such a pathetic thread.
move along people, nothing to see here except angry people who didnt buy into DRK and are now kicking themselves of trying to promote an inferior coin/technology.
The DRK charts says it all
+1, Monero's bloating blockchain makes it 10x less user friendly than even Bitcoin...The chain is over 8 times bigger than the Bitcoin blockchain at the moment and is getting bigger every second. Since many of you know how long the Bitcoin blockchain takes to fully sync(about 8 hours), multiple that by 8, and that means it takes over 64 hours for the Monero/cryptonote blockchains to sync...And the chain is ever growing, so eventually that number could be 100 hours, 300 hours etc. Are we in the business of straight-up fabricating facts, now? The Monero chain is 350 MB. 8x bigger then Bitcoin would be something like 150 GB. Also, I do hope you're aware that DRK needs to cascade masternode mixing in order to have any actual anonymity (any individual masternode obviously cannot be trusted to keep the sender-receiver mapping secret). This cascading is bloat (more transactions), and roughly linear with number of stages. There's also bloating in DRK from having to break up transaction amounts to send to different pools (e.e 11.2 = 10 + 1 + 0.2), though the same exists in CryptoNote. This latter factor cancels. Even a first order estimate will tell you that DRK with cascading is probably more bloated than CryptoNote. This is because the ambiguity of the O(n) ring signatures is guaranteed (see mathematical proof in CryptoNote whitepaper) while cascading needs to have many, many stages before it can be reasonably trustworthy. I remember Anonymint ran some numbers on the number of stages needed, but I'm too lazy to go track it down in DRK's 1500 pages. |
|
|
|
If a dev mines years in secret isn't it a pre-mine?
Anyways, I have a question about the technology itself.
I'm a fan of ring signatures and am not a fan of these "masternodes" that Darkcoin uses.
But a lot of the masternode supporters say that ring signature blockchains will become so bloated that they'll never be useful. Can someone calculate how bloated they would be? Like if Bytecoin or Monero had the same transaction volume as Bitcoin, how much larger would the chain be?
I would estimate roughly a factor of 10, based on the product of average ring signature ambiguity (~3, including all the 0's) and the additional ouputs due to amounts being broken up (also ~3, since many transactions are for whole numbers that can easily be constructed with just a few outputs). Regarding Darkcoin: The increase in the number of outputs also occurs here because of amount breakdown and pooling, so that factor is about the same. So it's a contest between the linear scaling of ring signatures and the linear scaling of cascading through several masternodes. Cascading is mandatory since any individual masternode knows the sender-receiver mapping and can keep logs. While the anonymity of ring signatures is provably guaranteed, the masternode cascading needs to be done many, many times for anyone to realistically trust the anonymity. My guess is that Darkcoin is more bloated if it chooses to actually be anonymous (using >10 stage cascading). |
|
|
|
who is mining all the coins?
A large percentage of the network is cloud mining. Some of these users keep, some others dump. The price of Monero (and CPU coins in general) is partially set by the equilibrium profitability of cloud mining. It's the same situation as GPU farms or ASIC farms, except determined by the spot instance price instead of the cost of electricity. |
|
|
|
In 5 years, the size and the speed of hard-drives will greatly increase so it is not really a problem IMO.
3D NAND Flash integration is coming and it'll make current memory densities look like a joke.  |
|
|
|
While we're on the subject of MATLAB scripts simulating emission  ... I wrote one a while ago that plots the block reward, circulation, inflation, and daily production with or without a minimum subsidy as a function of time. Call it with cni(years, ms) where years = number of years to simulate and ms = the minimum subsidy (e.g. 0.3). Here: http://pastebin.com/BVtd5Vmr |
|
|
|
Regarding inflation after the 18,000,000 coins are minted.
I believe that a constant amount of coin release is superior to a 1% inflation. The Ethereum guys are going to probably do it this way.
1% constantly devalues everyones coins, whereas if we just made the final block reward 1 MRO, thats about 500,000 mro per year (Or 250,000 per year with 2 minute blocks). It would be about 2% inflation for that year it came into effect, but would gradually become less than 1%.
A fixed eventual supply of 500,000 mro is going to always be enough to entice miners. Remember that the value of those 500,000 will probably increase as time goes on.
A 1% reward will just devalue the currency for everyone else.
A constant supply will create a long term rare coin without the reward problem that Bitcoin will run into.
I am a fan of the economic model of constant supply. I am not a fan of 1% inflation.
Either one devalues. In practice, the difference isn't that great for these low magnitudes. If we started at 1% (0.333 fixed minimum), then it would be around 0.6% in 2070. 1.0 MRO fixed is actually much more inflationary within the lifetime of anyone here today. It would start at ~3% and go to ~1.2% around 2070. No matter what we do, it's pure guesswork. The real decision would have to be made by future devs; same for Bitcoin. Who knows what the financial or technological landscape will look like even 10 years from now? |
|
|
|
Monero, my man, why are you tanking?  Bigger picture: it's up about 4x compared to 10 days ago. Swings are common in altcoins since the liquidity is much lower. An early adopter has to sit through these calmly. This is especially true for CryptoNote currencies because they're young and so their infrastructure is underdeveloped compared to Bitcoin and Bitcoin-based coins. Too much inflation. Classic problem with some altcoins, but it's even worse with MRO (right now).
This is true (because it's a 1-month-old PoW), but by design it goes down a lot over time. Faster than Bitcoin's. |
|
|
|
A hard fork isn't that big of an impediment. It can be placed over a month into the future so that everyone in our relatively small community can upgrade clients in time. We will be hard forking anyway to place a minimum subsidy so that the network doesn't die in 8 years. I'm also in favor of 2 minute blocks. It's arguably better for commercial situations as smooth pointed out because the additional confidence in confirmations beats the time penalty. Yes, thanks. I was just wondering because Cryptonote coins advertise being 'double-spend proof' and wanted to know if this was because however magical way the blockchain might be set up that nobody can fork it. But ok, thanks  'Double-spend proof' actually has to do with properties of the one-time ring signatures that CryptoNote uses. It can be proven that when ring signatures are linkable, you can't create a false signature and spend a coin again. Forking is something else and always possible in PoW (or PoS) coins. I think CrpyoNote's choice of words here is a little misleading since most people think of constructing a longer chain and releasing it when they think of double spending. We're still vulnerable to that. |
|
|
|
A long lusted update: the fastest optimization of hash rate up to date. Available at http://bitmonero.orgThese are changes merged from QuazarCoin, which themselves were merged from Monero (Noodle deserves credit). And yes, it's probably still slower than Wolf's cpuminer modifications. |
|
|
|
Thanks for making my point. A questionable coin is still beating you guys.
I think you missed the point Pumps come and go. The trolls never stop. |
|
|
|
In what world is a declining coin price and competitors that blow you out of the water success?
Briliantrocket's own opinions on XC, which blows MRO out of the water: I would advise any would be investors to be EXTREMELY cautious of this coin. If the dev cannot provide a full explanation of what this technology does and how, assume it is vaporware intended to create a pump.
|
|
|
|
Hi Guys! I was wondering how to import a *.keys file into my wallet client. Been trying but no luck. If someone knows it would be a great help.
Call the wallet from terminal with the argument "--wallet X.bin" if your keys file was named "X.bin.keys" (and the wallet sync data would be named "X.bin"). Linux/OSX: ./simplewallet --wallet X.bin Windows: simplewallet.exe --wallet X.bin |
|
|
|
If you look at the volume chart here its pretty clear that the day before it hit poloniex around 80k coins have moved the owner: http://qcn.cryptostats.org/charts/volumeBefore that the network was dead and nearly noone was even mining it - except some guy. Theres no sell pressure yet on QCN because that dude doesnt seem to sell them yet. I agree with your final point but not with the network being dead and nobody mining it before Polo. If your were around the IRC channel or even this thread before it went on Polo there were a fair few people mining it and trades were being done several weeks before hitting an exchange. There was also another exchange open before Polo. dreamspark, are you talking about MRO (since you referred to this thread)? He's referring to QCN. MRO is much more evenly distributed. |
|
|
|
No you have to look at market cap as at least one factor, not just coin price. QCN mines 1/4 as many coins as MRO (for now, at some point the curves will cross). So it would have to be valued at 4x as much to be par. Think about it, if you have a coin where you only issue 0.1 coins per day, and assuming that coin had any kind of promise at all, the value per coin would be huge. The total market cap might not be any different though.
What about the fact that MRO devs do all the work, and QCN just syncs in the changes? So just due to couple of variables tuned, it still going to be worth as much as MRO? I think the ideal coin for you might be 42 Coin, currently worth $10,370 per coin. Just kidding.  Anyway, there's an EC2 war going on QCN right now so I would exercise caution. Hashrate is up over 20x in 3 days. That's not organic, as you can tell from the lack of corresponding activity in the forum thread. |
|
|
|
for 500 dollars what would smooth david or ezih buy (other than investing, as investing is beyond most normal human beings, let alon investing in cryptocurrencies.)
for 1000 dollars what would they buy. things like this. trust is hard to come buy especially when we use handles. but trust can be percieved through conversation, and the above mentioned and others have earned it from me.
thanks.
I actually consider investing more accessible than mining, particularly for those looking to make significant profit (see below). Building a computer from parts is beyond what most people are comfortable with. The ordinary person should simply devote some cores (~50%) on their regular desktop to essentially mine for free and support the network. This is probably the vision Satoshi had in mind for Bitcoin. When it comes to 'serious' mining, the calculations are complicated. For the same capital input, you're almost always better off investing in a currency than investing in hardware if that currency is set to go up. Having a mining rig is a hedge. It's basically risk mitigation through diversification -- if the particular currency fails, you can move on to another one (or sell the hardware, which has a disconnected price). The standard risk-reward correlation is pretty much inescapable. Hence for the same costs, mining (lower risk) carries lower reward compared to investing. There's also risky mining, e.g. buying a bunch of VPS instances, but this carries correspondingly higher reward if things work out. So recommendations for hardware can't really be based on Monero, because it necessarily involves the broader CPU coin market. It's also constantly changing based on altcoin liquidity and the price of BTC. Add on top of that the risk of this becoming a GPU (or ASIC) coin. All these complications make it easier for the ordinary person to just get a coinbase.com account and invest. |
|
|
|
This is just reality dude : I bought a bunch of this coin (0.0037) and I'm ready to sell them as soon as I feel it.
In the strange, strange world we live in, the fork has 2.2 million H/s while the non-fork has 180k H/s. Maybe there's more to it. Either way, enjoy your profit. |
|
|
|
I hold both MRO and DRK and so have thought about this question somewhat carefully.
...
Good write-up. Ironically, DRK's original plan was to get the code vetted by CoinJoin inventor gmaxwell and then go open source. They never thought to actually consult gmaxwell on his opinions of DRK. I think they might need someone else. Another problem worth mentioning, ~80% of the "masternodes" are concentrated in 3 VPS companies. It's a mockery of 'decentralized' and 'trustless'. Lulz. What % of holders/miners of any coin are not concentrated between 4 ISPs - AT&T, AOL Time Warner, Cox and Verizon.. Another problem worth mentioning - who's backbone are those VPS companies using to host? Yup one of those 4 companies the holders/miners use to provide them with internet access.. Either way you look at it decentralization sounds good but at the end of the the day it's just a matter of perspective. The big 4 control both sides of the net. Sure, I can agree with that. But these are two separate things and there's a critical gap in capability. A VPS company hosting an instance can take a snapshot of the VMs at will with ease. This reveals exact data not only on the disk, but even memory and registers. Your ISP sees incoming/outgoing data but they can't access your local hardware state (except through the usual route of malware). You can encrypt your data to counter your ISP, but with a VPS the decryption keys are on their hardware. Hell, they could very well write to your VM if they wanted. This all sort of goes into conspiracy territory, though that may not be unwarranted in the era of large-scale privacy breaches by governments. In any case, the point is you don't have to deal with this weakness. That's what Monero is for. |
|
|
|
I hold both MRO and DRK and so have thought about this question somewhat carefully.
...
Good write-up. Ironically, DRK's original plan was to get the code vetted by CoinJoin inventor gmaxwell and then go open source. They never thought to actually consult gmaxwell on his opinions of DRK. I think they might need someone else. Another problem worth mentioning, ~80% of the "masternodes" are concentrated in 3 VPS companies. It's a mockery of 'decentralized' and 'trustless'. |
|
|
|
On the Mac I only see "Lib" folder and none of the wallet related files you mention. Are these somewhere else?
After downloading, you should see a Lib folder and four executables: bitmonerod, simplewallet, simpleminer, connectivity_tool. If you created a wallet, then in the same folder you also have wallet.bin, wallet.bin.keys, and wallet.bin.address.txt. If you don't see the last 3, it means you never actually created a wallet. Don't just open simplewallet from the finder by double clicking. You need to call it from the terminal with the command I showed before: ./simplewallet --generate-new-wallet wallet.bin |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
