Nonsense. The best pool is the one with the lowest latency to your miners, lowest pool orphan rate, best reliability, reasonably-frequent but not too-frequent payouts (no more than once per day; less is probably better), and lowest fees. That won't be the same for everyone.

Nice! Props to them for implementing that. It is a great usability and privacy feature.

I think bcmreduce produced several builds. To minimize memory usage (as much as possible at the moment at least), you want the pruning branch.

No. Working fine, so no bug fixes required since the last one. If more fixes are required, they will be provided.

Future development plans are under consideration. As I stated (maybe it was the Speculation thread?), I will make an announcement in approximately two weeks.

Miners, including attacking miners, can not 'change the protocol'. They can hold the chain hostage by blocking transactions which may work as a sort of leverage to push through protocol changes, but that depends a lot on the wider context.

Yes and no, but mostly no (imo).

A lot of the complexity in the design of Ethereum and in the correct coding of contracts comes as a consequences of the requirement to abruptly terminate execution when gas runs out.

But aside from being complex and perhaps a bad design or even a bad idea from the very beginning, there are no flaws of which I'm aware in how the gas mechanism works. It working as designed.

Whether that constitutes 'inherently flawed' is a matter of opinion.

He was suggesting a fork that would block some or all transactions unless they have ID attached, a form of whitelisting. It is the method of 51% attacking the coin to hold it hostage to demand design changes. It might work, but waiting out the attacker is another option. The more of a backlog of fee-paying transactions develop that the attacker won't process, the more incentive there is for other miners to join.

There is little reason to believe that simply changing the medium of exchange and little else will have some radical effect on behavior, whether positive or negative.

Somewhat off topic, but you are indeed using one of the applications of Monero: Secure and private store of value.

i.e. There is now a DAO hack in progress

The GPUs will probably last a long time and still have value, as in many years. If there is no profitable GPU mining to do (XMR or otherwise), you can sell them off on eBay to people building or upgrading PCs still recoup some value even years later. I had some GPU miners running on and off for 3 years and when I sold some, I still got back most of what I had paid for them (low promotional prices with rebates and such for the most part). I got lucky and had no fan failures (or other failures) over a few dozen GPUs but others have had worse experience, so you may need to factor in some budget for replacing fans and failed cards. I think it is kind of hit or miss on the quality you get when you buy them.

If you are buying hundreds of GPUs the economics may be somewhat different.

It may still be more profitable to mine ETH (or something else?) and trade it for XMR. I haven't looked at the numbers recently.

Interesting to see the hash rate finally rising after stagnating for months as the Monero price climbed. I guess the latest rise in BTC price finally pushed the profitability to the point where people pay attention.

Use print_cn and see if there are a lot of connections in some stuck state. Or alternately, just restart it.

It didn't. Individuals may have.

You don't need the Monero community's permission to experiment. Just ignore them. That's my 2c anyway. You're certainly entitled to present your view as is anyone of course.

Okay, if you are pushing back against r0ach shilling, you'll get no argument from me. He is entitled to his opinion though.

Though, I don't think you've made a particularly good case why someone might not want to buy Monero now. Arguments about boogeyman attacks by the Chinese State or someone with 100x the hash rate, are likely not too persuasive. If that's the best you can come up with, it kind of implies that the Monero is pretty secure against the issues people are more likely to be actually concerned about.

You're right we don't have e nuclear deterrence force either. Maybe someday we can create a DAO that contracts for one though.


Irony much?

It isn't only not disingenuous, it is based on real world empirical observation, which always trumps theories. For example, when Monero did our planned hardfork to upgrade to v2 blocks, there significant hashrate that didn't upgrade and continued mining worthless blocks for days if not weeks. AEON's planned hard fork was similar (though with less advance notice and perhaps less well-publicized). I didn't really pay attention to when the v1 fork stopped growing on either coin (or has it ever?). This was not a spontaneous attack catching-unaware miners by surprise either, it was an upgrade that was announced and well-publicized for weeks to months.

Since you have now downgraded (or one might say upgraded, in terms of plausibility) to 10x attacks, that only requires 20 minutes to start to produce blocks at the pre-attack hashrate. IF 90% of the hash rate abandons mining, then it would still only take 200 minutes. Either way there will still be high-fee transactions stacked to mine, blocks being produced with larger block sizes, and the hash rate will start to drop.

On the topic of the tail reward, the eventual reward is about 1/20 of the current reward. So at 20x the current price you would expect a similar hash rate. That only brings us to about 600 million market USD market cap (factoring in increased supply). At 1 billion USD or more the hash rate would be higher.


This is wrong. In a 51% attack other miners get no income since their blocks are rejected.


No. Note that I didn't say attacks could be completely prevented. I said resistance could be improved.

Um, its actually >$20 mil as I write this. Not sure where anyone is getting <$10 mil.