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

[Globb0]

BTW I hate these Hybrid FPGAs being called FPGA. They are hybrids, at least Intel calls them what they are. FPGAs have no SOC component.

is this the latest development then?

Among the newest improvements in the FPGA world are System on a Chip (SoC) FPGA devices. A SoC FPGA integrates a hard processor core and programmable logic on the same die.

or BS ?

Also am I dense eeproms aren't new? its what it sounds like

[jwinterm]

MFW I'm reading the proof of work GitHub thread:

[Hueristic]

Excellent points, IOU +sM

When will desktop FPGA cpus be available? 3k for a fpga cpu is not mainstream.

BTW I hate these Hybrid FPGAs being called FPGA. They are hybrids, at least Intel calls them what they are. FPGAs have no SOC component.

Thank you. Discussion continues

https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/316#issuecomment-473323302

Today @WhyIsThisSoSlow detected irrational mind virus or parasite mushroom that forces the Community to give up.
Like this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis

https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/316#issuecomment-473323785

MFW I'm reading the proof of work GitHub thread:

Had to mute it, my inbox went boom! Its going faster than the WO thread.

BTW I hate these Hybrid FPGAs being called FPGA. They are hybrids, at least Intel calls them what they are. FPGAs have no SOC component.

is this the latest development then?

Among the newest improvements in the FPGA world are System on a Chip (SoC) FPGA devices. A SoC FPGA integrates a hard processor core and programmable logic on the same die.

or BS ?

Also am I dense eeproms aren't new? its what it sounds like

I have not kept on substrate processes for almost 2 decades but from what I gleaned a few months back it seems they have been able to create programmable logic gates on the same die which is why we see the ability of these new hybrids to interface with memory at such speeds. In the past all the architecture was limited by the slower programmable gates but now they are both on die. I have no clue if they are using separate substrates fused or if there is one that can handle both forms or what, but it opens up for some really outstanding improvements if they can get the cost down on basic desktop chips and/or gpu's. ITs the fact that the SOCs are not programmable and therefore operate at full speed yet the programmable gates are on die and therefore not limited by any bus interface or limited to using the slower programmable gates as memory or controllers that makes them so quick and versitile. Hope this was clear, I'm really no longer up on any of this shit and frankly was quite surprised that they had actually managed a hybrid method. I think I postulated a year or so ago there was no way they could do it until they came up with a hybrid method and apparently they already had. Doh

[Hueristic]

dbl

[Globb0]

Seems clear thanks

[Wind_FURY]

Hi Monero community, I know anonymint spreads misinformation, but before I debate with a user who posted this blog's link in a Lightning Network topic, I would like to know more if the statement quoted, and bolded is true.

https://steemit.com/blockchain-scaling/@anonymint/lightning-networks-must-fail-if-it-succeeds

Monero’s adaptive block size protocol doesn’t prevent the destruction of the transaction fee market because without the minimum transaction fee periodically adjusted by centralized control (the same @fluffypony centralized control that is recently changing the PoW every ~6 months in a futile attempt to defeat ASICs) promotes the block size to increase so that transaction fees decline to ~0 (i.e. to miners’ negligible incremental costs for adding additional transactions).

Is there a "minimum transaction fee" adjusted by centralized control?

[equipoise]

Hi Monero community, I know anonymint spreads misinformation, but before I debate with a user who posted this blog's link in a Lightning Network topic, I would like to know more if the statement quoted, and bolded is true.

https://steemit.com/blockchain-scaling/@anonymint/lightning-networks-must-fail-if-it-succeeds

Monero’s adaptive block size protocol doesn’t prevent the destruction of the transaction fee market because without the minimum transaction fee periodically adjusted by centralized control (the same @fluffypony centralized control that is recently changing the PoW every ~6 months in a futile attempt to defeat ASICs) promotes the block size to increase so that transaction fees decline to ~0 (i.e. to miners’ negligible incremental costs for adding additional transactions).

Is there a "minimum transaction fee" adjusted by centralized control?

Start your research here: https://ww.getmonero.org/2017/12/11/A-note-on-fees.html, but keep in mind that 1) "Monero uses high xmr/KB fees in order to prevent blockchain bloat" and 2) "Monero fees fall to almost zero after Bulletproofs upgrade"

[Hueristic]

Hi Monero community, I know anonymint spreads misinformation, but before I debate with a user who posted this blog's link in a Lightning Network topic, I would like to know more if the statement quoted, and bolded is true.

https://steemit.com/blockchain-scaling/@anonymint/lightning-networks-must-fail-if-it-succeeds

Monero’s adaptive block size protocol doesn’t prevent the destruction of the transaction fee market because without the minimum transaction fee periodically adjusted by centralized control (the same @fluffypony centralized control that is recently changing the PoW every ~6 months in a futile attempt to defeat ASICs) promotes the block size to increase so that transaction fees decline to ~0 (i.e. to miners’ negligible incremental costs for adding additional transactions).

Is there a "minimum transaction fee" adjusted by centralized control?

He's being disingenuous, sure we added bulletproofs (which had the desired side effect of lower fees) during a scheduled update and we would probably add any safe method to lower fees and or bloat during a scheduled update but calling that centralized is a joke.

[Wind_FURY]

Hi Monero community, I know anonymint spreads misinformation, but before I debate with a user who posted this blog's link in a Lightning Network topic, I would like to know more if the statement quoted, and bolded is true.

https://steemit.com/blockchain-scaling/@anonymint/lightning-networks-must-fail-if-it-succeeds

Monero’s adaptive block size protocol doesn’t prevent the destruction of the transaction fee market because without the minimum transaction fee periodically adjusted by centralized control (the same @fluffypony centralized control that is recently changing the PoW every ~6 months in a futile attempt to defeat ASICs) promotes the block size to increase so that transaction fees decline to ~0 (i.e. to miners’ negligible incremental costs for adding additional transactions).

Is there a "minimum transaction fee" adjusted by centralized control?

Start your research here: https://ww.getmonero.org/2017/12/11/A-note-on-fees.html, but keep in mind that 1) "Monero uses high xmr/KB fees in order to prevent blockchain bloat" and 2) "Monero fees fall to almost zero after Bulletproofs upgrade"

Ok, thanks.

Hi Monero community, I know anonymint spreads misinformation, but before I debate with a user who posted this blog's link in a Lightning Network topic, I would like to know more if the statement quoted, and bolded is true.

https://steemit.com/blockchain-scaling/@anonymint/lightning-networks-must-fail-if-it-succeeds

Monero’s adaptive block size protocol doesn’t prevent the destruction of the transaction fee market because without the minimum transaction fee periodically adjusted by centralized control (the same @fluffypony centralized control that is recently changing the PoW every ~6 months in a futile attempt to defeat ASICs) promotes the block size to increase so that transaction fees decline to ~0 (i.e. to miners’ negligible incremental costs for adding additional transactions).

Is there a "minimum transaction fee" adjusted by centralized control?

He's being disingenuous, sure we added bulletproofs (which had the desired side effect of lower fees) during a scheduled update and we would probably add any safe method to lower fees and or bloat during a scheduled update but calling that centralized is a joke.

What would be your counter-argument be on anonymint's "disingenuousness"?

I know that he's using Monero's policy of its bi-annual hard fork schedule as his debate that it's a centralized control on how much fees there should be on your the network, but I want to hear an agitated response. Hahaha.

[Febo]

Hi Monero community, I know anonymint spreads misinformation, but before I debate with a user who posted this blog's link in a Lightning Network topic, I would like to know more if the statement quoted, and bolded is true.

https://steemit.com/blockchain-scaling/@anonymint/lightning-networks-must-fail-if-it-succeeds

Monero’s adaptive block size protocol doesn’t prevent the destruction of the transaction fee market because without the minimum transaction fee periodically adjusted by centralized control (the same @fluffypony centralized control that is recently changing the PoW every ~6 months in a futile attempt to defeat ASICs) promotes the block size to increase so that transaction fees decline to ~0 (i.e. to miners’ negligible incremental costs for adding additional transactions).

Is there a "minimum transaction fee" adjusted by centralized control?

Start your research here: https://ww.getmonero.org/2017/12/11/A-note-on-fees.html, but keep in mind that 1) "Monero uses high xmr/KB fees in order to prevent blockchain bloat" and 2) "Monero fees fall to almost zero after Bulletproofs upgrade"

Ok, thanks.

Hi Monero community, I know anonymint spreads misinformation, but before I debate with a user who posted this blog's link in a Lightning Network topic, I would like to know more if the statement quoted, and bolded is true.

https://steemit.com/blockchain-scaling/@anonymint/lightning-networks-must-fail-if-it-succeeds

Monero’s adaptive block size protocol doesn’t prevent the destruction of the transaction fee market because without the minimum transaction fee periodically adjusted by centralized control (the same @fluffypony centralized control that is recently changing the PoW every ~6 months in a futile attempt to defeat ASICs) promotes the block size to increase so that transaction fees decline to ~0 (i.e. to miners’ negligible incremental costs for adding additional transactions).

Is there a "minimum transaction fee" adjusted by centralized control?

He's being disingenuous, sure we added bulletproofs (which had the desired side effect of lower fees) during a scheduled update and we would probably add any safe method to lower fees and or bloat during a scheduled update but calling that centralized is a joke.

What would be your counter-argument be on anonymint's "disingenuousness"?

I know that he's using Monero's policy of its bi-annual hard fork schedule as his debate that it's a centralized control on how much fees there should be on your the network, but I want to hear an agitated response. Hahaha.

I dont fully understand your question. But in general everything that was written in protocol and I am talking here of Bitcoin or Monero it was written by some person. We the rest can comply with it or write it better and convince others why this is better.  
Monero fee cant be to small because then you could dust attack Monero network as it happened in Autumn 2014. Usually protocol changes are made to make Monero network more secure and ledger less transparent. And this two are only central Monero bosses. You cant have money that is not secure and if having transparent ledger then there is no point for Monero to exist in the first place.

[Hueristic]

What would be your counter-argument be on anonymint's "disingenuousness"?

I know that he's using Monero's policy of its bi-annual hard fork schedule as his debate that it's a centralized control on how much fees there should be on your the network, but I want to hear an agitated response. Hahaha.

I don't get paid enough (actually not at all) to argue.

All the Devs went to Redditt, ask there.

[dvin]

How to mine Monero (cryptonight/r) with XMRigCC AMD GPU miner

https://youtu.be/DtbvVsradTQ


How to mine Monero (cryptonight-r) with XMRig AMD GPU miner

https://youtu.be/rP-_don0jXA

[BldSwtTrs]

Hello, I have downloaded and installed GUI v0.14 but I have a problem when using it my Ledger Nano S.

When I try to log in on this new version, I get the error message: "Wrong Device Status : SW=6e00 (EXPECT = 9000, Mask = ffff)"

But when I use with the same device (and same USB cable) to log in on GUI v0.13.4, I have not this problem and I am able to log in.

[dEBRUYNE]

Hello, I have downloaded and installed GUI v0.14 but I have a problem when using it my Ledger Nano S.

When I try to log in on this new version, I get the error message: "Wrong Device Status : SW=6e00 (EXPECT = 9000, Mask = ffff)"

But when I use with the same device (and same USB cable) to log in on GUI v0.13.4, I have not this problem and I am able to log in.

A few tips:

1. Make sure your Ledger Live firmware is v1.5.5

2. Make sure your Ledger Monero app is v1.2.2

3. Make sure you are using GUI v0.14.0.0

[Kryptowerk]

I am selling posters (and postcards, see signature) here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5102596.0

Decided to give away 5 Monero posters for FREE if you can guarantee to hang it in a (semi) public (and secure) place. Like a café, restaurant, library, shop etc.
It must be clearly visible to visitors. Shipping costs may still apply depending on the country you live in.

If you can fulfill these requirements, please contact me (post in my thread). If you have red trust or are a new member I will not accept your request. You also must submit proof for the location you will hang it.

[TheFuzzStone]

https://info.binance.com/en/research/marketresearch/monero-hard-fork.html

[cAPSLOCK]

https://info.binance.com/en/research/marketresearch/monero-hard-fork.html

Interesting report.  Though their last point is strange.  The hard fork does not *increase* the chance of a 51% attack.  It eliminates the almost certainty that one could have been done.  Conceptually it could be easier for some botnet herder to pull of a 51% if they wanted now, but that is less probable than the ability for a huge ass asic farm who was one click away from doing it pre-fork.

[Hueristic]

https://info.binance.com/en/research/marketresearch/monero-hard-fork.html

Interesting report.  Though their last point is strange.  The hard fork does not *increase* the chance of a 51% attack.  It eliminates the almost certainty that one could have been done.  Conceptually it could be easier for some botnet herder to pull of a 51% if they wanted now, but that is less probable than the ability for a huge ass asic farm who was one click away from doing it pre-fork.

Yeah, sounds like someone has some bias in that statement. At least they mentioned this

Forks - whether hard, soft, contentious, or non-contentious - are normal events in the crypto-industry and frequent forks may indicate healthy development behind a crypto network. Regardless of the outcomes from this fork, the XMR development team continues future improvement of Monero, with the next fork being already scheduled for October 2019

.

although they made the statement to generalized as it is not common in other coins nor healthy like an ETH type chain fork.


BTW that tweet friggin popup when you highlight test sucks balls.

[Febo]

https://info.binance.com/en/research/marketresearch/monero-hard-fork.html

Interesting report.  Though their last point is strange.  The hard fork does not *increase* the chance of a 51% attack.  It eliminates the almost certainty that one could have been done.  Conceptually it could be easier for some botnet herder to pull of a 51% if they wanted now, but that is less probable than the ability for a huge ass asic farm who was one click away from doing it pre-fork.

It is not strange. It did not increase chance of attack although hash rate went 1/3. LOL sorry I had not checked it some time but I predict it is somewhere around 300Mh/s   But even with this decline the network is now much safer then it was before.

Botnets could really hard gather this much hash power. Botnets are usually old computers runing Windows XP. Those are really weak machines. They did had impact in Monero hash rate in 2014. Right now have almost none.  Those ASIC producer from China could make 51% attack easily. But since he know that best profit he gets is to not do it he did not. Doing 51% attack and cheat someone for XMR is a crime. Also in China. So not only their mined XMR would be worth less but also they could have bigger long term problems.


EDIT: I just realized now you did not quoted what Binance wrote but corrected them. Yes I agree with you that  they are wrong.

[Andstar]

Hey Guys

I have a rig I've just switched back on, all cards working on XMRig except my rx480 8g which starts off ok but then stops after a few runs and reports no hashrate.

I can't remember where I got the bios from, can I just use the Polaris one click on an already modded bios?

I'm trying to run two threads each (rx580,480,570,470) but some also lose a thread after 30+ minutes depending on the clocks I set in Overdrive - pretty sure I have the right values to keep them stable was just playing around. Keen to see what others have set.

I used to use Claymore - was much easier, is there anything like that since the fork?

Cheers