[XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency

[primer-]

Wow, what a failed fork. Difficulty FUCK-UP, no blocks in the last 20+ min... universal-pool not compatible ....

FUCKING AMATEUR DEVS!!!

Right on schedule, primer-!

what does that mean?

I am one of many who think the current developer team are a bunch of noobs, incompetent amateurs...

[1714208942]

1714208942

[1714208942]

1714208942

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Wow, what a failed fork. Difficulty FUCK-UP, no blocks in the last 20+ min... universal-pool not compatible ....

FUCKING AMATEUR DEVS!!!

Right on schedule, primer-!

what does that mean?

He's our basement troll. He never misses an opportunity to scream incompetence. As soon as the issue is resolved, he disappears for another month.

[explorer]

No new block in some time, transaction pool growing...  concern?   

Thar she blows.  Nice fat fees in those ones!

[nioc]

Wow, what a failed fork. Difficulty FUCK-UP, no blocks in the last 20+ min... universal-pool not compatible ....

FUCKING AMATEUR DEVS!!!

Right on schedule, Primer-!

Over 50% of the net hash has been cut off, universal-pool requires modifications in order to work. THIS WAS NOT COMMUNICATED to the pool owners.

INCOMPETENT DEVELOPERS!!!

Blocks are  being found and the hash rate is only down 20% as expected by smooth in the speculation thread.

How do you expect anybody to take you seriously when you cry wolf?

[elrippo]

Funny...

i have two miners running on 0.9.3
The first synchronized smoothly to block 1009839, the second one is 10 blocks behind at 1009830 and just doesn't want to synchronize...

Maybe i get a cup of tea and wait just a bit... 

[birr]

I wish I knew enough about this stuff to understand whether there's any danger to the chain.

[dEBRUYNE]

I wish I knew enough about this stuff to understand whether there's any danger to the chain.

Not if exchanges/merchants are on the right version, which they are. Drop in hashrate of course is detrimental to security.

[birr]

I wish I knew enough about this stuff to understand whether there's any danger to the chain.

Not if exchanges/merchants are on the right version, which they are. Drop in hashrate of course is detrimental to security.

Okay, but are the "orphans" going to die, or live on like zombies?  That would mean a split chain, if I'm not mistaken.

[smooth]

I wish I knew enough about this stuff to understand whether there's any danger to the chain.

Not if exchanges/merchants are on the right version, which they are. Drop in hashrate of course is detrimental to security.

Okay, but are the "orphans" going to die, or live on like zombies?  That would mean a split chain, if I'm not mistaken.

There are chain splits all the time. As long as end users (including exchanges and other services) are upgraded they will recognize the longest valid chain and ignore any others. Miners don't really matter in the case of a hard fork, though in this case it is clear that well over 50% of miners were upgraded so the longest valid chain will also be longer than the longest invalid chain.

[aiwe]

Dunno, I have

Code:

Height: 1009843/1009843 (100.0%) on mainnet, mining at 150 H/s, net hash 13.51 MH/s, v2, up to date, 8+3 connections

One node was blocked by daemon, for returning unknown top block, obviously it was not updated.
So it works smoothly. Congrats to the devs!

[aiwe]

Minergate shows  Network hashrate 27.01 MH/s, divided by two it gives hashrate 13.51 shown by my bitmonerod

[robinson5]

So currently monero hides both addresses in a transaction but the amount is visible? And is this mathematically proven anonymity or is it more of a mixing type anonymity?

It has some attributes of both. With ring signatures it is mathematically proven (see white paper) that it is impossible to determine which of the possible spenders (outputs) is the real one. It is like mixing in the sense that each input has a finite set (generally 2-5 in practice though higher mix counts are allowed) of possible outputs and this ends up having a mixing-like effect on the entire blockchain.

It is unlike mixing in that the coins being "mixed" don't need to be spent at the same time (like coinjoin) nor do their owners need to take any active steps to mix (like most mixing systems), nor is there any coordinating central coordinating system that can either steal your coins (like centralized mixers) or serve as a point for tracking and logging (like most if not all coinjoin-based implementations).

Thanks for explaining! So what advantages will RingCT bring and is there a rough idea on when that will be implemented?

[dEBRUYNE]

So currently monero hides both addresses in a transaction but the amount is visible? And is this mathematically proven anonymity or is it more of a mixing type anonymity?

It has some attributes of both. With ring signatures it is mathematically proven (see white paper) that it is impossible to determine which of the possible spenders (outputs) is the real one. It is like mixing in the sense that each input has a finite set (generally 2-5 in practice though higher mix counts are allowed) of possible outputs and this ends up having a mixing-like effect on the entire blockchain.

It is unlike mixing in that the coins being "mixed" don't need to be spent at the same time (like coinjoin) nor do their owners need to take any active steps to mix (like most mixing systems), nor is there any coordinating central coordinating system that can either steal your coins (like centralized mixers) or serve as a point for tracking and logging (like most if not all coinjoin-based implementations).

Thanks for explaining! So what advantages will RingCT bring and is there a rough idea on when that will be implemented?

See:

https://lab.getmonero.org/pubs/MRL-0005.pdf

&

http://weuse.cash/2016/01/09/tying-up-loose-ends-with-ringct/

There is no specific ETA, somewhere this year is my guess.

[ArticMine]

Minergate shows  Network hashrate 27.01 MH/s, divided by two it gives hashrate 13.51 shown by my bitmonerod

That is due to them not fully updating the hashrate calculation to account for the change in block time. They also show the Effective txs median, bytes as 20000 the pre fork value when it should be 60000.

[aerbax]

If you're still stuck on v1 or block 1009827, I've added some suggestions gathered from the community (mainly luigi1111w, who was a *huge* help).  One of my daemons was stuck, and the pop-blocks suggestion fixed it.

https://hellomonero.com/article/moneros-march-23-2016-hard-fork-what-you-need-know-updated

[primer-]

Wow, what a failed fork. Difficulty FUCK-UP, no blocks in the last 20+ min... universal-pool not compatible ....

FUCKING AMATEUR DEVS!!!

Right on schedule, Primer-!

Over 50% of the net hash has been cut off, universal-pool requires modifications in order to work. THIS WAS NOT COMMUNICATED to the pool owners.

INCOMPETENT DEVELOPERS!!!

Blocks are  being found and the hash rate is only down 20% as expected by smooth in the speculation thread.

How do you expect anybody to take you seriously when you cry wolf?

I hate people who pull numbers from their ass ... Smooth you idiot.

Code:

1009852	60 to go	1621258227	7750098e01c2c457c5e90639883b6be73decb1442931a3bdc018244c6cf75e60	3/23/2016, 7:05:24 PM	83%
1009849	57 to go	1618724176	f20dfbe79664394d9b9920ea7095f516a24b5693f9166a10dbfe63f7db1ddf82	3/23/2016, 6:52:46 PM	84%
1009845	53 to go	1613905042	4977c235f696284b55a42207933c4f045f647ea73efce1e2c280370d0754fc24	3/23/2016, 6:41:44 PM	79%
1009843	51 to go	1621581315	a4a02510f2f376dff190c59486b370a022f01d45683b62bda83a4708bccdf36e	3/23/2016, 6:26:49 PM	48%
1009833	41 to go	1609202846	a937fead88d2a438e11eeaf0e8596dc0cb92a028831104a02406d9734dbb3718	3/23/2016, 5:48:13 PM	94%
1009831	39 to go	1602611350	65b2b5031e39702b8c5130d6254653cd00fbc7fe1bfd0b6be2664ac98776f09a	3/23/2016, 5:43:46 PM	84%

Way more than 20% of hash got cut off otherwise i would not be finding so many blocks with only 350kh/s...

[dEBRUYNE]

Wow, what a failed fork. Difficulty FUCK-UP, no blocks in the last 20+ min... universal-pool not compatible ....

FUCKING AMATEUR DEVS!!!

Right on schedule, Primer-!

Over 50% of the net hash has been cut off, universal-pool requires modifications in order to work. THIS WAS NOT COMMUNICATED to the pool owners.

INCOMPETENT DEVELOPERS!!!

Blocks are  being found and the hash rate is only down 20% as expected by smooth in the speculation thread.

How do you expect anybody to take you seriously when you cry wolf?

I hate people who pull numbers from their ass ... Smooth you idiot.

Code:

1009852	60 to go	1621258227	7750098e01c2c457c5e90639883b6be73decb1442931a3bdc018244c6cf75e60	3/23/2016, 7:05:24 PM	83%
1009849	57 to go	1618724176	f20dfbe79664394d9b9920ea7095f516a24b5693f9166a10dbfe63f7db1ddf82	3/23/2016, 6:52:46 PM	84%
1009845	53 to go	1613905042	4977c235f696284b55a42207933c4f045f647ea73efce1e2c280370d0754fc24	3/23/2016, 6:41:44 PM	79%
1009843	51 to go	1621581315	a4a02510f2f376dff190c59486b370a022f01d45683b62bda83a4708bccdf36e	3/23/2016, 6:26:49 PM	48%
1009833	41 to go	1609202846	a937fead88d2a438e11eeaf0e8596dc0cb92a028831104a02406d9734dbb3718	3/23/2016, 5:48:13 PM	94%
1009831	39 to go	1602611350	65b2b5031e39702b8c5130d6254653cd00fbc7fe1bfd0b6be2664ac98776f09a	3/23/2016, 5:43:46 PM	84%

Way more than 20% of hash got cut off otherwise i would not be finding so many blocks with only 350kh/s...

Crypto-pool.fr got booted off for the first 12 blocks or so, but they are finding blocks again now.

[robinson5]

So currently monero hides both addresses in a transaction but the amount is visible? And is this mathematically proven anonymity or is it more of a mixing type anonymity?

It has some attributes of both. With ring signatures it is mathematically proven (see white paper) that it is impossible to determine which of the possible spenders (outputs) is the real one. It is like mixing in the sense that each input has a finite set (generally 2-5 in practice though higher mix counts are allowed) of possible outputs and this ends up having a mixing-like effect on the entire blockchain.

It is unlike mixing in that the coins being "mixed" don't need to be spent at the same time (like coinjoin) nor do their owners need to take any active steps to mix (like most mixing systems), nor is there any coordinating central coordinating system that can either steal your coins (like centralized mixers) or serve as a point for tracking and logging (like most if not all coinjoin-based implementations).

Thanks for explaining! So what advantages will RingCT bring and is there a rough idea on when that will be implemented?

See:

https://lab.getmonero.org/pubs/MRL-0005.pdf

&

http://weuse.cash/2016/01/09/tying-up-loose-ends-with-ringct/

There is no specific ETA, somewhere this year is my guess.

That sounds awesome! And you can still monitor the total money supply unlike zcash?

Have any of the devs given an update on the progress for ringct lately?

[primer-]

Crypto-pool.fr got booted off for the first 12 blocks or so, but they are finding blocks again now.

He didn't get booted off, the fork was NOT COMPATIBLE with pool software. Onishin is a smart guy, i'm not surprised he fixed it in to time (still took him longer than me )

[fluffypony]

Crypto-pool.fr got booted off for the first 12 blocks or so, but they are finding blocks again now.

He didn't get booted off, the fork was NOT COMPATIBLE with pool software. Onishin is a smart guy, i'm not surprised he fixed it in to time (still took him longer than me )

No, the pool software was not updated to support a well publicised fork, even though testnet was forked months ago and available for testing. Why and how would a hard fork support outdated software??