The price is getting lower because buy volume is lower than sell volume  Nothing is special about it. Lack of new user, holders just had enough and don't want to buy more, inflation is still highTo put the bold in context, daily inflation is about 0.1% currently and monthly is 3%. Falling fast. https://moneroeconomy.com/wiki/emission-rateThe whole inflation thing is a bit of a misnomer. In reality, the faster emission exponentially decays, the lower inflation is. BTC's inflation was significantly higher on day 598 (0.16750% BTC vs 0.10801% XMR). On the other hand, emission as % of total supply (though such a hard number doesn't exist for XMR) is still way higher. |
|
|
|
For constant emission: I doubt it'll ever work. If there are no (real or perceived) benefits for early adopters, there probably won't ever be enough early adopters to get it off the ground, especially when competing with others that do provide benefits.
a constant emission scheme would temper speculative investment a lot in the first years, which should result in building the tech, building people who are interested in the tech, building a decentralized mining network because development of ASICs wouldn't be worth it (yet). on the other hand, this would probably result in lower security as well, in the first years. maybe Monero has indeed the best of both worlds. Time will tell. I've never quite understood the mining emission of monero to its full extent. So if there are dynamic blocks that keep readjusting to the needs at that specific time (or atleast that's my understanding) then, does that mean there are limits that monero sets? Is there a pretty laid out set of information about moneros emission curve in general out there that I could read more on the matter? The max block size is dynamic, but that only affects the emission if miners go over the median. Since emission is based on current supply, the penalties paid for creating an oversized block get absorbed over time by miners. |
|
|
|
I was playing around with the latest simplewallet today, and wanted to see if I could create a watch-only wallet from my public and view keys using --generate-from-view-key. Like others, I was hoping that this would be a way to check balances on cold wallets without revealing the seed or private keys.
I was surprised to see that the balance after refresh in the watch only wallet did not match the balance in the hot wallet, and it appears that the watch-only wallet only accounts for monero received and not any that were sent. Is this a known issue, or am I doing something wrong here?
Yes. It's how the protocol works, at least presently. It's possible to set it up so that you can monitor yourself if you will, but won't work for on-going 3rd party auditing, which I'm completely ok with. So yes, the title "watch only" is a bit of a misnomer. |
|
|
|
thanks. most people in that thread seem to think that the idea of waiting until $1300 to buy is foolish. i must assume that they all think that there's a 100% chance that bitcoin will rise to $1300 in the short term and a near-zero chance bitcoin will fail. that is clearly BS. People who think that need to check the post-2011-bubble market. IIRC, BTC was around 5 USD in the first months of 2011 (the first time I ever checked the price... No I didn't buy), had a bubble during the year towards 10-12 USD and a crash back to 5 USD. Late 2011 it started rising again to 10-12 USD area (after that the 2 insane 2013 bubbles came). The BTC bear market was very long (compared to previous bear markets) and there is more liquidity and professional traders. I expect AT LEAST ONE failed attempt to the old all time highs with a crash to at least the 500 USD level. Block halving is already priced in. If the block halving will do anything, it will be dropping of the hashrate and thus security will go down Block halvings are nothing to celebrate. It only makes the "ponzi feeling" bigger for outsiders. I still think everybody is ignoring that emission can become an issue for adoption, at leats short term. BTC is now mined > 2/3 and will be mined 75% in the summer of 2016. I still think an fixed emission right from to start until infinity is the best scheme long term. Hence I invested a bit in 1Credit (shameless pitch, but I really think that at least in theory, this would be better :p ) edit: that said, Monero emission isn't bad. It finds a middle ground between the "fixed from the start emission" and "limited BTC supply emission" schemes, which can both draw in BTC insiders and outsiders. I'm not sure halving can really be priced in in advance, but don't have a big opinion. For constant emission: I doubt it'll ever work. If there are no (real or perceived) benefits for early adopters, there probably won't ever be enough early adopters to get it off the ground, especially when competing with others that do provide benefits. |
|
|
|
Same issue with beta version for Windows (2015-Nov-01). Sometimes daemon successfully closes after first "exit" command, sometimes it needs to read second "exit".
I think I know what the problem is. It requires a coder with Windows (and some knowledge of windows APIs) to add a bit of code though. In contrib/epee/include/console_handler.h, the wait_stdin_data needs some code to implement what the select does (wait till there is data on stdin, while we're not told to stop). As it is, the Windows version will not care about that and go into a blocking std::getline, and I think there's a good chance you're getting stuck in that. Anyone with the above description to do this ? It's pretty simple if you know the right Windows API for this (assuming the API is not stupidly). On the other hand, I run a daemon on Windows and *never* have to exit twice. Though, if I "exit" while the daemon is still starting up, craziness happens (it has to be killed). |
|
|
|
Good news. Monkey now wants me short 30s (1 week), short spus (1 week), long btc (4 days) and gold (2 weeks). That means xmrbtc down, short term. He says to stay short EEM too. Oil and gold don't have a long-term bottom yet, but gold at least has a short swing. Oil? Meh. Can't see much of a swing there with Iran coming back, inventories rising.
XMR can only go down. Forever. To zero. |
|
|
|
Thank you for the answers guys! So, BIP 47 just makes blockchain analyzers work a bit more difficult. Is it that we have to have both - unlinkability and untraceability - to be anonymous? I mean, why? Honestly, I don't understand this. I think unlinkability is not being able to link past payments, whereas untracability is not being able to to trace future payments. Please someone correct me if that's wrong though. That is part of it yes. Without untracability anyone you pay can follow the trail back and unambiguously identify your other associated transactions (including those that paid you). Without unlinkability once you pay someone you can see other payments (past or future) to the same recipient. The other aspect of it is that a third party can see both of these types of connections, which are the building blocks of blockchain analysis. "To be anonymous" is a bit vague since it means different things in different contexts. If you want a coin where the chain is hard to analyze and in doing so identify people with transactions, then you want to break both sorts of links described above. Hiding amounts is helpful too. I like to compare it to, say, mailing cash to someone. Even though the sender knows your address, he can't see what, if any, other payments you have received (ditto for an outside observer). That's unlinkability. No one except you and the sender can tell what amount was sent (confidential transactions). Finally, assume no return label: even you the recipient has no idea where the cash came (much less an observer). That's untraceability. The analogy somewhat holds for an in person exchange as well, but it's much harder to be first hop anonymous in that case. |
|
|
|
Why do I do these posts?
to talk some sense into my nonsense. Yes, I misread it. There is no premium, its for their customers. ... those who hold bitcoin at BTCC... so, unless they are using a deterministic style wallet, the premium is the control of your bitcoin. So, give us your keys, we'll give you faster transaction times. It is getting even worse than I thought. Bold my emphasis That doesn't necessarily follow. I didn't look at it in depth at all, but it seemed that they are prioritizing all associated transactions: deposits going to their known addresses (user initiated, user controls keys) and withdrawals (BTCC initiated, owned); perhaps also user to user transactions, which would be controlled by them as well, but I think using the chain for that is a waste. |
|
|
|
Maybe some Swiss banks will start offering XMR services. They have a track record on privacy.
Maybe they already are, but nobody knows and/or can't prove it.  welp, I appreciate the gesture, but again I will put out there that in no official capacity am I associated with monero - I just think the technology is cool and generally want to see civilization advance into the future by using new technological developments. I also found this interesting - Bitcoin giant BTCC launches priority blockchain transactions http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-its-customers-1529730there's a bitcointalk thread about it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1256357.0I can't decide if this is the natural development of bitcoin's current protocol, or if this is setting a bad precedent. Well, to be honest I think its a bad development. IMO, this is proof that bitcoin is losing its egalitarian nature. If you own 11% of the hash, you can demand a premium. Add on top of this that its impossible to determine whether or not these are mafia tactics... Furthermore, I speculate whether this type of system will ever have a chance of sprouting in the monero protocol. Our blocks would steadily increase in size during a blockchain DDoS (which I guess is the best name for the recent "stress tests"), so there would be a small window for a premium, but with our 2 minute blocks it would be short. Finally, I ponder what monero can do in the face of a blockchain DDoS. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that wouldn't be filtering of transactions by pool ops. But I guess after the fact, there could be some outfit that determines which transactions were crap, and could distribute a patch so that blockchain maintainers could "pull out the weeds" from their blockchain by pruning.... It seems like a natural development to me. I don't understand what you mean by "demand a premium"; they are essentially offering discounts to their customers. It seems like it'd be harder for a Monero pool to offer this service due to stealth addresses. It'd also be harder to set up a spam attack, due to rules on transaction age. Monero fees are (presently) much higher as well, so such an attack would be quite expensive. Example: keeping a 1 MB per minute TX rate (10 MB Bitcoin blocksize, 2 MB Monero after fork) would cost 0.01 XMR / KB * 1024 kB / MB = 10.24 XMR / minute, or 14,745.6 XMR / day, which is about 29% more than the block reward at the moment. For comparison, the last "full" BTC block had around ~0.30 BTC in fees (9xx KB / 10 min). If we x10 that, we get ~3 BTC in fees, or only 12% of the reward. XMR vs BTC: ~10.75x higher fees as % of reward ~39x higher fees as % of total supply BTC price is ~833x XMR's, so in USD-priced fees, BTC is still ~21x higher. One would expect that buying that quantity daily to keep the attack going would significantly affect the (low liquidity) XMR market, making it more expensive each day (but maybe not). Why do I do these posts? |
|
|
|
Not exactly - I would route botnet hash through a proxy... otherwise I would DDoS the pool off the net by accident. Regardless, a pool isn't going to shut down income.
Route through a proxy ? Easy, once AVs detect it, its trivial to shut down. There are ways other than IP addresses to detect a botnet, maybe thousands of miners all hashing at a different speed ? *sigh* If I run it through a proxy, it looks like one machine with varying hashrate, first of all. I meant similar to a Stratum proxy. Secondly, not that trivial, as I would crypt the binary - AVs detect it, a new crypt often solves the issue. If they try to do it by connection, I can use a randomly selected proxy from multiple ones. You sound like you are on drugs AGAIN. We can continue discussion when it wears off... You sound like you just ran out of intelligent arguments! yeah, and isn't there an open source freely available miner proxy, which for all in tents and porpoises (there yah go luigi), was probably specifically made for bonnets? That sentence was full of english wonder / inside jokes. And your monero dash equivalence re: distribution might be valid if all botnets were operated by monero core team developers, and you'd think if that were the case they would have developed a GUI to make monero moon ASAP (and subsequently die because, yah know, the original bytecoin code needed much love, according to me, who has a proof of developer certificate (thats a bold faced lie (these are nested parentheses))), unless of course they did that on purpose because they're in for the long con, and they just dump hours and real money into the con to create better code and a cryptocurrency infrastructure (DNS checkpoints, etc) so all in all, I still give botnets a 4 on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being harmful and 10 being useful. anyhoo. How's the test fork in testnet? Hope its going well!!! The bad phrase is "all intensive purposes", you muppet. |
|
|
|
The dude's blaming the pool for the malware. It's not mining for the pool, most likely, it's mining to someone's address...
Someone finally gets it. Why would anyone imagine it's the pool's fault (without other supporting evidence at least)?
You're both playing dumb. Pools can easely detect and block addresses being mined by botnets. FYI, a huge botnet went live today, over 3MH/s, XMR distribution is no better than premined DASH... That's a completely orthogonal issue. It's probably relatively easy for the botnet owner to get around such countermeasures anyway. Edit: the distribution is what you make of it. Do you really think those botnets keep all the coins? We're then back to the market being responsible for distribution (or lack thereof). |
|
|
|
Do you have the binary they use to spread the miner ? I'd love to take a look at it... no. but download from torrent dirt rally iso almost 16 Gb...it's very lamerz this pool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which address is associated with the hidden miner ? If this is true the warning should be better advertised on IRC, getmonero.org etc. I dunno guys. the only things linked on that pool are zone117x's easyminer binary from github. From what I gather, zone117x worked on the pool software itself, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that his easy miner package is relatively trustworthy. That and we haven't heard about it until now? The dude's blaming the pool for the malware. It's not mining for the pool, most likely, it's mining to someone's address... Someone finally gets it. Why would anyone imagine it's the pool's fault (without other supporting evidence at least)? |
|
|
|
On that site, the link to the "Monero offline wallet generator" tool is broken. Working fine for me. What browser are you using? I switched servers yesterday and made the site HTTPS only, so perhaps that is the cause of the issue. Try refreshing your browser cache maybe. The redirect to https didn't work for me until I manually went there. |
|
|
|
I would say closer to ZeroCash. I've heard from the relevant experts that Monero is not computationally-efficient enough to stand on its own, but I have similar problems with ZeroCash standing on its own (it is almost "too private", for people to check and make sure it's working correctly). However, I think both (and/or, the concept of "coin privacy") will be among the first practical, usable, sidechain applications. I think that people will sidechain coins over, mix them on the sidechain, and then send them back. What are they implying by "not computationally-efficient enough to stand on its own"? I'm honestly not sure. There are criticisms about the chain being larger than Bitcoin. That's one thing, maybe an issue in practice, maybe not, but not really the same question as "computationally efficient". There have also been criticisms of the PoW being too slow. This was a bigger concern before it got optimized and verifying a PoW took a second or something. But now at 20 ms, I don't really see this as disastrous. Even if it is, it could easily be replaced, and doesn't constitute a scaling issue (PoW cost doesn't go up as usage increases, in fact it decreases per-tx). I'm not really sure where a criticism of the protocol itself being too computationally inefficient would come from. The signature verification is based on DJB's elliptic curve methods that are designed to be very efficient. We can verify something like 1400 signatures/sec on CPUs that are a couple of generations out of date. And that isn't even fully optimized. So who knows. Sometimes memes based on a tiny bit of information, possibly taken out of context or misinterpreted, just get out there and take on a life of their own, making them very hard to ever fully kill off. I assume you meant transactions instead of signatures. For example this recent tx "06246f5c78aefac38b6c539ffc2ead5d48d452a38dbffe019cb63668aba657ed" has 15 inputs at mix 1, or 30 signatures. It took 3ms to verify on my machine (i7-4770). That would imply 10k sigs verified per second (not sure if this is multithreaded or not, and I'm not sure how much overhead there is on verifying beyond sig checking). Actually I completely misremembered not only the number but the context of it. It was 2.5ms/tx average according to NoodleDoodle on a i7-2600. I originally thought it was single threaded which would yield 1600/sec not 1400, but now I'm not sure how that was measured since multithreaded verification was added at some point, though not sure if it is signatures or PoW. I guess signatures since most syncing PoW uses the precomputed hashes now anyway. We could look into the code more carefully here to see how it is being done, but all of these numbers agree that "computationally efficient" doesn't make sense to raise an issue. And of course both your numbers and NoodleDoodle's numbers are aging to old midrange desktop CPUs. You would run into huge problems with storage, bandwidth, centralization, etc. long before computational cost because a bottleneck. That's true for all blockchains so I just don't understand the original statement except as a misunderstanding. Just going from memory, I'm fairly certain the POW verification is multithreaded now, and was changed before the fast-block-sync stuff. So I don't know if tx verification is multithreaded as well, but I tend to think yes. Edit: wallet "refresh" command I'm fairly certain is *not* multithreaded. |
|
|
|
I would say closer to ZeroCash. I've heard from the relevant experts that Monero is not computationally-efficient enough to stand on its own, but I have similar problems with ZeroCash standing on its own (it is almost "too private", for people to check and make sure it's working correctly). However, I think both (and/or, the concept of "coin privacy") will be among the first practical, usable, sidechain applications. I think that people will sidechain coins over, mix them on the sidechain, and then send them back. What are they implying by "not computationally-efficient enough to stand on its own"? I'm honestly not sure. There are criticisms about the chain being larger than Bitcoin. That's one thing, maybe an issue in practice, maybe not, but not really the same question as "computationally efficient". There have also been criticisms of the PoW being too slow. This was a bigger concern before it got optimized and verifying a PoW took a second or something. But now at 20 ms, I don't really see this as disastrous. Even if it is, it could easily be replaced, and doesn't constitute a scaling issue (PoW cost doesn't go up as usage increases, in fact it decreases per-tx). I'm not really sure where a criticism of the protocol itself being too computationally inefficient would come from. The signature verification is based on DJB's elliptic curve methods that are designed to be very efficient. We can verify something like 1400 signatures/sec on CPUs that are a couple of generations out of date. And that isn't even fully optimized. So who knows. Sometimes memes based on a tiny bit of information, possibly taken out of context or misinterpreted, just get out there and take on a life of their own, making them very hard to ever fully kill off. I assume you meant transactions instead of signatures. For example this recent tx "06246f5c78aefac38b6c539ffc2ead5d48d452a38dbffe019cb63668aba657ed" has 15 inputs at mix 1, or 30 signatures. It took 3ms to verify on my machine (i7-4770). That would imply 10k sigs verified per second (not sure if this is multithreaded or not, and I'm not sure how much overhead there is on verifying beyond sig checking). |
|
|
|
- known internally to the group as the 'enforcer' due to his relentless posting on forums priceless!!!!!!!! Yup funny indeed LOL Also think about it.. with the blatant and extreme amount of time Smoothie spends here defending Monero let alone how much he bumps that one Speculation [sic] topic how does he find the time to code anything ? something there doesn't add up  Might want to note in the first post.. the reptiela guy changed his name in front me when i was on Poloniex chat box way back eh. i can check back and let you know what it is but i would have to sift through chat logs for a while  if someone else recalls it i can confirm if that is it.. Smoothie != smooth smooth is mostly busy controlling the troll army, doncha know? |
|
|
|
Like I have stated before, too fast a raise is no good. 25% every 30 days is fine by me.
Oh yes! This is definitely a "good", "healthy" rate of price appreciation. See you next year this time at ~$4,400 and the year after at ~$64,000. Shoot by the end of 2018 we'll be at the $1,000,000 that we all dream about! Where do I sign? you didn't sign up already? I never bought those 3 BTC back. Turns out I made a decent decision for once. But what I really want to know is: Are we going up or down from here!?! (hey, my 3 BTC are now almost 5!) |
|
|
|
Like I have stated before, too fast a raise is no good. 25% every 30 days is fine by me.
Oh yes! This is definitely a "good", "healthy" rate of price appreciation. See you next year this time at ~$4,400 and the year after at ~$64,000. Shoot by the end of 2018 we'll be at the $1,000,000 that we all dream about! Where do I sign? |
|
|
|
Gold has been digitized. Everything's been digitized
Not really. A gold-linked or gold-backed derivative can be digitized. Physical gold can't.I sense a non-believer here. #itscoming |
|
|
|
|
I am coming clean! I must confess that I control 3 (!) accounts here.
...however, the other two are (going to be) service-related, and presently have 0 posts/activity. Can I still get my sins forgiven and enter some altcoin paradise?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
