|
How much BTC are you after?
|
|
|
|
So if, by BCX's admission, it takes a couple of days for the timewarp symptoms to occur (presumably while building up the attacking chain), a viable mitigation strategy may be to checkpoint daily. This then results in him having to continually restart the attack before it builds up a long enough chain to go anywhere. Could do it at a random point each day to keep it unpredictable. If I understand the situation correctly.
Unless I am missing something obvious, doing so delays the attack and makes it considerably worse. You want the attack to come as quickly as possible. The longer it is prolonged, the greater the effect. You're almost correct. By checkpointing daily for a bit (till he/she/it loses interest and it realises that it is both unethical and incompetent) we prevent it from being able to produce a non-checkpointed chain of any length. What effect would checkpointing every hour cause vs daily? Is it correct in saying that checkpoints have to be manually recovered from? |
|
|
|
So if, by BCX's admission, it takes a couple of days for the timewarp symptoms to occur (presumably while building up the attacking chain), a viable mitigation strategy may be to checkpoint daily. This then results in him having to continually restart the attack before it builds up a long enough chain to go anywhere. Could do it at a random point each day to keep it unpredictable. If I understand the situation correctly.
Unless I am missing something obvious, doing so delays the attack and makes it considerably worse. You want the attack to come as quickly as possible. The longer it is prolonged, the greater the effect. |
|
|
|
I was thinking about the whole 10 XMR mining to the exchange. For people like me its easily done. But for the average miner this can be very painful so I change my recommendation to: * when mining to an exchange, payment should be done every 24 hours. That seems like the most sane way to cater for the small and big miners alike and cuts down on the amount of transactions going off all the time. Another idea: * On the front page of http://monero.crypto-pool.fr/ ,under the section "Our Pool" up top, it says "Connected Miners: 576", Can you make it say the average hash rate for the users in total: It would be 4.19 MH/s divided by (Connected Miners:) 574 = * Connected Miners: 576 Avg: 6.9 KH/s |
|
|
|
only getting 250H/s on 8 core XEON 2.0ghz, is this normal?
8 cores with hyperthreading? |
|
|
|
OK, I got yam but I have no idea if it's any better?? It looks like it's mining Monero coin as a donation to developers. Here's my yam output, is it any better? I have no idea how to interpret this??
Aggregated Hash/sec: 230 |
|
|
|
1.) I have fixed estimation profit for use reward on lastblock and not 16XMR per block in official code
- var resl = 16 / ((lastStats.network.difficulty / inp2) / 86400);
+ var resl = ( lastStats.network.reward / coinUnits) / ((lastStats.network.difficulty / inp2) / 86400 );
2.) I have add Estimation for 24H: 0.4532318093553528 XMR
Updated when block found per network ( reward change ) and hashrate change
Thanks, great work! More ideas: * Expand that to include Estimation for 31 days/month? * Consolidate Last Share Submitted and Total Hashes Submitted? (Hardly anyone looks at that and it takes up screenspace) * Consolidate Pending Balance and Total Paid. Eg: * Expand the "Hash Rate:" field to include more workers and add some information All 4 ideas rolled into one example: Total Hashes Submitted: 6187212500 Last Share Submitted: 2 minutes ago Total Paid: 58.600000000000 XMR Pending Balance: 0.052325750411 XMR Estimation for 24H: 15.24384775773392856 Estimation for 1M: 472.55928049 Hash Rate: 18.65 kH/s Workers: 60 Average Hash Rate: 160 h/s I work for add new features
1.) Choice your diff
2.) Mine with exchange address
3.) Stats per miner
4.) Monitoring miner
I propose format follow :
ADDRESS.PAYMENTID.WORKERID.DIFF Password:Email
ADDRESS: Addresse Monero
PaymentID : PaymentID Valid ( 2 DWORD )
WORKER_ID: Not full number ( for make diff with diff )
DIFF : DIFF choice per miner
All combination possible
ADDRESS.DIFF Password:Email
ADDRESS.PAYMENTID.DIFF Password:Email
ADDRESS.WORKERID.DIFF Password:Email
ADDRESS.PAYMENTID.DIFF Password:Email
ADDRESS.WORKERID Password:Email
.......
........
....
So just so I understand this correctly, If someone wanted all possible combinations: ADDRESS.PAYMENTID.WORKERID.DIFF Password: Email I propose minimal threshold to 10XMR for mining with exchange and fee is remove to payout.
Sounds good. I propose add other function :
Make payout for exchange in same transaction of regular payout :
60 payout in average per day only for miner more 0.1XMR and less 10XMR.
If more 60 payout , I payout priority miner of last old payout
For information seconds revision of multibitmonerod is used on to day ( more efficiency )
I work for increase efficiency ( add bitmonerod on the world with GeoIP Filter for find newblock on network more quickly )
Quite interesting. Looks good. Keep up the great work! |
|
|
|
Your mathematicians didn't address that rs = qs - csx mod l is also known, where qs is unknown. Sorry I know you know everything. You can stop helping now, it's clear your hard work is no longer needed. |
|
|
|
I hope that BitcoinEXpress and others leave Poloniex out of this battle. They're a great exchange run by trustworthy people who provide value to the alt currency space.
If there is an exploit to be launched, I humbly ask that you not make Poloniex the victim.
Surely you do not except one room to stay in tact if the whole building is burning? As the saying goes: Run, run away little girl. |
|
|
|
While people are looking at the XMR code, this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CVE-2010-5139 made me think of something (quite probably unrelated). There are a fair amount of signed vs unsigned integer comparisons throughput the XMR code base. Could someone fix that as well so that future over/underflow occurrences do not take place. To save a bit of time: Signed/Unsigned Comparison: Line: 71 - /tmp/src/common/base58.cpp
return idx < m_data.size() ? m_data[idx] : -1;
Line: 95 - /tmp/src/common/base58.cpp
assert(encoded_block_size <= full_encoded_block_size);
Line: 133 - /tmp/src/common/base58.cpp
memcpy(data, reinterpret_cast<uint8_t*>(&num_be) + sizeof(uint64_t) - size, size);
Line: 140 - /tmp/src/common/base58.cpp
uint64_t num = uint_8be_to_64(reinterpret_cast<const uint8_t*>(block), size);
Line: 245 - /tmp/src/common/base58.cpp
const char* hash_data = reinterpret_cast<const char*>(&hash);
Line: 262 - /tmp/src/common/base58.cpp
std::string expected_checksum(reinterpret_cast<const char*>(&hash), addr_checksum_size);
Line: 160 - /tmp/src/common/int-util.h
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
Line: 166 - /tmp/src/common/int-util.h
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
Line: 180 - /tmp/src/common/int-util.h
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
Line: 186 - /tmp/src/common/int-util.h
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
Line: 82 - /tmp/src/common/util.h
s.append(reinterpret_cast<const char*>(&pot.peer_id), sizeof(pot.peer_id));
Line: 83 - /tmp/src/common/util.h
s.append(reinterpret_cast<const char*>(&pot.time), sizeof(pot.time));
Line: 107 - /tmp/src/connectivity_tool/conn_tool.cpp
if(rs.ns_rsp.v.connections_list.size()-1 != i)
Line: 163 - /tmp/src/crypto/crypto.cpp
assert(end <= buf.output_index + sizeof buf.output_index);
Line: 68 - /tmp/src/crypto/electrum-words.cpp
for (unsigned int i=0; i < wlist.size() / 3; i++)
Line: 210 - /tmp/src/crypto/groestl.c
for(;i<(SIZE512/sizeof(uint32_t));i++)
Line: 50 - /tmp/src/crypto/hash.h
static_assert(sizeof(hash) == HASH_SIZE, "Invalid structure size");
Line: 82 - /tmp/src/crypto/keccak.c
rsiz = sizeof(state_t) == mdlen ? HASH_DATA_AREA : 200 - 2 * mdlen;
Line: 451 - /tmp/src/crypto/oaes_lib.c
if( *buf_len > _buf_len_in )
Line: 704 - /tmp/src/crypto/oaes_lib.c
if( _data_len_in < *data_len )
Line: 737 - /tmp/src/crypto/oaes_lib.c
if( _data_len_in < *data_len )
Line: 1279 - /tmp/src/crypto/oaes_lib.c
if( _c_len_in < *c_len )
Line: 1351 - /tmp/src/crypto/oaes_lib.c
if( _m_len_in < *m_len )
Line: 1434 - /tmp/src/crypto/oaes_lib.c
for( _i = 0; _i < _temp; _i++ )
Line: 1435 - /tmp/src/crypto/oaes_lib.c
if( m[*m_len - 1 - _i] != _temp - _i )
Line: 72 - /tmp/src/crypto/random.c
if ((size_t) res == n) {
Line: 130 - /tmp/src/crypto/random.c
if (n <= HASH_DATA_AREA) {
Line: 622 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
for (r=1;r < 2*RCNT;r+=2*SKEIN_UNROLL_256)
Line: 826 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
for (r=1;r < 2*RCNT;r+=2*SKEIN_UNROLL_512)
Line: 1074 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
for (r=1;r <= 2*RCNT;r+=2*SKEIN_UNROLL_1024)
Line: 1197 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
Skein_Assert(hashBitLen > 0,SKEIN_BAD_HASHLEN);
Line: 1241 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
Skein_Assert(hashBitLen > 0,SKEIN_BAD_HASHLEN);
Line: 1317 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
if (msgByteCnt > SKEIN_256_BLOCK_BYTES)
Line: 1358 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
for (i=0;i*SKEIN_256_BLOCK_BYTES < byteCnt;i++)
Line: 1364 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
if (n >= SKEIN_256_BLOCK_BYTES)
Line: 1395 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
Skein_Assert(hashBitLen > 0,SKEIN_BAD_HASHLEN);
Line: 1441 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
Skein_Assert(hashBitLen > 0,SKEIN_BAD_HASHLEN);
Line: 1462 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
for (i=0;i<SKEIN_512_STATE_WORDS;i++)
Line: 1517 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
if (msgByteCnt > SKEIN_512_BLOCK_BYTES)
Line: 1558 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
for (i=0;i*SKEIN_512_BLOCK_BYTES < byteCnt;i++)
Line: 1564 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
if (n >= SKEIN_512_BLOCK_BYTES)
Line: 1594 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
Skein_Assert(hashBitLen > 0,SKEIN_BAD_HASHLEN);
Line: 1639 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
Skein_Assert(hashBitLen > 0,SKEIN_BAD_HASHLEN);
Line: 1660 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
for (i=0;i<SKEIN1024_STATE_WORDS;i++)
Line: 1715 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
if (msgByteCnt > SKEIN1024_BLOCK_BYTES)
Line: 1756 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
for (i=0;i*SKEIN1024_BLOCK_BYTES < byteCnt;i++)
Line: 1762 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
if (n >= SKEIN1024_BLOCK_BYTES)
Line: 1847 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
for (i=0;i*SKEIN_256_BLOCK_BYTES < byteCnt;i++)
Line: 1853 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
if (n >= SKEIN_256_BLOCK_BYTES)
Line: 1876 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
for (i=0;i*SKEIN_512_BLOCK_BYTES < byteCnt;i++)
Line: 1882 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
if (n >= SKEIN_512_BLOCK_BYTES)
Line: 1905 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
for (i=0;i*SKEIN1024_BLOCK_BYTES < byteCnt;i++)
Line: 1911 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
if (n >= SKEIN1024_BLOCK_BYTES)
Line: 2030 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein.c
if (r == SKEIN_SUCCESS)
Line: 203 - /tmp/src/crypto/skein_port.h
for (n=0;n<8*wCnt;n+=8)
Line: 403 - /tmp/src/crypto/slow-hash.c
for(i = 0; i < MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE; i++)
Line: 413 - /tmp/src/crypto/slow-hash.c
for(i = 0; i < MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE; i++)
Line: 415 - /tmp/src/crypto/slow-hash.c
for(j = 0; j < INIT_SIZE_BLK; j++)
Line: 431 - /tmp/src/crypto/slow-hash.c
for(i = 0; i < ITER / 2; i++)
Line: 441 - /tmp/src/crypto/slow-hash.c
for(i = 0; i < ITER / 2; i++)
Line: 453 - /tmp/src/crypto/slow-hash.c
for(i = 0; i < MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE; i++)
Line: 462 - /tmp/src/crypto/slow-hash.c
for(i = 0; i < MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE; i++)
Line: 464 - /tmp/src/crypto/slow-hash.c
for(j = 0; j < INIT_SIZE_BLK; j++)
Line: 90 - /tmp/src/crypto/tree-hash.c
assert( cnt < max_size_t/2 );
Line: 97 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.cpp
for (size_t height=0; height < m_blocks.size(); ++height)
Line: 324 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.cpp
CHECK_AND_ASSERT_MES(processed_tx_count <= bl.tx_hashes.size(), false, "wrong processed_tx_count in purge_block_data_from_blockchain");
Line: 433 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.cpp
for(; offset < m_blocks.size(); offset++)
Line: 568 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.cpp
if(count >= DIFFICULTY_BLOCKS_COUNT)
Line: 631 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.cpp
for(size_t i = start_offset; i != from_height+1; i++)
Line: 737 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.cpp
if (coinbase_blob_size < cumulative_size - txs_size) {
Line: 746 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.cpp
if (cumulative_size != txs_size + get_object_blobsize(b.miner_tx)) {
Line: 749 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.cpp
if (cumulative_size != txs_size + get_object_blobsize(b.miner_tx)) {
Line: 778 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.cpp
size_t stop_offset = start_top_height > need_elements ? start_top_height - need_elements:0;
Line: 785 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.cpp
}while(start_top_height != stop_offset);
Line: 937 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.cpp
if(start_offset >= m_blocks.size())
Line: 953 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.cpp
if(start_offset >= m_blocks.size())
Line: 1158 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.cpp
for(size_t i = start_index; i != m_blocks.size() && i != end_index; i++)
Line: 1188 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.cpp
for(size_t i = 0; i != vals.size(); i++)
Line: 1209 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.cpp
for(size_t i = resp.start_height; i != m_blocks.size() && count < BLOCKS_IDS_SYNCHRONIZING_DEFAULT_COUNT; i++, count++)
Line: 1226 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.cpp
for(size_t i = start_height; i != m_blocks.size() && count < max_count; i++, count++)
Line: 1548 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.cpp
for(;offset!= m_blocks.size(); ++offset)
Line: 327 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.h
if(i >= amount_outs_vec.size() )
Line: 341 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain_storage.h
if(count++ == absolute_offsets.size()-1 && pmax_related_block_height)
Line: 175 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_basic.h
if(CURRENT_TRANSACTION_VERSION < version) return false;
Line: 206 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_basic.h
for (size_t i = 0; i < vin.size(); ++i)
Line: 218 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_basic.h
if (signature_size != signatures[i].size())
Line: 65 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_basic_impl.cpp
if (median_size < CRYPTONOTE_BLOCK_GRANTED_FULL_REWARD_ZONE) {
Line: 69 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_basic_impl.cpp
if (current_block_size <= median_size) {
Line: 137 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_basic_impl.cpp
if (2 * sizeof(public_address_outer_blob) != str.size())
Line: 221 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_basic_impl.cpp
buf.copy(reinterpret_cast<char *>(&hash), sizeof(crypto::hash));
Line: 54 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_boost_serialization.h
a & reinterpret_cast<char (&)[sizeof(crypto::public_key)]>(x);
Line: 59 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_boost_serialization.h
a & reinterpret_cast<char (&)[sizeof(crypto::secret_key)]>(x);
Line: 64 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_boost_serialization.h
a & reinterpret_cast<char (&)[sizeof(crypto::key_derivation)]>(x);
Line: 69 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_boost_serialization.h
a & reinterpret_cast<char (&)[sizeof(crypto::key_image)]>(x);
Line: 75 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_boost_serialization.h
a & reinterpret_cast<char (&)[sizeof(crypto::signature)]>(x);
Line: 80 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_boost_serialization.h
a & reinterpret_cast<char (&)[sizeof(crypto::hash)]>(x);
Line: 122 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_format_utils.cpp
for (size_t no = 0; no < out_amounts.size(); no++)
Line: 184 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_format_utils.cpp
if (std::string::npos != point_index)
Line: 286 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_format_utils.cpp
*reinterpret_cast<crypto::public_key*>(&tx.extra[tx.extra.size() - sizeof(crypto::public_key)]) = tx_pub_key;
Line: 624 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_format_utils.cpp
blob.append(reinterpret_cast<const char*>(&tree_root_hash), sizeof(tree_root_hash));
Line: 711 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_format_utils.cpp
for(size_t i = 1; i < res.size(); i++)
Line: 102 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/difficulty.cpp
assert(length == cumulative_difficulties.size());
Line: 107 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/difficulty.cpp
assert(length <= DIFFICULTY_WINDOW);
Line: 111 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/difficulty.cpp
if (length <= DIFFICULTY_WINDOW - 2 * DIFFICULTY_CUT) {
Line: 184 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/miner.cpp
for(size_t i = 0; i != extra_vec.size(); i++)
Line: 55 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/tx_extra.h
for (size = 1; size <= TX_EXTRA_PADDING_MAX_COUNT; ++size)
Line: 72 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/tx_extra.h
return size <= TX_EXTRA_PADDING_MAX_COUNT;
Line: 79 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/tx_extra.h
if(TX_EXTRA_PADDING_MAX_COUNT < size)
Line: 96 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/tx_pool.cpp
if (!kept_by_block && blob_size >= TRANSACTION_SIZE_LIMIT)
Line: 366 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/tx_pool.cpp
for(size_t i = 0; i!= tx.vin.size(); i++)
Line: 377 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/tx_pool.cpp
for(size_t i = 0; i!= tx.vin.size(); i++)
Line: 427 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/tx_pool.cpp
if (max_total_size < total_size + tx.second.blob_size)
Line: 440 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/tx_pool.cpp
if (total_size > median_size)
Line: 89 - /tmp/src/cryptonote_core/tx_pool.h
if(version < CURRENT_MEMPOOL_ARCHIVE_VER )
Line: 242 - /tmp/src/p2p/net_peerlist.h
if(i >= m_peers_white.size())
Line: 254 - /tmp/src/p2p/net_peerlist.h
if(i >= m_peers_gray.size())
Line: 114 - /tmp/src/simplewallet/password_container.cpp
for (size_t i = 0; i < max_password_size; ++i)
Line: 908 - /tmp/src/simplewallet/simplewallet.cpp
for (size_t i = 0; i < local_args.size(); i += 2)
Line: 294 - /tmp/src/wallet/wallet2.cpp
if(current_index >= m_blockchain.size())
Line: 302 - /tmp/src/wallet/wallet2.cpp
THROW_WALLET_EXCEPTION_IF(current_index == res.start_height, error::wallet_internal_error,
Line: 391 - /tmp/src/wallet/wallet2.cpp
for(size_t i = i_start; i!= m_transfers.size();i++)
Line: 526 - /tmp/src/wallet/wallet2.cpp
if(sizeof(crypto::hash) != payment_id_data.size())
Line: 712 - /tmp/src/wallet/wallet2.cpp
for (size_t i = 0; i < m_transfers.size(); ++i)
Line: 791 - /tmp/src/wallet/wallet2.cpp
for (size_t j=0; j < dsts.size(); j++)
Line: 403 - /tmp/src/wallet/wallet_errors.h
for (size_t i = 0; i < m_sources.size(); ++i)
Line: 421 - /tmp/src/wallet/wallet_errors.h
for (size_t i = 0; i < m_destinations.size(); ++i)
Line: 284 - /tmp/src/wallet/wallet_rpc_server.cpp
if(sizeof(payment_id) != payment_id_blob.size())
Line: 328 - /tmp/src/wallet/wallet_rpc_server.cpp
if(sizeof(payment_id) != payment_id_blob.size())
|
|
|
|
While people are looking at the XMR code, this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CVE-2010-5139 made me think of something (quite probably unrelated). There are a fair amount of signed vs unsigned integer comparisons throughput the XMR code base. Could someone fix that as well so that future over/underflow occurrences do not take place. |
|
|
|
This is complex shit that is above most your pay grades.
What happened to the "tread lightly and carry a big stick"? This is not my altcoin involved herein. I am trying to get the trolls to see that they are irrational. But now I am going to stop this back and forth, as I have made it clear enough and this is wasting time. Treading lightly shouldn't be altcoin specific or the trolls will follow you to your own "bitcoin killer" coin. The majority of us are happy you're working to either prove or disprove the vulnerability so less forum talk and more code pretty plix. As the saying goes: Do not feed the trolls. |
|
|
|
This is complex shit that is above most your pay grades.
What happened to the "treat lightly and carry a big stick"? Are you planning another name change in the near future? |
|
|
|
Well.. If you check http://dwarfpool.com/xmr, you can see ~40% of the "big boys" are mining direct to an exchange. Personally, I'd love that feature as I don't have to a) pay for the first payout, and b) pay again to get it into the exchange to trade. When 10 XMR has been mined, it gets deposited. Some things: * Port 3333 starting difficulty dropped to 5000 (or even less). I have some older (non-AES cpu) machines that chug away. * Support for XMRADDR.PAYMENTID.WORKERID so that I can keep track of how they are performing * -p used for email address so that we can get notifications if a machine has not sent any shares in X minutes (you decide what is "sane"). * The English fixed on the banner up top that cycles through features etc (correct grammer etc. It seems english isnt a first language so I'll gladly help. If you need some, PM me) That's good suggestions. * A rolling double window: X XMR Earned in last 24 hours (based upon what was mined) Y XMR Earning in next 24 hours (based upon your current mining speed. So no need to keep running back to the calculator estimator. As you add or remove miners, it automatically adjusts) These two alone should bring a considerable amount of people over as it makes it really easy to see how your rigs have performed and are going to perform. * The ability to remove (or share with the XMR dev fund) the (5%) Claymore fee (by appending ":Claymore" to your workers) EG: ADDRESS.PAYMENTID.WORKERID:Claymore (Personally, i think that one is quite important as the XMR dev fund needs help) 5% is daylight robbery! |
|
|
|
Well why does it matter to Anonymint? If he is willing to sell to the highest bidder, then he doesn't care about what happens to Monero.
If there is a flaw, I'd rather know now before putting even more money into Monero.
Well. I can understand why you would want to know but if you're holding onto your XMR in the event that its fake then that is your gamble. Everyone has had two confirmations of (multiple) flaws. Consider that your BIG notification. Anything crying that happens from here on goes to /dev/null. When the music stops and you're left without a chair, there's always a different game you can try. If you're wanting to play this safe: Sell your CN, wait till all this crap is over and then start again. At least that way you're left with BTC with enough buying power to (almost) start where you left off. |
|
|
|
he may have sent the PM to multiple people...
Correct. Everyone calm down. I am not even 100% sure if the developers haven't already thought of it and have mitigation already in place. Relax while we work through it. I doubt it will take a long time. Why bother selling the exploit if you could use it whilst having a short position in Monero? Or better yet, prove it and steal all the funds, you'll likely make off with far more than 100 bitcoin before the exchanges shut down. Yea right.. And what happens next, fork and rewind back to before the exploit takes place. Fix and /giggle. |
|
|
|
So I've done that and mined directly to the exchange (walletaddress.paymentid.workernumber).
Personally I like using monero.crypto-pool.fr and I was wondering if there's a roadmap of features you have planned.
We've been talking about the deposit function a bit earlier in the thread. Can we increase the minimum threshold payment its starting to be expensive all these small payment with .1 fees!
We pay the 0.1 XMR fee from the pool to your wallet. As a pool, we can pay over 100 people in one transaction with the same 0.1 fee. If you are worried about sending from your wallet to the exchange, you can wait to have more XMR on your wallet or simply wait for the devs to lower the fees. Are there any plans to allow direct payments to exchanges like Poloniex? We thought about it long ago but we didn't do it because it is a big risk. It means that the server will hold a LOT of money. Any place with money become the target of hackers. Right now we pay every hours so there is not enough money to be worth attacking the wallet. Do you guys want to take the risk ? Concerning new features, feel free to request via PM and we'll ask here if other miners want it too. Apart from the deposit on mining exchange, I haven't been asked much so I guess the majority of people are satisfied. Well.. If you check http://dwarfpool.com/xmr, you can see ~40% of the "big boys" are mining direct to an exchange. Personally, I'd love that feature as I don't have to a) pay for the first payout, and b) pay again to get it into the exchange to trade. When 10 XMR has been mined, it gets deposited. Some things: * Port 3333 starting difficulty dropped to 5000 (or even less). I have some older (non-AES cpu) machines that chug away. * Support for XMRADDR.PAYMENTID.WORKERID so that I can keep track of how they are performing * -p used for email address so that we can get notifications if a machine has not sent any shares in X minutes (you decide what is "sane"). * The English fixed on the banner up top that cycles through features etc (correct grammer etc. It seems english isnt a first language so I'll gladly help. If you need some, PM me) |
|
|
|
The key personalities of Monero have put bullseyes on their foreheads.
This sums it up perfectly. |
|
|
|
The luck is unpredictable and instable, therefore a pool efficiency vary from a day to an other.
I don't have anything against other pool but what strike me is that DwarfPool claim to be very transparent but doesn't display the efficiency and not even the luck... so how do users compare ?
The only real measure for you miners is how much Monero you get per 24h. The other stats doesn't mean much IMO.
I'll let it sit for a few days to have a fair comparison. The one thing that i found interesting @ http://dwarfpool.com/xmr.. You can determine your rigs separately for better vardiff, lower rejects and detailed statistic. Use username with any number (integer, any random number): WALLET . WORKER-ID .. So I've done that and mined directly to the exchange (walletaddress.paymentid.workernumber). Personally I like using monero.crypto-pool.fr and I was wondering if there's a roadmap of features you have planned. |
|
|
|
I'm not really so into these low level coding things any more but given a sufficient donation to the XMR dev fund I'd do it.
Define sufficient |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
