That's a centralized, for-profit company that is using clever cryptographic technology to obfuscate transactions. In twenty years, when NSA breaks ZK-SNARKS, everything anybody has ever done on their blockchain will be revealed. Every transaction ever made will be readable.
Dash uses a mixing technology to obfuscate transactions, rather than relying on cryptography to obscure them. Transactions are obfuscated instead by mixing the inputs, so that it will never be clear who made what transactions. We are future-proof. They are not. Maybe nobody ever breaks ZK-SNARKS, but if they do...
No you are not. Coinjoin (and derivatives like DarkSend) are like a giant sudoku game, certainly when barely used. Oh good, a Monero troll that I forgot to block. Taking immediate corrective action. Please feel free, by the way, to deanonymize an 8 round Darksend transaction any time you'd like. I'll be glad to provide you with a TX ID. I see you are playing the shortsighted game again, where every Monero (perhaps even non-DASH) proponent is called a troll. I am merely saying that most likely in the future, some (if not all) Coinjoin transactions get deanonymized (it gets more difficult with more activity on the chain). Bear in mind that governments have plenty of time. Therefore it is not certain you (perhaps any system) are (is) future proof, as you stated. |
|
|
|
That's a centralized, for-profit company that is using clever cryptographic technology to obfuscate transactions. In twenty years, when NSA breaks ZK-SNARKS, everything anybody has ever done on their blockchain will be revealed. Every transaction ever made will be readable.
Dash uses a mixing technology to obfuscate transactions, rather than relying on cryptography to obscure them. Transactions are obfuscated instead by mixing the inputs, so that it will never be clear who made what transactions. We are future-proof. They are not. Maybe nobody ever breaks ZK-SNARKS, but if they do...
No you are not. Coinjoin (and derivatives like DarkSend) are like a giant sudoku game, certainly when barely used. |
|
|
|
I disagree with you on this one (and I think I owe you a response on Reddit, now that I think of it). In short, I think this is at best an open question, but if it turns out there is any orphan risk or marginal-cost-per-tx, and/or if miners don't actually compete, longrun, on mostly the commodity block-production anyway, then this just amounts to unnecessary economic meddling, and I hate it that people are so quick to justify this sort of thing. I just fail to see how a fee market is going to develop. In either case, limited or unlimited blocksize, you need a huge amount of transactions per block to keep miners incentivized and the network secure. Let's take the example of 1 Exahash the network hashrate is around today. With an average price of 400 over the last month, miners earn ~$10k per block (taking this number for convenience). Coincidentally, Bitcoin's daily transaction fees hit almost $10K on a 200 day moving average. For convenience, I will take that number as well. From another chart, we also see that number of transactions just hit an all time high of 242,129 tx/day. That's ~ 2.8 tx p/s with blocks becoming kind of full on average and a limited blocksize. In sum, currently ~ 2.8 tx p/s is making up for ~$10k in transaction fees daily. When the block reward runs out, assuming miners are currently mining at equilibrium, we would need (6*24) * ~2.8 tx p/s = 403 tx p/s on the main chain to yield the same proceeds for miners as of today. That is conditional on most current variables remaining the same and blocksize being limited, since I think it would likely be a race to the bottom with an unlimited blocksize and no block rewards. I personally fail to see how to accomplish this, certainly with the push of lower value transactions to side-chains. Perhaps the fees of higher-value transactions will reduce the amount of tx per seconds needed, but it would still be a large number to accomplish. Also, bear in mind that if the network is doing such a high amount per transactions, we likely need more hashrate to make the network more secure. Anyway, it will be an interesting experiment, that is for sure. Links: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactionshttps://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees-usd?timespan=360days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=200&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
That said, it's money supply transparency that matters most, so if a coins comes with a tail-emission out of the gate, that's fine (except for the above caveat about it suggesting the devs/community may be prone to over-engineering in the economic realm).
But in Monero's case, you tail-emission supporters broke *the* single biggest implicit contract: don't change the supply dynamics!! I loathe the fact that I bought-in to one economic model in 2014 and then a bunch of economic-meddlers decided to change the model out from under me. Yes, it's small relative to my holdings, but quite the slippery slope. That might as well be fiat, and the move *drastically* reduced my respect for the coin, the developers, and the community. They did not do such a thing? Smooth already stated this earlier and on the earliest web.archive I could find it is also stated clearly -> http://web.archive.org/web/20140520215957/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.0. See: [2] Actual number of atomic units is M = 264 - 1. A minimum subsidy may be implemented in the future with <1% inflation to preserve mining incentives. The actual number was determined later, but it was always made clear that there would be a tail emission with <1% inflation.
Seems minor to me, but hard for me to truly judge without being a cryptographer. Well, if the cryptography breaks, the whole system breaks and it will be rendered worthless. Therefore, it is in my opinion extremely important. Furthermore, Bitcoin is also build on solid cryptography. Cryptography usually strengthens over the years, when it has been thoroughly tested, vetted and peer-reviewed. Relying on mature cryptography, opposed to an infancy one, is definitely an advantage in my opinion. This post of gmaxwell emphasizes the importance of cryptography: Cryptography has never been a significant part of cryptocurrency - even though it may share the first few letters. It works on a system of digital signatures.
It would seem that you actually do not understand what cryptography is in the modern sense. A fundamental nature of information is that it wants to be freely copied everywhere to everyone. That any bit is equal and indistinguishable from any other bit of the same value and that any bit is eventually known to all who care. Cryptography is all that technology by which we hope to confine and constrain the nature of information, to put up fences and direct it to our exclusive purposes, against all attacks and in defiance of the seemingly (and perhaps actually) impossible. Digital signatures are cryptography by any modern definition and utilize the same tools and techniques (for example, a DSA signature is a linear equation encrypted with an additively homorphic encryption), and suffer from most of the same challenges as the message encryption systems to which you seem to be incorrectly defining cryptography as equivalent. Moreover, the use of digital signatures isn't the only (or even most relevant) aspect of cryptography in cryptocurrencies-- e.g. the prevention of double spending of otherwise perfectly copyable and indistinguishable information in a decentralized system is a cryptographic problem which we address using cryptographic tools, and-- like all other practical cryptography-- achieve far less than perfect confidence in our solution. As are more modest ends like interacting with strangers but not being subject to resource exhaustion from them. Far more so than other sub-fields of engineering, cryptographic systems are doing something which is fundamentally at odds with nature and share an incredible fragility and subtly as a result (and perhaps all are failures, we have no proof otherwise). A failure to understand and respect these considerations has resulted in a lot of harmful garbage and dysfunctional software. In addition, it might take 10-20 years for Zcash's cryptography to become mature/vetted and considered "safe". Bear in mind that Zcash is also prone to (thus not safe from) quantum computing, which might by the time their cryptography is considered "safe", break their "system".
I agree with your other comments. |
|
|
|
Also I remember hearing about an anonymisation technique in which you have to trust the person who generated the first block to destroy the private key without writing it down, otherwise they have the ability to decrypt the anonymisation forever after. Is this using that technique ? If so why trust they don't have the backdoor key handy ?
Your memory is only partially right. There is a potential problem with trusted setup. They have said they play to do this in some public ceremony with multiple parties so that unless ALL of those parties collude, the minting process is safe. If all parties colluded they could print a unlimited number of coins undetected, however the privacy of transactions would not be affected. Essentially it is an economic threat of a poorly designed setup allowing parties to collude to print unlimited coins. There is not a privacy threat from collusion. Good god that is like a million times worse. So they'd be able to 'print' unlimited quantity of money undetected ? And we trust that this inner circle present at the seeding ceremony are trustworthy !  LucyLovesCrypto is right and describes the weaknesses, and potential threats of it perfectly. I also elaborated on it here -> https://forum.bitcoin.com/post16245.html#p16245 |
|
|
|
What is the expected release date for this? Not a specific one. He will start with 10 hours per week, until his other project is finished. After that, he will work 20 hours (perhaps even more) per week. The announcement states this as well: Ilya will work 10 hours per week at the beginning, expanding into more hours per week later when some other project is finished. The announcement also states: The hours that remain after having completed the GUI will be used to work on other features. There should be a better estimate of hours needed to complete the GUI once the work really has started. My personal guess is +- 2-3 months. Take this with a bit of a grain of salt though. So another 2-3 months of low hashrate and low prices. I wonder at which pricepoint the bonnets and cloud-cowboys will kick back on. And 2-3 months brings us to the hardfork with 2 minute blocks (with double blockrewards compared to now), so in the realm of 12-14 xmr per block again. Price actions gonna get bumpy.... if the GUI is really all that big of a deal. That remains to be seen. Fact is though that a lot of people have been either put off by the CLI or would wait before a more usable wallet would be out (a GUI). |
|
|
|
What is the expected release date for this? Not a specific one. He will start with 10 hours per week, until his other project is finished. After that, he will work 20 hours (perhaps even more) per week. The announcement states this as well: Ilya will work 10 hours per week at the beginning, expanding into more hours per week later when some other project is finished. The announcement also states: The hours that remain after having completed the GUI will be used to work on other features. There should be a better estimate of hours needed to complete the GUI once the work really has started. My personal guess is +- 2-3 months. Take this with a bit of a grain of salt though. |
|
|
|
"The proposal is to raise 14,000 XMR for 280 hours of work, which is approximately 25.00$ per hour. Ilya will work 10 hours per week" 6+ months, wow! Reminds me of freebazar / dwarfpool / atrides scam. Why 'outsource' such an important task ? Why don't 'core' devs get their hands dirty ?! 'Core' devs are fucking noobs, their only achievement was forking the bytecoin code... You conveniently left out a part of "Ilya will work 10 hours per week at the beginning, expanding into more hours per week later when some other project is finished". If that other project is finished the amount of hours will be 20 per week and perhaps even more (asked othe about this after you commented). You also missed: The hours that remain after having completed the GUI will be used to work on other features. There should be a better estimate of hours needed to complete the GUI once the work really has started. |
|
|
|
Well, no mater what, Zerocash with its mainstream media support will only bring attention to privacy and fungibility issues with Bitcoin. People will start to realize why anon coins make sense and are not just a gimmick.
Agree, this also got me thinking of a possible fungibility issue with Zcash itself, which leads to [6]. Zcash uses two kind of coins, namely basecoins and zerocoins, see: Zerocash extends the protocol and software underlying Bitcoin by adding new, privacy-preserving payments. In doing so it forms a new protocol that, while using some of the same technology and software as Bitcoin, is distinct from it. This new protocol has both anonymous coins, dubbed zerocoins, and non-anonymous ones, which, for purposes of disambiguation, we call basecoins. In contrast to Bitcoin's transactions, payment transactions using the Zerocash protocol do not contain any public information about the payment's origin, destination, or amount; instead, the correctness of the transaction is demonstrated via the use of a zero-knowledge proof. Users can convert from basecoins to zerocoins, send zerocoins to other users, and split or merge zerocoins they own in any way that preserves the total value. Users may also convert zerocoins back into basecoins, though in principle this is not necessary: all transactions can be made in terms of zerocoins. Having two kind of coins detoriates the fungibility. If, for instance, basecoins will be the most used coins, those zerocoins will merely be coins to mix with on top of the transparent ledger. In other words, it will be Bitcoin with a Zcash mixer instead of the Bitcoin with Coinjoin there is currently. Furthermore, miners could blacklist zerocoins and merchants/exchanges could reject zerocoins. |
|
|
|
Been out of the loop for a long time due to life getting in the way.
I just downloaded monero.win.x64.v0-9-0-0. Any instructions that I can refer to?
Thanks!
[1] Unzip / extract the file in a directory you prefer. [2] Start bitmonerod.exe, this is the daemon. It'll begin to sync from scratch. The syncing time depends on a variety of factors, for instance your bandwith, computer specifications and type of harddrive. However, type of harddrive explains most of the difference in syncing time. On an SSD it usually takes about an hour to sync from scratch, whereas it will take a few hours with an HDD (might even be a bit longer). [3] If bitmonerod.exe (the daemon) is synced (it will notify you with something like: "bitmonerod has synced, you can now use simplewallet"), you can open up simplewallet.exe and create a wallet (or import / restore an existing one). If you have any additional questions, feel free to ask! Perfect! Took me a while but I finally got it installed and I let it sync from scratch. How exactly do I transfer my existing wallet? Obviously copy and pasting doesn't work. Does anyone have step-by-step instructions that they could point me to? Thanks That should work, wallets from older binaries are compatible with newer binaries conditional on being created on the same OS. |
|
|
|
Just read the zcash AMA and I came away a bit unconvinced. Some CN related comments in the second page https://forum.bitcoin.com/post16238.html#p16238It looks like they are very much set with the 10% "Founder's fee" and being pretty much a Bitcoin code base with zero knowledge for enhanced privacy and fungibility. Because of their non threatening stance and some associated names, they will surely be pushed and positioned over Monero with more whales supporting it financially as well as via marketing and networking. XMR has so much going for it in every way, just not the cash flow it truly deserves. If you read the blogpost, you will notice that it's 10% of the whole supply, but actually 20% of the blockreward in the first 4 years. During the first four years, every ten minutes 40 newly created ZEC will go to the miners, and 10 ZEC to the founders. https://z.cash/blog/funding.htmlHow did zerocash solve the seeding problem anyway? If it's open source insta-clone it immediately without a "founders fee" and we're all set. I gather from the AMA that the seeding problem is "solved" by a process which distributes the seed-generation to a set of individuals, where only one individual has to be honest (ie, delete their portion of the key) for the entire thing to be provably secure. Most people will find this sufficient. Some will not. Regarding the insta-clone idea, I think we've seen how important community/development/publicity/etc is for a coin, so I don't think an insta-clone of ZC would do much actual damage to ZC. Remember when Counterparty implemented Ethereum? What are the relative mcaps of XCP and ETH again? Also from the AMA it's clear that zcash is going to have some equivalent of Monero's "Viewkey" functionality. I think what Monero has going for it versus zcash boils down to: 1) It's not built off of Bitcoin's codebase. In my mind, this makes it a much better candidate for a "backup" top-5 coin than junk like Litecoin, Doge, or Dash. 2) I *think* Zcash still has the problem of there being no way to prove that there's not some bug in the system which is creating new coins. There was no mention of this in the AMA (wish I'd seen it in time to ask). I wouldn't really call that solved, it certainly mitigates the issue but doesn't really solve it. See my reply about it: The is simply not true, you have to trust that one of the guys from the initial setup is honest. This doesn't mean you do not have to trust you guys at all, which you stated. This is certainly an improvement over the previous setup, but it still isn't trustless. If all the guys of the initial setup collaborate, they could, for instance, still create additional coins and no one would notice.
Since the initial setup will most likely be videostreamed, the names (or at least the faces) of the people at the initial setup will be known. Tell me, what stops a three letter agency from demanding the initial setup guys to collaborate?
One of your engineers (Sean Bowe) acknowledged this (that the setup isn't trustless) as well in an earlier discussion I had with him.
Bottom line is that the initial setup isn't trustless, whereas you are implying it is. This also might be fooling the people that are reading this thread and your answers, thinking the setup is trustless.
I stand corrected if you meant something else with your post. https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-zooko-wilcox-ceo-of-the-zcash-company-ask-me-anything-t5413-30.html#p16245In addition to this, they have to prove that the software/hardware used to generate the masterkey isn't compromised beforehand and/or afterhand.
Regarding the viewkey, that was a bit ambiguous to me. It sounded more like they have a key where Alice can prove that she paid Bob. See: In Zcash, the creator of each individual transaction gets complete control over who can view the contents of the transaction. This is accomplished by each transaction being individually encrypted by an encryption key known only to the creator and the recipient.
There is no other mechanism by which any party can gain the ability to view the contents of transactions other than getting the decryption key from the creator or the recipient of the transaction, or from someone else who has previously received the decryption key. This is a simple, implementable, secure, and understandable mechanism for controlling who can see what. We call it "selective transparency".
Agree with [1].
[2] Yes they still have that problem, there is no way to verify if no additional coins were created.
I could also think of a few other caveats as well (where Monero improves). First of all, using Bitcoin's codebase and porting most of the improvements / upgrades Bitcoin is inherent to continuing on a lot of fundamental issues Bitcoin has. [1] Zcash will not have a tail emission: Well, just like in Bitcoin, the mining reward keeps coming for a long time. See the diagram on https://z.cash/blog/funding.html. There will still be Zcash mining reward for decades. Now, after that reward has diminished so much that it isn't valuable, I hope that transaction fees will have risen to remunerate miners This will result in severe problems in the future. Stating that there will be Zcash mining rewards for decades is kind of a poor argument, because people take the view / expectation (of no tail emission), discount it to the present and take it into consideration when assessing Zcash.
[2] Zcash will not have a smooth block reward: I'm rejecting this from Zcoin 1.0 because it doesn't appear to have benefits great enough to overcome the cost of differing from Bitcoin.
https://github.com/Electric-Coin-Company/zcash/issues/143In my opinion, the halving schedule of Bitcoin just creates wild fluctations in price (e.g. bubbles) and (potentially dangerous) large fluctations in hashrate.
[3] Zcash will incur the same blocksize issue as Bitcoin, they plan on simply porting everything regarding blocksize from Bitcoin: We're still thinking about our plan for Blocksize, scalability, transaction fees, and mining incentives. We'll post as soon as we have a concrete proposal. Our current not-at-all-concrete thinking is to follow Bitcoin and learn from the experience of Bitcoin, and to help if we can. By the time we're ready to launch Zcash 1.0, Bitcoin will probably have deployed:
* segwit, and
* larger block sizes, and
* Lightning Network
In addition Bitcoin might deploy other relevant scalability improvements as well. Or, maybe by the time we Zcashers get to that stage, we Bitcoiners will have decided not to deploy some of those mechanisms, or maybe we'll have tried to deploy some of them and learned that they didn't work as well as we hoped.
In any case, our general thinking for Zcash scalability is to re-use ideas and source code from Bitcoin as much as possible.
[4] Due to their "Founder Reward" it is highly likely that Zcash will be subject to FinCEN and therefore miners will be qualified as MSBs, see this discussion: https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-zooko-wilcox-ceo-of-the-zcash-company-ask-me-anything-t5413.htmlHello Zooko, I'm interested in reading your goals and motivations for taking on anonymity in general or anonymous digital cash specifically as your priority project? Haven't you seen the new laws coming (eventually in all Five Eyes countries I've heard from reliable sources) that will ban end-to-end encryption? To that end do you expect to support a viewkey or other way that users individually or a global backdoor, so that Zcash can be compliant with the lurch towards a 666 NWO which seems to be rapidly taking form now (and I assert will accelerate with the full global contagion sovereign debt collapse 2017 -2020)? I am all for the ideology, but I am also pragmatic. We as society may have to fight with social networking and the political-economic revolution of a DIY economy, e.g. self-publishing, 3D printing, etc.. I have been looking at the concept of a decentralized social network. Any comments? Sincerely, TPTB_need_war AnonyMint Shelby Moore III Bold my emphasis. The proposed legislation in the United Kingdom does not ban end to end encryption. What it does however is to require those companies that provide proprietary encryption products to retain a back door key and make this back door key available to law enforcement. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11970391/Internet-firms-to-be-banned-from-offering-out-of-reach-communications-under-new-laws.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1446482200 There is a critical difference here in that FLOSS end to end encryption tools remain perfectly legal and secure while proprietary end to end encryption tools would have a back door. This is not unlike the FinCEN guidance in the United States https://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html where proprietary development funding models for crypto currency (using the emission to fund development) will likely lead to a legal requirement for MSB registration while FLOSS development funding models can retain their decentralized virtual currency designation and avoid the MSB registration requirement. In Canada there was a proposed law that did not pass that required providers of email servers to retain records for law enforcement with an exception for those who ran their own mail server from their own homes.. A more relevant question to ask would have been: Given that you plan to use a portion of the emission over the next 4 years to fund your company, have you registered as an MSB with FinCEN or have you obtained guidance from FinCEN that MSB registration is not required in your case? The pattern here is starting to become apparent. Click I agree on some company's terms for the use of proprietary software and become a slave, click I do not agree and use FLOSS tools instead and remain free. Thanks ArticMine. Yes I am aware that the proposed legislation in the UK (also afaik similar legislation proposed in the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia) only applies to service providers who offer encrypted services, not to open source code which users independently obtain, compile, and run on their own initiative. I was vaguely aware of this pending legislation and then I became more focused on it during my private discussions last month with the GadgetCoin team who have a P2P streaming technology named Streemo. The governments are not stupid to try to ban activity they can't possibly enforce (thus making the government look impotent), i.e. the government can't monitor/enforce against what each private citizen does in their home. But I argue effectively the direction is to ban end-to-end encryption in general that does not provide a back door to national security agencies. The government can regulate the ISPs (internet service providers) and ban end-to-end encryption protocols that do not include a decryption key for national security agencies. I have also explained that using home computers as servers over asymmetric upload bandwidth home ISPs is a Communist economic plan (as I warned Bittorrent back in 2008 and offered them an economic solution for their tit-for-tat algorithm but they ignored me). And that protocols which allow illegal activities from unregulated home servers will be banned by ISPs and hosting providers. If you know of any technology to hide a protocol's patterns such that ISPs can't identify it, please enlighten me. There is some discussion of "Censorship resistance" in section 2.4 of Synereo's white paper, but that still seems to be inadequate. Simply put, it is impossible to fight the government when there are choke points in the system which the government can effectively regulate. This is just common sense. I added the following to that question for Zooko:
[5] Zcash cryptography is in its infancy stage and has not been vetted yet, therefore it's more prone to "errorrs". By contrast, the cryptography behind Monero is quite mature and has been vetted over time.
There are probably some more caveats, but this is what I could think of currently (next to the Zcash vs Monero comparison we already had). |
|
|
|
Just read the zcash AMA and I came away a bit unconvinced. Some CN related comments in the second page https://forum.bitcoin.com/post16238.html#p16238It looks like they are very much set with the 10% "Founder's fee" and being pretty much a Bitcoin code base with zero knowledge for enhanced privacy and fungibility. Because of their non threatening stance and some associated names, they will surely be pushed and positioned over Monero with more whales supporting it financially as well as via marketing and networking. XMR has so much going for it in every way, just not the cash flow it truly deserves. If you read the blogpost, you will notice that it's 10% of the whole supply, but actually 20% of the blockreward in the first 4 years. During the first four years, every ten minutes 40 newly created ZEC will go to the miners, and 10 ZEC to the founders. https://z.cash/blog/funding.htmlHow did zerocash solve the seeding problem anyway? If it's open source insta-clone it immediately without a "founders fee" and we're all set. Which seeding problem do you mean? Or are you talking about the initial setup? That would be possible since it's open source, but who would develop on that then? |
|
|
|
Note the edit I added: Edit: Cryptonote does have a per transaction view key. It is not clear to me yet if Zcash does. Cryptonote doesn't depend on a trusted setup (note this only impacts money supply and not anonymity in Zcash, whereas I argue that Cryptonote/RingCT has inferior anonymity due to meta-data correlation). Elaborated here by smooth: ...
Whether Monero exists as a test bed for features that will be assimilated into bitcoin, or Monero will simply live as a parallel, opaque option to the transparent bitcoin chain, or perhaps just take over and leave bitcoin in the dust. All this will play out.
...
One of my favorite things about Monero is how it can exist as both opaque and transparent. If I wish for an account to be transparent, I can simply expose my viewkey. The view key is well known, but it can be a blunt instrument, since it reveals all payments for the entire lifetime of an account (including past and future). It is less known that you can disclose individual payments on a case by case basis, as needed: In case Alice wants to prove she sent a transaction to Bob’s address she can either disclose r or use any kind of zero-knowledge protocol to prove she knows r (for example by signing the transaction with r)
The 0.9.1 release of Monero has an option to retrieve this "key". |
|
|
|
I made rescan_spent, xmr were reflected in a purse, was updated till 0-9-1-0, in attempt to send xmr wrote Error: transaction <feb341ebc7e9ed474ee1041a61dd82a67152f5ba07c6f2bc10f8cb8f8e1d2d93> was rejected by daemon with status: Failed, made once again rescan_spent, writes again that on balance these coins aren't present, and in show_transfers there is pending out 113.800000000000 f9e2551e60ec55c0caca725dd07c6e23c48175398387edfc35289f369d2cea08 0000000000000000 0.340000000000 how to return them? or to make that reached the destination?
prompt, please, how to return coins? Try this 1. Exit simplewallet 2. Make sure your wallet.bin.keys file is securely backed up 3. Delete the wallet.bin file. 4. Exit daemon 5. Remove poolstate.bin file 6. Restart daemon 7. Restart simplewallet. 8. Wait for wallet to rescan (may take some time). 9. Check balance and resend coins EDIT: Added steps 4-6 Thanks a lot, coins are displayed in a purse now, but I can't send them a purse Error answers: transaction <6643070e524e0fbde6cb6107fe8faacacb18f9ce7f1ea43c15a126fe0c2a4513> was rejected by daemon with status: Failed demon writes [RPC0] [on_send_raw_tx]: Failed to process tx prompt, please, as to correct it? Currently it's a bug in Monero. Your coins are frozen until it will be fixed. In source code exist "pending_timeout", but not realized, therefore pending coins are pending forever. Even with rebuild wallet file and with deleted poolstate, you cannot send your coins. The daemon gets new poolstate from other daemons (and they have you old transaction, overall) or if daemon try to send forward, get rejects from other nodes. Doesn't that get fixed in this PR? -> https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/pull/630 EDIT: Atrides, could you link us to the source code where "pending_timeout" exists? |
|
|
|
Just read the zcash AMA and I came away a bit unconvinced. Some CN related comments in the second page https://forum.bitcoin.com/post16238.html#p16238It looks like they are very much set with the 10% "Founder's fee" and being pretty much a Bitcoin code base with zero knowledge for enhanced privacy and fungibility. Because of their non threatening stance and some associated names, they will surely be pushed and positioned over Monero with more whales supporting it financially as well as via marketing and networking. XMR has so much going for it in every way, just not the cash flow it truly deserves. If you read the blogpost, you will notice that it's 10% of the whole supply, but actually 20% of the blockreward in the first 4 years. During the first four years, every ten minutes 40 newly created ZEC will go to the miners, and 10 ZEC to the founders. https://z.cash/blog/funding.html |
|
|
|
Monero is offline on ShapeShift.io for multiple days now, this is quite inconvenient if you would like to try monero for the first time or conveniently buy small amounts for actual usage. Sent ShapeShift an email, but the answer is rather cryptic. What do they mean and what can we do to help them? My email to support, 30 January:Hi, Monero appears offline for over 24 hours. However, when using the direct link https://shapeshift.io/?pair=BTC_XMR I managed to convert BTC to Monero. There seems to be a bug in the BTC deposit limit, because when entering an XMR amount the system does calculate 'Your New Limit = 2.30 BTC". Support Fox (ShapeShift)
Hello,
We don't recommend you continuing this as its possible it will fail to send your funds and you will have to contact us again.
Left it up on the API to continue to test it. We turned Monero off because the client is failing to send tx's reliably. Please let us know if you have any further questions, have a great day! I think it might have something to do with the transactions getting stuck issue that some people incurred here. Could you send them a reply that if they need help the developers/contributers in #monero or #monero-dev can easily help them? |
|
|
|
Despite the short attention span of some, I still:
1) Don't think there has been invented anything more interesting in the world, since crypto was invented.
2) Don't think there is any coin more interesting created, since Monero was created.
=> Despite that sun goes up and goes down, and it would be nice to have [insert feature here], there is no place better to be than Monero is.
What is it that makes it interesting? Thanks Not looking for an endless discussion just some points to ponder Someone else asked a similiar question a few days ago, so you will find most of your answers there -> https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/43f4a1/former_bitcoin_maximalist_seeking/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
