Project maelstrom is now in open beta http://project-maelstrom.bittorrent.com/ For starters does anyone have or can anyone dig up some links other than what we get on the main page, a portal, some sort of spider/indexing service, or a search engine? Other than that, discuss. *edit* it appears to be closed source. just lost a lot of interest in the project. |
|
|
|
Can you name a single respected scientific organization that rejects anthropogenic global warming or the reports from the IPCC? Surely you see the problem with this question? Not really. Care to explain? You have respected scientific journals like "Nature" and "Science" that have published scientific breakthroughs in many fields of science for decades. Are they suddenly wrong on climate change, after even the computer you are using right now is a result of research being published in those and other journals? Is all science just a scam (despite all the things it has done for you)? You cant say, any group of scientists that doesn't believe in AGW is disreputable and AGW is real because no reputable group of scientists argues that it isn't. Its circular. Of course this does rely on the assumption that if i told you about a group of scientists and then told you that they are AGW skeptics than you would consider them disreputable because of this fact. But i think that is a pretty safe assumption. |
|
|
|
|
I think you are trying to win an argument rather than really listening to what I'm saying. What im arguing is incontrovertible but i don't think you are really listening enough to know specifically what it is that i am arguing.
Oh well its not that big of a deal anyway. As far as i understand it fluffypony is only wanting to increase the block time to 2 minutes or something like that. For all i know without having more information that could very easily be an improvement to the security of monaro. In fact i would bet it is since FP is a really smart guy.
Anyway I'm done arguing.
|
|
|
|
@anon136 would u be willing to trade all ur personal assets for munero and put all ur family's savings in munero? Lol no that would be crazy. how much do u love this coin
Lol im a fan but i dont love it per say. how much do you ... trust what the devs say about dem Munero future ?
just because they are smarter than me doesn't mean they are always right about everything  I do know a little bit about how crypto currencies work myself. |
|
|
|
BTW, is there any statistic about orphan blocks in Monero?
I too would very much like to know this. If its much over 5% than probably 1 minute is too fast. Why, exactly? Because the higher the orphan rate the more advantage a block author has over the rest of the network when producing the next block. Or alternatively, we could imagine a "guild" (for lack of a better term) of miners who all lived near each-other and had direct fiber connecting each other, the same principal would apply. Or even a group of non affiliated miners all in the same city or country or under the umbrella of the same ISP. High orphan rates are a strong pressure towards centralization. It is a threat not to be taken lightly. |
|
|
|
BTW, is there any statistic about orphan blocks in Monero?
I too would very much like to know this. If its much over 5% than probably 1 minute is too fast. |
|
|
|
ok here is the formula. a = percentage of the total network hash rate controlled by attacker (expressed in decimal notation) b = # of blocks n = likelihood of discovering b # of blocks for a % of total network hashrate before anyone else f(n)=a^(b-1) (im sure this can be simplified but w/e it works) So back to our 2 blockchains. If the attacker wants to double-spend and has 25% of the total network hashrate, than his chances of discovering 1 block are 25%. 2 blocks in a row is 12.5%. and after 60 minutes like bitcoin wants you to wait. its 4.3368087e-19. So the point is that there is an inherent advantage to security resulting from fast blocks. As such the acceptable orphan rate would be a reasonable trade off. It wouldn't come from some effort to approach as close to 0 as you can. Once its too high of course single actors get a bigger advantage since they dont have to wait to start mining ontop of their own block. But the preferable trade off would probably be a higher orphan rate than most people think. You would have to develop some models to get a good idea, but probably 5% is totally reasonable. These time scales just don't matter. If you want 5 second transactions, you can't get it this way. If you have to wait an hour for effective finality, you can wait a few hours. There is no significant benefit that would offset the disadvantages of an unstable network and pressure toward centralization. Ok well its completely wrong to say the timescales dont matter. This is a black and white fallacy. There is no on off switch here between hours and seconds. Its a smooth sliding scale all the way across the spectrum between them. At each point on that scale there is a marginal consumer somewhere. I don't agree. The significant benefit is from real time (up to maybe 30 seconds) and then pretty much everything else is a minor benefit from going faster or slower because it isn't real time. 10 minutes vs. 20 minutes is really not a game changer. This has been discussed pretty widely in the context of Bitcoin recently. You should review some of those discussions (I don't remember exactly where but I saw them on reddit) because they apply almost exactly the same to Monero. Even a block time of 30 seconds doesn't give you "real time" 1-confirm transactions because it is random. You could have to wait several times the average (and that will happen regularly). Again i think you are miss characterizing the situation. Again no such black and white line exists where something falls on one half of an imaginary line and everything else on the other. its a perfectly smooth sliding scale from the lower bound (probably something like 30 seconds) to some upper bound (probably something like a day) with an in-finite number of points between any two points. at every point on the scale there lies a group of marginal consumers who appreciate that particular time threashold for their purposes. There are people who benefit a lot from 2 minutes instead of 3 or 3 instead of 4 ect... You cant artifically devide people into two clumps who are fine waiting hours and want it done in 30 seconds. Though i will admit there is a tendency for people to clump on either end of the spectrum and fewer people to fall in between and that is a counter argument to be made for why less weight should potentially be applied to my argument, it however is not an argument for why my argument should be discarded entirely. Because plenty of people would still fall in between those two clumps. Additionally there is no black and white line between acceptable number of orphans and not. its a sliding scale just like the one before. you can always have more and always have less, you just have to chose. what im arguing for here is simply a line of reasoning that should be factored into how you decide to make that choice. thats all. its not saying we should have any particular target. i.e. Its not an argument for or against 1 minute block times. And if you want to look at the 10 minute situation, its not 10 minutes vs 20 minutes in transactional security. that would be a bigger deal than you are giving it credit for i think if it were the case but it isnt. in this admittedly simplified model which assumes 0 orphan rate but i think is still a useful tool for thought, a transaction with 10 blocks in 10 minutes is 512 times more secure than a single block in 10 minutes. And again thats not just at any 10 minutes, we could make similar models for any two time values you wanted, where ever you personally thought they were most useful. |
|
|
|
They managed to get the planet´s highest crop yield from rice, an aquatic plant, in a friggin desert.
Only as a result of exactly the same sorts of policies that are causing them to be in exactly the mess that they are in  . If the government wasnt vote buying from farmers by providing water at FAR below what would have been the market clearing price were there a market in water, they never would have produced crops like that, and (when considered as a part of a larger picture of government mismanagement) Californians wouldn't be in the drought related mess that they are in. *edit* oh and then the government creates protectionist policies that disencitivize consumers from importing rice where it actually grows naturally and instead buying rice that was produced in a desert where it made NO economic sense for it to be produced. *edit2* Idk if you guys have ever seen the movie brazil, but you know how in every scene there are these giant intrusive tubes all over the place that are getting in everyones way but no one seems to notice them. Buying rice from california instead of some asian flood plane somewhere is like this. When you study this stuff you start to see them EVERYWHERE and its just baffling how no one seems to notice them. It really is like standing back and watching people bumping into these giant tubes all day long somehow without noticing that they are there. This isnt an attack on you, its just your comment inspired me to rant. |
|
|
|
I swear, 1 minute block time is actually one of the best features of Monero.
Yet another feature where the difference between it and BTC is glaringly obvious in the favor of XMR.
well you gave me an excuse to drag this post over from the other thread so im going to take it. it was kind of out of place in that thread anyway. deleting the other post, this is its replacement. ok here is the formula. a = percentage of the total network hash rate controlled by attacker (expressed in decimal notation) b = # of blocks n = likelihood of discovering b # of blocks for a % of total network hashrate before anyone else f(n)=a^(b-1) (im sure this can be simplified but w/e it works) So back to our 2 blockchains. If the attacker wants to double-spend and has 25% of the total network hashrate, than his chances of discovering 1 block are 25%. 2 blocks in a row is 12.5%. and after 60 minutes like bitcoin satoshi client suggests with 1 minute blocks it would be 4.336808e-19. So the point is that there is an inherent advantage to security resulting from fast blocks. As such the acceptable orphan rate would be a reasonable trade off. It wouldn't come from some effort to approach as close to 0 as you can. Once its too high of course single actors get a bigger advantage since they dont have to wait to start mining ontop of their own block. But the preferable trade off would probably be a higher orphan rate than most people think. You would have to develop some models to get a good idea, but probably 5% is totally reasonable. tldr version: i agree.  |
|
|
|
ok here is the formula. a = percentage of the total network hash rate controlled by attacker (expressed in decimal notation) b = # of blocks n = likelihood of discovering b # of blocks for a % of total network hashrate before anyone else f(n)=a^(b-1) (im sure this can be simplified but w/e it works) So back to our 2 blockchains. If the attacker wants to double-spend and has 25% of the total network hashrate, than his chances of discovering 1 block are 25%. 2 blocks in a row is 12.5%. and after 60 minutes like bitcoin wants you to wait. its 4.3368087e-19. So the point is that there is an inherent advantage to security resulting from fast blocks. As such the acceptable orphan rate would be a reasonable trade off. It wouldn't come from some effort to approach as close to 0 as you can. Once its too high of course single actors get a bigger advantage since they dont have to wait to start mining ontop of their own block. But the preferable trade off would probably be a higher orphan rate than most people think. You would have to develop some models to get a good idea, but probably 5% is totally reasonable. These time scales just don't matter. If you want 5 second transactions, you can't get it this way. If you have to wait an hour for effective finality, you can wait a few hours. There is no significant benefit that would offset the disadvantages of an unstable network and pressure toward centralization. Ok well its completely wrong to say the timescales dont matter. This is a black and white fallacy. There is no on off switch here between hours and seconds. Its a smooth sliding scale all the way across the spectrum between them. At each point on that scale there is a marginal consumer somewhere. additionally i wasnt suggesting that we crank the orphan rate up to 75% inorder to get 5 second blocks. Obviously that would be terrible. It's a trade off. Higher orphan is pressure towards centralization of course, but dont discount the advantage of how much stronger a 10 minute transaction is with 10 1 minute blocks than 1 10 minute block. The difference is massive. Some amount of pressure towards centralization is a worthy trade off for that massive improvement in transactional security. |
|
|
|
deleting the other post, this is its replacement. ok here is the formula. a = percentage of the total network hash rate controlled by attacker (expressed in decimal notation) b = # of blocks n = likelihood of discovering b # of blocks for a % of total network hashrate before anyone else f(n)=a^(b-1) (im sure this can be simplified but w/e it works) So back to our 2 blockchains. If the attacker wants to double-spend and has 25% of the total network hashrate, than his chances of discovering 1 block are 25%. 2 blocks in a row is 12.5%. and after 60 minutes like bitcoin satoshi client suggests with 1 minute blocks it would be 4.336808e-19. So the point is that there is an inherent advantage to security resulting from fast blocks. As such the acceptable orphan rate would be a reasonable trade off. It wouldn't come from some effort to approach as close to 0 as you can. Once its too high of course single actors get a bigger advantage since they dont have to wait to start mining ontop of their own block. But the preferable trade off would probably be a higher orphan rate than most people think. You would have to develop some models to get a good idea, but probably 5% is totally reasonable. |
|
|
|
Can you name a single respected scientific organization that rejects anthropogenic global warming or the reports from the IPCC?
Surely you see the problem with this question? |
|
|
|
This is really good! But what does it have to do with monero? more than you begging to be an escrow  TO A MONERO RELATED EXCHANGE! |
|
|
|
How private is Monero? If I am a normal guy, doing a mixin of 10, and I post my transaction id, what analysis can the public find?
Someone smarter than me correct me if i get something wrong, but as i understand it: They can use the key image to find out whether it was a doublespend attempt or not. They can use it to determine that, for a given input, it came from one of the 10 mixin partners (its self an obfuscated key since it was previously an output that was derived in such a way as to be unlikable). They can use the details of the transaction to determine whether or not the key image is valid. And finally if you are the recipient than you can use the outputs to determine that the funds belong to you, or vice verca if you are not the recipient. They can check that the signatures are valid for each of the inputs. Other than that, nothing. |
|
|
|
-meme-
 done |
|
|
|
I must have done at-least 3 dozen google searches. I don't know how I somehow never manage to search the right thing. Oh well. I shall remain forever cursed. |
|
|
|
My btc address: 1LqXE9xzjLS3HcoRe6AvxAw9zhMimDWCjP 1. First, check what you're doing 64 bit app(because you use 64 bit libs) 2. Additional include directories 3. Linked options add additional dependecies add additional directories <path to file glfw3dll.lib> 4. copy glfw3.dll to a folder with project1.exe 5. run you're welcome and good luck I tried all of those different things at one point or another but i guess it just never came to-gather right. I still don't know how you figured all that out so idk if ill be back in the same position next time i want to use a different non-standard library, but hopefully given what i learned here today i'll be able to figure it out myself next time. Anyway thank-you so much. |
|
|
|
yes i have a 64 bit os. removing all the libraries i added earlier didn't seem to help  . i tried all possible combinations of the three. no difference .' no matter whether we get it figured out or not i just wanted to say thanks for all the help. |
|
|
|
This #include "glfw3.h"
int main(){
glfwInit();
} Did nothing. However this #pragma comment(lib, "C:/Users/Aaron/Documents/Visual Studio 2013/Projects/Project5/Project5/glfw-3.1.1.bin.WIN64/lib-vc2013/glfw3.lib")
#include "glfw-3.1.1.bin.WIN64\include\GLFW\glfw3.h"
int main() {
glfwInit();
} definitely did something. I had to switch from backslashes like this #pragma comment(lib, "C:\Users\Aaron\Documents\Visual Studio 2013\Projects\Project5\Project5\glfw-3.1.1.bin.WIN64\lib-vc2013\glfw3.lib") to forward slashes like this. #pragma comment(lib, "C:/Users/Aaron/Documents/Visual Studio 2013/Projects/Project5/Project5/glfw-3.1.1.bin.WIN64/lib-vc2013/glfw3.lib") inorder to resolve these errors. 1>------ Build started: Project: Project5, Configuration: Debug x64 ------
1> main.cpp
1>main.cpp(1): warning C4129: 'A' : unrecognized character escape sequence
1>main.cpp(1): warning C4129: 'D' : unrecognized character escape sequence
1>main.cpp(1): warning C4129: 'V' : unrecognized character escape sequence
1>main.cpp(1): warning C4129: 'P' : unrecognized character escape sequence
1>main.cpp(1): warning C4129: 'g' : unrecognized character escape sequence
1>main.cpp(1): warning C4129: 'l' : unrecognized character escape sequence
1>LINK : fatal error LNK1104: cannot open file 'C:UsersAaronDocumentsVisual Studio 2013ProjectsProject5Project5glfw-3.1.1.bin.WIN64lib-vc2013glfw3.lib'
========== Build: 0 succeeded, 1 failed, 0 up-to-date, 0 skipped ========== But after I switched from backslashes to forward slashes I got these errors. 1>------ Build started: Project: Project5, Configuration: Debug x64 ------
1> main.cpp
1>LINK : warning LNK4098: defaultlib 'MSVCRT' conflicts with use of other libs; use /NODEFAULTLIB:library
1>glfw3.lib(window.c.obj) : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp_glClear referenced in function glfwCreateWindow
1>glfw3.lib(wgl_context.c.obj) : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp_wglCreateContext referenced in function _glfwCreateContext
1>glfw3.lib(wgl_context.c.obj) : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp_wglDeleteContext referenced in function _glfwDestroyContext
1>glfw3.lib(wgl_context.c.obj) : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp_wglGetProcAddress referenced in function _glfwPlatformGetProcAddress
1>glfw3.lib(wgl_context.c.obj) : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp_wglMakeCurrent referenced in function _glfwPlatformMakeContextCurrent
1>glfw3.lib(wgl_context.c.obj) : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp_wglShareLists referenced in function _glfwCreateContext
1>glfw3.lib(context.c.obj) : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp_glGetIntegerv referenced in function _glfwRefreshContextAttribs
1>glfw3.lib(context.c.obj) : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp_glGetString referenced in function glfwExtensionSupported
1>c:\users\aaron\documents\visual studio 2013\Projects\Project5\x64\Debug\Project5.exe : fatal error LNK1120: 8 unresolved externals
========== Build: 0 succeeded, 1 failed, 0 up-to-date, 0 skipped ========== Not sure if that's progress but it could be |
|
|
|
I'm a bit of a novice at programming but I'll try.
Make sure your GLFW and VS targets match (32bit+32bit or 64bit+64bit)
So make sure your program is compiling for 64bit as you're using 64bit libraries.
It is true that I was trying to build the application as 32bit while using glfw's 64 bit libraries (i think). So I went into project properties and at the top in the drop down menu "platform" i changed it from Win32 to x64 (which i think is what you were wanting me to do). Still getting the same error. 1>------ Build started: Project: Project5, Configuration: Debug x64 ------
1>main.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol glfwInit referenced in function main
1>c:\users\aaron\documents\visual studio 2013\Projects\Project5\x64\Debug\Project5.exe : fatal error LNK1120: 1 unresolved externals
========== Build: 0 succeeded, 1 failed, 0 up-to-date, 0 skipped ========== |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
