EDIT: I added something to display the results at the end so it does't drop the entire loop and while using the right compiler options improves things a bit, it is still generating ucomisd which clearly indications some sort of range/error/NaN checking. I didn't go through the code carefully to figure out what it is doing but it suffices to say that sqrt() and 'asm SQRTPD' are not functionally equivalent.
If you write some code that doesn't pull in floating point (especially library functions) minutiae you will often see actual vectorization.
Yeah I can't really tell what it's doing either, but seeing 4x SI MD for 4 variables, well, that's a "winner" right there for "FAIL". If instructions aren't less than the data variables = you are doing it wrong. And that's not related to the various checks btw. It's just a straightforward translation of your source code with four separate sqrt() calls. It is using the SIMD instructions (in a SISD mode) because they are faster than the FPU instructions, as you pointed out. I'm just a "noob" but is it too much to have the audacious expectation where the gcc will actually group things that can be grouped, in order to be processed faster? I mean, I couldn't make it any easier for the compiler in the way I ordered it one after the other without other logic steps interfering and making the compiler question whether it is safe or not to do it (in case other stuff might be dependent on a "sequential" result). Sequential but separate = safe. It would do exactly that (sometimes at least) when you are dealing with operations that don't have bizarre side effects and complicated rules about specific input values, as the sort() library function does. For example in the Monero mining code there is a loop that XORs some values one byte at at time but when you look at the compiled code it actually does it 16 bytes at a time using SSE (PXOR instruction IIRC). A better compiler certainly could do better with sqrt() in some cases, especially with the flag I mentioned (and even without, given sufficient global analysis, but as I said how much of that to do is somewhat of a judgement call), but I'm just pointing out that the program you fed it was not as simple as it appeared, in terms of what you were asking for. I'm not sure the deal with Pascal, I never use it. |
|
|
|
i think it's fair to call DASH a instamine but to be completely accurate it would be a "accidental instamine".
That is was "accidental" is unproven (and by many, disbelieved), so you are scamming investors (and just being flat out dishonest) when you claim that is "completely accurate" and state the same as a fact. As for the so-called "cripplemine" I don't even know what you mean by that made up term, nor particularly care. The nature of this thread is quite clear. you're playing word games again smooth. i could just as easily say...That it was "not accidental" is unproven. "Proven" is subjective, and I did not use that word above. When you "prove" something in court, for example, it is the opinion of a judge or jury that decides, based on some collection of evidence and a standard of proof. However, if you were to say that one can not state "not accidental" as a "completely accurate" fact any more than one can state it was "accidental" as a "completely accurate" fact, I'd generally agree. it was not an intentional instamine in the sense that it was not "sold as" a instamine stlye distribution coin but that it accidentally happened and was fixed. No. Intentional vs. accidental is not directly observable. Again, it is, at best, your opinion that it "accidentally happened". Perhaps what you are trying to say is that it wasn't explicitly advertised as an instamine. Which of course is part of the problem. DASH fits TBCM's first definition of a (accidental) instamine. When a coin is born, if the initial difficulty to get a block is too low, you can get a ton of coins (blocks) really fast if you get in early. The coin is instantly mined.
It is somewhat close, except that unlike some instamines (generally smaller ones, such as Litecoin), Dash's instamine produced a huge number of coins not only from the difficulty adjustment, but also from the block rewards being too high, relative to what was advertised (and also relative to the overall supply). BTW, TBCM didn't say anything about accidental. It would fit his definition equally well if the initial difficulty were deliberately set too low. Not that I'm holding up TBCM as an authority on the definition of instamine. I just quoted that for the date, since you claimed that the term instamine was created or popularized by Monero supporters which is flatly ridiculous when it was widely discussed months before Monero existed. Of course flatly ridiculous claims coming from you is not surprising at all. We all know why we are here: i would not trust one word mastermined710 says.
I was on the xcoin(dash) captive instamine launch. I was there in real time and watched it unfold.
He now tries to deny things that happened actually happened on that launch. He is not to be trusted.
Although, this is not a dash/xcoin/dark thread I will not go into it here. I will only say if you want examples of his lies then please contact me for details.
This person is either a total scammer or likes to try and destroy the truth with nuances that are laughable. His tactic is to say he is telling the truth so that the real truth that is a correct and proper picture is distorted and cast in doubt.
He is making this thread only to divert from the dash scam thread.
He is a scam protector and pumper.
|
|
|
|
On the one hand it seems to get some praise from certain media outlets
The main one I know of is Amanda of The Daily Decrypt who was (is?) paid by Dash to promote it. Another is 'Juan S. Galt' (I'm not sure his affiliation) who was also paid by Dash. Are there others? Nevertheless, do your own homework. Reach your own conclusions. This is crypto. "Believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear" (Poe) |
|
|
|
Should I dump Dark coin? I still have less than 100. At some point of time, I was interested to run a master node, but I never have enough Dark to do so.
No one can tell you what investments to make, but I can tell you that it makes no economic sense to hold Dash long term unless it is in a masternode. There are shared masternode services which is an option for someone with <1000 DASH, but you have to trust the operator to not run away with your coins, which may not be such a great idea. Doing what you are doing, you are just being diluted and losing value by the minute (by the 2.5 minute-block to be precise). |
|
|
|
Seriously though, is there any reason for me to invest in Dash, given the evidence? (genuine question)
Because it might go up in value? If you are looking for long term success, no, there is not really a basis to expect that, and the disreputable background documented here only makes that less likely. If you are looking for short term swings, sure, go for it if your research supports it and you can afford the risk. Be careful if you are playing big though. The liquidity in Dash is quite poor, both relative to the market cap and in absolute terms. Most likely because the vast majority of the coin supply doesn't ever hit the market, it is HODLed by instaminers and early adopters who have it locked up in masternodes. For small-size trading where you try to time the market and don't need to worry much about liquidity, it can be as good as anything else. |
|
|
|
Does everyone in the dash community just throw shit against the wall and hope it sticks? No there are a few rational and honest ones, but MasterMined710, specifically, is a dishonest and often incoherent scam protector and pumper. i would not trust one word mastermined710 says.
I was on the xcoin(dash) captive instamine launch. I was there in real time and watched it unfold.
He now tries to deny things that happened actually happened on that launch. He is not to be trusted.
Although, this is not a dash/xcoin/dark thread I will not go into it here. I will only say if you want examples of his lies then please contact me for details.
This person is either a total scammer or likes to try and destroy the truth with nuances that are laughable. His tactic is to say he is telling the truth so that the real truth that is a correct and proper picture is distorted and cast in doubt.
He is making this thread only to divert from the dash scam thread.
He is a scam protector and pumper.
|
|
|
|
It's a common practice of shitcoins that have their Cripplemined Fastmine and other scams brought to light to retaliate against any coin communities that don't observe the green wall of silence ("scam and let scam") using nonsense and overblown accusations. Monero isn't anywhere near the first to engage in such behavior and won't be the last. Oh look, somebody created a new thread mocking and pointing out the hypocrisy of this monero troll thread... Why the bitmonero/monero Ninjalaunched Cripplemined Fastmine matters https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1435385.0;topicseenAlmost funny, except that the chronology doesn't work, and fortunately, you lack a time machine. Retaliation, by definition, follows. |
|
|
|
EDIT: I added something to display the results at the end so it does't drop the entire loop and while using the right compiler options improves things a bit, it is still generating ucomisd which clearly indications some sort of range/error/NaN checking. I didn't go through the code carefully to figure out what it is doing but it suffices to say that sqrt() and 'asm SQRTPD' are not functionally equivalent.
If you write some code that doesn't pull in floating point (especially library functions) minutiae you will often see actual vectorization.
Yeah I can't really tell what it's doing either, but seeing 4x SI MD for 4 variables, well, that's a "winner" right there for "FAIL". If instructions aren't less than the data variables = you are doing it wrong. And that's not related to the various checks btw. It's just a straightforward translation of your source code with four separate sqrt() calls. It is using the SIMD instructions (in a SISD mode) because they are faster than the FPU instructions, as you pointed out. It is related too the error checks because the errors are specific to a particular sqrt() call. For example, if the code is interrupted at some point, then the values of the intermediate variable and the error state would have to be consistent even if that happens after, say 2 of the 4 sort() calls and before the other two. As I said, nobody expects the standard library stuff with error checking to be highly optimized. Use a math library, or use a language where math functions aren't defined to do things like set a global variable if they have weird inputs. |
|
|
|
Please read the linked post. That is "total coins mined" (by everyone in the entire world) during a two month time period, which is very different from your claim, in fact it contradicts it. EDIT: Let's quote the entire analysis, since it is relevant here: By the time I got into it, developer "NoodleDoodle" (hey, this is crypto, people can pick whatever names they want -- Satoshi Nakamoto?) had already untwisted the first "de-optimization" with the AES encryption key. By the 14th of May, we were 45% of the total hashing power on the coin. .. I think we exceeded 60% of the net hash of the coin at a few points In the end, our game continued into July -- almost two months We spent over a quarter of a million dollars renting cloud compute time I don't personally own any, nor do I hold any Bitcoin - I mine and sell for the most part, to minimize my risk exposure. Summary: 1. NoodleDoodle's commit was May 7, so the start of dga's mining was after May 7, or 19 days after launch. We know his hash rate reached 4045% by May 14, or 26 days after launch. i.e. during most of the first month he wasn't mining at all. 2. Clearly his hash rate was below 50% for much of the time and only rarely (and not even with certainty) above 60%. There is no evidence it ever reached anything close to 90%, and certainly it wasn't close to that for any consistent period. 3. "Almost" two months, not three months. 4. He kept none of it. This allows us to narrow down the maximum amount of coins mined by dga and his backers pretty closely: Months 2-3 total coins mined was 1.37 million. Their likely overall share of roughly 50% makes that 685k. It could have been a little higher but we know from the above quote that they mined for less than two months so this seems a reasonable estimate. Which comes to right around 6.85% of the current supply. If anyone thinks that a group of large miners and smart coders spending >$250K (plus a lot of coding work) to mine and sell 6.85% of the current supply during the second and third months of a coin launch is a disaster, then yes you should stay away from Monero. |
|
|
|
I added -fno-math-errno which removes some of the error handling logic performed by the sqrt() function that is not performed by the instruction and indeed the compiler is smart enough to remove the whole loop because you never used the result at all. Time elapsed: 0 msecs
Score: inf The reason you see four steps in the original asm output is that the error checking (if it were used) would require doing the operations sequentially so that the correct invocation of sqrt is the one generating the error. Of course, this doesn't really apply if you apply sufficiently global optimizations but then we are back to the above result and what I said earlier. EDIT: I added something to display the results at the end so it does't drop the entire loop and while using the right compiler options improves things a bit, it is still generating ucomisd which clearly indications some sort of range/error/NaN checking. I didn't go through the code carefully to figure out what it is doing but it suffices to say that sqrt() and 'asm SQRTPD' are not functionally equivalent. If you write some code that doesn't pull in floating point (especially library functions) minutiae you will often see actual vectorization. |
|
|
|
I have a logic test in the end (not displayed here) to always check the numbers for correctness.
I didn't say you changed the result but you changed the behavior of the relevant portion of the program for certain inputs. sqrt() has edge case behavior that you didn't replicate in replacing it with 'asm SQRTPD'. If you expect the compiler to optimize the entire thing globally based on specific inputs that you know won't hit the edge cases, well that's kind of arbitrary. It could optimize the whole thing and just return a number. High performance code usually uses well-tuned math libraries that avoid these pitfalls. The standard library math functions aren't really suitable for anything beyond casual use. |
|
|
|
Pretty sad that no one bothered to mine
Eyewitness accounts differ BTW I still have a wallet what contains a few dozens of moneros what I've mined in the first few days with a doggy dual core laptop. The emission curve was also subject of a long debate.
But then, the entire motive and premise of this thread has been debunked by another eyewitness: HOWEVER - i would not trust one word mastermined710 says.
I was on the xcoin(dash) captive instamine launch. I was there in real time and watched it unfold.
He now tries to deny things that happened actually happened on that launch. He is not to be trusted.
Although, this is not a dash/xcoin/dark thread I will not go into it here. I will only say if you want examples of his lies then please contact me for details.
This person is either a total scammer or likes to try and destroy the truth with nuances that are laughable. His tactic is to say he is telling the truth so that the real truth that is a correct and proper picture is distorted and cast in doubt.
He is making this thread only to divert from the dash scam thread.
He is a scam protector and pumper.
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at the asm output from the original my guess is that you subtly changed the behavior of the program, probably having to do with rounding, overflows or NaN, setting of errno, or some combination. You didn't include the entire disassembly so it is hard to see where the jumps are going.
|
|
|
|
Monero Ninja Launch:
There were multiple threads started in the wrong place so dev team could benefit before most even knew it had been launched. The Monero ANN thread is not the original ANN thread (true sign of a scam coin) some say the name (Bitmonero) was changed to (monero) cover up the launch issues and association with original acknowledge scam dev.
This part is surely bollocks. I'm not a big monero fan, but BS is BS. I've seen the launch from the very beginning and it was properly communicated, well known event. Everybody who wanted was able to take part. BTW I still have a wallet what contains a few dozens of moneros what I've mined in the first few days with a doggy dualcore laptop. The emission curve was also subject of a long debate. It's a common practice of shitcoins that have their instamines and other scams brought to light to retaliate against any coin communities that don't observe the green wall of silence ("scam and let scam") using nonsense and overblown accusations. Dash isn't anywhere near the first to engage in such behavior and won't be the last. |
|
|
|
Hi. Anyone interested in doing a sizable OTC sale of Aeon? I have 178+ in trust on here and can pay in BTC. Thanks!
I would escrow if anyone is interested. Work out the details between you. I'd be honestly interested in this too, I'm still pretty lazy and don't feel like setting up an account on bittrex... Is there still no consensus on whether poloniex will start allowing aeon for Bitcoin? There's been no follow up afaik on the recent alleged OTC offers (not just the one above). Consider the possibility people are either attempting to influence the market with fake offers or making impulsive posts and then deciding not to follow through. SEE EDIT As far as Poloniex, who knows. They certainly want the memory requirement for the wallet reduced, which is perfectly fair, but even when that happens there is reason to doubt they would activate it right away, as they seem to have their hands full with the high volume of business brought by ETH (and spilling over to other coins). Listing of new coins there seems to have greatly slowed. That said, AEON is still in their system, so they would just need reactivate it, something a bit less than a brand new listing. EDIT: For the record, it was I that purchased the 230k.
|
|
|
|
Well my comment was actually just in jest, poking fun at your seemingly biased list. I'm sure we could go around and around about what investors see as important and what could lead to long-term mainstream adoption, in an experiment that has never been done before. DASH and XMR (and pretty much all crypto) are travelling in uncharted waters.
It is a fair question how the list was constructed. A healthy portion of the items there come directly from coingecko.com. While I can't say that their methodology is perfect, I'm not aware of another site that comprehensively rates coins based on a variety of factors. So if one wants to compare market cap with other other metrics, that's really the only way to do so (outside of doing a lot of costly original research). This method has been both effective in identifying coins whose market cap ranking is out of line with other fundamentals and also apparently predictive (an informal observation; not tested rigorously) in the case of coins such as Ripple, Nxt, Bitshares, etc. This is not the primary basis for my comments about Dash's price and market cap being inflated, however. I offered it as support for the idea that this claim is not a radical one when viewed against the backdrop of other fundamental factors (just as it was not radical to claim that Bytecoin's market cap being higher than Monero's was also inflated). BTW, coingecko's methods are highly flawed in the case of coins, such as Litecoin, which were once extremely popular and active and are less so now. That's because many of the metrics are cumulative or effectively cumulative (all of the github metrics for example), therefore actions in the distant past have disproportionate influence relative to the current reality. However, this probably has little effect in the case of Dash and Monero. |
|
|
|
~1.5 million monero mined with optimized miners while dev team pushed a crippled miner on everyone else.
where you pull this out? Emission till end of May was about 1 milion coins. I started mining about 20th may and difficulty was really hard and all miners were out. At about that time, a bit before and latter, that guy David Andersen ( some professor on some USA university he is also on this forum and made post about it) optimized miner and rented lots of mining power to mine XMR and instantly dump it on Poloniex. so if even he mined huge part of those 1 million XMR i have no ideas where you got 1.5 million number. He's using the date range from the blog post from dga who worked for some whale miners to optimize the code and had a high network share until July or so (at a cost of $100K/month I think) and assuming all the coins mined up until that point are attributable to unfair cripple mining. However, he is conveniently ignoring the other info (including from that very same blog post) that allows you to objectively reduce by a large amount the total coins, and also supports that the developers of Monero had nothing to do with the original probably-deliberately crippled code. For example, in the blog post it is stated that he didn't even start working on optimizing until after the first (most probable) of the alleged crippling had already been removed by NoodleDoodle, so that takes off the first 2 1/2 weeks, etc. If you analyze it in the other direction and treat dga's group as being "known mining" and work backwards to how much of the unknown mining could have been captured by unknown parties using unfair means (possibly devs, possibly others), again you get a much smaller number. PS: It is to hard to find his article where he posted all how it happened. i remember par of time he was on vacations with family. but i found this ethical dilemma he got into on 20th April: http://prntscr.com/arqyjzThat one has nothing to do with Monero since mentions memory use and he never optimized Monero's memory use. He also worked on a bunch of other coins (definitely PTS, not sure which others) so he must have been talking about one of those. |
|
|
|
one entity who mined enough to break anonymity using the research from MRL1.
Which won't work after the version 2 fork. |
|
|
|
I'll leave how I derived these numbers as an exercise to the reader for now with the hint that it is almost entirely objective.
smoothie replied before you wrote your post: So then basically everything you've said is just words.
No facts/proof to back up your bold claims.
No worries. On to the next thread...
Hypocrisy is not meritocracy. It is even worse in that it is self-defeating. You may not like how I presented it as a bit of a puzzle, but it isn't an extraordinary claim. What does Dash have that would support a higher price/cap: 1. Does it have more development as evidenced by github metrics (commits, etc.)? 2. Does it have more more discussion on neutral forums such as reddit/twitter/etc. 3. Does it have evidence of more transaction usage outside of investors? 4. Does it have more trading volume? 5. Does it have more available liquidity on order books? 6. Is it primarily traded on a different/better exchange making it accessible to more/different investors? 7. Does it have better search rankings (have to be a bit careful here to not find detergent ads, etc.) 8. Does it have more coverage by journalists, including bloggers, podcasts, etc.? (Especially unpaid coverage.) 9. Does have more/better recognition for soundness by influential technical experts? 10. Is there evidence of new users joining the community at a higher rate? The answer to all of these is no. The two are either comparable or Monero is stronger. Now if you ask why the price/cap is what it is, the obvious answer has to do with supply dynamics. Let's not forget that until recently Bytecoin was also ranked higher than Monero for a year or more, at times quite a bit higher, while at the same time failing on most or all of the above metrics along with others. Those of us looking at the fundamentals said the very same thing -- that it was where it was because of supply dynamics, not fundamentals. Sure enough Bytecoin is now at about 1/2 of Monero's market cap, and was recently much lower than that. Obsession with market cap (and cap ranking, price) as a particularly meaningful indicator of anything is a blind spot of many crypto investors. Don't be blind. Oh that looks fun. Let me give it a go. Do I have to limit mine to 10 as well? 11. Does it have more features? 12. Does it have a GUI wallet? 13. Does it have working mobile wallets? (ios and android) 14. Does it have more full nodes? 15. Does it have a built in funding/budgeting system? 16. Does it have (near) instant transactions? 17. Does it have a governance model? 18. Is it accepted by more vendors? 19. Does it have ATM integration? 20. Is its codebase compatible with existing bitcoin based systems? With respect, I don't consider most of those relevant factors to market value. I'm pretty sure you can find smaller to much smaller market value Bitcoin forks with most or all of those too. As far as #12 and #13 we do have at least one working GUI (lightwallet) and one working Android wallet. Along those lines does Dash have a blockchain.info-style web wallet like MyMonero? I'm not sure. Maybe #16 yes. Things like #19 are theoretically interesting, but how many ATMs are there and how much are they used? If there is a trajectory to high market penetration, then I would agree, but I haven't see evidence of it. Same with #18. The number might be a bit higher, but it is still extremely small and there is little evidence of people using the coin for shopping on any significant scale. The thing is, all the coins are speculative bets on future adoption (or just speculative assets to trade for fun and profit). The metrics I listed are better measures of trajectory toward future adoption than the ones you listed, which are more about current implementation. Exception #18 noted. |
|
|
|
Also, none of this would really matter to botnets would it? Well I mean I would assume that it would only from an economic perspective. The more efficient GPU miners are the fewer CPU botnets you'll see (take away incentive and they go away ... probably not many botnets mining bitcoin anymore). If GPU's were 100X more efficient than CPU's then hashrate would meet price like it always does and you'd be losing computers on your botnet from people detecting them so economically it just wouldn't make sense. Okay but they're not 100x more efficient. I can mine on my CPU profitably right now while paying for electricity. That wouldn't be the case with a GPU-only coin as you described. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
