Nice research @BDRatings

Which Dr. Noether?

Anyway, the situation with BP is a bit different: BP are writing relatively little data, but imposing a (relatively) high cost on all nodes to verify the transactions. It is a bit like smart contracts and gas, but of course a narrower specific case.

Writing a lot of data to the chain (for example because you want to store your family photos for all time and are willing to pay a one-time fee for the privilege) is another side of the issue, and one that very few blockchains deal with all that well.

On the price speculation side, interesting moves today with cryptos in line with safe haven assets after the Italian melt down and associated Euro risk repricing. For the most part of the past couple of years cryptos have been behaving as a risk asset, not a safe haven.

New release 0.12.0.0 (Sophia)

This is a mandatory software upgrade due to the rebase of the Aeon codebase to the latest master branch of Monero. More info in the release notes at the link below.

*** The mainnet fork date is scheduled on June 3rd, 2018 (height 963500) ***

CLI: https://github.com/aeonix/aeon/releases/tag/v0.12.0.0
GUI: https://github.com/aeonix/aeon-gui/releases/tag/v0.12.0.0-aeon

Note: Since the aeon repo has been completely replaced (the old one is no archived as aeon-legacy), if you are using git, you should do a new clone, not pull.

Note 2: A preliminary testing build was accidentally uploaded instead of the Windows GUI release binary, which made the hashes mismatch. This has now been corrected, and the hashes match. The file was not corrupted or compromised, it just wasn't the final release build.

Did someone say it would? The price action in the market after the announcement suggests little if any connection.


Perception is one thing, and can't be fully addressed by facts, but Monero has literally among the lowest memory usage of any coin. You can run a node in 50 MB or something, maybe even less.

EDA (or any algorithm based on the consensus difficulty model) still requires at least finding some blocks. That only really makes sense if you don't expect a BIG drop, or if you have a significant mining infrastructure that isn't motivated by mining profits. Otherwise, if the difficulty is too high, most/all miners will leave and you will never get blocks (or not for an unacceptably long time).

In this case the reset is based on the recognition that carrying over difficulty from a different algorithm doesn't make sense at all. For example, imagine switching from SHA256 to cryptonight. The difficulty would have to drop by orders of magnitude to even find any blocks.

This case isn't quite as extreme, but switching from an ASIC algorithm to a non-ASIC variant is still quite extreme. In any case it is conceptually the same that 'difficulty' only makes sense relative to a particular algorithm and carrying over does not make sense. We will simply reset the difficulty to a reasonable value slightly below where it seems like it should be based on profitability, but not so low as to allow mining a large number of blocks at low difficulty. My current thinking is around 1 billion. If that is wrong, it will still adjust pretty fast.

Actually I don't. The only thing we are arguably copying is RingCT, which aren't even being included in this version due to their enormous size/cost!

Other than that we are just taking the Monero code on which AEON was originally based (4 years old) and replacing it with up to date Monero code. I don't understand how that is a negative. Do you update your OS?

We can absolutely continue to innovate if that's what the AEON community wants (and there are developers who want to do the work, potentially paid). Being smaller than Monero has definite advantages in that regard. We don't have to coordinate with 20 or more exchanges on every important update and hard fork. A smaller community has naturally less political barriers to change (though with growth that will come here too). We have a relatively larger dev fund. None of this is anything new.

@bbc I'm not sure what you are going on about being a "Monero copy cat" after the fork?

As far as I can tell there is no real change in the relative positioning vs. Monero pre- and post-fork. AEON started out as a Monero fork/clone and had some unique changes made to it, which will remain after the fork. The only thing that is really changing is replacing the 2-year old Monero code that was the base of the original fork with a currently-updated baseline.

Actually at this point it is more diverged from Monero than it has ever been since Monero has gone full RingCT (without BP) with huge 12 KB transactions and AEON has not (which means there is a clear tradeoff in terms of smaller/cheaper transactions with moderate privacy vs. a deeper level of privacy at much higher cost). We will probably adopt bulletproofs in some manner so that divergence will resolve to partial convergence but there will still be differences. As an ongoing trajectory I don't see the post-fork copy cat argument making sense.

There was a stated plan to make minor tweaks every six months but that is not any sort of 'commitment' to stick with the same plan for any particular period of time (and indeed few if anyone considers it a good plan to follow forever). If it turns out that it looks like there is something better to be done than the plan can (and probably will) be changed.

> The Monero devs have committed to keeping the same general structure for the PoW algorithm

Not sure where he got that idea but it isn't true at all.

Why not?

None yet. AEON will use it after the fork.

BTW,


Hopefully we will be ready to tag for the fork next week.

There's nothing tacit. See the OP.


There is some subjectivity here, but "only legit other cryptonote coin" and given the tenuous at best relevance of a #600 coin, came off as promotion to me. Perhaps it wasn't intended as such, and indeed I didn't outright delete your post, just introduced a little speed bump on it.

That's not really the issue. If people start going on about Aeon too much I squelch that too.

This is a Monero thread and very small coins just aren't relevant to Monero unless it is for some very specific reason (and sharing some of the same code isn't one). Maybe you weren't doing it deliberately but people form all coins are always trying to gain exposure for their favorite coin by injecting into other conversations, particularly conversations involving bigger coins with a larger audience and more investors. To keep this from turning into a shill-fest, its all considered off topic.

You're bordering on blatant promotion here. Come on.

MSR is ranked roughly #600 on coinmarketcap. It could have a great future and if so might become worthwhile to discuss as a direct competitive threat to Monero some day. but until then I have a hard time believing there aren't a good share of 600 others that are more relevant to this thread.

@Elder III

It is a plagiarism bot repost from this much older reply: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=641696.msg8358605#msg8358605

Likely done to rank up Newbie accounts for sig campaign earnings.


Also, update from stuffu about the upstream Monero bug that has been affecting the AEON rebase code:

I recognize the distinct pungent odor of a parasitic opportunist marketer and coin pumper. 1Blockologist, is that you? Or maybe one of the other persistent BBR pumpers and Monero haters from over the years? One of the ones who predicted the rise of BBR overthrowing Monero back in 2014? Always fun to reminisce. Thanks!

Welcome to the AEON thread. Enjoy your stay!

FYI, the current Monero team had nothing to do with devising the original algorithm.

I feel it kind of did okay in holding off not only ASICs but even domination of CPUs by GPUs for four years, which is more than can be said for most if not all other algorithms which have tried that. But in the end the designers made some incorrect assumptions and it proved to be broken.

This isn't really just a question of technology moving on, as CPUs (and GPUs) have also improved significantly so ASICs had and have a moving target. But still the algorithm just did not do what it was supposed to do.


Large memory requirements will not in and of themselves make it ASIC resistant. If just the amount of memory is the the main issue, then ASIC builders can just attach a lot of cheap external memory as they are doing with Ethereum ASICs. (Not intended as a review of MTP generally, just the comment about memory usage.)


I'm pretty sure FP has explained his reasoning being that ASICs need to get to the point where they are commoditized before they can be relied upon for a decentralized mining network. Size of the network and industry could be part of that. And yes he has said that he expects the best solution to be ASICs eventually, but not yet.

I used to prefer EMA and I had explored WHM years ago (though never implemented in an actual coin), but after further study of attack vectors I've returned to supporting some form of SMA, which is reasonably close to what Monero already has (and a close cousin of what Bitcoin uses, though tuned to adjust faster).

The exotic difficult adjustment algorithms do not add value IMO. Precise clockwork-like block times are not needed (and indeed with random block times we never have that anyway), and the recent anti-ASIC hard fork which knocked about 85% of the hash rate off the network demonstrated this pretty well. We had some slow blocks for a couple of days but so what? It was pretty much like Monero with Bitcoin-style block times (but with the variable block size to avoid large backlogs), and that worked just fine. In no way did this significantly harm the network or coin.

Forum sliding much?

That chart is a fraud (as well as the wikipedia page, which is heavily infested with internet trolls who delete any accurate information about the history), all part of the campaign to legitimize Bytecoin and hide the history of the faked blockchain and 80% hidden premine.

Anything prior to late 2013 or early 2014 (which includes the original claimed Bytecoin launch date as well as the paladincoin and buddhacoin forks, is phony.

If there is anyone other than paid trolls reading and posting on this thread (which most certainly does not include most of the last couple of pages), be aware that this is one of the most notorious and persistent scams in the history of cryptocurrencies. You may read more here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.0