Nevertheless if new investment doesn't come in, the price will plummet, essentially making it worthless. That core similarity seems more important to me than whether you can use it to buy socks, but what do I know.


No idea. I'm not a wevdev and I don't think I've ever visited the web site either.

No different than any other coin, including BTC.

To be clear there was only one chain fork. There are several different projects all claiming to be the 'official' project representing the old chain.

For a while it become more profitable than ETH and ZEC, which brought over some miners. It seems to have reach a somewhat steady state for now at about 450 MH.

I'm not aware of any Monero team members who have left to work on any of these forks.

Since 2014 some team members have left for various reasons and some have joined but I think that was not what you were asking.

Some of those hash rate change are likely natural, due to price changes.

The best indicator is probably to look at profitability or some variant thereof. We can see that starting in early 2018 or possibly late 2017, profitability started a decline to lows not seen since 2016. That was probably due to ASICs starting to capture most of the hash rate, though when they started at a low hash rate share is impossible to say.

Here an analysis from Monero core team member ArticMine. https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/8al8tm/considering_that_a_sizeable_amount_must_have_not/dwzxdj6/

Very likely considering that there are Ethereum ASICs announced and being sold to customers (but not shipped). It is very much the same situation.

It is a combination of both. The profitability had gone well below the historic range which means given current prices CPUs and GPUs would likely never push up the hash rate that high (ignoring slow Moore's Law-type improvements), only ASICs.


ArticMine's analysis is pretty convincing that it was mostly ASICs. Botnets have been around forever and have never pushed profitability that low. Probably because they are constrained by available zombie machines (there are not tens of millions readily available for mining). It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense for botnets to end up quickly on the ASIC-friendly fork. They would have to be running their own pool/node, and not update it despite losing money, and most botnets we've seen have just used public pools (in which case they would stop mining altogether if not updated, not switch to the the ASIC-friendly fork).

As far as the GitHub ASIC-friendly question, it is still very much a hypothetical whether an ASIC-friendly approach could work and result in a competitive ASIC market, regardless of the algorithm. I'm personally somewhat doubtful on it, given the current realities of how chips are designed and manufactured. Perhaps there is a possibility of some sort of open source ASIC, but I don't know enough about the fabrication process to have an opinion on it.


@explorer, thanks for the heads up about the non-removed post. Not sure what happened, I did click delete on it.

It is hard to fight the overall negative trend the crypto markets, especially for a coin like XMR which is very much a true crypto currency, and not some ICO project that is claiming to revolutionize online dating/storage/dentists/etc. For XMR, if money is flowing out of crypto we're probably losing value. Perhaps we decline less.

Monero has lost about 80-85%. I don't know how much AEON will lose. Obviously it is a much smaller coin so less attractive to very large miners (who would just drive up the difficulty against themself). Still likely some of AEON hash rate is ASICs, after all some of the products explicitly advertise CryptoNight-Lite support, they would have to at least 'tested' that.

It is slightly adjusted after each block. Probably full adjustment will take a few days, with partial adjustment sooner (some has happened already).

BTW, ignoring price changes, mining profitability has not changed from before (except to increase a bit since the difficulty has dropped a bit). Slower blocks on the network does not affect profitability of any individual miner, although it may affect your variance. As the difficulty continues to decline profitability will continue to increase.

In 2018? Good luck!

Please don't take it out on a whole community because of one person's misunderstanding, but yes I agree the negative trust was hasty should absolutely be removed.

If you can't remember your password your are out of luck. It is like losing your Bitcoin wallet (private keys). Gone.

Recovery works if your password has been changed and you can provide the previous one (within 30 days).

Possibly, someday, there might be a way to recover from a forgotten password, but there is not right now.

The only thing you can do at this point is get a new account.

Does anyone know what happened to the presstab chain explorer for CLAM?

A subaddress feature does not directly address any of the issues in the paper however it is still useful for some privacy enhancing use cases outside the scope of the paper.

The paper itself is a slightly-modified rerelease of the same one that was released last year. Both were and are heavily backed and promoted by Zcash supporters and can't in any way be considered as objective third party analysis. While some of the findings are legitimate, a lot of framing and promotion of the paper is actually very misleading (whether you want to call that "FUD" is a personal choice but I don't find it to be a terribly inaccurate label).

For example, there are many tweets etc. repeating the talking point that X% (some high number, various different numbers have appeared) of Monero transactions were found to be traceable, rarely is it explained in these attention grabbers that even the paper itself explains (if you read the whole thing) that:

1. Older versions of Monero, 2016 or earlier have some high number of traceable outputs.
2. More recent versions have essentially 0% traceable outputs.
3. Newer data from 2017 and 2018 is excluded from consideration by the paper at all, skewing the total percentages a lot higher.
4. That the paper horribly conflates percentages of actual traceability and percentages derived from heuristic guesses that skew probabilities somewhat (and even that is mitigated in recent versions) but aren't able to trace any transactions at all.

AEON is similar to Monero post-2016 but pre-RingCT (and before other mitigations, some of which will arrive with the rebase), so somewhere in between. There is some degree of traceability but nowhere near as bad as the earlier Monero versions with unlimited (and large majority in practice) 0-mixin transactions.

Users can best protect themselves by performing some degree of churn (resend to self, preferably with unpredictable delays) in high risk situations. This is especially effective in AEON since the transaction fees are much lower than Monero (post-RingCT), making churn relatively inexpensive.

That was certainly worse, but I don't agree that's when it started. As soon as they decided to start their own ASIC company they lost the ability to be unconflicted on development decisions. As you say, they made a lot of arguments about how good ASICs are for a coin. Maybe those arguments were sincere but we can never know because the way they set things up they had a huge incentive to "sell" ASICs to the community (because, quite literally, they were selling their own product).

Anyway, this is kind of off topic to AEON.

BTW, I have no interest in any mining companies

In the case of Siacoin, it was the devs starting a company to sell ASICs, a clear conflict of interest.

I haven't followed Decred.

Regardless of the shadiness demonstrated by the Sia devs (which reduces their credibility on the matter in my view significantly, even if they may happen to be right), there is certainly a pro-ASIC point of view that is not without merit.

You might want to review this discussion https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387 (BTW, This is a Monero issue. Please do not spam discussion of AEON there.)

I'm mostly neutral but if the community wants to change PoW then its fine with me. My mild bias is to continue tracking whatever Monero does and minimize code changes and also the possibility that AEON could be attacked by reject Monero ASICs.

Before speculation was broken out it was the top thread in the whole general altcoin discussion section.