ocminer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2688
Merit: 1240
|
|
October 10, 2016, 03:15:26 PM |
|
At pool last block 2394, miner show 2417 Server is at capacity limit currently, frontend is slow, i'm working on it.
|
suprnova pools - reliable mining pools - #suprnova on freenet https://www.suprnova.cc - FOLLOW us @ Twitter ! twitter.com/SuprnovaPools
|
|
|
ret
|
|
October 10, 2016, 03:17:24 PM |
|
At pool last block 2394, miner show 2417 Server is at capacity limit currently, frontend is slow, i'm working on it. ok, no prob...
|
|
|
|
poptartcat
Member
Offline
Activity: 105
Merit: 10
|
|
October 10, 2016, 03:41:21 PM |
|
I thought Moneta used ring signatures... Zcoin is different, yes?
No, Monero uses ring signatures. Moneta was just the name for Zcoin before it was changed to Zcoin (maybe because it sounded too much like Monero).
|
|
|
|
ret
|
|
October 10, 2016, 03:45:54 PM |
|
I thought Moneta used ring signatures... Zcoin is different, yes?
No, Monero uses ring signatures. Moneta was just the name for Zcoin before it was changed to Zcoin (maybe because it sounded too much like Monero). But Zcoin sounded too much like Zcash
|
|
|
|
drays
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1073
|
|
October 10, 2016, 03:54:16 PM |
|
Too noisy scam accusations... Looks like some haters want to spread FUD badly. We cannot be sure this is not scam, but we can be pretty sure there are people who badly want us to believe this is scam. And those people are really active. I would tell they are too active. That's very suspicious maybe its scam, maybe its some big thing. Maybe both. Time will show, anyway. Meanwhile... mining this
|
... this space is not for rent ...
|
|
|
Redrose
|
|
October 10, 2016, 04:15:11 PM |
|
Too noisy scam accusations... Looks like some haters want to spread FUD badly. We cannot be sure this is not scam, but we can be pretty sure there are people who badly want us to believe this is scam. And those people are really active. I would tell they are too active. That's very suspicious maybe its scam, maybe its some big thing. Maybe both. Time will show, anyway. Meanwhile... mining this Frankly, code is law. If there's no premine, then the only I thing I can say is that it is not a scam.
|
|
|
|
jeremy grol
|
|
October 10, 2016, 04:16:48 PM |
|
Crazy. price went to 0.0035. Today Fud start and price dumped hard to 0.0020. Someoen's want cheap zcoin?
|
|
|
|
tomsmith26
|
|
October 10, 2016, 04:20:49 PM |
|
I feel that when the new coins with new algo was born we can see many fuds from haters who joined previous projects or they want to buy many coins with cheap price. in my view I will mine some coins for my cold storage and buy some more coins when it is cheap. maybe it could be a second ETH in near future time
|
|
|
|
Prima Primat
Member
Offline
Activity: 117
Merit: 10
|
|
October 10, 2016, 04:37:57 PM Last edit: October 10, 2016, 05:02:48 PM by Prima Primat |
|
^^ Seems like it. Regarding the "trusted setup" issue: ZCoin uses the RSA 2048 challenge number for its crypto setup. That's a publicly known semiprime number: 25195908475657893494027183240048398571429282126204032027777137836043662020707595556264018525880784406918290641249515082189298559149176184502808489120072844992687392807287776735971418347270261896375014971824691165077613379859095700097330459748808428401797429100642458691817195118746121515172654632282216869987549182422433637259085141865462043576798423387184774447920739934236584823824281198163815010674810451660377306056201619676256133844143603833904414952634432190114657544454178424020924616515723350778707749817125772467962926386356373289912154831438167899885040445364023527381951378636564391212010397122822120720357 And no one knows the factors, not even the RSA guys. Or even if they do, it's them who have the upper hand, not the ZCoin devs. But seriously they don't, because: The computer's hard drive was subsequently destroyed so that no record would exist, anywhere, of the solution to the factoring challenge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_Factoring_Challenge
|
|
|
|
Bannedseller
|
|
October 10, 2016, 05:10:21 PM |
|
I will stop mining this Coin for now.
|
|
|
|
jeremy grol
|
|
October 10, 2016, 05:44:33 PM |
|
Lol. from 0.0035 to 0.0015 in 12 hours. Pretty stable price. -48% lol Be carefull trading with this spread. wait for a more stable price.
|
|
|
|
giagge
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 10, 2016, 06:17:09 PM |
|
Stop me too .
In 12 hours only 0.42 zcoin with 5 cpu , 3 i5 and 2 celeron .
|
|
|
|
Prima Primat
Member
Offline
Activity: 117
Merit: 10
|
|
October 10, 2016, 06:37:45 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
jeremy grol
|
|
October 10, 2016, 07:19:36 PM |
|
Stop me too .
In 12 hours only 0.42 zcoin with 5 cpu , 3 i5 and 2 celeron .
Difficulty to the moon. Price soon moon
|
|
|
|
drays
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1073
|
|
October 10, 2016, 08:09:57 PM |
|
Here are some benchmarks from the Height problem.
One of my CPUs on Block 2300 now hashes at 8.3H/s, while at Block 23000 it will hash at 1.35H/s. This doesn't take into account the difficulty changes by then. Every CPU will linearly follow this pattern.
I have a question... I understand it will be increasingly more complex to produce a single hash. Some people see a problem in that, and expect the chain to stop at some point. However, if hashes are be produced less often, the blocks will be found less often, the difficulty will decrease, and block will be found again, just with less hashes contributed. Is this correct? So in short, difficulty decrease will compensate for the increased complexity of producing a hash. Doesn't this mean there is no problem at all?
|
... this space is not for rent ...
|
|
|
joblo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1114
|
|
October 10, 2016, 08:56:18 PM |
|
Here are some benchmarks from the Height problem.
One of my CPUs on Block 2300 now hashes at 8.3H/s, while at Block 23000 it will hash at 1.35H/s. This doesn't take into account the difficulty changes by then. Every CPU will linearly follow this pattern.
I have a question... I understand it will be increasingly more complex to produce a single hash. Some people see a problem in that, and expect the chain to stop at some point. However, if hashes are be produced less often, the blocks will be found less often, the difficulty will decrease, and block will be found again, just with less hashes contributed. Is this correct? So in short, difficulty decrease will compensate for the increased complexity of producing a hash. Doesn't this mean there is no problem at all? Matrix size is block height * 24576 bytes per thread. Currently that's 60 MB per thread or 560 MB for an i7 with 8 threads. At block 1 million its 24.576 GB, at 10 million 240GB. With big Xeons it would be close to 1 TB at 1 million blocks. I actually like the concept of increasing mining resource requirenents as block height increases because it protects against tech advancements, faster CPU clocks, more threads, more mem, faster mem, etc. The problem with the current algo is the curve is too steep. Memory requirements of the algo would probably increase faster than memory tech. So what we have is an algo that is impeded from graduating to GPU* and ASIC while it's ability to mine on low end systems diminishes over time. It's squeezed at both ends. * I'm not familiar with GPU mining specifics but typically they have many more threads than CPUs so I assume greater memory usage. Someone who knows please correct me.
|
|
|
|
PGPpfKkx
|
|
October 10, 2016, 09:00:14 PM |
|
my cpu is at 200% with the gui client and setgenerate true 2 but gethashespersec = 0. wtf?
|
|
|
|
go6ooo1212
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000
quarkchain.io
|
|
October 10, 2016, 09:21:45 PM |
|
my cpu is at 200% with the gui client and setgenerate true 2 but gethashespersec = 0. wtf?
I think now only the enterprise CPUs are able to mine the Zcoin. With every single block the hashrate drops...
|
|
|
|
drays
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1073
|
|
October 10, 2016, 09:31:32 PM Last edit: October 11, 2016, 04:10:31 PM by drays |
|
Matrix size is block height * 24576 bytes per thread. Currently that's 60 MB per thread or 560 MB for an i7 with 8 threads. At block 1 million its 24.576 GB, at 10 million 240GB. With big Xeons it would be close to 1 TB at 1 million blocks.
I actually like the concept of increasing mining resource requirenents as block height increases because it protects against tech advancements, faster CPU clocks, more threads, more mem, faster mem, etc.
The problem with the current algo is the curve is too steep. Memory requirements of the algo would probably increase faster than memory tech. So what we have is an algo that is impeded from graduating to GPU* and ASIC while it's ability to mine on low end systems diminishes over time. It's squeezed at both ends.
* I'm not familiar with GPU mining specifics but typically they have many more threads than CPUs so I assume greater memory usage. Someone who knows please correct me.
So its turns out the RAM requirements could be more restricting, than CPU requirements. But from the other hand, with 10 min block target, block 1 million will be after 19 years!! I suppose the RAM size of 24GB+ or even 1TB will not be any problem by then...
|
... this space is not for rent ...
|
|
|
drays
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1073
|
|
October 10, 2016, 09:34:07 PM |
|
my cpu is at 200% with the gui client and setgenerate true 2 but gethashespersec = 0. wtf?
I think now only the enterprise CPUs are able to mine the Zcoin. With every single block the hashrate drops... Not yet. You can easily mine with i3/i5/i7 or even with older Core2Quad or Core2Duo CPUs for now. Hashrate will not be big, but decent enough, so you can get few coins per day with few machines. Depending on what they will cost, it could be reasonable. I wonder where these guys are getting their CPU power from? This is on Suprnova: Rank Donor User Name KH/s XZC/Day 1 paulscreen 112 9,458.737 2 huber 84 7,057.705 3 iflyplane 55 4,659.601 4 anonymous 34 2,874.489 5 anonymous 32 2,659.563 6 anonymous 26 2,192.228 112 Khash/s? Botnets or GPU miner?
|
... this space is not for rent ...
|
|
|
|