From the results of this poll so far you are losing/alienating your audience. Stop posting polls and other shit every day and go build something.  |
|
|
|
|
I like ArticMine's move Rd2. We're obviously going to follow with Rfd1. Black will continue on defense for quite a while and we can just continue attacking.
Rd2 (ArticMine, 8XMR, smooth)
g4 (LucyLovesCrypto)
Nh4 (XMRpromotions)
|
|
|
|
Some questions, with upfront apologies for not searching the thread for answers:
Re the current blocksize debate now creating a duststorm in the bitcoin world - is there a similar blocksize controversy in monero's future?
Oversimplifying one aspect of the debate - centralization - if the next 3 to 5 years see a destruction of the decentralization of bitcoin, is monero in a position to observe, learn, and survive, or will monero be swept away by the same forces of centralization (in the event monero becomes the "alpha coin" after the demise of bitcoin)?
tl;dr If centralization destroys bitcoin, will centralization inevitably destroy all cryptocurrency?
also, moneromoo has come up with a pool resistance approach that passed the smooth filter, something none of my ideas have ever done. no idea how it will do in the wild. It's more of a rough concept, no specific design, no code, etc. We'll see how it looks once some details are worked out, but there is potential it could work. |
|
|
|
Fine, Monero might be off topic, but I have to correct this one incorrect thing being said: in no way can someone reasonably say that having crippled mining software at launch was unfair (or an instamined) for Monero. If anything, that actually made it more fair because those who got there first got fewer, not more, coins.
If wasn't fewer, it just did not affect the amount of coins either way (other than around 100 coins which were indeed instamined if you want to call it that). If you look at the block explorer, the blocks happened very close to the specified rate (starting around block 5) with exactly the specified reward per block (starting with block 1). Two days post-launch there were around 50k coins mined (about 1/2% of the current total), which was about right. By contrast, if you look at the block explorer for Dash you see extra coins and/or blocks occurring faster than specified, until block 4500 around 2 days after launch (total 1.99m+ coins; about 33% of the current total). The only thing that was affected is some people were able to get a higher share of the hash rate by optimizing the miner, something that btw is still the case to this very day with Dash. The open source Dash miner uses the sph hashing library which is will known for being unoptimized and inefficient (according to othe; I have not verified myself). |
|
|
|
...
And that's not a complete list, doesn't getpeerinfo order by latency? Anyone with very high latency would have virtually no chance to have their block survive without being orphaned, given the high rate that blocks were being produced by powerful servers in extremely well connected data centers. Some probably did, but it would have to be negligible. |
|
|
|
People complains about Dash, formerly Darkcoin, formerly Xcoin, being instamined and not rightfully propagated.
Well, I think there are some things that we need to reconsider before we actually come to this conclusion.
A) The history.
When Xcoin was launched, it had no other features that any other coin didn't have. It was a restart and a copy with no unique features. It was worthless, and it got distributed through an "instantaneous mining"(2.5m coins out of current 5.0m supply within 8 hours).
small correction : it was actually 1.99m not 2.5m --> https://dashdot.io/alpha/?page_id=118 Yes that is correct. The last block with extra coins was 4500, with 1.99m+ outstanding. If you click forward to the next block you will see it drops from 500 to 25 coins. https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/block.dws?4500.htm |
|
|
|
Fact is that with this broad definition of instamine a lot of cryptocurrencies fall under it, including Bitcoin, Monero and Dash.
So its really a useless and dumb argument to use against each other.
1. Monero and Bitcoin are off topic to this thread. Please try to stay on topic. 2. If the definition fits every coin (which any definition that equates to "unfair mining" certainly does) then it is a meaningless definition and should not be used. The correct definition of instamine is when a large to very large number of coins are mined at launch despite the planned and documented distribution schedule being much slower. (If planned and documented, a very fast distribution at launch is a fastmine not an instamine.) By this correct definition for example, Litecoin had a small instamine (around 1% of current coins). Bitcoin and Monero did not. |
|
|
|
|
If the pool you are using supports fixed difficulty you could try setting yours to 30 seconds or one minute. That's your hash rate times 30 or 60. That should eliminate the possibility of 10 minutes with no share
|
|
|
|
(...)
I always thought that the only way to change this is for Evan to quit this project and start another one with a clean distribution and conscience. The current marketcap is at 13.5 million dollars, which should never be a problem considering that Bitcoin is about to fork with a 3.5 billion marketcap. Yes, some people would suffer as a result of this, but not many. 13.5 million dollars in marketcap is nothing. Start another blockchain, use the same code/vision and simply own the altcoin scene, unless you still want to make a lot of profit from those masternodes and you just cannot stop.
If that happens, i will be the first one to invest all my money into it. Probably many more after me...
in my turn i always thought that bitcoin's blockchain should be reset, into a clean and evenly distributed coin. i'd gladly receive my personal stash of free 1000 bitcoins of personal potestative right. It was called Litecoin. Did you miss that boat too? Litecoin wasn't that "evenly" distributed, as the first day had its own instamine. http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#litecoin"Despite being Bitcoin's supposed silver to it's gold, Litecoin does not escape from this analysis kindly. In the first 96 hours, we see a well defined curve that demonstrates instamining occurred, showing 450,000 LTC being created in less than 6 hours."
450K coins isn't very many given LTC's supply. Available supply: LTC 43m, DASH 6m so 450K LTC corresponds to 63K DASH. Pretty much nothing compared to the 1.5-2M instamine here, and this number will further shrink over time. No wonder dash had the same issue at the start, as it was based on LTC code, but with a spin regarding hash type and diff. adjustment.
No, if the only issue with XCoin was same slow difficulty retargeting as LTC, the instamine would have been far, far smaller. The main issue was the enormous coins per block during the first two days compared to any time after that. LTC kept the same coins per block for about four years, making it's instamine negligible. |
|
|
|
So really not to worrisome. Quantum is the real danger.
Quantum is no danger. Is the encryption used by VeraCrypt vulnerable to Quantum attacks?
VeraCrypt uses block ciphers (AES, Serpent, Twofish) for its encryption. Quantum attacks against these block ciphers are just a faster brute-force since the best know attack against these algorithms is exhaustive search (related keys attacks are irrelevant to our case because all keys are random and independent from each other).
Since VeraCrypt always uses 256-bit random and independent keys, we are assured of a 128-bit security
level against quantum algorithms which makes VeraCrypt encryption immune to such attacks. I think the algorithms used in Monero are even stronger than in VeraCrypt. Quantum attacks are potentially a danger to Monero. The distinction is that symmetric encryption like AES, etc. are much less vulnerable than signatures. All widely-used signature algorithms including those in Monero and Bitcoin are potentially vulnerable. It will be something that cryptocurrency will need to deal with in time but no one is panicking quite yet. |
|
|
|
BTC38 has CNY deposits though (not sure about bter).
Yeah they do and I think they even have a XMR/CNY trading pair. |
|
|
|
Is there any reason on why XMR is NOT listed in btc38???
Chinese will get pretty desperate to enter in cryptos again sooner than most people imagine...
I don't know but we have been listed on bter for a long time. |
|
|
|
Does not apply to Monero. We use ECDH not DH. Same principle, but different math. Within the "recommendations" section of the paper: Transition to elliptic curves. Transitioning to elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) key exchange with appropriate parameters avoids all known feasible cryptanalytic attacks. |
|
|
|
Above comments about CT are correct. However, even with CT, using math an observer can still verify that the coins spent are equal to the coins received. You just can't tell the number.
It's not a bug. It's a feature.  An important feature! With Zerocash I believe this is not the case. Not being able to verify the circulation of a currency is a scary thing. In essence it is "TOO DARK" or "TOO PRIVATE". Monero is a good balance of being black and white.  With the new developments from Shen Monero will do everything zerocash proposes to do without the risk of an infinite supply secretly being created. In theory both have the possibility of a bug that could create extra coins. In practice the math and crypto for CT is vastly more mature and simpler (and can even be mostly understood and followed step-by-step by non cryptographers like me, unlike zerocash). Also CT doesn't have the trusted setup requirement. |
|
|
|
but maybe the people who browse the darknet don't really do anything else besides get high and sell stuff on there.
That's certainly not the case. I use the blockchain.info onion link because I don't want them logging my IP every time I look up a bitcoin transaction. Has nothing to do with drugs or selling stuff. |
|
|
|
Here is another one from Cisco No remote possibility of bias there right? You think Cisco might want to get contracts and sell gear by hyping its economic value? Ballpark numbers are similar Yes they are but Cisco defined its own metric in a way that makes the headline numbers even more obviously exaggerated hype: Cisco defines IoE “Value at Stake” as “the potential value that can be created ... based on their ability to harness IoE over the next decade On other words, the absolute maximum potential amount of value that is possible, not what even Cisco claims to expect to happen. When annualized Cisco's (by their own definition optimistic) numbers represent a similarly tiny annual rate of <1% and probably well under 1/2%. BTW, does the IOTA project have any relationship with Cisco that would suggest IOTA will be used in Cisco's (and its customers') IoT deployment efforts? |
|
|
|
It's not just about making life easier, it's about upping productivity substantially which will bring about a growth in wealth unseen in the history of mankind. The industrial revolution is nothing compared. In the end this technological progression will eventually free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money and revolutionize virtually every field from medicine to entertainment.
According to the report CfB linked earlier it will not bring wealth "unseen in the history of mankind", it will (according to industry hype at least) bring "impact" of $3.9 trillion to $11.1 trillion which is something like 3%-15% of world GDP. A lot of that will be totally boring but still economically important "impacts" like better automating supply chains. You're overdosing on kool aid. No. Read again, that'sthe forecast for the next few years. How about you put down the kool aid and read it for the first time. " could have a total economic impact of $3.9 trillion to $11.1 trillion per year in 2025" "We also found that more than two-thirds of value will be generated in business-to-business settings" That is 10 years away, so taken as an annual growth rate represents between 0.3% and 0.8% per year, assuming it even happens ("could"), and even then will be mostly boring things like supply chain management. |
|
|
|
It's not just about making life easier, it's about upping productivity substantially which will bring about a growth in wealth unseen in the history of mankind. The industrial revolution is nothing compared. In the end this technological progression will eventually free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money and revolutionize virtually every field from medicine to entertainment.
According to the report CfB linked earlier it will not bring wealth "unseen in the history of mankind", it will (according to industry hype at least) bring "impact" of $3.9 trillion to $11.1 trillion which is something like 3%-15% of world GDP. A lot of that will be totally boring but still economically important "impacts" like better automating supply chains. You're overdosing on kool aid. |
|
|
|
The 2.5ms on an i7-2700K came from NoodleDoodle's commit notes I think. It was obviously intended as a CPU-only number that was not realistic for the full system at all. I'm pretty sure even today with a multi-processor server using newer CPUs you could do many times better (if you wanted all full nodes to be on big servers in data centers). But that's still not a realistic end-to-end number at all.
Oh, I thought it was a 2600k, but what's 0.1Ghz among friends? I don't even know. Quite possibly I misremembered or it was a typo on my part. |
|
|
|
You pretty much know if you have commitments to funding. You talk to people. You gauge market sentiment and the competitive landscape.
Then you are putting yourself in jeopardy on economic reality grounds. Even if the fine print says people can cancel, if everyone understands that it isn't really going to happen, then it isn't real. I specifically wrote refutations to #2 and #3 up thread. I understand. I nevertheless consider them to be issues of significant concern, especially when all is taken together. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
