Yes, but in my browser it says "filter un-mineable fractional reserve shitcoins"  I don't think any of them are "fractional reserve". I actually like POS. Think it's a great algo. I realise it's not to popular around here but I think markets are just as good a mechanism for distribution as POW is. In some cases (such as Bitcoin) better. You should probably define "markets" better. What is your proposal for initial distribution? I do not think it can be "just as good" as POW, simply because there's essentially no new supply after initial distribution that *needs* a home; it already has a home. To be fair, there are some darn well distributed (by current standards) POS-type coins. BTSX is one example, however that distribution was based on 4-ish months of POW as well as 2 months of crowd funding, if you will. NEM seems to have done OK as well, though it's not actually released yet. Some others, like NXT, have atrocious distributions, or at least did initially. |
|
|
|
For anyone who's interested, a sneak peak at the next release of Darkcoin:
TLDR:
- Next release will go out in the next two days probably, I'm going with the community and calling it "The Onyx Release"
- It features mandatory, non-exploitable Masternode payments.
- Masternode payments are completely predictable now. I.e., if there's 2000 masternodes you can expect 1 payment every 4 days (divide the amount of nodes by the blocks per day to get your ROI).
- Masternode payments will go to 25% one week from release (non-manditory)
- Afterwards I encourage the community to find the pools still paying 20% and contact them to make sure they update their stratum before it's too late
- Masternode payments beyond that will increase to 30% in November, 35% in December and continue on until we get at least 3000 masternodes.
- Huge security updates to Darksend. It's much more robust and can take a beating.
It's a true proof-of-service setup now. Each new node has a 1 in N (total number of masternodes) chance of receiving a payment each block. After a payment, they must wait N blocks to receive another one (give or take 10%). There's no room for gaming the system because it's using math based off of the proof-of-work to prove the node won, plus you'd have to wait 15 confirmations each time you moved money around and that takes from your profit too.
Will enforcement be turned on for future increase in block reward? or will this be goodwill based? this is not really clear to me cuz of the 'non-mandatory' Great work otherwise Greetz With the new system reward increases and payee are enforced. Mr Duffield, I was going to send you a PM but I thought it better that everyone read this. I have allowed my petty arguments with a few individuals to spill over into attacks on Darkcoin. For that I apologize. Also, I am going to decline taking your 1000 DRK bet. I gave a friend a few btc to look through the code. If anything is found I'll send you the details. But realistically, we don't have the time or desire to spend on this. Like I said, I allowed my arguments with a few individuals to turn into an attack on your coin. I'm done being negative towards Darkcoin. Darkcoin was the first coin I mined and the first coin I got involved with after a friend introduced me to Crypto last January/February. I actually feel bad for the way I've treated it. So I'm back in! Setting up one masternode maybe more in the future. We'll see. I am going to support rather than attack Darkcoin from here on out. Cryptsy just sent me my DRK! Masternode within the hour! shojayxt Ah, good. This is the shojayxt I love to read. I don't know how long this new "personality" will last, but it really doesn't concern me. Your posts never bothered me much, except when they got kinda spammy (5+ in a row); they just weren't enjoyable to read. When you first started running a masternode some months ago, the surrounding discussion really made my day (I found it absolutely hilarious, + all the DRK supporters shouting you down made it all the better). If you're actually being genuine about this, I imagine some members will have a difficult time accepting you, but I try to not hold grudges.  This is the internet after all. |
|
|
|
uray, I'm trying to use your miner. When it starts up, it basically reads what's in the config file, then just sits there. No errors, nothing. Any idea what's going on with it?
can you give cumshot? I mean screenshot..  Never does anything else. Edit: how do I make this image show up? Edit2: got it your O/S network fucked up, it was the problem i don't know the cause and the solution other than use another miner because i can't reproduce here, sorry about that Ook, anyone have any idea how to mine without making my system completely unusable? |
|
|
|
uray, I'm trying to use your miner. When it starts up, it basically reads what's in the config file, then just sits there. No errors, nothing. Any idea what's going on with it?
can you give cumshot? I mean screenshot.. Never does anything else. Edit: how do I make this image show up? Edit2: got it |
|
|
|
|
uray, I'm trying to use your miner. When it starts up, it basically reads what's in the config file, then just sits there. No errors, nothing. Any idea what's going on with it?
|
|
|
|
I said 22 days for it to come through, this is day 11.
ETA is Oct. 12, 5 days from now. Is this 22 days for coin with 1 min block time? If a coin has 10 min block time, is it 220 days? A lot can happen during that time. Would a coin has longer block time less susceptible to this kind of attack? It has fewer orphans. Is at least 220 days. Some speculate was actually 2200 days. All wrong, its 22 aeons (1 aeon = 1 billion years)  Aeon coin is being attacked too? Is it true ? I heard they were going to rename it to just Eon coin, and thus avoid attacks by nature of their "professionalism". |
|
|
|
... CPU ... There's always a chance I'll solve a block.
Sure. Totally... :-p This isn't about solving blocks. Its about distributing the network hash rate. EXACTLY !!!! The blocks are just the bonus :-D May be I am wrong about this, but I think it doesn't really matter. The "51% attack" is about having >50% of the network hash rate. A few (let alone virtual) CPU cores here and there don't really matter. They start to solve the block but effectively never finish it and thus they never actually have any effect on the blockchain. They do not mine any blocks, they are only trying to find the solution (and their work gets flushed when somebody else finds it before them). Wild luck doesn't count here (unless you are hoping for the block reward as a lottery), because you would need a series of wild lucks in an externally defined time frame (solve several blocks in a row until the >50% entity looses it's adventage). Theoretically, you are wrong, but: Take the case of a single CPU hashing away: it contributes nothing to the network until it finds a block. However, he WILL find a block if he mined long enough; it's a virtual certainty. He always has a chance = (his hashing power) / (network hashing power). Let's say it's going to take him 6 months to find a block, on average. During those first theoretical 6 months until he finds a block (if block finding was perfectly distributed), he has indeed contributed nothing security-wise. A few (let alone virtual) CPU cores here and there don't really matter. They start to solve the block but effectively never finish it and thus they never actually have any effect on the blockchain. They do not mine any blocks, they are only trying to find the solution (and their work gets flushed when somebody else finds it before them).
This is not correct. Each computed hash is its own independent event, and its input is (assumed to be) as likely to solve the block as any other. Work does not "get flushed" when someone else finds a block, as that work was determined to be worthless anyway (it didn't solve the block). The case where work would be lost is if you were in the middle of calculating a hash when you received notice of a new block, but that's very trivial. Now, instead of your single CPU, imagine 150 CPUs just like yours. This group of CPUs would on average solve 1 block per day. 150 X 24 = 3,600 solo-mining CPUs and you've got on average 1 block every hour. It does indeed "make a difference", however you personally with your 1 CPU are unlikely to be a contributor over the short term. So with that said..... If we have 5000 Wallets solo-mining on even single CPU Cores - would that - or - would that not make a difference? I don't know the x11 HR of a generic single core off hand, but just for our purposes let's go with 50 KH/s. 5,000 x 50 KH/s = 250 MH/s, only about 50 280x worth. |
|
|
|
... CPU ... There's always a chance I'll solve a block.
Sure. Totally... :-p This isn't about solving blocks. Its about distributing the network hash rate. EXACTLY !!!! The blocks are just the bonus :-D May be I am wrong about this, but I think it doesn't really matter. The "51% attack" is about having >50% of the network hash rate. A few (let alone virtual) CPU cores here and there don't really matter. They start to solve the block but effectively never finish it and thus they never actually have any effect on the blockchain. They do not mine any blocks, they are only trying to find the solution (and their work gets flushed when somebody else finds it before them). Wild luck doesn't count here (unless you are hoping for the block reward as a lottery), because you would need a series of wild lucks in an externally defined time frame (solve several blocks in a row until the >50% entity looses it's adventage). Theoretically, you are wrong, but: Take the case of a single CPU hashing away: it contributes nothing to the network until it finds a block. However, he WILL find a block if he mined long enough; it's a virtual certainty. He always has a chance = (his hashing power) / (network hashing power). Let's say it's going to take him 6 months to find a block, on average. During those first theoretical 6 months until he finds a block (if block finding was perfectly distributed), he has indeed contributed nothing security-wise. A few (let alone virtual) CPU cores here and there don't really matter. They start to solve the block but effectively never finish it and thus they never actually have any effect on the blockchain. They do not mine any blocks, they are only trying to find the solution (and their work gets flushed when somebody else finds it before them).
This is not correct. Each computed hash is its own independent event, and its input is (assumed to be) as likely to solve the block as any other. Work does not "get flushed" when someone else finds a block, as that work was determined to be worthless anyway (it didn't solve the block). The case where work would be lost is if you were in the middle of calculating a hash when you received notice of a new block, but that's very trivial. Now, instead of your single CPU, imagine 150 CPUs just like yours. This group of CPUs would on average solve 1 block per day. 150 X 24 = 3,600 solo-mining CPUs and you've got on average 1 block every hour. It does indeed "make a difference", however you personally with your 1 CPU are unlikely to be a contributor over the short term. |
|
|
|
Putting this here instead of main thread:
ECB is printing money indeed but as I told you, it doesn't help real economy since the money is not channeled to real economy but to securities. I feel myself very retarded when I have to repeat myself.
It doesn't matter that it's not channeled to the real economy (whatever that means). You're just repeating what these clowns are telling you without questioning. As you are so bored with repeating yourself I'll shout the point I have been making to you so finally get it: YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT AND COMPLETELY WRONG. You are not making any point but only yelling like the worst internet troll.  Read my previous reactions to here. I'm done. Please also re-read your own posts. If you truly think it matters for inflation whether printed money is deployed and where it is deployed than you are truly stupid. The rudeness doesn't bother me but the off-topic does. Please take it to Monero Economy or elsewhere if you are simply arguing about economics without some actual connection to Monero. Yup. I am out of the stupid argument about pure economics and semantics. My conclusion for this large OT-branch here is that why not put Monero into the bullish trend by adjusting the supply to the demand. If there is no demand for all the supplied coins (ie price goes down), there is no reason to supply too many coins. Those coins can be "saved" to later days when there is more demand. Also, if it is made sure the supply is slightly below the demand, it makes the marketcap rising (some may want to dump but this need to be considered when re-evaluating the coin mintage). For the adoption, it is better to make it constantly rising (it can be made only by adjusting the supply vs demand framework). Mmhmm. And who's going to decide when demand is outpacing supply and vice versa? Who will make sure that person or persons does it "right"? What possible motivation would either of these people/groups have to ensure supply was increased as demand picked up (seeing as any likely candidates would almost certainly be significant benefactors of higher prices)? This person or group would have to carefully monitor activity to determine whether a supply increase or decrease was needed (and thus issue forks on a fairly regular basis to change the reward). Congratulations, you've created a central bank. You've created fiat. |
|
|
|
Hi guys - just a note that we have asked exchanges to suspend XMR deposits/withdrawals for 24 hours. Trading is not suspended. This is a precautionary move.
Polo is shutting down everything: Iloveu: In 30min, as a precaution against the attack threat, XMR deposits and withdrawals will be frozen for 24hrs and all funds put in cold storage. I made the important bit bold. Trading is not suspended. thanks a lot, that's why my coins have been stuck at 18/20 confirms.  How is this any different than a bank deciding I'm not allowed to have access to my money? Its not. Exchanges are banks by default. What time specifically is the attack supposed to start? I need to make sure that I start my popcorn at the right time. This instils much confidence that a small group of people can completely shut-down the system because they feel like it. Let me guess, its for my benefit and protection. Central Bank of Monero? If you dont know what you are talking about than that's fine. Ignorance isnt a crime. But don't pretend like you have any sort of idea what you are talking about if you don't. Try to formulate your thoughts before you type. This illiterate gibberish doesn't even make any sense. What don't I get? The core group asked exchanges to shut down deposits. I sent my coins before fluffypony's announcement. Mintpal did it without notice now my coins are in limbo for 24hours. It looks pretty clear that a few people denied me access to my money. Is this not centralization? Exchanges are indeed centralization. This is well-known. |
|
|
|
Archived binaries are no longer +x by default, as well... Have to go to darkcoin.io to get them, link dead.
That's because Mangled copied the link text (the whole post, rather, from darkcointalk) instead of the link address. Not the first time... |
|
|
|
From the Instant(Tx) Whitepaper: 5.2 Transaction Lock Compatibility ModeTo enable backwards compatibility with all existing software (exchanges, pools, etc), clients will
default to showing 24 hours of confirmations of transactions that have been successfully locked.
This will provide all services using Darkcoin to benefit from instant transactions without having to
implement anything specific.
If a client needs the daemon to function in the old way, there will be a flag to disable this mode.Good thinking This section might need some work too. Current raw blockchain (no other transactions) (60m / 2.5m confirmation time) * 156KB per block * days in a year) / mb /gb ((60/2.5)*158*365)/1024/1024 1.31GB per year Even without anything... the blockchain grows pretty fast. In 5 years we're looking at 5-15GB depending on the transaction volume. ((60/20)*158*365)/1024/1024 0.16GB per year That means that we can save over a gig a year by increasing the confirmation time. The idea is we want less bloat and faster transactions, so we should be able to get both without sacrificing anything. Am I missing something? Why aren't hours/day included in the calculations? Shouldn't it be like: (60m / 2.5m confirmation time) * 156(158?)KB per block * hours in a day * days in a year) / MB / GB ((60/2.5)*158*24*365)/1024/1024 = ~31.68 GB? And second calculation: ((60/20)*158*24*365)/1024/1024 = ~3.96 GB? Thus, the move would save 31.68 - 3.96 = 27.72 GB / year? 60 minutes / 2.5 minutes/block * 158 bytes per block (w/o txs) * 24 hours * 365 days / 1024 (bytes/kilobyte)/(1024 kb/megabytes) = 31 megabytes not 31 gigabytes! There we go, thanks. I knew something wasn't right with that math, as it wasn't matching up with reality in the slightest, haha. My whole appdata folder at present is only around 400 MB, with almost 139,000 blocks under its belt (2/3rds of a year's worth). Anyway, looks like the move would only save around ~28MB / year. |
|
|
|
From the Instant(Tx) Whitepaper: 5.2 Transaction Lock Compatibility ModeTo enable backwards compatibility with all existing software (exchanges, pools, etc), clients will
default to showing 24 hours of confirmations of transactions that have been successfully locked.
This will provide all services using Darkcoin to benefit from instant transactions without having to
implement anything specific.
If a client needs the daemon to function in the old way, there will be a flag to disable this mode.Good thinking This section might need some work too. Current raw blockchain (no other transactions) (60m / 2.5m confirmation time) * 156KB per block * days in a year) / mb /gb ((60/2.5)*158*365)/1024/1024 1.31GB per year Even without anything... the blockchain grows pretty fast. In 5 years we're looking at 5-15GB depending on the transaction volume. ((60/20)*158*365)/1024/1024 0.16GB per year That means that we can save over a gig a year by increasing the confirmation time. The idea is we want less bloat and faster transactions, so we should be able to get both without sacrificing anything. Am I missing something? Why aren't hours/day included in the calculations? Shouldn't it be like: (60m / 2.5m confirmation time) * 156(158?)KB per block * hours in a day * days in a year) / MB / GB ((60/2.5)*158*24*365)/1024/1024 = ~31.68 GB? And second calculation: ((60/20)*158*24*365)/1024/1024 = ~3.96 GB? Thus, the move would save 31.68 - 3.96 = 27.72 GB / year? Edit: but that's not right, DRK's blockchain isn't nearly that big now... Edit2: As pointed out below, each block uses space measured in mere bytes, not KB. |
|
|
|
WTB 4.6m DRK OTC only
Not that I could be part of any of this, but who on earth would be a trusted third party as escrow for such a volume ? Just wondering.... lol, you do realize this is the entire money supply, right? Coins101 is being funny. |
|
|
|
Waht would happen to the consensus if someone took like a lot of money, and bougt online like 3000 mn that he/she/them controll ?
would this not be same sitation like the 51% attack on network hash ?
To do so would cost the attacker more money that the exploit would be worth. Lets not rule out the irrational nutcase trying to ruin DRK. Even then, if Vertoe couldn't get hold of 47K DRK without turning heads yesterday...how on earth is anybody going to get hold of 3m DRK? I am sure that for 50/drk there would be people seling. which is like 150 milion usd. Small play money for some. I am not fud ing... just simple honest question. You cannot acquire 3M Darkcoins, that is the whole coin supply outside of masternodes, there would just not be a peer to peer currency anymore the attacket would have to attack himself. Plus you cant estimate a purchase of that size with a fix price like 50 USD it is not economically feasible the demand would be extreme and the price would have to go to the thousands no doubt. Maybe is a feasible attack on a young Darkcoin clone, maybe, but definitely not in Darkcoin. If you wanted to acquire 1m+ DRK in the timeframe of a day to several weeks, you could not do it. 1. There isn't that many for sale presently, so price would be driven really really high. 2. When traders saw the incredible pump happening, they would jump on board, further driving the price up (making it even harder to get the rest of your coins). Stuff like this doesn't happen in a vacuum, or all at once. If one was a bit smarter and attempted to accumulate over several months, then it might be feasible. The price would absolutely rise a bunch, but I don't know if you could affirmatively say it's possible or impossible (except at the wings, i.e., buying 500k DRK is definitely possible, but buying 3m DRK is almost certainly completely unfeasible without circumstances drastically changing). One must ask the question: Why would someone spend at least $150,000,000 to destroy a $17,000,000 currency? |
|
|
|
BE AWARE ! ! ! No way in hell I'm clicking on this link..... I just got an email from " no-reply@blockchains.info" Says that my ACCOUNT WILL BE LOCKED And there's a couple of links and a confirmation code. I do not have an Account there!!!! No way in hell I'm clicking on this link..... BE AWARE ! ! ! Whoa, let's calm down here. I got this email as well. No need to be scared clicking on the link. I did. Now I have unicorns and rainbows everywhere! Seriously, though, it's just a (really poor) phishing attempt. |
|
|
|
Moneroman88 is almost as good as AnnoyMint.
<snip of masterful writing> I would like to spend time elucidating you in regards to my "typed dialect detection algorithms" but I do not have time to reveal this to you now. Perhaps later I will take the time to strive to enlighten your terrible darkness, but not now. In fact, my handlers are coming to take me back to my chambers now, and I am sorry to say I am unlikely ever to return to this forum. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. However, I must point out that you've egregiously misused "elucidating". Elucidate means "make (something) clear; explain" (it does not mean enlighten or educate (am I allowed to use parenthetical phrases as well?)). Therefore, its expected object is the matter in question. Perhaps changing it to read "...elucidating to you..." would be the simplest rectification. As a side note, AnonyMint's use of "elucidating" in his old signature was correct. |
|
|
|
with rc5 this will not happen again because we have rc3 voting system if i remember good. If payouts are indeed random, probabilities are easily calculable. With 900 MNs: 1/900 * 1/900 = ~0.000001235 Now since humans tend to search for patterns, that number should probably be multiplied by the number of MNs: 0.000001235 * 900 = 0.00111... The chance of a particular Masternode getting paid is equal to the chance of any node getting paid twice in a row. It's analogous to the chance of rolling a 1 on a single dice roll vs the chance of rolling any double on two dice rolls. |
|
|
|
Anything that is technically vulnerable will be attacked sooner or later. This is not a 'proof' of Monero validity (as it seems from some comments here that assume: attacked, therefore feared, therefore good). On the contrary, if anything, it is a proof of the system fragility in the current state.
This isn't true, attacks require effort, and the attack that affected Monero could have instead been aimed at any other CryptoNote coin but this did not happen. In fact the fact that only Monero was attacked proves that you are completely and utterly wrong. It proves nothing. Like smooth said, it does imply the attacker had some interest in hurting XMR. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
