Does anyone know a site that features more advanced charts for Monero?
It's easy enough to find block explorers and exchanges with the set of charts generally available for all currencies (hashrate and exchange rate etc)
What I am looking for is for example # of transactions per block, avg fee per tx/block, avg size per tx, etc
Related to this: does anyone know the current size of the "global output list"? Isn't that a major scalability concern? (as it's monotonically increasing) Well, its encoded pretty poorly currently but aside from that it fundamentally shouldn't be very large compared to the outputs themselves, so not by itself a scalability concern (other than the implementation needing work someday). Isn't it a 64-bit # that's just monotonically increasing? I think that was his point(?), not sure. If it is, here's some fun math: 2^64 = ~18.45 quintillion / 1,000,000 tx / sec (pie in the sky) / 1,000 outputs / tx (pie in the sky) / 86,400 sec / day / 365 days / year = ~585 years before we run out of space |
|
|
|
Some question for the devs: What hash functions does Monero use for computing tx ids and key images?
The txids use keccak. The key images computed by hashing the tx public key using keccak to get a curve point *, then multiplying by the private key. * Using some crypto that is beyond my comprehension. See ge_fromfe_frombytes_vartime in crypto-ops.c Thanks! You are referring to plain Keccak and not CryptoNight, right? Yes cn_fast_hash which calls keccak1600. CryptoNight is cn_slow_hash Thanks. BTW, hash length seems to be 256 bits for both. The wizards at Wikipedia have removed it now, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SHA-3&oldid=676252215#Examples_of_SHA-3_and_Keccak_variantscn_fast_hash produces the same output as Keccak-256. CN uses this everywhere it needs a hash function AFAIK (besides POW). |
|
|
|
 Congratulations to everyone who has made this the #1 thread, now by Views in addition to Replies! Congrats to you on this very successful thread, with (IMO) mostly high SNR and few moderator actions required. |
|
|
|
thank you for giving more details dEBRUYNE. yes i also think mostly everyone will upgrade, and those who can not will be given some time to adapt. i run 0.9 for a long time now allready. but isn't the amount of transactions with mixing 0 important? maybe i missunderstood something there  if there are a lot of transactions with mixing 0, this is bad for all of us no? or ist it such a problem becasue of the stealth adresses? Stealth addresses are 100% not affected at all and certainly give a measure of privacy even if mixing is totally broken. Of course the privacy is far less than if mixing worked perfectly (otherwise why even bother with mixing!), but it does't fall to zero. I tend to have more of a glass-half-full view on this which is to say that if you look at the recent stats (on moneroblocks.eu), the share of mix 0 transactions last year was 80%. Last month it was 67%. The number will surely continue to decline when 0.9 is released and people make the transition to having an enforced minimum in six months. Pssh, silly optimist. |
|
|
|
This is nothing at all like the emissions debate.
As far as technical reasons, will increasing the blocktime and thereby decreasing the # of blocks reduce the size of the blockchain to any meaningful degree?
It might. The prevalence of zero transaction blocks is mainly filling the blockchain now. In the future, who knows. So, if we might see a decrease in size of blockchain if transaction levels continue as they are, but hopefully we see more transactions, not less. So I don't think this rationale has weight. I'm with ArcticMine re: tabling this issue until later. However, I do see the rationale in decreasing orphan rate, even though I am not entirely aware of the negative consequences of orphan blocks - I just get the gist that they are not ideal. Thus, I would be fine with a 2 minute blocktime. I did some digging into the original TFT bitmonero thread, and indeed this is an old issue. Back then, the compromise / rationalization was 1 min blocktimes during the solo mining phase, and then 2 minute blocktimes later. I believe "tabling for later" will just result in status quo forever. It won't get easier to change. We say we are young, nimble, able to make the changes we want without all the politics of BTC. Are we? This change, being trivial technically, is all about discussion, and talk is cheap anyway. I don't see how discussing it in this thread (by mostly non-developers - at least of Monero) will have any measurable impact WRT slowing down the achievement of the design goals. Orphans are wasted hashrate; they make the network less secure than it would be without them. They can also cause "false" confirms that are reorged out later. Bigger blocks (more transactions) would make the problem worse. Also, combining a slow-to-verify POW with a 60 second blocktime results in a nice little advantage for large pools (even without any malice on their part). Is blockchain size even still relevant when moved to DB ?
Absolutely. |
|
|
|
This is nothing at all like the emissions debate.
As far as technical reasons, will increasing the blocktime and thereby decreasing the # of blocks reduce the size of the blockchain to any meaningful degree?
Right now with almost no transactions, yes it would. As (if) transactions pick up it would tend toward negligible. |
|
|
|
Who has an opinion on increasing the blocktime to 2 (or even 4) minutes as part of the next hard fork?
Would be ok for 2, not 4. I am also in favor of 2 for a variety of reasons. |
|
|
|
|
Who has an opinion on increasing the blocktime to 2 (or even 4) minutes as part of the next hard fork?
|
|
|
|
Crosspost worthy from the official forum: If anything is funky/not working as expected with those pages, please let me know. You can also save the webpage and use it offline (or at least locally in case the online version got compromised).
Also, if someone skilled with CSS wants to pretty the pages up, please contact me!  Edit: I speculate nothing. Edit2: Except I did buy some Monero yesterday (TC style! (or do I have to post amounts for that?)). |
|
|
|
Taxation is the means by which gaping social injustices are slightly levelled out. Without taxes, there'd be no schools, no health care, no police, no roads - no public services. It'd truly be every man for himself. The jungle at our front door. The war of everyone against everyone else. Is that what Armstrong is proposing? Aren't we stronger as a species when we collaborate with one another instead of ripping one another off all the time?
Well this one at least is wrong wrong wrong. Plenty of schools exist that don't receive tax revenue. The others are likely wrong as well, but not so blatantly obvious as the first. |
|
|
|
I don't like misinformation. This graphic is misinformation.... It was used to emphasize a point that imported RAW milk cheeses are illegal in the USA (less than 60 days aged) whereas guns are not. Of course the Europeans will frame the outrageous USA ban on RAW foods (that have all the healthy enzymes we need for proper health) as one of guns being bad because Europeans are so far into Communism they can't even seem to understand their multi-culturalism is their own Freudian desire to steal from someone while pretending it is love (formerly known as imperialism). Europe will crash and burn severely. Mark my word. Isn't that graphic kinda meant to portray that it's *ridiculous* these "automatic" guns aren't banned? Maybe I'm misinterpreting it. In any case, I have no affection for this "ban everything for safety" approach. |
|
|
|
I don't like misinformation. This graphic is misinformation. Automatic weapons are legal (still a lot of paperwork), yes, if they were manufactured before 1986. Example: 1st column, 4th row. That's an FN P90; those didn't begin production until 1990. Therefore, its automatic variant is not legal for a civilian to own. Now, why are "antique" machine guns legal, but newer ones aren't? No idea, but it makes them bloody expensive.  Edit: and wholly illegal in my (stupid) state. Sad, because I want one many. |
|
|
|
Also I locked myself out of my server couple times, now I know everythingsome things you shouldn't do.
The list is really long. |
|
|
|
LOL, the spam...but it really has Phreak in it. Nice. |
|
|
|
MoneroDice bankroll currently at ~296k. I bet we'll be over 1 million by the end of the year :-P
Is that the XMR balance of all users of MoneroDice combined? That would be impressive! And are you refering to the balance in the 'Maximum win' box (29964.936004348564)? I would read this balance currently as 29thousand 9hundred sixtyfour and a few cents (after the dot). Yes, it's the aggregate of all people that invested (thus playing bankroll). The maximum win is 10% of the total bankroll, so simply multiply that with 10 and you get the total bankroll. In addition, maximum win is denominated in XMR. "Is that the XMR balance of all users of MoneroDice combined?" No, it's just the investors' funds. No one except the owners knows how much is on hand total. |
|
|
|
Okay, I put 24 k manipulation and fake wall on 0.0232. I hope to see some panic and fear now. It's so pretty! Indeed! Although a bid wall would've been much prettier. He cant put up a bid wall he has no more BTC, he is all in. Maybe he filled the wall. Edit: Oh it was the CEO, nevermind. Well, maybe. |
|
|
|
Okay, I put 24 k manipulation and fake wall on 0.0232. I hope to see some panic and fear now. It's so pretty! |
|
|
|
Okay looks like I need to start buying also.
I have plenty of money left now for Monero so there will be a competition. Today I purchased only a small amount but now I am thinking restarting the real accumulation so please put some coins for sale.
Perhaps I should put a manipulation wall also, what do you guys think?
100 BTC would be a show of good faith (don't need to leave it up long). Edit: leave maybe 50 BTC up after. |
|
|
|
Well, the two-birds-one-stone approach to this problem is the subject of my (hopefully forgivable) crusade - to prevent pool mining. If you stop pool mining, you remove the "mining without a node" option. So, miners *have* to run nodes. Thus, if you bring back true solo mining, you bring back incentivizing running a node. Indeed, this was the original model for supporting the network. Pool mining, IMO, is a tragedy of the unregulated commons.
Indeed, I agree. I don't really understand why no coin tried this before. It wouldn't be that hard to implement I think. You just need to sign your mined block with your private key of the address to where you received the minted coins Certainly easy in BTC. But also possible with XMR I think. Uh... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.0You can still make pools: Ask people to deposit an amount greater than the block reward. Keep that amount the day they cheat. Give a different work to each miner, with a specific coinbase address. If one cheat you know which one it is, keep their deposit and close their account. Im sure it was discussed before. At length...I wasn't addressing that at all, just responding to "I don't really understand why no coin tried this before." |
|
|
|
Well, the two-birds-one-stone approach to this problem is the subject of my (hopefully forgivable) crusade - to prevent pool mining. If you stop pool mining, you remove the "mining without a node" option. So, miners *have* to run nodes. Thus, if you bring back true solo mining, you bring back incentivizing running a node. Indeed, this was the original model for supporting the network. Pool mining, IMO, is a tragedy of the unregulated commons.
Indeed, I agree. I don't really understand why no coin tried this before. It wouldn't be that hard to implement I think. You just need to sign your mined block with your private key of the address to where you received the minted coins Certainly easy in BTC. But also possible with XMR I think. Uh... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.0 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
