What differences are there between the two coins on a technical level? Meaning... has either dev team added something to the cryptonote code, or done anything to really differentiate them?
I'm still waiting for a dev to figure out a solution to the bloat issues with all cryptonote coins. It wouldn't surprise me to see a dev wander in one day with a new coin, have a fix for the bloat + gui wallet, and overshadow all existing cryptonote coins.
I think the main reason is that BBR is just a one an show while XMR have a lot of really talanted devs around it. BBR is not a 'one man show' About XMR unfair mining; NoodleDoodle optimized the slow hash code recently to about 225% performance. However, he has decided not to release the source code and has only released binaries. I think he is enjoying mining MRO with very high hash rates from Linux right now. Eventually we hope he will release the code.
Our git repo has the same code as BCN 0.8.6, so will be the same speed.
I firmly believe that noodle should not be part of development team.
Like I stated in IRC, I am not part of the "dev team", I never was. Just so happens I took a look at the code and changed some extremely easy to spot "errors". I then decided to release the binary because I thought MRO would benefit from it. I made this decision individually and nobody else should be culpable, especially the community of individuals who have come together to maintain and foster the software. By the way, I'm not even a real coder, so whatever changes I made should be easy to spot; especially for experienced developers.Cheers. Speaks volumes about XMR in my mind. Are you dense or something? This was code that was part of the original reference CryptoNote code. Had nothing to do with Monero. In fact, it took Monero to fix this "bug". |
|
|
|
I want to revive this project but testing on mainnet. Some new code needs testing before being pushed out to the masses. Obviously mining will not be possible with the huge difficulty, but we can still test for sync issues transactions etc. The network txfee is like 1/10000 of a cent so we should be able to send around some small amount of value without much loss. Obviously these builds will be broken, sometimes intentionally, not looking for folks who expect it to work, but those who want to break it.
Anyone in?
What do you mean by "revive" the project? The main chain stays right? |
|
|
|
|
Something's not right. Blocks are being generated much too fast.
|
|
|
|
Alright so I tried my first Monero transfer from one adress of mine to another on my laptop. I used mixin count 3. I sent it about 10 min ago and it still hasn't showed up yet. How long does it usually take to get confirmed?
A minute, maybe 2. Variance on 60 second blocks isn't terrible, so I haven't seen a notably high block time yet. First thing to check would be monerochain.info to see if it's been mined, just search for the transaction ID. If it is, then make sure you "refresh" the other wallet, and make sure you're caught up and in-sync with the network. So my transfer still hasn't showed on the receiving computer but on the sender I have 2 balances. First a "balance" and then an "unlocked balance" which corresponds to the original balance minus the sum I sent. What's going on here? Appreciate the help. Usually this suggests sending with an obsolete version of the client that uses too low a fee. The solution in that case is to get the new software, restore your wallet using the keys file, and then resend. Really appreciate all the help here but this is proving harder than I thought.. I re-downloaded Monero and installed a new version, synched the database and tried sending the transaction again. This time it worked but something strange happened. The 0.01 Monero I sent went through but there is also a pink transaction with the same transaction ID which is for 7 Moneros which has been deducted from the "unlocked balance". So to summarize my test send of 0.01 Moneros worked but an additional 7 Moneros (which I didn't send) seems to be stuck? Those will coins back to you at a later time. You have to wait until they are unlocked to spend them again. |
|
|
|
|
I don't get this obsession with bloat. No one in their right mind is going to download the full Bitcoin blockchain so they can spend $10 buying bread at their local shop. So why the hell are people complaining about Monero blockhain bloat? The vast majority of people are not going to be using the full client running a full node. That's just crazy to expect that. Even Bitcoin development is going in this general direction, by getting rid of the QT client and moving to a Core client because in the future, the Core program will be running the full node and third parties will develop the wallet program.
|
|
|
|
how does the network know my wallet address? (qt)
roughly the same way bitcoin does. it doesn't. coins are sent to addresses with no verification that they can be spent. See 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE. Spending involves proving that you have a key which is allowed to spend that address. Since addresses are generated from keys via one way function, it's practically impossible to spend an address unless that address was in fact generated from a key you already possess. sorry - my question was not clear. i mean when i start mining in the QT debug console, it starts to mine, but i dont even have a wallet address yet. If it's anything like core Bitcoin client, then you already have 100 keys by default. You can just start mining directly in console, it automatically credits to an address in your wallet. |
|
|
|
|
Network is acting wonky:
20:25:45

{
"blocks" : 9739,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 1.00000000,
"errors" : "Warning: Unreachable blocks are being mined. Possible secret chain attack.",
"genproclimit" : 4,
"networkhashps" : 326828,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : true,
"generate" : true,
"hashespersec" : 438096
}
|
|
|
|
|
Go to the folder where you installed the programs and run bitmonerod and simplewallet programs.
|
|
|
|
Just tried to install Monero on my Mac using the official "getting started" site.
After some errors from homebrew (brew doctor solved it), the installation went as expected.
So i typed:
cd ~/bitmonero/build/release/src && ./simplewallet --generate-new-wallet wallet.bin
and got an error:
No such file or directory
So I looked it up, src was not in /release but in /bitmonero. So changed it to:
cd ~/bitmonero/src && ./simplewallet --generate-new-wallet wallet.bin
And it returned:
./simplewallet: is a directory
So i tried a bit forth and back, but my "coding skills" are just copy and paste...
Can anyone help me with this?
Did you follow these instructions? "Mac Requires OS X Mavericks (10.9). Please note: this is not Wolf's miner, but LucasJones' which is less powerful. Install Homebrew package manager for OS X Add repository: brew tap sammy007/cryptonight Build wallet: brew install --HEAD bitmonero Build minerd: brew install --HEAD cpuminer-multi " |
|
|
|
|
The hashrate of Monero did *mysteriously* rise from the mid 14MH/s to over 19MH/s and the price didn't even rise to warrant the rise in hashrate so someone out there must be doing something.
|
|
|
|
|
How many people are test mining this thing?
|
|
|
|
Dear Support!!!
I send 30 XMR
07/24/2014 01:07:33 AM XMR 30.59498853 Completed
Address: 47sghzufGhJJDQEbScMCwVBimTuq6L5JiRixD8VeGbpjCTA12noXmi4ZyBZLc99e66NtnKff34fHsGR oyZk3ES1s1V4QVcB
TxId: 66c571678b3e90793f797996e323cdbe965d7f52de4d7173454e9f8796cda1d0
to Poloniex 47sghzufGhJJDQEbScMCwVBimTuq6L5JiRixD8VeGbpjCTA12noXmi4ZyBZLc99e66NtnKff34fHsGR oyZk3ES1s1V4QVcB
But not have a deposit Poloniex!
please return them to my deposit Bittrex!
Thank you!
Don't think you can withdrawal from Bittrex to another exchange such as Poloniex. You don't have the option to add payment ID when you withdrawal so Poloniex don't know you sent them funds. Contact Poloniex with information regarding your deposit. |
|
|
|
Tell me where im wrong here smart guys. Or if i right.
So you shouldn't need to actually use ring signatures very often. Say that we have 3 inputs in our wallet of 2, 4, 5 and monero. Say that we need to pay alice 10 monero.
We use alices public address plus nonce_a to generate 1_time_address_a and send our 5 monero input to it.
We use alices public address plus nonce_b to generate 1_time_address_b and send our 4 monero input to it.
We use alices public address plus nonce_c to generate 1_time_address_c and our own public address plus nonce_d to generate 1_time_address_d and send 1 monero from our 2 monero input to 1 _time_address_c and 1 monero from our 2 monero input to 1_time_address_d.
Nothing has been revealed about any parties involves. No ring signatures have been used. The only problem here is that transactions, over time, are becoming more and more dusty. So inorder to avoid creating more dust on the network, the only ring signature you would need to use is to send that 1 monero back to an address you already control instead of a new one that you have just created for yourself.
I think you still need ring signatures. The one time addresses provide unlinkability so that the three payments made by Alice are not known to be sent to the same person receiving. But the payments don't have untraceability since you can still see that Alice sent all three payments. If ring signatures were used (and assuming you used mixin > 0) then you have the case where an observer can't tell if Alice sent it or another party did. |
|
|
|
...protocol created so the network can reach consensus on how much reward is created?
I hope you understand that all voting (consensus by stake) mechanisms are centralizing.  (don't tell me you are surprised that for example the Bitcoin Foundation ended up as centralized and corrupt) And so now you have my answer why I don't contribute to the development of Monero. Because design-by-commitee (or worse, design-by-the-mob consensus) is proven to be an abject failure. All great open source projects have a Benevolent Dictator (For Life), who makes these key decisions correctly after fielding all input from the community. I don't see strong enough leadership (I believe there isn't even one leader, i.e. it appears to be leaderless organization) nor do I see agreement with the concepts I want implemented in an altcoin. If you look at what works (and what the Apaches actually did) is many leaders each leading their own competing projects (families or clan). The competition is what ends up forming the overall outcome of leaderless (resilient) organization but optimally because each competing entity is not leaderless. Is it possible for consensus to be between miners and stakeholder, so it's not just stakeholders that get a vote? I mean after all it's the miners doing the work. Also, is it possible for any other mechanism other than stake to reach consensus? Again, I'm no expert so I have no idea what I'm talking about but just an idea. P.S. on the subject of how to best run a cryptocurrency, if given the power, how exactly would you dictate your perfect cryptocurrency? What decisions are best left outside the control of the masses?
does your idea mean that miners only get rewarded by transaction fees or do they get nothing?
It actually refers to after all the coins have been emitted and the question of if transaction fees are enough to sustain mining. If tx fees are, then there is no block reward, but if it isn't then some new coins are created, but how many coins is to be decided by the network. |
|
|
|
|
The breakthrough of Bitcoin was the creation of a protocol for the network to reach consensus on how the next block was created. But this is for deciding transactions (and yes it just so happens that block rewards are also given at that time too) but what if there was another protocol created so the network can reach consensus on how much reward is created?
So there are camps of people that like the current setup with Bitcoin having a hard cap, and then there are proposals for a fixed constant block reward (e.g. 1 coin per block) or even block rewards based on a fixed exponential growth (e.g.. 0.5%-1% per year), but what if the block reward is instead reached by network consensus?
So in that case, it may be possible that the network can go 100 year without ever raising ANY reward, so you get absolute hard cap on supply. But if the network decides that there needs to be some new coins released, it does that and the effect may be tiny growth, maybe even on the order of 0.0001% or even as large as 2% depending on how much coins have been lost, or how expensive it is to process transactions. In this case, no hard limit is set on the amount of new coins created, (i.e. some people are very against say 2% growth), the amount is flexible (may even be 0%), and entirely decided by the network (i.e. it is "fair").
Do you think such mechanism is possible?
|
|
|
|
Estimate 1:
Parameters:
- Largest holding: 100,000 XMR
- number of holders: 6,800
- j value = 0.58
- power law: no
I don't doubt the other numbers but how did you extrapolate the number of holders? |
|
|
|
Nice troll attempt. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.msg7857659#msg7857659 - if you read this thread, you might notice comments from deathandtaxes, gmaxwell and others that Anonymints proposal is simply bad (like the whole paper linked in the first post). Not to mention hes wrong again on cryptonote, he simply doesnt understand the technical background it seems. CN bagholders always seem to think that anyone who criticizes their precious just doesn't understand. I suggest you read the CryptoNote whitepaper. It's quite mind-blowing stuff. It is quite technical so you might not get it at first. |
|
|
|
Hey I've got a technical question I don't think I've asked before: When I open my wallet it says: I changed the 6 characters here, but what are those? First 6 char of your wallet address. |
|
|
|
|
People must like scam coins and we must be living in the age of the alt coins if people can't wait a couple years for the natural economy of a coin to play out.
People want a honest and fair launch like XMR but they don't want to wait the 4 year for the mass majority of the coins to be emitted and yet complain of pre-mine, instamine, IPO scams.
People must want scam pump and dump coins because they don't want to wait the years for a coin to develop and yet complain when 50 new scam coins are created every day.
The only conclusion is people are stupid and irrational.
|
|
|
|
Pardon, it is my fault. It is misprint.
Yes, Monero isn't a fork of Bitcoin, nevertheless the open-source code makes Monero similar with other cryptocurrencies IMO
WTF did I just read... this pretty much tells me all I need to know about your level of understanding of cryptos lol |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
