets and hardware wallets and all sorts of amazing stuff. I mean, look at Augur, Slock.it, and ConsenSys alone. It's crazy!
Yes, I'm glad that those two guys at Google never started their company because there were so many great search engines back then with hundreds of employees. Smiley
Don't understand me wrong, I like Ethereum and the whole team/movement behind it. I'm a big supporter. But you are just refusing innovation at this point of time. You are comparing a 2 years old platform (Ethereum) with 18M in fundings, with a not even launched platform (Lisk) with no access to the funding as of yet. That's kind of silly.
Another key difference is Ethereum has the Ethereum Foundation, a non-profit Swiss organization and Lisk has....an unknown foundation / company associated with it.
Everyone at Lisk knows that we are in the process of creating a legal entity in Germany, most probably as a gGmbH. This is also a non-profit organisation structure.
One final note: Lisk really likes to claim they have partnerships with big names. First it was ShapeShift. Now it is Microsoft. They loooove to use that partnership word. In reality, they were just using the Shifty button, not really a partnership.
We had a technologic partnership with ShapeShift. It was a big mis-understanding at that time. They already fixed that mistake.
All in all, I would like to say that your points are quite weak. You didn't point out the biggest weaknesses of Lisk. In my opinion this is sidechain security. That means small dapps probably won't have a chance long-term to attract enough nodes to secure them.
For this I suspect that there will be special dapps, who will run smaller dapps in a SaaS way. Until we implemented a sidechain forging marketplace, finding sidechain forgers is also quite a difficult task. However, these are all just starting problems. Everything is solvable. At the end of the day Lisk is just software which is actively developed.
It's important to mention that Lisk just gets started and we are already making big changes. At this point of time it's just to early to evaluate Lisk and the team (us) behind it. You should just wait for a year before making a final conclusion. All arguments right now just look like you are afraid. Personally, I think there is far more than enough room for Ethereum and Lisk. In the end we are solving the "problems" very differently and are attracting different niches.
I hope that Ethereum and Lisk can work together in the future in order to solve important problems within the dapp and blockchain industry. I say it again, we are in this "game" together.
http://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/2104/how-does-lisk-differ-from-ethereum/3176#3176
|
|
|
|
Question for XMR core devs: Under what (if any) circumstances would you request (or like VB forcefully demand under threat of rollback) a halt to XMR activity on exchanges?[/b]  fluffypony must be enjoying this schadenfreude at VB's expense! I see no circumstance under which I would ever support asking for a halt in trading on a centralized exchange. Trading on the exchange is trading book entry claims on the exchange's wallet. Even in the extreme case of a rollback or other problem affecting wallets, traders can assess the impact that might have on the solvency of an exchange and trade accordingly. However, an exchange might on its own (or in discussion with other exchanges) decide to halt trading. That's their call, it is their platform after all. If there were a problem with the blockchain affecting (or even possibly affecting) wallets, I would support asking for (and recommending) a halt to deposits/withdrawals until it was resolved. During the initial stages of the 202612 attack exchanges may have stopped trading as we put out an general "red alert" until we actually figured out what was going on. Most decided to restart it but they kept wallet transactions on hold until bug was identified and the vulnerability deemed over. With respect to the DAO, it wasn't even a bug in the coin at all. Ethereum devs acting in that capacity shouldn't have been involved nor should they have asked exchanges to do anything in my opinion, nor should any fork, hard or soft, be on the table at all. My other (perhaps more controversial) opinion on the matter is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1516067.0Needless to say I will never support a fork or rollback or any other sort of meddling with coin ownership in Monero on the basis of an external incident that was not a flaw in the implementation of the coin itself (an example of the latter being the overflow bug in Bitcoin). |
|
|
|
There was no hack, and there is no 'hacker'. There is someone who owns what I would call a spin-off DAO. Don't buy the propaganda. Investors agreed to give their ETH to whomever it was who figured out how to take them up on their offer. Read this carefully. The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation.
(Unless someone can point to a bug in the EVM that executed the code improperly, but I haven't seen any such claim. Maybe they can use another exploit to get the coins back instead of a fork. That would be fair, and seems entirely possible given how bug-ridden The DAO and many other Ethereum contracts seem to be. |
|
|
|
I still don't get what Viterlan Butlerick has actually ever programed or practically done apart from the Bitcoin Magazine.
no one has ever answered me on this.
no offense to him, but it seems to be emperors new clothes ... he's really smart said by everyone that speaks of him .... but what in code has he done?
pybitcointools. I think he also did some python coding for Ethereum, but not a lot. |
|
|
|
There was no hack, and there is no 'hacker'. There is someone who owns what I would call a spin-off DAO. Don't buy the propaganda. Investors agreed to give their ETH to whomever it was who figured out how to take them up on their offer. Read this carefully. The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation.
(Unless someone can point to a bug in the EVM that executed the code improperly, but I haven't seen any such claim. |
|
|
|
history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.
Bitcoin;
2010 (about a year after start)-similar episode with Bitcoin where 184 billion bitcoins were created in a few transactions, then these transactions were erased and bitcoin forked.
2014-Mt Gox
Ethereum:
2016 DAO fiasco (equivalent to 2010 bitcoin episode)
2017-2020 probably an exchange failure (my guess it could the one that rhymes with Kleenex or some other)
I still don't even agree that the Bitcoin 184 billion bug was equivalent to the DAO. No bug has been identified in Ethereum. It is executing the DAO smart contract code correctly, afaik. A bug in Ethereum itself would be more analogous. Maybe it is just all PR and the exploit is on Ethereum side ? hence the Rollback. Interesting theory. I doubt they would be able to hide that for long though. Peter Todd thinks the fact that Ethereum developers are likely heavily invested in the DAO might be relevant: I think that's a terrible precedent, esp. from devs who have lost money.
Goxxed BTC devs didn't ask for a bailout. |
|
|
|
To me, it means, basically, that NO smart contract is worth investing in, since there is ALWAYS will be someone smarter to steal it.
Agree with you there. Maybe if they could be made much simpler and less error prone, but in their current form, not a good idea. |
|
|
|
history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.
Bitcoin;
2010 (about a year after start)-similar episode with Bitcoin where 184 billion bitcoins were created in a few transactions, then these transactions were erased and bitcoin forked.
2014-Mt Gox
Ethereum:
2016 DAO fiasco (equivalent to 2010 bitcoin episode)
2017-2020 probably an exchange failure (my guess it could the one that rhymes with Kleenex or some other)
I still don't even agree that the Bitcoin 184 billion bug was equivalent to the DAO. No bug has been identified in Ethereum. It is executing the DAO smart contract code correctly, afaik. A bug in Ethereum itself would be more analogous. |
|
|
|
|
@Heuristic, my point was that coins are being created out of thin air. Obviously they aren't all dumped and the ones that are aren't the only coins being dumped, but the mining emissions adds a lot to the overall selling pressure.
There needs to be buyers wanting those new coins or it becomes a game of hot potato where a miner might hold on to some coins for a while then dump them on a speculator who is willing to hold them for a while but will also eventually dump them on a longer term investor (perhaps with more speculators in the middle of the chain). So that just means a lot of dumping from time to time unless you are in a high-demand situation where longer-term investors are very hungry to constantly accumulate coins.
|
|
|
|
Selfhack like all scammers do.
Not ruling it out, but that makes the hardfork proposal a bit strange. Possibilities include: 1. Selfhack, but for market manipulation purposes, not to steal the coins. 2. Selfhack, but got cold feet. 3. Social engineering/misdirection of the form where they propose a reversal hardfork knowing it won't happen. |
|
|
|
well, then, bitcoin should have 184 billion coins right now.
Please quote, as I did above, where Satoshi said that the code overrides the stated specifications and everyone who got involved with Bitcoin explicitly agreed to that, because I've been around a while and I've never seen it. |
|
|
|
Investors agreed to give their ETH to whomever it was who figured out how to take them up on their offer. Read this carefully. The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation.
(Unless someone can point to a bug in the EVM that executed the code improperly, but I haven't seen any such claim.) |
|
|
|
|
Look on the bright side, this coin has more going for it than DAO
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
