LOL. Any retard with the tiniest hint of common sense could deduce the Monero cripplemine scam was intentional. Forking a scam and acting surprised when the code is revealed to be a scam. "Oops we scammed the public by accident!"
^ Confirmed. He has no evidence it was intentional. So he's lying about it being intentional. I'm losing count by now. |
|
|
|
Haven't seen any of that alleged "evidence". Only evidence in here so far is that Monero was intentionally released as a cripplemine to the public rendering it a scam.
The evidence for your lie about millions of coins mined is on the blockchain. Mining is transparent, the on chain privacy doesn't give you a technically valid excuse for that lie, as you attempted (another lie, trying to defend a lie) The evidence for ceti's lie claiming that core devs bragged about zombie machines is that no such brag was ever made. He's welcome to contradict that with some sort of evidence, but he can't and won't, even when asked to back it up. I'm waiting for evidence backing up his accusation of criminal conduct against fluffypony, but of course he has none, because that too was a lie. I guess it is time to remember why this thread exists. This thread serves mainly to deflect attention away from Dash's instamine scam.
This is on topic.
I have not looked into monero. The things he claims "could" be true
HOWEVER - i would not trust one word mastermined710 says.
I was on the xcoin(dash) captive instamine launch. I was there in real time and watched it unfold.
He now tries to deny things that happened actually happened on that launch. He is not to be trusted.
Although, this is not a dash/xcoin/dark thread I will not go into it here. I will only say if you want examples of his lies then please contact me for details.
This person is either a total scammer or likes to try and destroy the truth with nuances that are laughable. His tactic is to say he is telling the truth so that the real truth that is a correct and proper picture is distorted and cast in doubt.
He is making this thread only to divert from the dash scam thread.
He is a scam protector and pumper.
|
|
|
|
Attack the attacker, much?
No, I point out specific lies from you guys, along with evidence backing up that they are lies. Copycat coin with zero innovation and just as much of future. At least that is a valid opinion, I'll give you that. Better than posting outright lies like "millions of coins" mined or core team members having bragged about how many zombie machines they control. |
|
|
|
^ Posted by 'Chessus' who was outed along with 'Hexah', his buddy on that thread, as being sock puppets run by the Bytecoin scam. Very reliable source. NOTceti most likely knows that thread is not a reliable source but is posting it anyway, as yet another malicious lie. |
|
|
|
I've had many people tell me that what I'm doing with eMunie isn't possible, instead of spending hours per day arguing with them on a forum trying to convince them, I've gone away and done it. I'm nearly there and the proof will be in the pudding.
The problem with Emunie, as I talked about in the IOTA thread, is that any system that doesn't have permanent coin turnover via mining, removes mining completely, or puts some type of abstraction layer between mining and block reward (as in the case of IOTA), is a permissioned ledger. People got too caught up in trying to improve on consensus mechanisms and forgot what actually constitutes a decentralized currency in the first place. When Maxwell said he "proved mathematically that Bitcoin couldn't exist" and then it did exist, it was because he didn't take open entropy systems into account. He already knew stuff like NXT or Emunie could exist, but nobody actually considered them to be decentralized. They're distributed but not decentralized. Basically stocks that come from a central authority and then the shareholders attempt to form a nash equilibrium to...siphon fees from other shareholders in a zero sum game because there is no nash equilibrium to be had by outsiders adopting a closed entropy system in the first place... Take for example the real world use case of a nash equilbrium in finance. There's many rival nations on earth and they're all competing in currency wars, manipulating, devaluing, etc. They would all be better off with an undisputed unit of account that the other can't tamper with for trade. In order to adopt said unit, it would have to be a permissionless system that each nation has access to where one of the group isn't suspected to have an enormous advantage over the others, otherwise they would all just say no. This is why gold was utilized at all. Yea, some territories had more than others, but nobody actually knew what was under the ground at the time. Everyone just agreed it was scarce, valuable, and nobody really had a monopoly on it. There are really no circumstances where people on an individual level or nation-state level can come together to form any kind of nash equilibrium in a closed entropy system. The market is cornered by design, and for value to increase, others need to willingly submit to the equivalent of an extortion scheme. The only time systems like that have value at all is when governments use coercion to force them onto people. eMunie is not permissioned at all, it is decentralized and is resistant to centralization over time. I'm not going to follow in TPTB's footsteps here, have another discussion on it 1-1, and try and convince you. You've clearly made your mind up long ago on what you think is possible and not, and I really haven't got the desire to try and change it here and now. Bottom line if you don't think eMunie is what it is, well that is your opinion. But over the coming months I'm pretty sure that will change along with a lot of others opinions as information is presented en-mass. Just because you can't see the solution, doesn't mean others can't either. In fact that would be rather arrogant. If i can't acquire native tokens except by willingly submitting to a centrally issued extortion scheme, then it's a permissioned ledger. Say hello to Bitcoin mining pools... You can use p2pool and expect a block in 10 days or so. Not ideal, but the option is there. |
|
|
|
So we continue to observe the self righteous Monero devs acting like they are the police of crypto.
Never trust a man who doesn’t drink because he’s probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time. Very few of them are good men, but in the name of goodness, they cause most of the suffering in the world. They’re the judges, the meddlers, the true evil hidden under the cloak of good.
I'm still waiting for evidence for your claim "a number of the core devs have bragged about how many zombie machines they control". Chirp...Chirp...Chirp... |
|
|
|
Prove it. Oh wait you can't, a CryptoBloat Blockchain isn't auditable.
Lie #2. Mining is transparent. Stop trying to deflect It isn't deflecting when one responds to documented lies by explaining why the lies are occurring. That is more on-topic than continuing down a nonsense conversation built with lies. Start being truthful and there might be something to discuss, but then if that were to happen, this whole thread would not exist. This is on topic.
I have not looked into monero. The things he claims "could" be true
HOWEVER - i would not trust one word mastermined710 says.
I was on the xcoin(dash) captive instamine launch. I was there in real time and watched it unfold.
He now tries to deny things that happened actually happened on that launch. He is not to be trusted.
Although, this is not a dash/xcoin/dark thread I will not go into it here. I will only say if you want examples of his lies then please contact me for details.
This person is either a total scammer or likes to try and destroy the truth with nuances that are laughable. His tactic is to say he is telling the truth so that the real truth that is a correct and proper picture is distorted and cast in doubt.
He is making this thread only to divert from the dash scam thread.
He is a scam protector and pumper.
|
|
|
|
The scam protecting in here is pretty desperate
Yeah, you guys should really stop. The Dash instamine is very well known, no sense even trying to deflect attention from it Too bad for him they had already mined unknown millions before anyone found out. Clear lie, since "millions" had not been mined even by the latest possible date of any miner optimization. Congratulations, Macrochip, you have been added to the documented Dash liar list! Dash liars on this thread: MasterMined710 ceti Macrochip NEWThe following applies to all of them: This is on topic.
I have not looked into monero. The things he claims "could" be true
HOWEVER - i would not trust one word mastermined710 says.
I was on the xcoin(dash) captive instamine launch. I was there in real time and watched it unfold.
He now tries to deny things that happened actually happened on that launch. He is not to be trusted.
Although, this is not a dash/xcoin/dark thread I will not go into it here. I will only say if you want examples of his lies then please contact me for details.
This person is either a total scammer or likes to try and destroy the truth with nuances that are laughable. His tactic is to say he is telling the truth so that the real truth that is a correct and proper picture is distorted and cast in doubt.
He is making this thread only to divert from the dash scam thread.
He is a scam protector and pumper.
|
|
|
|
beta hosted wallet to be released the first week of May. At that time the average Joe will be able to use Steem.
i'll be able to mine with this wallet? Probably not but there will be other ways to get Steem. |
|
|
|
A number of the core devs have bragged about how many zombie machines they control in the past.
Citation needed (but of course we all know it won't be coming) Dash liars on this thread: MasterMined710 ceti Not sure Macrochip has specifically lied yet (just illogical and incorrect nonsense), but he's getting close. |
|
|
|
Plus we can clearly tell there are provably scam victims from the Monero cripplemine as the optimized mining code wasn't available
Not provably, no. You can't prove such optimized mining code that you claim "wasn't available" existed at all (nor can I -- if it did, I'm not aware of it). It doesn't count when miners optimize their own code, that is fair game. EDIT: Also, if you're putting together a fraud claim against those who did have such a miner, sign me up, since I mined with the first official miner and according to you I was defrauded. Most of the other team members did too, maybe all. |
|
|
|
QFT:
QFBullishit. There is no evidence at all of Monero developers having anything to do with slowing the miner down (in fact they sped it up). None, zip, zilch. (Not surprising, since it didn't happen.) There is also no proof that the miner was deliberately slowed down by anyone, though it is a reasonable supposition. It was fixed after 2.58% of the initial emission were mined (though with infinite emission this will be further diluted eventually), and again there is no evidence anyone ever exploited it before the Monero developers started fixing it. Fortunately Monero didn't have a massive instamine on day one, or this could have been a real problem. This is one reason it never makes sense to distribute massive numbers of coins in the first hour or day, when the hashing code is new, comes unoptimized from another project, and could possibly be exploited unfairly. That would be disastrous. |
|
|
|
The thing with superoptimizers is that they might work differently on same instruction sets but different cpus.
Superoptimizers are totally impractical in most cases. They are useful for small bits of frequently reused code (and yes in some cases probably want different sequences for different hardware variants). The point of bringing it up is simply to say that general purposes compilers don't and can't do that. |
|
|
|
The optimizations added later, were made possible by more complex code that could be simplified (=unnecessary complexity getting scaled down) plus the increase of usable ram.
Yes but that was not part of the original promise (your words: "When C was first created, it promised ..."). The original promise was something close to the hardware (i.e. C language operations mapping more or less directly to hardware instructions). On the merits of the optimizations, you're still looking at one particular program, and not considering factors such as compile time, or how many programs those sorts of optimizations would help, how much, and how often. If you look at any credible benchmark suite, for compilers or otherwise, it always consists of a large number of different programs, the test results of which are combined. In the case of compiler benchmarks, compile time, memory usage, etc. are among the results considered. Anyway feel free to rant. As you say it is easy to whine when you are expecting someone else to build the compiler. And that is my point too. Also, if you want optimal code (i.e. optimal use of hardware instructions) you do need a superoptimizer, even if you have profiling information. The original superoptimziers only worked on simple straight line code where profiling is irreverent. They may be slightly more flexible now, I'm not sure. Anyway, profiling is not the issue there. I'll not reply again unless this gets more interesting, it is repetitive now. |
|
|
|
EDIT: I also forgot to include in my previous post that AEON is mainly used as a testbed for experimental features that could benefit Monero in the future too. An example would be pruning, which AEON is currently experimenting with.
usually ppl use testnet to do test, not another coin which investor will think as mooney. if you market them as testnet coin then no one will buy. Actually there are some cases where even testnet coins have gained a value and start to be traded. You can't avoid it. People will trade what they want, so I say not to try to stop them, as long as there is no misleading going on. Please try to stay on topic here though: Monero Speculation Unless you think that little AEON with 1% of XMR's value is a competitive threat it's not really on topic. |
|
|
|
No one listens to me even though I am nearly always correct on the markets. How many examples would you need.
Would you mind making each future market prediction in a binary form (which can be objectively judged as true or false by a specified date) along with a specific numeric probability estimate (which you can subsequently update any time)? Probabilistic predictions are okay as long as you keep a comprehensive list of all of them. You can then test how many of the "80%" predictions are satisfied relative to the ideal 80%. |
|
|
|
Yes, the streaming argument is valid, but the processor is capable of more than that.
Compilers are not superoptimizers. They can't and don't promise to do everything a processor is capable of. Basically that brings up back to the starting point... When C was first created, it promised to be very fast and suitable for creating OS'es, etc. Meaning, its compiler wasn't leaving much performance on the table. With khz of speed and few kbytes of memory there was no room for inefficiency. Granted, the instruction set has expanded greatly since the 70's with FPUs (x387), MMX, SSE(x), AVX(x), AES, etc, but that was the promise. To keep the result close to no overhead (compared to asm). That's what C promised to be. But that has gone out the window as the compilers failed to match the progress and expansion of the cpu's arsenal of tools. We are 15 years after SSE2 and we are still discussing why the hell isn't it using SSE2 in a packed manner. This isn't normal for my standards. If you look at the basic C operations, they all pretty much correspond to a single (or very small number) CPU instruction from the 70s. As TPTB said, it was pretty much intended to be a thin somewhat higher level abstraction but still close to the hardware. Original C wasn't even that portable in the sense that you didn't have things like fixed size integer types and such. To get something close to that today you have to consider intrinsics for new instructions (that didn't exist in the 70s) as part of the language. The original design of C never included all these highly aggressive optimizations that compilers try to do today, that was all added later. Back in the day, optimizers were largely confined to the realm of FORTRAN. They succeed in some cases for C of course, but its a bit of square peg, round hole. |
|
|
|
Yes, the streaming argument is valid, but the processor is capable of more than that.
Compilers are not superoptimizers. They can't and don't promise to do everything a processor is capable of. I guess I'm asking too much when I want the compiler to group in a SIMD, similar but separate/non-linear (=safe) operations. Maybe, maybe not. It just apparently hasn't been a priority in the development of GCC. Have you tried icc to see if it does better for example? (I don't know the answer.) It is quite possible that an effort to improve optimization in GCC for the purposes of, for example, cryptographic algorithms would bear fruit. Whether that would be accepted into the compiler given its overall tradeoffs I don't know. |
|
|
|
Yeah, the golden brackets of SIMDs... compilers love those, don't they? But they are rarely used if one isn't using arrays.
You can get the same results using pointers. Remember, SSE is Streaming SIMD extensions. It intended for processing large data sets. As it turns out the instructions can be used in scalar mode in place of regular FP instructions, and that appears advantageous, but you should never expect a compiler to produce optimal code. It is impossible. The only truly meaningful evaluation of a compiler is against another compiler, or if you are a compiler developer, comparing the overall effects of having some optimization (across a large input set) against not having it. Comparing against some fantasy optimal compiler is dumb. |
|
|
|
Only one thing comes to mind when i think about it :
{red flag img}
Good, stay away. It dangerous experimental technology. Unless you are an expert capable of evaluating everything carefully and an extreme speculator, and in all cases capable of securing your crypto coins properly, you shouldn't buy it. If you have a short term use, well you still need to be able to secure your crypto coins properly, and no that doesn't mean GUI. Bitcoin is overflowing with GUIs, yet people get hacked and lose coins constantly. If all coins gave that advice instead of shill threads full off "positivity" and "nation building", many tears would be prevented. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
