|
3041
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [Rumor] One of the bigger Chinese exchanges is set to list Ethereum
|
on: January 26, 2016, 05:28:22 AM
|
Pretty much guaranteed to happen sooner or later. 17K BTC 24 hour volume on poloniex right now and roughly 10x LTC's volume as tabulated by coinmarketcap. That's too much business for any exchange to avoid chasing.
Thing is - that move didn't work out so well for darkcoin (who was the exchange that added it?). What does the exchange care? They get fees for a while while it is hot, and if they end up delisting it, then they do. I agree that extreme churn is annoying for everyone but I doubt ETH trading is going to head toward comatose very soon. I could be wrong though. |
|
|
|
|
3043
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency
|
on: January 25, 2016, 11:43:37 AM
|
Hey guys, I have got a question regarding XMR mining. Currently I use my Intel Core I7 3630QM + my Nvidia Quadro K1000M GPU for mining. Compared they have a hashrate from about 80 H/s (which isn't realy much I know). My CPU setting: miner -t 6 -a cryptonight -o stratum+tcp://mine.moneropool.com:3333 -u Adress -p x My GPU setting: ccminer -o stratum+tcp://mine.moneropool.com:3333 -u Adress -p x Is there any space for improvements in the settings? If I would buy extra mininghardware... what would you recommend me? CPU's? GPU's? Which ones? Is there a hardware comparison anywhere? Regards  I don't know what CPU miner that is but with the right one you should get something like 150 from CPU alone. Try 3 threads for a start. The only hardware that might make sense to buy for mining would be GPUs since they are cheaper than CPUs (and don't need a whole computer for each one). Even there you will have trouble making enough to pay for the equipment. But if you think you will mine for a long time (or sell used) it could be worth it. |
|
|
|
|
3044
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin"
|
on: January 25, 2016, 07:01:50 AM
|
|
Okay now that the solution is no longer a spoiler, it is really quite simple. TLDR:
When you pick a random point in time you are more likely to end up in the middle of a long block than a short one. (Think about it: There are blocks that are 1 second or less. How likely is a random point in time to end up in one of those?).
It turns out that the average block time you end up picking with this method is 2 minutes, even though the average length of all CLAM blocks is 1 minute.
|
|
|
|
|
3045
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Most undervalued coin?
|
on: January 25, 2016, 02:33:43 AM
|
^ Lol. K.
What do you think is the most undervalued coin? We aren't trading for 'value' here. These coins don't have any fundamentals, unlike stocks where there's actually a company behind them making money outside the market. What the altcoin scene has is potential, not value. Okay then, what coin has the lowest price relative to potential? In looking for the right answer... I just realized, how do we actually price in an altcoin's potential? It could go far beyond the technology it has as we have seen it is not enough to truly achieve its true 'potential'. So I guess it isn't as simple as saying 'XXX coin is undervalued in price vs its potential da da da da da'... Maybe that's why I found the post above laughable. It's like he 'matter of fact' thinks those coins are 'undervalued' just because. When the truth of the matter is he is invested in them. i.e. thread is pointless since it is just yet another excuse to shill. I can see that. |
|
|
|
|
3046
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Most undervalued coin?
|
on: January 25, 2016, 02:13:39 AM
|
^ Lol. K.
What do you think is the most undervalued coin? We aren't trading for 'value' here. These coins don't have any fundamentals, unlike stocks where there's actually a company behind them making money outside the market. What the altcoin scene has is potential, not value. Okay then, what coin has the lowest price relative to potential? |
|
|
|
|
3047
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: January 25, 2016, 01:51:00 AM
|
You know, I cant remember the actual point I switched to google from AltaVista, despite having convinced myself that I never would. Funny, no matter how entrenched we think we are, we are liableto change in a heartbeat. Bitcoin core could learn that lesson.
Altavista started going down that whole "portal" route (as were others). An object lesson in having to watch your step when it comes to monetizing things. I probably would have stuck with Altavista if they hadn't gone that way (though they would have had to have stepped up their search algorithm efforts too) That is, I suspect, the main reason that google won. Their search algorithm was better, but not that much better. The "portal" concept was shoving a lot of revenue-focused crap in your face that you didn't want or need every time you just wanted to do a search. There were also large differences in load time even on what passed for "high speed" connections at the time. Google was faster and easier. |
|
|
|
|
3049
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs
|
on: January 25, 2016, 01:07:46 AM
|
P2pool doesn't really "work" because its cost is outsize with its benefits. I used p2pool when I used to mine so I'm well aware of both. You can't really justify using it unless you are trying to be altruistic.
Dude, you are so wrapped in your old polemics and boxed-in thinking, that it beggars belief. Of course, it will not be straight as-it-is p2pool integration with the main protocol. p2pool currently is focused on tracking only "shares" of work towards the upper layer block. But it has show itself resistant to Sybil attacks and shown that the global convergence to common goal can be achieved in less than 10 minutes of the plain Bitcoin network. Yes you can certainly achieve that in less than 10 minutes, but it comes at a high cost, just as it does in PoW coins that use 30 second or 1 minute blocks, or somewhat more speculatively, even faster with tweaks such as in ETH. Bitcoin uses 10 minute blocks to keep reorgs and centralization pressure within "acceptable" limits. Obviously 10 minutes is not the perfect number, but both increasing and decreasing have clear tradeoffs. In the case of p2pool, for example, even the small share of hash rate represented by p2pool includes a portion that is effectively centralized pools that use p2pool as a back end. The reason is the high cost in bandwidth and latency tolerance of p2pool exerts additional centralization pressure on top of what already exists in Bitcoin, so you end up with a second tier of centralization. |
|
|
|
|
3050
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Should Boolberry implement a tail emission?
|
on: January 25, 2016, 12:48:13 AM
|
Is the only purpose of tail emission to encourage continued mining in a situation where transaction fees alone are not economically sufficient to do so?
IIRC there was discussion in a Monero thread about a feature tail emission was required for, or some attack it prevented. As long as there is some cryptonote coin with no tail emission (preserving diversity of approaches and mitigating risk) I'm fine with BBR doing it. But absent some immediately compelling reason, I'd table the motion until BBR's 10th birthday, then re-consider. By then the XMR tail emission will have been reached so there will be some real world data. Good plan. |
|
|
|
|
3051
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency
|
on: January 25, 2016, 12:32:06 AM
|
A small complication with updating the OP, input requested.
The max length of the title is 80 chars. Currently we are at 60 chars with "[XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency". Adding " || Latest Version: " already adds 20 chars.
Suggestions?
updated by fluffypony
The the slogan out for now (or if not now, maybe a month from now). Put it back after the fork. Also, I like presenting it as "mandatory by [date]" which not like "ZOMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE" and more of an advance notice, especially since the voting stuff isn't fully implemented (in the future the wallet/node should provide a notice automatically). |
|
|
|
|
3052
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency
|
on: January 24, 2016, 09:20:49 PM
|
I believe there is no reason not to have the mandatory notice on the bct announce page OP.
Those type of notices used to be in the title of the thread.
I understand it says "We are moving away from Bitcointalk" in the OP but still this is critical info. This type of info used to be in the title of this thread.
It's not a mandatory update from 0.9, but it is a mandatory update from 0.8.x. A fresh sync with 0.9 works just fine, a lot of 0.9 nodes aren't on the bad fork any longer (longest chain rule), and the 1 or 2 nodes that still seem to (bizarrely) be stuck will figure out they need to update. Re: the thread title, with the mandatory hard fork policy every update is mandatory. We can put the latest version in the title, but I'm not sure it's necessary to use the word mandatory - thoughts? The policy is valid but this being the first one I would say the point should be emphasized a bit. The older version is going to stop working in two months, after being current for well over a 1 year. We should make clear that the time to upgrade is now. |
|
|
|
|
3054
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency
|
on: January 24, 2016, 10:57:48 AM
|
Reading the quote "While Monero isn't made to integrate with Tor, it can be used wrapped with torsocks, if you add --p2p-bind-ip 127.0.0.1 to the bitmonerod command line." in README.md at the repo, leads me to the following questions:
- Whats the status of this TOR-support via wrapper? Is this option: fully functioning and secure to use for people with basic TOR & crypto knowledge. Or this more like an draft/proof of concept/not supported dirty hack?
It's okay if you are careful. You are going through exit nodes. Always an issue when security is involved. The likelihood that exit nodes would try to trick you with a fake Monero chain seems low at this point given that Monero is pretty small and unknown. You can deal with his by checking your top hash against trusted sites (but if you are doing that through tor as well...) Also, the README should be updated to point out you should delete or stash your p2pstate.bin file before switching to Tor (every time!) because otherwise your node can be identified by the node ID. (By deleting the file your node will generate a new one with a random ID.) So as you can see things are a bit rough here, but usable if you are careful. - Are more Monero I2P-nodes needed? Monero I2P is not working yet. - Are more Monero TOR-nodes needed? No one has tried running Monero as a hidden service and if they did it would be tricky to connect to it. For now it relies on connecting to clearnet nodes via exit nodes. Not sure of the answers to your other questions so I'll let other reply. |
|
|
|
|
3055
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: January 24, 2016, 09:40:44 AM
|
|
More precisely it looked like around 10K coins being broken up into 2.5 coin outputs, with only two outputs per transaction (one 2.5 and one huge change). Why that would be done rather than simply creating a whole bunch of 2.5 outputs in one tx (with much lower fees) I have no idea, other than maybe some sort of mempool type attack, or stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
3056
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency
|
on: January 24, 2016, 09:37:54 AM
|
I browsed it but did not study it carefully. However, in many respects having to do with mining, mempools, p2p, etc., Monero works mostly the same as Bitcoin so my first impression would be that the same technique could be used if it turns out to be a win. Of course our volume is low enough that optimizing these things isn't urgent right now, but can be added later. |
|
|
|
|
3059
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Should Boolberry implement a tail emission?
|
on: January 24, 2016, 07:12:12 AM
|
It make sense, especially for cc with fast emission curve.
For now i think we have more important technical things to do, but this could be an option in future.
What more important technical things do you mean? I'm not sure what he means but I would just point out that the BBR emission is half the speed of XMR. So if BBR were to implement a similar tail emission to XMR (percentage wise), it wouldn't reach that point for about 16 years. So there is no hurry to deal with it now necessarily. |
|
|
|
|
3060
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: January 24, 2016, 04:57:41 AM
|
Vitalik just got finished describing SegWit as basically an ugly kludge of code. Doesn't he know about the transaction malleability? Mt. Gox? Kittens??
There is no need for that ugly kludge -- split transactions and blocks into two records -- to fix transaction malleability. It would sufflice to skip the signatures when computing the transaction id. Blockstream's reasons to want that kludge, ignoring all objections, are obscure. It is not necessary or helpful for fixing malleability, and does not reduce bandwidth or storage costs. On the contrary, there are alternative solutions to save bandwith from miners to clients that are simpler and more effective. One possiblility is that they want the freedom to muck around with the signatures withot having to justify or explain to anyone, since they could claim that the "main" record contains the information that other ordinary wallets need, while the contents of the extension block neeed to be understood only by them. Ot perhaps the LN will require some horrendoulsy complicated signatures; then SegWit would be a way to accomodate such transactions without impacting the bandwidth or requiring an an increase in the block size limit. Ans maybe also a way to keep the LN fees down: Pieter suggested that the fee rate (mBTC/kB) for the signature record would be a fraction of that of the main records, ostensibly to encourage use of the SegWit format. So assuming there are no scaling advantages, what is the point exactly of separating signatures from transaction chains or whatever? There is a modest scale advantage, but it is equivalent to a one-time increase in the block size (different numbers have been cited as for how much, depending on various assumptions). There is no scaling advantage, as it doesn't help with ongoing increases in bandwidth, storage, or anything else. The benefits are: 1. Can introduce a new signature format. 2. Fixes malleability 3. New nodes don't need to download signatures below a checkpoint, since they aren't going to verify them anyway. 4. One time effective block-size increase. All of these could also be achieved other ways. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
