is anyone having this problem my daemon is always showing: Block recognized as orphaned and rejected, id = <6b6ab3d7a9ad889254d57c0ff521f2b53cf6b516383e8f9a383c56c3f7ee36da>droping connection, i think it doesnt bypass that  common msg, you can ignore, someone mined an orphan block and it was reject by the network. but that i understand what i dont understand its why my blockchain stays on block 95825 -> 96622 and seems that its not downloading... blocks to download keep geting up instead of down - 96528 is the most recent block. You can confirm that you are current by typing "diff" in the daemon and pressing enter, and you should get this back: 2014-Jun-22 12:34:57.353258 BH: 96528, DIFF: 703155852, HR: 11719264 H/s If you're not updating you may be connected to REALLY weird peers, but Monero will automatically disconnect from bad peers and try find consensus (as with all cryptocurrencies / consensus networks). |
|
|
|
DRK with all its shady supply tricks is almost benign compared to this new breed of shitcoins.
Can you elaborate on why you believe that XMR is a new breed of shitcoin? I'm actually interested in your opinion. thanks. He's on the Monero core team, that's very much NOT what he was saying;) The "new breed of shitcoin" he's referring to is in his previous sentence: "Meanwhile, most of the 'competition' consists of 3 to 7 day PoW followed by PoS." |
|
|
|
is Monero network under maintenance?
Because:
1. Rewards are delayed
2. My hashrates half-ed
3. To many errors everywhere
Massive DDOS on all big pools. Everything is down. "Everything" is not down. http://monerochain.info - blocks are still averaging around a minute between blocks. Pools being DDoS'd does not affect the network. |
|
|
|
Some say XMR will rise when XMR/BTC market will open on Mintpal. What's the reasoning behind this (except from larger exposure) ... are there precedents ?
I'm under the impression last couple of days and certainly last couple of hours, XMR is being pumped on Polo in anticipation of the Mintpal notation and XMR will be dumped on Mintpal.
What's your opinion ?
Short term variations doesn't matter. People will regret not having XMR in few months. Monero doesn't have the community size to have potential imo. It's just not growing compared to the other coins. That's the way we'd prefer it at this stage. It's not ready for massive growth, not until we have all the tooling in place. |
|
|
|
Monero blockchain grew to 1 Gb in one month and it's a pain to sync, and only a few people use it now, imagine what would happen when/if it gets more popular. Do you think that Monero alone won't fly due to syncing and storing issues if everyone uses the same cryptonote currency?
In my opinion, a few cryptonote currencies will become popular and interexchangeable, since the code is shared, and users would need to download only one of the blockchains. The userbase and transactions are thus split into a few smaller blockchains instead of one huge and everyone chooses their favorite flavor, like linux OSes, with every flavor taking 20-30% of total marketcap of cryptonote currencies.
It's just a pain to wait for it to be fully synced if you only open it once every few days and have to wait 20-30 mins before you can use it. For now it's just pumping at exchanges as many people don't even bother with withdrawing, especially since there is no GUI and they are only speculators. What do you think of this?
I was thinking of this as well. What if a multibit version of the monero qt wallet was made? Where only the important parts of the blockchain are stored, so much less space is needed for the monero multibit/lightweight wallet. Is a thin client even possible with cryptonote currencies? Let the devs answer this. Not an SPV client in the Bitcoin sense, but there is an idea we're playing with that will allow for very light clients. Practically speaking, though, it's quite a ways away. The general route to that is going to be QoS to fix bandwidth issues -> embedded database to fix RAM usage -> fat GUI client -> thin GUI client |
|
|
|
Not at all, it's a completely different approach. Mixing services (any altcoin that uses the word "nodes" in the description of their anonymity) and CoinJoin all suffer from the fatal flaws described in that article. |
|
|
|
The bandwidth issue should be easily solved with some kind of bandwidth-limiting feature like an option -bwuplimit 500 (kbps) -bwdownlimit 2000...
The ram issue, ok. But keep in mind that in the future Monero can be FUD'ed by quoting posts that show GUI wasn't been implemented on purpose while other CN-coins had GUI. This would "imply" an artificial barrier of entry for "noobs" so that a select clique can profit from their tech-geekiness etc. So get a working GUI ready and just throw a window warning that this is beta software or something and problems are to be expected.
Regarding implementation problems, try to fix those which would make Mintpal list and then de-list the coin due to re-occuring issues (crashing its price with panicked investors who can't even draw the money back to their wallets). These issues should be known by now through the Poloniex experience.
Knowing what the command-line arguments should be is easy, actually implementing QoS on TCP layer in epee is the actual work, and is in progress. There are 4 working GUIs that are available for download and use, and we do keep mentioning them, so no need for us to do any more than that at this stage. Those working on GUI wallets can continue to enhance theirs, and we will continue to focus on core usability issues. |
|
|
|
I'd like to know when will these problem sorted out. BCN has just got a new update with proper DB replacing blockchain.bin. Once they release the source for this function can Monero use it as reference to speed up the work ?
As far as I can tell, they've got a closed-source implementation that allows for only part of the blockchain to be loaded into RAM at runtime. That is NOT the same as a "proper" embedded DB replacing the flat file. Even so, whilst Monero may have initially been based on Bytecoin's reference implementation, we've already diverged from their reference code. We are well on the way to our own embedded database implementation, so it is unnecessary to implement whatever Bytecoin does. Specifically, we evaluating the performance of several databases for our workload, and will be producing an overview of the results in a few weeks that expounds on the process and on the reasons for choosing one embedded database over another. |
|
|
|
Guys this coin has so much potential. we really need a GUI wallet, this is a huge priority right now. the average person needs to be able to save there coins on there own computer. leaving them on exchanges is risky. and i dont think million dollar investors want to bring out ms dos command lines, it just makes this feel really unprofessional. Im willing to fund it, im sure many more are also, we need to crowd fund someone to smash out a GUI wallet.
You guys are forgetting what monero is, its a coin, a currency, which needs to be easily used. how many people would use debit cards if you had to do a double backflip and solve a rubix cube in 10 seconds before you use it. none. we need ease of use. if the coins not usable then its nothing, just a chunk of irrelevant data in a blockchain.
If we have a 5million dollar market cap on a coin which is basically unusable to the average user, imagine what we could have with a professional approach to it? 100million? easy.
Currently Monero uses ~1.6gb - 2.2gb of RAM. Everyone has to run a full node, and if you have incoming ports (manually or via UPNP) Monero can easily max out a 20mbps line. Is that the experience we want to deliver to end users? |
|
|
|
One other note - I'm not sure if you have a solid grounding mathematics or cryptography, but you should take a read of our ongoing project to peer-review and annotate the CryptoNote whitepaper (it has had no formal peer review that anyone is aware of). The two primary peer reviewers are PhD-holding mathematicians and cryptographers. You can find it here: http://monero.cc/downloads/whitepaper_annotated.pdf |
|
|
|
With regards to Monero: Mayers-Lo-Chau no go theoremMLC's no-go theorem is a problem, not for Monero, for ALL hash function based proof-of-work related systems. That having been said, there is so much work that has been done since the initial publication that it is a non-issue for quantum cryptography. Specifically, and for a light introduction to some of the work, it is best to take a glance at Chi-Yee Cheung's Quantum Teleportation and Bit Commitment slides from 2009. This section in particular: Question: Does the “no-go theorem” cover all possible cases?
Note that QBC has a definite objective, but the corresponding procedure is not precisely defined.
There are infinitely many ways to do QBC.
So how could one be sure the no-go result is universally valid?
Make sure to list no-go theorems as a problem for every single coin in your list. Thankfully, they're not much of a concern until we live in Star Trek:) One-way function exist?I don't understand what this means - can you elaborate? |
|
|
|
[...]
This is actually not their fault. The wallet is not mempool aware at the moment, so if a tx falls out the mempool (no miners mine it because maybe it's malformed or has the wrong fee or whatever) then the wallet doesn't know that those outputs are now unspent. It's on our list of things to fix ASAP!
Good to hear you're on it, because it can be very confusing to anyone who doesn't know how things work, and annoying in any case! Today I got a lot of "COMPLETE: ERROR" from poloniex, even when sending in smaller chunks. I guess their wallet is too dusty because of small deposits. Fixing these two things is very important, as having something rock solid *at least for an exchange operator* is pretty much mandatory. For the second problem, is it the "auto split" of too big transactions that is going to help? Yes - the auto-split will make sure that the chance of a failed tx is minimal:) |
|
|
|
I've been playing with simplewallet.exe. Sometimes when I try to transfer monero from one wallet to another the client complains that the transaction is too large. When I try again it works. Is the transaction building logic not deterministic? I guess this comes down to the RNG? Why not try a few more in the event of the transaction being too large?
It's not deterministic, it's random and depending on the mixin count it will use other *random* inputs, so it's never going to be the same. What you're experiencing is definitely an interesting edge-case given your mix of inputs, most of the time no amount of fiddling with different inputs will get a transaction to fit:) If you haven't already, read this week's Monero Missive, as we show off transaction auto-splitting (which is also available for testing if you're able to compile Monero). Sending xmr for that peer review: Such speed, much wow
 Edit: Sent - Money successfully sent, transaction <db663dfc4e1e9e4ec4f78822ea7e13bee267bbdc118fd87b7c69b6acdd1cfd73> lol - glad you enjoyed that:) Thanks! |
|
|
|
FYI, this issue with Poloniex is still not resolved: Yesterday I've withdrawn some XMR from Poloniex. The transaction was listed as "COMPLETE" quickly. However today, when checking my wallet (and after refresh), the funds are not there. And indeed the tx id that poloniex shows for this tx is unknown on http://monerochain.info. I just opened a ticket, but I wonder if somebody else encountered this? Currently, this failed withdrawal is still shown as "COMPLETE" in my account, with tx id 777d943c86acf4ee22f65505f71732f00152d0af3b1b5ff7194292d46de212d3, which does not exist in the blockchain. The answer 2 days ago to my ticket was: " Hi binaryfate,
Okay, I will escalate your ticket to Tristan to resolve. Thank You and Warm Regards, Angela" I commented 1 day ago: " Any update?
I'm in touch with other people that were in the same situation, they received their withdrawals by now. What about mine?
I also have more to withdraw now. Please tell me asap if I can do it or if you are still resyncing.
Thanks for the work on XMR by the way." I bought more later, and now I am scared to withdraw it that the same thing would happen. I am starting to worry a bit, between that amount that simply disappeared and the second amount I have now but cannot withdraw, this is very significant to me. Thought it was worthy for everyone to know, will update you. Poloniex finally fixed this. They said after a reindex of the poloniex wallet they found that indeed my coins have never left them. They have sent me everything by now.  This is actually not their fault. The wallet is not mempool aware at the moment, so if a tx falls out the mempool (no miners mine it because maybe it's malformed or has the wrong fee or whatever) then the wallet doesn't know that those outputs are now unspent. It's on our list of things to fix ASAP! |
|
|
|
I've been playing with simplewallet.exe. Sometimes when I try to transfer monero from one wallet to another the client complains that the transaction is too large. When I try again it works. Is the transaction building logic not deterministic? I guess this comes down to the RNG? Why not try a few more in the event of the transaction being too large?
It's not deterministic, it's random and depending on the mixin count it will use other *random* inputs, so it's never going to be the same. What you're experiencing is definitely an interesting edge-case given your mix of inputs, most of the time no amount of fiddling with different inputs will get a transaction to fit:) If you haven't already, read this week's Monero Missive, as we show off transaction auto-splitting (which is also available for testing if you're able to compile Monero). |
|
|
|
I look forward to your report on what Petamine and 100th have paid in dividends to date for an initial 1 BTC investment in each. I think you can do the research. It's quite obvious that mining was profitable for the majority who partook in it. And most people pay ~$0.15/kwh compared to this offering at $0.025. You argued that mining assets have been profitable, so the onus is on you to prove that. Again, the issue is not whether mining itself has been profitable, it is whether a mining asset has been profitable in a Bitcoin sense. Friedcat != this team, conflating the two is disingenuous. Yes but this team has been and will be working directly with AM. To say they are not trustworthy is to say FC is not trustworthy. They are also partners with 3m. friedcat has not posted a GPG clearsigned message in this thread confirming his involvement, so that argument is fallacious. Additionally, "working directly with" a known entity is a nonsensical argument. Danny Brewster was "working directly with" Andreas Antonopoulos, that didn't make Danny trustworthy at all. If you are going to argue something you really should consider using fact instead of allusion, guesswork, and implication. Honestly, Jimmy, your attempts at salvaging this conversation are just making more and more clear how little you understand about management, business, Bitcoin, and/or trustless systems. That is not an ad hominem attack, it is a statement of fact. I do not, unfortunately, have the time to continue a discussion with someone who not only lacks the grounding for it, but lacks the self-awareness and intelligence to realise such. |
|
|
|
May I know the public key version of Monero so that I can use it create a vanity address for my Monero wallet using vanitygen on my pc.
This isn't a Bitcoin fork, so you can't use vanitygen. |
|
|
|
I'll turn that around and ask you to list 3 mining operations that were Bitcoin profitable. To simplify, you can just list the asset, what the IPO share price was, and what BTC dividends to date would have been for 1 BTC invested. Petamine, asicminer, 100th mine, and most people who bought bfl hardware, AM hardware, knc hardware, bitmain hardware, a1 clones, avalon hardware, bitfury hardware. Jimmy, my boy, you clearly didn't read what I stated. I said you should "list 3 mining operations that were Bitcoin profitable. To simplify, you can just list the asset, what the IPO share price was, and what BTC dividends to date would have been for 1 BTC invested." Buying mining hardware is NOT investing in an asset. Additionally, ASICminer is NOT a mining operation alone and is thus excluded from this list. I look forward to your report on what Petamine and 100th have paid in dividends to date for an initial 1 BTC investment in each. requires a very WoT-like approach to figuring out whether a business and/or operator is legitimate and a known entity)
Yes trust is needed. The whole internet is a web of trust. I'd love to know who in the bitcoin securities world has more trust than this team and Friedcat. Friedcat != this team, conflating the two is disingenuous. |
|
|
|
just like very nearly every mining operation that has ever existed, the chance of the latter is slim to none Source? There are plenty of mining operations that made money. In fact it was pretty hard to not reach a positive ROI by now with most asics. I'll turn that around and ask you to list 3 mining operations that were Bitcoin profitable. To simplify, you can just list the asset, what the IPO share price was, and what BTC dividends to date would have been for 1 BTC invested. There's also minimal information as to who the operators are and whether they have a credible and long-standing WoT presence (far from infallible, but at least a step in the right direction). Why is this important? Well, for one thing, shutting down a business is trivial, abandoning it doubly so. Being an identifiable and amicable person means nothing (see: Neo&Bee). Having a registered business means nothing (see: AMC/VMC and many others). Trust is a product of provable engagements over time, coupled with an ongoing demonstration of business acumen by the operator(s) (which could be done, for example, by said operator(s) being involved in discussions of other businesses, and by providing advice and/or criticism they demonstrate that they at least have the knowledge to do better). Thus far there is little evidence of either of that here. They have something better than WOT. Real names and real business experience. This is not some people with no history/reputation showing up asking for money. And WOT is the most useless system ever. Do you honestly think it prevents any scams? We had/have real names and real business experience for AMC/VMC (Kenneth Slaughter), for Neo&Bee (Danny Brewster), for BTCQuick (Jerrod Brunce), for Hashfast (Eduardo DeCastro), for BASIC mining (Eric Corlew). Heck, we even had KLYE's real name. Your belief that a real life identity or a lack of a criminal record means anything whatsoever is laughable at best. The WoT does not prevent scams. It is qualitative, not quantitative. There are people I personally know and have established trust with who have a negative WoT rating (due to Sybil attacks). With something like a Bitcoin asset, the WoT provides a level of historicity wherein someone's relationships and dealings over time are detailed and available for inspection. Additionally, given the qualitative nature of the WoT, it allows me to see who in my Level 1 or Level 2 trust group the asset operator has had dealings and engagements with before. That opens it up for conversation, as I can talk to those people who I already trust (directly or indirectly) and find out about their dealings with the person. Red flags show up very quickly. Thus, the WoT is not too dissimilar to what LinkedIn is trying to do for business relationships, except that the rating system allows a level of detail that LinkedIn does not, and it is free to use and observe (where any vaguely useful use of LinkedIn requires a substantial monthly payment). I understand that the concept of trust within a trustless system may be difficult to grasp if you have little technical knowledge of cryptography or have not spent sufficient time establishing and dealing with individuals and businesses in countries other than your own (which, unsurprisingly, requires a very WoT-like approach to figuring out whether a business and/or operator is legitimate and a known entity). I would suggest familiarising yourself with the former rather than the latter, and an excellent start is Practical Cryptography by Niels Ferguson and Bruce Schneier (ISBN: 978-0-471-22357-3). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
