It has been that way ever since Monero was listed there.

Sure, but when they are 50k+ away from the market...

The idea of cryptonote public addresses is they don't need to be anonymous at all. You can safely publish your public address (on a web site, email sig, forum sig, domain name registration, DNS record, etc.) and these can't be linked to transactions on the blockchain, unlike bitcoin.

However, the whole openalias system is an optional convenience feature and is never required. If you prefer absolute privacy and independence (for example maybe you don't even want anyone to know you are using Monero at all -- though currently there is no way to hide this from your ISP unless you roll your own Tor/I2P wrapping) with no registration of any kind you can just use the regular public addresses.

The total number of XMR minted per day is approximately fixed so if you have a fixed hash rate then your share of the total (and therefore your amount mined) is higher if the network hash rate is lower.

That being said, a higher network hash rate is somewhat correlated to a higher price so the XMR you do mine may be worth more under conditions where the network hash rate is higher, all else being equal. In fact over the past few days the price has indeed been stronger (at least not dropping every day).

Follow status here: https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/issues/198

Yes there has been. Some of it is right in the original whitepaper, in terms of view keys and auditable addresses. We have also considered other methods of allowing for transparency on specific transactions. People want to be able to selectively prove payments on demand and generally open up to transparency in a controlled manner, without everything being linkable and traceable to the rest of their transactions.

A: 0.8.8.5

This is exactly what we are doing with Monero.

Greg gets privacy. He's the inventor of coinjoin and definitely wants to make Bitcoin more private. But I also think he is swimming against the tide with wanting to turn Bitcoin in to a more private system at its foundation and then implement transparency on top of that. That is a almost a redesign from the inside out. It is one thing to write papers, but it actually making it happen in the real world is something else. The political and practical obstacles are enormous, and not clearly any less challenging our task of building out Monero and layering transparency on top of it.

Mostly agree. It is fair to say that some are real and some are fake, and recently fake has been the rule. I 100% agree that on the surface using it as a trading indicator is terrible, although as long as people are using it as a trading indicator, that makes it a trading indicator (self fulfilling).

It is done through DNS, so you add a record to your domain. If don't have a domain, get one through your favorite DNS registrar. Simplewallet will decode these so you can type "transmit 3 donate.monero.cc 100" and it will go to the project donation fund.

Example:


More info (including information about privacy and security issues): https://openalias.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH-B6A04iK0

Greetings scammers and trolls. We missed you.

I can't find your pull request.

Oh that's right you don't have one. You contribute nothing to the project other than FUD. (Want to buy lower do you?) Carry on.

There is some validity to it, but not just for the core team. Everyone can accumulate at lower prices now, and then have an incentive to build software, services, and awareness.

A little less focus on price and lot more focus on technology and business would serve us well.

A more efficient GPU miner would just drive up the difficulty even more, reducing profitability and result in continued dumping to pay power bills.

The only meaningful way to increase price is to increase demand. If you want the price to go up, forget about mining and start building (software, services, awareness, etc.)

Bitcoin itself can not incorporate ring signatures without without major changes that are unlikely to occur. Their title is a bit misleading, but it isn't unusual to write papers about something that "could" be done in bitcoin, ignoring the practical implausibility of actually deploying it.

It could be done in what Blockstream calls a side chain (I prefer to call them Bitcoin-backed altcoins), but, as we discussed a while back, that is only interesting if that particular sidechain/coin becomes widely used.

True, also a mean like that may be misleading. If someone has one very large farm (or a few of these), that would skew the statistics. I would also be interested in the median hash per miner.

That is a misconception, which unfortunately we helped spread earlier in the project when we didn't really understand the code base.

Not counting header files (and I'm pretty sure the C++ header files are much bigger), there are 11351 lines of C+ and 9958 lines of C.

However, virtually all (exception maybe 1-2k lines at most) of that C are actually copies of external crypto libraries that we don't touch (and at some point will probably remove from the Monero tree and use one or more external crypto libraries directly).

Likewise, the refactoring that is needed would be C++ to C++. There is very little need to refactor C into C++. New core code will be C++.

So to summarize: To work on the core code you need to know C++. There is no C coding and little to no C-to-C++ refactoring, although some understanding of C helps with C++.

That overstates "walls are not real" idea (often true) a bit. Several of the big XMR buy walls have been eaten not pulled.

It follows pretty obviously from how mining works that you shouldn't be mining at all in place with high electricity costs (i.e. much of Europe) unless you are doing it with the understanding that you are losing money (to support the network, as a way to get coins, etc.)

How much do you get with that same rig mining XMR?