I think the answer is no but can you be more specific what this would include?

It is down to 38% now. Not ideal, but not terrible either. Also, don't forget that the numbers can often be misleading because network hash and pool hash use different methods of measurement.

As others explained it will use RAM that is available but it doesn't need it. If other apps want the RAM or if the computer doesn't have as much RAM, less will be used. I can confirm that 2 GB hardware RAM on Linux works (a bit slowly) and 4 GB hardware RAM on Linux works great. Others have reported 4 GB on Windows working fine.

Not sure what is causing your crashing but it isn't lack of RAM.

You need to wait 24 hours for the original attempt to time out.

Alternately you can try deleting your poolstate.bin file and retrying.

In either case, once again delete your wallet.bin file (not .keys) and resync first.

The bigger pools are not listed because we don't recommend people join the bigger pools. Join smaller pools instead!

The question of hash rate calculation was already answered.

There is literally no way to directly measure the network hash rate. I think the pool display uses an estimate based on difficulty but I'm not sure. The difficulty is calculated based on an estimate over the past 12 hours. The hash rate for each pool is based on 10 minutes. So when the hash rate fluctuates or moves between pools you can get some very inconsistent estimates.

You are welcome.

I deleted my post because I thought the next reply about using the Edit menu was better, but some might prefer QuickEdit mode (see above quoted link) too.

Corrected above. I remembered that ratio was historically high but completely failed on the number.

I see a very competitive market.

High risk may well mean that you usually lose your money.

You could easily have dismissed DOGE as an obvious joke, but you would have been right, but wrong.

True, there are bad investments or ways to simply waste your money. Flip a coin and if it comes up heads up flush your money down the toilet. Tails, keep the money. Risky, but stupid.

In a competitive market these sorts of money-down-the-toilet situations don't usually exist and the principle usually holds though. Not always.

Of course not, that is historical fact, although for a short time I think it was somewhat higher. LTC peaked at about $200m, and BTC at about $12b, so that's around 16%, or perhaps 20% for alts in total] $1b, and BTC at about $12b, so that's around 8%, or perhaps 12-15% for alts in total. (I'm not sure of the exact total during that peak, so this is a guess.)

What I'm saying is that if you look at the value fluctuations within that range, the correlation is not consistent with the theory that growing alts gravely threaten Bitcoin. It is not statistically insignificant either, it is highly significant. But it is possible, as I mentioned, that this observation only holds within the historical range and would break down at some higher range. I see no evidence for it, but I can't rule it out.

If I had to guess I'd say it is possible the Crypto Apocalypse theory only holds if Bitcoin were itself to reach a much higher valuation first. Given that all crypto is currently embryonic, factors contributing to the overall success dominate, and benefit all viable cryptos (including Bitcoin) as potential participants in that overall success. This includes even direct competing alts showing Bitcoin how to do things better, or pushing it to do so. To tie this into the current conversation, to the extent that side chains are a reaction to alts, and side chains make Bitcoin better, than alts have helped Bitcoin!


I don't dismiss the theory at all, I merely question it.

I think it is possible for a better crypto to dethrone Bitcoin without invalidating the entire concept, just as Bitcoin dethroned previous failed or aborted attempts at cryptocurrency and far surpassed their success. If something far surpasses Bitcoin's success, then Bitcoin will turn out to be just as irrelevant as those earlier efforts, except that all are relevant as stepping stones that lead to the next. Given that roughly a factor of at least 1000 separates Bitcoin from fiat, there is a lot of room at the top.

Quite possibly none will ever exist, or doesn't exist now, so this is not intended as an endorsement of any current or even foreseen alt. I just acknowledge the possibility and question the theory that anything challenging or surpassing Bitcoin invalidates the entire concept. In fact it could very well take the concept to a far greater level of success, just as Bitcoin did.

If there is no potential for gain (or even recovery of your investment) then there is no risk, just guaranteed loss.

Risk means you don't know what is going to happen.

It will run enough to create a new wallet, but that's it. So it is possible to create an offline cold storage wallet without a daemon.

We don't generally recommend public nodes as it isn't designed for that and there may be various issues with security and/or privacy, but of course we can't stop people from doing it if they want to take the risks. The most secure and private method currently is to use your own wallet with your own node. In the future there may be good lightweight wallets, web wallets, etc. that are comparable.

Remember that MEW membership includes 50% donation to the project (and the other 50% will be used by MEW to promote Monero). Both direct donations and MEW membership help the project.

It doesn't work anyway. You will need to use one of the other ones.

Cryptsy has said they are going to add XMR but has not given a specific schedule.

Either a wallet or another exchange, or you can make a deal with a trusted member here to hold it for you.

That is too old. You need to upgrade to current version from the OP.

Then wait 24 hours to see if the transaction eventually goes through.

If not, then backup your wallet and then delete the wallet.bin file (not .keys file) and restart the wallet. The coins will be returned to your balance.

There being hardly any correlation with Bitcoin and a negative correlation between alts. In fact there is a strong positive correlation between alts and BTC and likely between alts and each other (because they are all highly correlated with BTC).  At least major alts -- I have no idea what happens with the flash-in-the-pan alts.


Most of those alts are dead or near dead, and many only live for a few weeks. The number of active alts at any given time is probably only a few dozen, and that includes some that have been around and active for years (LTC, NMC, PPC, etc.). That is probably an increase, but not orders of magnitude. Only a total of 27 alts right now have a market cap of at least $1 million.


There is evidence. The evidence is not only the lack of a negative correlation that would support the idea of alts being a threat or even a substitute for BTC, but a strong positive correlation. The evidence directly contradicts the crypto apocalypse theory.

You could construct an alternate theory that alts at up to 10% are positive for BTC but if they ever grew to say 30-50% that would be negative, but I'm skeptical. To get to 30% you have to reach 10% first. The likelihood of getting to 30% is much higher at 10% than 5%. In fact even 6% makes the "threat" somewhat more likely, which is why there should be a negative correlation, or at least not a strong positive one.

I have a alternate theory which is that alts serve as incubators for new ideas (both technical and marketing) that will ultimately help the entire crypto phenomenon and are therefore positive and useful. Any threat that alts present to BTC is dwarfed by the fact that BTC is currently priced for a <0.1% success rate against fiat and even tiny changes (for example, successful ideas trickling up from alts to BTC, or expansion of crypto adoption by alts with novel positioning, branding, and marketing) to that success rate mean far more to the overall value than the crypto apocalypse theory.

If that were true you would expect hardly any correlation between BTC and alts, but a strong negative correlation between alts. But that is not what actually happens.



That's not consistent with the evidence. If it were, then alts appreciating in value relative to BTC would threaten crypto doomsday, causing BTC's value relative to USD to decline, and vice versa. That would exhibit a negative correlation, which is exactly the opposite of what we see.

This is not proof, but it is the real world evidence that the theory might be wrong.