Thanks Wolf0  |
|
|
|
You could make a lot money writing term papers patent applications.
fixt well, no - patent applications get examined well, yea - someone has to write them before the patent office can examine them |
|
|
|
Just kind of surprising to see no fucks given about one pool owning 90% of hashrate. I doubt it has 90% of the hash rate just because it's at the top of a list, it's pretty hard to miss the other pools just under it. I'm guessing the real reason has more to do with the fact that 1GH is the most widely supported pool in GPU miners. Whatever the reason I wasn't exaggerating when I said 90%: 1GH - 9975 Mh/s TheBlocksFactor - 15 Mh/s NoncePool - 192 Mh/s Supernove - 0 Mh/s TheBlocksFactory shows the network hashrate at 9710 Mh/s, so apparently 1 GH is over 100% of the network hashrate  I understand it's just a guesstimate based on diff, but clearly over 90%, probably over 95%. |
|
|
|
such quote spam  |
|
|
|
Why is 1GH pool listed first on ANN  They have around 90% of the network hashrate. Shouldn't they be listed last with giant red letters saying "Please mine anywhere but here"? They are simply listed in the order they were created, gives a bit of incentive for new services to get in early. That's quite a laissez-faire attitude to take. Isn't it possible that if that one pool was compromised they could wreak havoc on the blockchain? Is XCN not susceptible to double-spends or 51% attacks? Or even if someone just ddos'ed 1GH pool, then they could attempt double spends with relatively small hashrate? I mean, I guess market cap isn't even in the top 100, so maybe it's not worth worrying about. Just kind of surprising to see no fucks given about one pool owning 90% of hashrate. |
|
|
|
Why is 1GH pool listed first on ANN They have around 90% of the network hashrate. Shouldn't they be listed last with giant red letters saying "Please mine anywhere but here"? |
|
|
|
If there's any niche that still needs to be filled in cryptoland, it's a coin that will remain permanently GPU mineable. Even if that means yearly updating of the algo. Devs could just spend their time always tweaking and updating the algo keeping it ASIC resistant, and the community take care of the rest.
I never like Scrypt-N because it was a half-assed way of trying to make an algo ASIC resistant. The more complex the algo becomes over time, the memory it will naturally require.
But, the silence is definitely destroying any confidence I may have in the future of this coin. And if another coin comes in and tries to fills this niche before Vert does, then Vert will be forgotten. First mover always has the advantage.
Technically the first mover was litecoin, they just decided to say, "fuck it". So, vert would probably be second mover, and anyone who follows would then be at least third mover. |
|
|
|
I'm still in shock that Dogecoin went from being worth have as much as MYR, to TWICE as much. Like wtf, what happened?
People love the Š |
|
|
|
I'm having trouble getting the opencl miner to compile on debian squeeze. It's debian squeeze, but I've commented out all the squeeze repos in sources.list and replaced them with testing, and just updated libcurl, libjanssen, openssl, and gcc (now v4.9.1). Autogen and configure seem to work OK, but when I run make, I get these errors: In file included from wildkeccak.c:16:0:
reciprocal_div64.h: In function ‘reciprocal_value64’:
reciprocal_div64.h:32:2: error: unknown type name ‘__uint128_t’
__uint128_t m;
^
reciprocal_div64.h:36:9: error: ‘__uint128_t’ undeclared (first use in this function)
m = (((__uint128_t)1 << 64) * ((1ULL << l) - d));
^
reciprocal_div64.h:36:9: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
reciprocal_div64.h:36:21: error: expected ‘)’ before numeric constant
m = (((__uint128_t)1 << 64) * ((1ULL << l) - d));
wildkeccak.c: In function ‘wildkeccak’:
wildkeccak.c:106:2: warning: #warning using SSE2 optimizations [-Wcpp]
#warning using SSE2 optimizations
^
Makefile:560: recipe for target 'minerd-wildkeccak.o' failed
make[2]: *** [minerd-wildkeccak.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory '/root/cpuminer-multi-opencl'
Makefile:623: recipe for target 'all-recursive' failed
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory '/root/cpuminer-multi-opencl'
Makefile:392: recipe for target 'all' failed
make: *** [all] Error 2
Any ideas appreciated |
|
|
|
It's not FUD. There's no fear, uncertainty, or doubt about it. More than half of all coins were mined when ducknote had a lower hashrate than any other Crytponote coin (except maybe quazar or fantomcoin which are dead/dying), even lower than the obvious scam bytecoin.
1. There is NO matter what hashrate was! The matter is the number of initial ordinary XDN workers and miners. You're the one who brought up how the hashrate was to the moon/sky:
2. To be fair and honest and to avoid any misunderstandings XDN announce was at the same second as first block was generated. Being true it was a BIG surprise to see hashrate going to the sky, just after launch. XDN had more than 40 000 000 difficulty in first hours after launch. Also first month we promoted XDN very active and asked people to mine it, we explained Economy and logic.
The hashrate didn't go to the sky and there wasn't a lot of miners, unless they were all mining at 1 h/s, which seems quite unlikely. More likely is that a few people sucked up half of all the coins that will ever exist. Sounds like a great way to start a new economy - give half of all the money that will ever exist to 10 or 100 people. Oh wait, that sounds like NXT or some other bullshit distribution PoS coin. Good luck with your new features. |
|
|
|
|
It's not FUD. There's no fear, uncertainty, or doubt about it. More than half of all coins were mined when ducknote had a lower hashrate than any other Crytponote coin (except maybe quazar or fantomcoin which are dead/dying), even lower than the obvious scam bytecoin.
|
|
|
|
2. Imagine, mathematicians, economists, programmers, philosophers and media veterans with strongest knowledge are making some effort to make really fairly launched cryptocurrency that is focused on real economy markets.
Thank you for the in depth response. Since you're the only dev, are you saying that you're a mathematician, economist, programmer, philosopher, and media veteran? Seems like a lot of roles to play. Also, while I agree with your logic to some extent about resisting asics by having a front loaded distribution, I'm sorry, but I think it's just way too extreme to disburse half of all coins that will ever exist in the first month when there was a minuscule hash rate. 1. I never said i am the only dev. I mentioned many times that XDN DarkNote developers team is a "team of teams". And it is decentralized, XDN has supporters and developers from around the World. 2. To be fair and honest and to avoid any misunderstandings XDN announce was at the same second as first block was generated. Being true it was a BIG surprise to see hashrate going to the sky, just after launch. XDN had more than 40 000 000 difficulty in first hours after launch. Also first month we promoted XDN very active and asked people to mine it, we explained Economy and logic. 3. In recent months we can see millions of XDN on exchanges offered for extremely low prices. Almost any person can own some, even without mining. To the sky? In the first month (June), when more than 3B coins were emitted, almost half of all coins that will ever exist, the hashrate was on average less than 200 kh/s ( https://minergate.com/chart/duck ), while Monero averaged out to be 5-10 Mh/s, or more than 20x greater over the same time period (even though half of all XMR won't be emitted until at least sometime next year). You guys couldn't even muster up more hash than the scamtacular bytecoin over the month of June, which was about 300-400 kh/s on average. |
|
|
|
The only thing this community need in the future is someone directly connected with the devs that can answer some questions from the community.
Yes please. The community will have to choose someone and the devs will have to agree to communicate with this person. Not to be alarmist, but I've asked othe (who is listed as a contributor on the vertcoin.org website) a few times on freenode #vertcoin recently if he's been in contact with anyone working on the new algo, and he said he's attempted to contact bushido several times over the past couple weeks, but gotten no response. So, not sure how we're gonna get someone to act as intermediary between devs and general public if devs aren't even communicating with devs. |
|
|
|
I see no movement on crypsy to unlock the wallet, why is this? I am mining since the fork and do not know if this pool is following the true thread. What do the developers say, stand up and take control of your coin that honest people have invested in....
I have no idea, but trading seems to be working OK on poloniex. |
|
|
|
To CZ and the team thank you, the new release looks awesome....Me thinks that CZ was a mailman in a previous life.....he just keeps delivering Jon  So you're saying he's Karl Malone and will keep losing to Jordan and never win the ring? Seriously though, can someone point me to a more detailed description of how the dev fees work? It isn't clear if solo miners and pool operators can turn on/off the 1% donation, or only vote to make it larger/smaller (at least from looking over the ANN page and the boolberry.com website). I agree. We need to make this as easy to find and understandable as possible. That's quite a different response than you just gave me 30 minutes ago or so here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg8975294#msg8975294Sorry taking an interest in BBR and expressing my opinion on why I think Monero is currently the leader among Cryptonotes. You might want to show a bit more restraint when you're speaking in an official capacity for an organization, or not, just a suggestion. Your signature is real classy, btw. |
|
|
|
Also, afaik there is no detailed explanation of how the dev fee works, on either the ANN page or on boolberry.com.
Use the source Luke. Anyway, it was discussed at the start as a voting scheme, not individual volunteer donations. For which I give CZ credit, since volunteer donations clearly don't work. Yea, because you're going to achieve widespread adoption by forcing users to dig through the source code to understand fundamental aspects of the coin |
|
|
|
After messing with the other two significant Cryptonotes recently, here is my opinion on the issues du jour: emission rate change and dev compensation.
Boolberry is the more interesting competitor to Monero imo, despite currently having a significantly lower market cap than Darknote (I would argue this is a function of instaminers holding a large portion of coins ever mined, waiting for more buy support before dumping some/all their coins from the coin's first month of existence). However, despite Boolberry having a slower emission rate than Monero, it still has a couple of issues that make its distribution a bit more suspect than Monero's. I think the cbuchner miner/mining is viewed with more suspicion than dga's private miner, because Monero was probably already more popular when dga was mining that Boolberry currently is, in terms of miners and in terms of trade volume on exchanges. The other thing is the 1% dev fee, that zoidberg does not do a good job of explaining on the ANN page or on Boolberry's; it's supposedly voluntary, but miners can only vote to turn it up or down, not on or off, and this can only be done by solo miners or pool operators (I think, tbh I do not have a good idea how it actually works, and haven't gotten anymore info after asking on IRC).
So, that leaves Monero as the most fair. Mostly due simply to its much greater popularity and trade volume, but also due to the factors mentioned above.
FUD, FUD and more FUD. Everyone of these points have been made 1000 times and debunked 1001. Its propaganda to protect investments. But its propaganda in its true form. CBuchner created a miner that was highly efficient. It is documented that he has sold all his coins, almost all of them off exchange, below current market value. Slower emission does not mean less fairness. It means MORE fairness as the coins are harder to get and harder to hoard. The 1% dev fee has been explained in detail. You understand it. I know you do. Its not hard to understand and the miners control it. However, the bolded part above is true. You don't understand or are playing dumb. This is not rocket science. This is just propaganda to protect an investment. If you tell a lie long enough and hard enough people will believe it. Its why there was a need for crypto to begin with. How can it be "documented" cbuchner sold all his coins? Also, afaik there is no detailed explanation of how the dev fee works, on either the ANN page or on boolberry.com. Thanks for taking the time to respond in a reasonable manner, i.e. calling me devious and/or dumb for expressing my opinions. |
|
|
|
To CZ and the team thank you, the new release looks awesome....Me thinks that CZ was a mailman in a previous life.....he just keeps delivering Jon So you're saying he's Karl Malone and will keep losing to Jordan and never win the ring? Seriously though, can someone point me to a more detailed description of how the dev fees work? It isn't clear if solo miners and pool operators can turn on/off the 1% donation, or only vote to make it larger/smaller (at least from looking over the ANN page and the boolberry.com website). |
|
|
|
|
After messing with the other two significant Cryptonotes recently, here is my opinion on the issues du jour: emission rate change and dev compensation.
The other two, Duck/Darknote and Boolberry, currently offer more features and/or faster syncing. Darknote now has encrypted, on blockchain messaging (which seems to be possibly a bad idea if it can be spammed) and the blockchain moved out of memory (full disclosure, I don't have the wallet). Boolberry syncs extremely rapidly in comparison to Monero and offers aliasing of addresses (also maybe not a great idea).
However, the advantage Monero currently has over the other two is that it seems to have a much fairer distribution of coins. This is more difficult to analyze than traditional bitcoin clones due to the anonymous nature of the transactions.
Darknote is already 73% mined out after several months of a much smaller network hashrate compared to Monero, and I think it was something like 50% of coins emitted after only the first month. This is purportedly to head off asics before they have a chance to be designed and manufactured for cryptonight algo (assuming this ever happens), however it reeks of instamine imo, which is why I don't even bother downloading the wallet.
Boolberry is the more interesting competitor to Monero imo, despite currently having a significantly lower market cap than Darknote (I would argue this is a function of instaminers holding a large portion of coins ever mined, waiting for more buy support before dumping some/all their coins from the coin's first month of existence). However, despite Boolberry having a slower emission rate than Monero, it still has a couple of issues that make its distribution a bit more suspect than Monero's. I think the cbuchner miner/mining is viewed with more suspicion than dga's private miner, because Monero was probably already more popular when dga was mining that Boolberry currently is, in terms of miners and in terms of trade volume on exchanges. The other thing is the 1% dev fee, that zoidberg does not do a good job of explaining on the ANN page or on Boolberry's; it's supposedly voluntary, but miners can only vote to turn it up or down, not on or off, and this can only be done by solo miners or pool operators (I think, tbh I do not have a good idea how it actually works, and haven't gotten anymore info after asking on IRC).
So, that leaves Monero as the most fair. Mostly due simply to its much greater popularity and trade volume, but also due to the factors mentioned above. I just feel like messing with coin emission, or chucking in a 1% "post-mine" block, or anything else like that will greatly risk the trust that has grown around the dev team and the community in general, and would possibly create an opportunity for someone to fork Monero (or Darknote or Boolberry), and try to position itself as THE Cryptonote with a legitimately fair distribution.
tl;dr I agree with xulescu
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
