if PoS provides for more security how come advanced check-pointing was conceived with PoS only?
Because it isn't. PoS suffers from a "nothing at risk" problem. An attacker can use coins they no longer have but did have at one point in the past to attack the network. Actually there is no reason to not do this. If the attacker is unsucessful well they lose nothing in the attempt and if they are successful they get all their coins "back" (that they may have lost, had stolen, or sold). Checkpoints limit how far back the chain can be reorged but they don't solve the nothing at stake problem, only limit the extent of the damage. Please tell us which PoS coin has been attacked by so called "nothing at risk" problem. None definitively although more than one POS coin has been 51% attacked. Many of them have stake requirements which are negligible so often cheap attack is easier than a more sophisticated nothing at stake attack. No POS coin has extensive history in the field other than PPC and it avoids an attack by using 100% centralized checkpoints. Still you don't really believe that "hasn't happened" = "can't happen"? Bitcoin has never been 51% attacked therefore you believe an attack is impossible? Could you provide any other theoretical evidence to support your claim if it had never happened in practice? |
|
|
|
- PoS complicates the original simplicity of Quark.
This is enough of a reason for me to say no to PoS. Very much against. If someone asks me what Quark is, I'd say it is like Bitcoin, but it's faster and more secure. Obviously there are concerns about incentives for miners ensuring network security but I mean it's intrinsically more secure due to the algorithm, it's part of the design. I still don't think people outside of the crypto community understand what Proof of Stake is, and yet it is people outside of the crypto community that we want to discover this coin. Can you claim that quark is more secure than bitcoin based on the current network hashrate? |
|
|
|
if PoS provides for more security how come advanced check-pointing was conceived with PoS only?
Because it isn't. PoS suffers from a "nothing at risk" problem. An attacker can use coins they no longer have but did have at one point in the past to attack the network. Actually there is no reason to not do this. If the attacker is unsucessful well they lose nothing in the attempt and if they are successful they get all their coins "back" (that they may have lost, had stolen, or sold). Checkpoints limit how far back the chain can be reorged but they don't solve the nothing at stake problem, only limit the extent of the damage. Please tell us which PoS coin has been attacked by so called "nothing at risk" problem. |
|
|
|
if PoS provides for more security how come advanced check-pointing was conceived with PoS only - do you think this was because of the experimental nature of PoS ?
That isn't true. Feathercoin also has advanced check-pointing. Even quarkcoin has automatic checkpoint. |
|
|
|
|
Does each core from one CPU collaborate together on hashing or each core work on their own for solo mining?
|
|
|
|
After 20 minutes of testing:
first 7950 from 1.97 Mhs to 2.77 Mhs.
second 7950 from 1.88 Mhs to 2.64 Mhs.
one 280x from 2.22 Mhs to 2.65 Mhs.
So this rig (2x 7950 + 1x 280x) from 6.0 Mhs to 8.0 Mhs.
No settings changed. No temperature changes.
Not bad. Strange that 7950 gets higher Mhs than 280x ?! Maybe can improve a bit more...
Could you share the settings for 7950? Thanks |
|
|
|
I guess that an optimized miner has been deployed secretly. It is happened to Monero mining.
Can developer make an optimized miner, which is available to public?
Hmm.. If that was the case wouldn't you expect dumping? Not even one coin has sold yet.  Since the price of Monero incresed a lot, I don't think people will dump this coin at cheap price. |
|
|
|
Difficulty will go to sky....  What is the height a measure of? The difficulty doesn't seem to have changed too much. It changes with slight delay about 100-200 blocks. Difficulty calculated on last 720 block's timestamps(DIFFICULTY_WINDOW), but it begins to react already after the 60 blocks. I guess that an optimized miner has been deployed secretly. It is happened to Monero mining. Can developer make an optimized miner, which is available to public? |
|
|
|
seems this miner stuff is obfuscated on purpose, dev is probably running 10x faster miner himself.. but I have two days to make a faster version  #0 std::vector<crypto::hash, std::allocator<crypto::hash> >::operator[] (this=0x7f837d3fb950, __n=12302) at /usr/include/c++/4.9.0/bits/stl_vector.h:780
#1 0x0000000000c4e75c in currency::miner::<lambda(uint64_t)>::operator()(uint64_t) const (__closure=0x7f837d3fb4e0, index=9325784170990468272)
at /c/boolberry/src/currency_core/miner.cpp:365
#2 0x0000000000c4f912 in currency::<lambda(uint64_t (&)[25], uint64_t (&)[24])>::operator()(crypto::state_t_m &, crypto::mixin_t &) const (__closure=0x7f837d3fb200, st=...,
mix=...) at /c/boolberry/src/currency_core/currency_format_utils.h:189
#3 0x0000000000c4fdab in crypto::wild_keccak<crypto::mul_f, currency::get_blob_longhash(const blobdata&, crypto::hash&, uint64_t, callback_t) [with callback_t = currency::miner::worker_thread()::<lambda(uint64_t)>; currency::blobdata = std::basic_string<char>; uint64_t = long unsigned int]::<lambda(uint64_t (&)[25], uint64_t (&)[24])> >(const uint8_t *, size_t, uint8_t *, size_t, currency::<lambda(uint64_t (&)[25], uint64_t (&)[24])>) (
in=0x7f837d3fb540 "\366+\307\351\330\b3pQ\264\067\061ǭVjf1\034s \237\224\233\327\016\226-\332xko", inlen=33,
md=0x7f837d3fb540 "\366+\307\351\330\b3pQ\264\067\061ǭVjf1\034s \237\224\233\327\016\226-\332xko", mdlen=32, cb=...) at /c/boolberry/src/crypto/wild_keccak.h:134
#4 0x0000000000c4fb09 in crypto::wild_keccak_dbl<crypto::mul_f, currency::get_blob_longhash(const blobdata&, crypto::hash&, uint64_t, callback_t) [with callback_t = currency::miner::worker_thread()::<lambda(uint64_t)>; currency::blobdata = std::basic_string<char>; uint64_t = long unsigned int]::<lambda(uint64_t (&)[25], uint64_t (&)[24])> >(const uint8_t *, size_t, uint8_t *, size_t, currency::<lambda(uint64_t (&)[25], uint64_t (&)[24])>) (
in=0x7f8381dba098 "\001-\261FVm\345O\330\061\021\237\257\210\200\204\364=\374\243\031.\023\254\350\233O\372\373\262\032~łz$i", inlen=76,
md=0x7f837d3fb540 "\366+\307\351\330\b3pQ\264\067\061ǭVjf1\034s \237\224\233\327\016\226-\332xko", mdlen=32, cb=...) at /c/boolberry/src/crypto/wild_keccak.h:151
#5 0x0000000000c4fa8d in currency::get_blob_longhash<currency::miner::worker_thread()::<lambda(uint64_t)> >(const currency::blobdata &, crypto::hash &, uint64_t, currency::miner::<lambda(uint64_t)>) (
bd="\001-\261FVm\345O\330\061\021\237\257\210\200\204\364=\374\243\031.\023\254\350\233O\372\373\262\032~łz$i\000\216\353қ\005QJ\034k0\023pq\024y\\\356\031\343\376\376\342\366\250{\340\327\363\344RSn\002c\f\277\236\001", res=..., height=2056, accessor=...) at /c/boolberry/src/currency_core/currency_format_utils.h:179
#6 0x0000000000c4ec65 in currency::miner::worker_thread (this=0x7fff82e7fdd8) at /c/boolberry/src/currency_core/miner.cpp:366
Have you got a chance to optimize the miner? |
|
|
|
The issue involved someone, apparently in Russia (Russian language forum site), who discovered that the bytecoin miner (subsequently cloned to MRO) had apparently been de-optimized prior to public release and could be made several times faster with relatively simple changes. It was one of the MRO developers (NoodleDoodle) who promptly released an un-deoptmized miner (subsequently back ported to bytecoin), and later released additional optimizations.
You won't find a more fair launch of any coin no will you find team behind a coin with more integrity than the Monero team in my opinion (though as a minor disclaimer, I don't know all of them outside of our work on Monero -- the work on Monero has been 100% above board and community-focused).
What is the reason that the bytecoin miner had been de-optimized prior to public release? |
|
|
|
Did I get it right - mining is going on despite there is an error?
What to do to get rid of the error? Who's succeed in solving the problem? I am a lit bit panic, sorry
Just need to update simplewallet to latest version, there's a link above Mining continues in the daemon regardless of your version When will the official version be released? |
|
|
|
|
CPU coins are heaven of botnet. Does Blockchain-based hash or cryptoNote against botnet?
|
|
|
|
Anyone looking to run this on Linux, I got it running on Ubuntu 14.04 (I think this should work on 13.10 as well). These are the steps I used: echo 1. add repository containing the right boost package version
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:boost-latest/ppa
echo 2. update apt repository
sudo apt-get update
echo 3. install needed packages
sudo apt-get -y install gcc-4.8 g++-4.8 libboost1.55-all-dev git cmake
echo 4. get honnypenny sources
git clone https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/honeypenny.git
echo 5. go into honnypenny map and start building
cd honnypenny; make
echo 6. after this you will be able to find the build results in ~/honnypenny/build/release/src/
cd build/release/src/
echo 7. start the node
./hpd
echo 8. start the client for the first time and create a wallet
./simplewallet --generate-new-wallet wallet_name.wallet --password change_this!
Great. Will try it. |
|
|
|
It is the end of solo mining: Estimated Hashrate: 9392 H/s
Not quite; with a newer Intel Quad at 16 H/s, you will still get 2.5 blocks per day or so at difficulty 565000. Does each core share the difficulty or just solo itself when a multi-core cpu is used to do solo mining? |
|
|
|
Received! Thanks!  |
|
|
|
Current MRO hash rate is 9190 H/s
How about BCN? difficulty / 120, you'll have to sync the daemon and check with "set_log 1" Current BCN hash rate is 13282 H/s. BMR is catching up. |
|
|
|
Current MRO hash rate is 9190 H/s
How about BCN? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
