Wallet:
Error: refresh failed: daemon is busy. Please try later. Blocks received: 0
bitmonerod:
set_log 1 active and it downloading blocks, how long do I have to wait to refresh and/or start mining?
We are on block 10,000+, so give it a little while. If you are on linux, you can use this blockchain.dat (put it in $HOME/.bitmonero) |
|
|
|
Can you run Monero miner through TOR? If yes, what change would need to made to the bat file on the opening page? I'm using Windows.
thanks
As far as i know there is no proxy support? Can someone advice on this. you can bind other ips/ports as given above. however, you should not use tor for mining as the latency is very high and you run the risk of your blocks being orphaned. use a vpn/vps instead. |
|
|
|
Cant sync
in daemon type "set_log 1", you should see blocks downloading. else type "exit" and restart the daemon. |
|
|
|
CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:78 (message): Boost version 1.54 is unsupported, more details are available here http://goo.gl/RrCFmA-- Found Git: /usr/bin/git -- Could NOT find Threads (missing: Threads_FOUND) -- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred! boost 1.54 isn't supported because it has a bug in it that breaks cryptonote coins. you need to install 1.53 or 1.55. ubuntu 13.10 has 1.53 as the default library, hence why it is recommended. i highly suggest you just install ubuntu 13.10 alongside whatever your linux os is and mine with that, and if you want to use the wallet just run a vm. it took me about 2 hours to get it up and running on 14.4. |
|
|
|
Can you run Monero miner through TOR? If yes, what change would need to made to the bat file on the opening page? I'm using Windows.
thanks
See help for the daemon for info about port forwarding: ./bitmonerod --help
2014-Apr-24 20:54:57.041785 Starting...
bitmonero v0.8.5.294(0.1-g0fd82c9)
Allowed options:
Command line options:
--help Produce help message
--version Output version information
--os-version
--data-dir arg (=/home/mydesktop/.bitmonero)
Specify data directory
--config-file arg (=bitmonero.conf) Specify configuration file
Command line options and settings options:
--log-file arg
--log-level arg (=0)
--no-console Disable daemon console commands
--rpc-bind-ip arg (=127.0.0.1)
--rpc-bind-port arg (=18081)
--p2p-bind-ip arg (=0.0.0.0) Interface for p2p network protocol
--p2p-bind-port arg (=18080) Port for p2p network protocol
--p2p-external-port arg (=0) External port for p2p network protocol (if
port forwarding used with NAT)
--allow-local-ip Allow local ip add to peer list, mostly in
debug purposes
--add-peer arg Manually add peer to local peerlist
--add-priority-node arg Specify list of peers to connect to and
attempt to keep the connection open
--seed-node arg Connect to a node to retrieve peer addresses,
and disconnect
--hide-my-port Do not announce yourself as peerlist candidate
--extra-messages-file arg Specify file for extra messages to include
into coinbase transactions
--start-mining arg Specify wallet address to mining for
--mining-threads arg Specify mining threads count So you can bind the daemon and the RPC to other IPs/ports with the above command line arguments (p2p-bind and rpc-bind respectively) |
|
|
|
I've never done CPU mining. Is it better to mine with the wallet, or to mine with a program like minerd?
Use wallet and Linux build instructions above Additionally, this is a pain in the ass to install on anything but Ubuntu 13.10, so please install that particular distro. With a Core i7 quad you will get 2-3 blocks per day right now. |
|
|
|
How many threads does this coin need?  One in the right place, apparently  |
|
|
|
|
monero.cc is registered, website is forthcoming.
|
|
|
|
|
One minute blocks that are of size ~1 KB (most of the blocks right now) double the likelihood of a miner getting a block. Selfish mining only becomes a severe issue when blocksize becomes large. Very few tx are going through the network right now, and few reorgs have taken place.
Additionally, the network hash rate is now 4655 H/s. A Core i7 2600k does 14 H/s in Ubuntu 13.10 and would represent 0.3% of the network and thus get 4.32 blocks per day. Solo mining is for sure not out of the picture.
My personal opinion is that I will abandon the fork if merge mining is added. And then we can discuss a new fork. Until then I don't think Monero will be taken over by another fork.
|
|
|
|
I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin.
At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:
1. No GUI
2. No web site
3. Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
4. No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
5. No effective team behind it at launch
6. No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)
I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure.
I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.).
We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.
There's no point in fragmenting talent. If you don't think merge mining is a good idea, I'd prefer we just not add it to the code. Bitcoin had no web site or GUI either initially. Bitcoin-QT was the third Bitcoin client. If people want a pool, they can make one. There's no point in centralizing the network when it's just began, though. Surely you must feel this way. |
|
|
|
So what you are saying is this coin will have a reward curve that is in fact nothing at all like bitcoin (which has neither such fast emission nor a fixed final reward)? Fair enough, but not as advertised.
Yeah, well. We need to change the front page to reflect this if we can all agree on it. We should post the emissions curve and the height and value that subsidy will be locked in to. In my opinion this is the least disruptive thing we can do at the moment, and should ensure that the fork continues to be mineable and secure in about 8 years time without relying on fees to secure it (which I think you agree is a bad idea). It's unlikely that uint64 values will ever overflow given these numbers, and we can make it so that the max coins at any address is 2^64-1 (so if you have more you just split them up). Obviously not what either of us intended to be getting when we started mining, but I don't think there is a long term harm in the 1 minute blocktime and current subsidy schedule. |
|
|
|
We have added a poll in the freenode IRC room "Poll #2: "Emission future of Monero, please vote!!" started by stickh3ad. Options: #1: "Keep emission like now"; #2: "Keep emission but change blocktime and final reward"; #3: "Keep emission but change blocktime"; #4: "Keep emission but change final reward"; #5: "Change emission"; #6: "Change emission and block time"; #7: "Change emission and block time and final reward" To vote type Where # is what you vote for. Right now everyone is voting for #4, including me. |
|
|
|
why in gods name are you posting ANN topics in main ?
there is no conceivable way in hell you didn't know better.
if you do this ? i'm out . The moderator was contacted (theymos, I think) to move the thread but did not act. Deleting it was the first option but someone have reply before it was possible Yeah, we've been trying to get the thread moved but it looks like Alt Currencies has no moderator (formerly it was Salty Spitoon). |
|
|
|
We saw a similar thing with RUCoin (which had SHA256 and scrypt) and the coin failed.
If you're saying weighting can cause a big disturbance from a minor shift in hashing, that phenomenon seems much less likely to occur with 4 algos instead of 2 if weighted properly. It's obviously also much more cartel proof. People like Gmaxwell seem to claim that a group like KNCminer would create ASICs for all four chains. I don't really see groups like that monopolizing all four chains into eternity, especially if each algo is radically different from one another. They aren't radically different. All you need to implement is an instruction cache that does most of the normal transformations for hashing algorithms (eg bit rotations). Then you can make an ASIC for any hashing algorithm that can be implemented in 20k-100k circuits. scrypt was neat in that it required some memory, but then they made ASICs with memory. |
|
|
|
There no successful coins other than bitcoin. The second largest coin is 5% of bitcoin's market cap. The third largest is 1%. It gets rapidly worse from there.
If there is ever a successful coin other than bitcoin (unclear, but maybe) it will take new approaches, not anything like any of the current alts.
Personally I don't believe hash algorithm even matters very much. By focusing on that you are getting distracted from anything that does (or at least might) matter.
You are the one that does not understand the big picture. Why was Dogecoin successful at all and has beaten Bitcoin in daily transactions several times? The answer is market penetration. A currency is useless without high market penetration. Guess what algos give the highest market penetration? GPU. When people try to CPU mine and earn 1 penny a day due to botnets, most people cease to bother doing so, and the coin dies. The future of PoW is Myriadcoin style coins where you can mine with anything and receive some kind of reward. No. The second biggest cryptocurrency is Liteoin. I CPU mined Litecoin for months. It was a CPU coin at generation and was flooded with botnets and large computing clusters early on. The coin succeeded despite this, because eventually a GPU algo came out. I'm sure we'll see the same thing for the cryptonote hashing algo. Myriadcoin introduces vulnerability when miners hop between difficulties and the difficulty of one hashing algo for GPU goes down and another goes up. It's not a proper solution. We saw a similar thing with RUCoin (which had SHA256 and scrypt) and the coin failed. You seem to forget what the function of this is: money. As long as people find the privacy afforded to be favourable, it will have a usage and monetary value. This is the whole point. |
|
|
|
There's another change that needs to be talked about too: we don't believe that microscopic levels of inflation achieved at 9 or 10 years will secure a proof-of-work network.
It's not microscopic at 9 or 10 years, with the revised schedule. Take a look at the graph a few posts back. With the original schedule, that is more the case. With the revised schedule this is more an issue of 20 years out. I'm not positive but I think most of the other alts such as doge have much shorter schedules, so the issue is more urgent there. Yeah it's a little less dire now, I will calculate inflation percent soon and we can collectively decide if it's too low after a certain time. It's a problem with Bitcoin too, so we could also ignore it and wait to see how Bitcoin eventually handles it. |
|
|
|
|
I'm baffled that people are arguing about us making the emission schedule more fair. I'm an early adopter. This halves my money, and it's what I want to do.
There's another change that needs to be talked about too: we don't believe that microscopic levels of inflation achieved at 9 or 10 years will secure a proof-of-work network. In fact, there's a vast amount of evidence from DogeCoin and InfiniteCoin that it will not. So, we'd like to fix reward when it goes between 0.25 - 1.00 coins. To do so, we need to further bitshift values to decrease the supply under 2^64-1 atomic units to accommodate this.
Again, this hurts early adopters (like me), but is designed to ensure the correct operation of the chain in the long run. It's less than a week old, and if we're going to hardfork in economic changes that make sense we should do it now.
We're real devs turning monero into the coin it should have been, and our active commitment should be nothing but good news. Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use.
|
|
|
|
is there a hidden gpu miner?
I doubt it, network is equivalent to about 400 good CPUs right now. Making the hashing algorithm implemented on a GPU is non-trivial. Reminds me of Litecoin back in late 2012.  |
|
|
|
|
Before this thread is too big, I would like to state that a bug has been identified in the emission curve and we are currently in the process of fixing it (me, TFT, and smooth).
Currently coins are emitted at double the rate that was intended. We will correct this in the future, likely by bitshifting values of outputs before a certain height, and then correcting 1 min blocks to 2 min blocks. The changes proposed will be published to a Monero Improvement Protocol on github.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion of chain future going on presently in IRC
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
