@smooth: i get the following broken pipe error every now and then after starting the miner from the wallet, is it safe to ignore? 2016-Feb-29 21:46:23.896791 [P2P6][46.228.*.*:58410 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 666938 -> 599580 [67358 blocks (-187 days) ahead]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Feb-29 21:46:45.740110 [P2P2][sock 16] Some problems at write: Broken pipe:32
2016-Feb-29 21:46:46.182845 [P2P7][sock 36] Some problems at write: Broken pipe:32
2016-Feb-29 21:47:46.890596 [P2P8][sock 32] Some problems at write: Broken pipe:32
2016-Feb-29 21:47:58.344716 [P2P3][46.228.*.*:58835 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 666938 -> 599580 [67358 blocks (-187 days) ahead]
SYNCHRONIZATION started This is on MacOS X 10.11.3, the daemon syncs fine and seems to do its thing. It's when I start_mining that the broken pipe burps. Had the same problem. I suppose the 46.228.*.* is invalid (malicious, maybe) node, so I blocked it already. Probably not malicious (what would be the point of one malicious node everyone ignores?) but probably broken or stuck, due to running out of disk space or something like that. |
|
|
|
I have two and a half hours left before the University library closes for the night. I am using the Uni wifi because that's the fastest connection available to me.
If bitmonerod is still syncing when the library closes, how do I shut it down without losing what I've downloaded so far?
Cross post: Just type exit in the bitmonerod window and it will close the database cleanly so you don't lose anything. You can restart from there and it will continue where it left off.
|
|
|
|
Sorry to interrupt the debate, but I need a quick answer on something.
I am syncing bitmonerod for the first time, using the University library wifi.
The library closes in a couple of hours. I need to know how to shut down bitmonerod without losing what I've downloaded.
I am a noob, and need specific instructions. Like exactly which keys to hit.
I am operating in a terminal window under Ubuntu.
Just type exit in the bitmonerod window and it will close the database cleanly so you don't lose anything. You can restart from there and it will continue where it left off. |
|
|
|
any input or thoughts from the XMR camp? Does this mean Eclipse is cryptograhically anonymous?
They seem to have at least tried to fix the one identified flaw in SDC. Whether SDC has other flaws they didn't fix or whether their fix is even correct is not something anyone can answer without spending a lot of time reviewing it all, which probably won't ever happen. Valid points, I am hoping they will be able to get their 'fix' properly reviewed. Assuming the fix is indeed correct, would that mean that it is then truly anonymous? In other words: if recently exposed flaw in SDC anonymity was fixed, does it make SDC as/more anonymous as XMR? or is SDC still inferior to XMR for anonymity? What about the other 99.999% of SDC, developed by the same people who made a basic math/crypto error, and which no one has ever reviewed? Shen found that one flaw effectively by accident, while working on something else. If SDC were comprehensively reviewed, then one could make claims about it. At this point, I would not. Thank you for your replies, this must mean that the premise behind SDC anonymity must be somewhat sound/reasonable (?) although yet to be reviewed. If the premise behind SDC anonymity was completely ridiculous or unreasonable there would have been mention of it from somewhere at the least. I am curious as to what the differences between SDCs proposed anonymity and XMRs anonymity is... I will look into it unless you can point me in the right direction. That would save me much time and be greatly appreciated  Smooth can confirm or deny, but I don't think any optimism was intended in his comment above. It doesn't matter how reasonable SDC's "premise" is if the developers are making such fundamental mistakes in the math. The entire SDC chain has been de-anonymized. I understand that he was not being optimistic but the points he raised had me thinking about whether SDCs anonymity is flawed as a whole or if certain parts of its anonymity is flawed. If the former is true then there is potential, if the later is true then that is that. Does the same apply for XMR? Is it anonymous because it has not yet been proven otherwise/reviewed or is it anonymous because it is truly anonymous? Could a potential flaw that is discovered down the road lead to XMR being deanonymized as well? Thank you for your replies, I have recently become more fascinated and interested in the anonymity aspect of cryptocurrency. No one can 100% guarantee anything, but Monero's fundamentals have been reviewed by competent people who have said that the original developers were also competent. The core cryptographic code has also been carefully reviewed, with its origins determined in most cases, and its correctness checked multiple times. Higher level aspects of the anonymity implementation have also been reviewed, various potential weaknesses identified in MRL-0001 and MRL-0004, and improvements implemented. We continue to work hard toward further improvements such as RingCT, which is written up in a detailed paper and is being peer reviewed. SDC has done none of this. Sorry to be frank in a way that may be perceived as hostile but if I'm honest I can only say that it was and is an amateur effort in my opinion, and someone who forks from it while fixing one flaw is being no less amateurish and irresponsible. You will have to make your own judgement about the quality of Monero's effort. it is reassuring to hear that XMR has been thoroughly reviewed. Did not know that SDC was never seriously reviewed by anyone. I realize that eclipse is most likely just another coin that will be forgotten within a few months, I was more curious about the validity of SDCs anonymity However if eclipse does indeed fix SDCs flaw, then in reality it is better than SDC (as long as the flaw is present) even if it is newer. Your replies have made me realize that any developer that is seriously concerned with anonymity would most likely create a XMR clone instead of any btc/shitcoin clone (is this fair to say?). The only other serious contender in anonymity seems to be zerocash, which I hear will be launched soon. Your statements are reasonable IMO. There is value in a BTC fork because of the maturity and codebase and the ability to merge ongoing BTC development, assuming the developers of a fork actually do that (many don't). But the anonymity portion that is to be built on top of a BTC clone needs to be competently designed, carefully implemented, extensively reviewed, and it needs strong ongoing development unless the initial design and implementation is to be considered a "perfect solution" (which doesn't exist). SDC has not done that. Zcash is a credible effort with meaningful financial backing and assistance from respected and qualified people (and being built as a BTC fork BTW). Obviously it has its own tradeoffs and the market will decide whether those tradeoffs make sense and if so for which uses cases. I'd certainly put it miles ahead of SDC though. |
|
|
|
any input or thoughts from the XMR camp? Does this mean Eclipse is cryptograhically anonymous?
They seem to have at least tried to fix the one identified flaw in SDC. Whether SDC has other flaws they didn't fix or whether their fix is even correct is not something anyone can answer without spending a lot of time reviewing it all, which probably won't ever happen. Valid points, I am hoping they will be able to get their 'fix' properly reviewed. Assuming the fix is indeed correct, would that mean that it is then truly anonymous? In other words: if recently exposed flaw in SDC anonymity was fixed, does it make SDC as/more anonymous as XMR? or is SDC still inferior to XMR for anonymity? What about the other 99.999% of SDC, developed by the same people who made a basic math/crypto error, and which no one has ever reviewed? Shen found that one flaw effectively by accident, while working on something else. If SDC were comprehensively reviewed, then one could make claims about it. At this point, I would not. Thank you for your replies, this must mean that the premise behind SDC anonymity must be somewhat sound/reasonable (?) although yet to be reviewed. If the premise behind SDC anonymity was completely ridiculous or unreasonable there would have been mention of it from somewhere at the least. I am curious as to what the differences between SDCs proposed anonymity and XMRs anonymity is... I will look into it unless you can point me in the right direction. That would save me much time and be greatly appreciated Smooth can confirm or deny, but I don't think any optimism was intended in his comment above. It doesn't matter how reasonable SDC's "premise" is if the developers are making such fundamental mistakes in the math. The entire SDC chain has been de-anonymized. I understand that he was not being optimistic but the points he raised had me thinking about whether SDCs anonymity is flawed as a whole or if certain parts of its anonymity is flawed. If the former is true then there is potential, if the later is true then that is that. Does the same apply for XMR? Is it anonymous because it has not yet been proven otherwise/reviewed or is it anonymous because it is truly anonymous? Could a potential flaw that is discovered down the road lead to XMR being deanonymized as well? Thank you for your replies, I have recently become more fascinated and interested in the anonymity aspect of cryptocurrency. No one can 100% guarantee anything, but Monero's fundamentals have been reviewed by competent people who have said that the original developers were also competent. The core cryptographic code has also been carefully reviewed, with its origins determined in most cases, and its correctness checked multiple times. Higher level aspects of the anonymity implementation have also been reviewed, various potential weaknesses identified in MRL-0001 and MRL-0004, and improvements implemented. We continue to work hard toward further improvements such as RingCT, which is written up in a detailed paper and is being peer reviewed. SDC has done none of this. Sorry to be frank in a way that may be perceived as hostile but if I'm honest I can only say that it was and is an amateur effort in my opinion, and someone who forks from it while fixing one flaw is being no less amateurish and irresponsible. You will have to make your own judgement about the quality of Monero's effort. |
|
|
|
any input or thoughts from the XMR camp? Does this mean Eclipse is cryptograhically anonymous?
They seem to have at least tried to fix the one identified flaw in SDC. Whether SDC has other flaws they didn't fix or whether their fix is even correct is not something anyone can answer without spending a lot of time reviewing it all, which probably won't ever happen. Valid points, I am hoping they will be able to get their 'fix' properly reviewed. Assuming the fix is indeed correct, would that mean that it is then truly anonymous? In other words: if recently exposed flaw in SDC anonymity was fixed, does it make SDC as/more anonymous as XMR? or is SDC still inferior to XMR for anonymity? What about the other 99.999% of SDC, developed by the same people who made a basic math/crypto error, and which no one has ever reviewed? Shen found that one flaw effectively by accident, while working on something else. If SDC were comprehensively reviewed, then one could make claims about it. At this point, I would not. |
|
|
|
any input or thoughts from the XMR camp? Does this mean Eclipse is cryptograhically anonymous?
They seem to have at least tried to fix the one identified flaw in SDC. Whether SDC has other flaws they didn't fix or whether their fix is even correct is not something anyone can answer without spending a lot of time reviewing it all, which probably won't ever happen. |
|
|
|
Also, you should have rec'd my pmt. which you requested.
PM of BTC Tx ID sent - Hodl address sent in separate PM
See your PM |
|
|
|
Why is the XMR blockchain so bloated? It's about 2-3 GB, which I don't consider bloated. The main reason it is even that large was a bug in the early pool software, long since fixed (blocks temporarily got very large around block 100K). Because due to the insanity of default anonymity There has been no default anonymity and won't be for another month or so, so obviously this has nothing to do with it. For better or worse about 80% of the transactions have been done without mixing (rough figure, the exact number has changed over time). the only way to prevent double-spending is to keep track of every freaking spent key image, thus creating basically a second blockchain within the blockchain.
The spent key images are tiny, so no, that isn't a large part it at all. |
|
|
|
(the instant "mixing" on the monero network)
instant??? a monero guy did a test a while back and he said it took him around 10 minutes to mix just a few dollars worth of monero. how long to mix a few hundred worth of monero? how about a few thousand? How many coins you are sending (with or without ring signature "mixing") makes no difference to how long the transaction takes. |
|
|
|
how big is the xmr blockchain in GB??
The raw blockchain (bootstrap file) is 2-3 GB. Once you get a database loaded up it takes around 8 GB on your disk. |
|
|
|
Theoretical exercise: If I have free electricity, how can I most effectively spend $1,000 to purchase Monero mining equipment? A single, supercharged, AMD-based gaming computer? Two mid-range boxes? Five low end bare bones machines?
One or two cheap motherboard+cpu+RAM with a bunch (probably 4-5) of GPUs in each. GingerAle knows more about which GPUs to use. |
|
|
|
Or do these things suck up a shit ton of power or something?
No, RPi-like devices are generally very efficient and run off cell phone chargers or slightly larger power supplies. They don't use a lot of power. Whether the pine64 is a good mining device will be something people will need to figure out by testing them. |
|
|
|
couldn't you turn this pine64 into an ASIC
Of course not. ASIC stands for Application Specific Integrated Circuit. The pine64 is a general purpose device. If it turns out to mine well, go ahead and mine on it, but that's no different from any other CPU or GPU that happens to be good for mining. EDIT: Heh, I see I'm the third person to post the same reply. I guess we think alike. LOL. |
|
|
|
Revised Buy Order - Price increase
Buy order 2000 Hodl @ .00014500 = .29 BTC
incognitoworker has some coins for sale at 0.00014 I will take them - Do I send you BTC - Address? You have to work it out between you. I will escrow it if both agree. I'm not sure that incognitoworker order is still live. Unless I hear confirmation I will remove it soon. I do have 2000 pre-funded coins on escrow at 16k (and more at higher prices). My order is sold. Putting up a new order, WTS 1000 @ 15500 SAT/HODL IW Updated |
|
|
|
Revised Buy Order - Price increase
Buy order 2000 Hodl @ .00014500 = .29 BTC
incognitoworker has some coins for sale at 0.00014 I will take them - Do I send you BTC - Address? You have to work it out between you. I will escrow it if both agree. I'm not sure that incognitoworker order is still live. Unless I hear confirmation I will remove it soon. I do have 2000 pre-funded coins on escrow at 16k (and more at higher prices). |
|
|
|
This project has been really fun to watch evolve. When I have time, one day I will definitely open an account and try and own some land in Crypto Kingdom If you want land, the time to buy it is just NOW! Everyone is tired and overextended and you can buy a chaperly (15,000 sqm) for 1,000 XMR, and smaller lots as well, really affordable prices. We made the decision to limit the size of CryptoTown to 225 chapelries (of which only part is buildable land), so in some time, all will be taken. The town consol rates indicate that the trust that the game will continue, is high: 32.5% per realyear. So in the case you think the game will stay, you have plenty of good investments: land, CKG, CON, collectibles, NPC, and soon: Buildings! Just contact saddambitcoin to have a FOC set up for you! The ideal investment for a non-player is S-HODL. Full reinvestment of dividends with no ongoing management required. As simple as 1-2-3: 1. Buy 2. HODL 3. Profit? This all sounds pretty interesting. How does S-HODL work? It invests in the "Town" assets (CON and CKG) which are something akin to debt and equity in the game itself. Both pay dividends (generally every week or two), which the HODL fund reinvests. As a passive FOC investor holding S-HODL, you stand to profit from the success the game (hopefully!) without needing to even log into your account. Since the liquidity is currently limited (due to the small size of the game and player base) the best way to buy S-HODL at a fair market price is to PM me or jump into ##crypto-kingdom on freenode and find me there. I list new shares of S-HODL at market from time and upon request. |
|
|
|
You're paying Larimer per transaction for that?
No, you are paying the network fee pool (which funds development), and the miners, and the guy (who, you guessed it, prefers to remain anonymous) who paid $45k to develop this feature when you pay for your anonymous transaction. What a deal. |
|
|
|
So I would sincerely hope that the Monero and BitShares communities would not gloat about being the peer reviewed best non-vaporware privacy solution, because, I hate to break this to you, but this is serious, because people are indeed putting their lives on the line, so please don't give people false confidence in mixers because you could get people ended.
In bitshares the sender is revealed to the recipient. So if your private keys get seized, they can see everyone who sent you money. It is revealed in public on the blockchain. There is no mixing in Bitshares, only stealth addresses, which is equivalent to Bitcoin without address reuse. CT is being added so amounts will be hidden but nothing at all is done to obfuscate transaction metadata. Pay no attention to the off topic pumper. In addition to being rude, he's also ignorant. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
