Bitcoin Forum
July 05, 2020, 05:43:28 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 [2030] 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency  (Read 4625776 times)
florida.haunted
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 229
Merit: 125


View Profile
March 14, 2019, 11:44:22 AM
Merited by Hueristic (1)
 #40581


I've just written more:
--
Guys most of you think in too generalized manner, you attempt to predict too far future, you almost admit defeat in front of ASICs... It is a bad way methodologically.

We are living in the current iteration. There is a week passed after last hard fork to cn/r. First, it must be said, there is no FPGA or quick understanding how to program FPGA against cn/r. Technically it is possible in few hours or days. But we observe low hashrate still, week passed. So they CAN'T do that quickly at least.

Thus, fight against ASICs/FPGA is POSSIBLE. Furthermore, cn/r is quite simple algo with very basic levels of virtualization and randomization. Read my comment above, what if we introduce HARD levels of virtualization and randomization? There is physics: ASICs/FPGA can't be MUCH more profitable than CPU or GPU, if quite perfect mining algo is designed.

Today, let's focus on tasks how to add strong virtualization and randomization to the algo. RandomX with memory scratch-pad reduced from 4Gb to 256Mb (to support even Raspberry Pi) is good level of virtualization.

To add randomization we may consider external oracles like ones in Ethereum contracts or long hashes (sha512, etc) applied to concatenated transactions of last 100 blocks for example. Let's think in this direction.

Fundamental physics is on our side: if mining algo has sufficient levels of virtualization and randomization, ASIC/FPGA manufacturers MUST implement Intel-like CPU! Let them compete with Intel directly!
--
https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/316#issuecomment-472815812

100% First Deposit Bonus Instant Withdrawals Best Odds 10+ Sports Since 2014 No KYC Asked Play Now
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1593971008
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1593971008

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1593971008
Reply with quote  #2

1593971008
Report to moderator
1593971008
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1593971008

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1593971008
Reply with quote  #2

1593971008
Report to moderator
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408
Merit: 1592


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
March 14, 2019, 09:11:08 PM
Last edit: March 24, 2019, 01:48:06 AM by Hueristic
 #40582


I've just written more:
--
Guys most of you think in too generalized manner, you attempt to predict too far future, you almost admit defeat in front of ASICs... It is a bad way methodologically.

We are living in the current iteration. There is a week passed after last hard fork to cn/r. First, it must be said, there is no FPGA or quick understanding how to program FPGA against cn/r. Technically it is possible in few hours or days. But we observe low hashrate still, week passed. So they CAN'T do that quickly at least.

Thus, fight against ASICs/FPGA is POSSIBLE. Furthermore, cn/r is quite simple algo with very basic levels of virtualization and randomization. Read my comment above, what if we introduce HARD levels of virtualization and randomization? There is physics: ASICs/FPGA can't be MUCH more profitable than CPU or GPU, if quite perfect mining algo is designed.

Today, let's focus on tasks how to add strong virtualization and randomization to the algo. RandomX with memory scratch-pad reduced from 4Gb to 256Mb (to support even Raspberry Pi) is good level of virtualization.

To add randomization we may consider external oracles like ones in Ethereum contracts or long hashes (sha512, etc) applied to concatenated transactions of last 100 blocks for example. Let's think in this direction.

Fundamental physics is on our side: if mining algo has sufficient levels of virtualization and randomization, ASIC/FPGA manufacturers MUST implement Intel-like CPU! Let them compete with Intel directly!
--
https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/316#issuecomment-472815812



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.

Millionero
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 667
Merit: 367


View Profile
March 15, 2019, 10:53:54 AM
 #40583

wtf does SoC mean
Something-on-Chip?
Globb0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296
Merit: 1843


Aint nobody got time for that


View Profile
March 15, 2019, 11:00:03 AM
 #40584


"
What is SoC FPGA?

FPGA is a constantly evolving technology, especially in terms of logic density and speed. 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.

"

.freebitcoin.       ▄▄▄█▀▀██▄▄▄
   ▄▄██████▄▄█  █▀▀█▄▄
  ███  █▀▀███████▄▄██▀
   ▀▀▀██▄▄█  ████▀▀  ▄██
▄███▄▄  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▄▄██████
██▀▀█████▄     ▄██▀█ ▀▀██
██▄▄███▀▀██   ███▀ ▄▄  ▀█
███████▄▄███ ███▄▄ ▀▀▄  █
██▀▀████████ █████  █▀▄██
 █▄▄████████ █████   ███
  ▀████  ███ ████▄▄███▀
     ▀▀████   ████▀▀
BITCOIN
DICE
EVENT
BETTING
WIN A LAMBO !

.
            ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████▄▄▄▄▄
▄▄▄▄▄██████████████████████████████████▄▄▄▄
▀██████████████████████████████████████████████▄▄▄
▄▄████▄█████▄████████████████████████████▄█████▄████▄▄
▀████████▀▀▀████████████████████████████████▀▀▀██████████▄
  ▀▀▀████▄▄▄███████████████████████████████▄▄▄██████████
       ▀█████▀  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▀█████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.PLAY NOW.
florida.haunted
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 229
Merit: 125


View Profile
March 15, 2019, 03:32:05 PM
 #40585

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 Smiley

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
Febo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1183



View Profile
March 15, 2019, 04:22:21 PM
 #40586

How I know, Monero is the most invisible and hiden crypto between another.

You check the Monero wallet rich list: https://moneroblocks.info/richlist

.BitDice.               ▄▄███▄▄
           ▄▄██▀▀ ▄ ▀▀██▄▄
      ▄▄█ ▀▀  ▄▄█████▄▄  ▀▀ █▄▄
  ▄▄██▀▀     ▀▀ █████ ▀▀     ▀▀██▄▄
██▀▀ ▄▄██▀      ▀███▀      ▀██▄▄ ▀▀██
██  ████▄▄       ███       ▄▄████  ██
██  █▀▀████▄▄  ▄█████▄  ▄▄████▀▀█  ██
██  ▀     ▀▀▀███████████▀▀▀     ▀  ██
             ███████████
██  ▄     ▄▄▄███████████▄▄▄     ▄  ██
██  █▄▄████▀▀  ▀█████▀  ▀▀████▄▄█  ██
██  ████▀▀       ███       ▀▀████  ██
██▄▄ ▀▀██▄      ▄███▄      ▄██▀▀ ▄▄██
  ▀▀██▄▄     ▄▄ █████ ▄▄     ▄▄██▀▀
      ▀▀█ ▄▄  ▀▀█████▀▀  ▄▄ █▀▀
           ▀▀██▄▄ ▀ ▄▄██▀▀
               ▀▀███▀▀
        ▄▄███████▄▄
     ▄███████████████▄
    ████▀▀       ▀▀████
   ████▀           ▀████
   ████             ████
   ████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ████
▄█████████████████████████▄
██████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██████████
████                   ████
████                   ████
████                   ████
████                   ████
████                   ████
████▄                 ▄████
████████▄▄▄     ▄▄▄████████
  ▀▀▀█████████████████▀▀▀
        ▀▀▀█████▀▀▀
▄▄████████████████████████████████▄▄
██████████████████████████████████████
█████                            █████
█████                            █████
█████                            █████
█████                            █████
█████                     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
█████                   ▄█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█▄
█████                   ██          ██
█████                   ██          ██
█████                   ██          ██
██████████████████▀▀███ ██          ██
 ████████████████▄  ▄██ ██          ██
   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██          ██
             ██████████ ██          ██
           ▄███████████ ██████▀▀██████
          █████████████  ▀████▄▄████▀
[/]
Globb0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296
Merit: 1843


Aint nobody got time for that


View Profile
March 15, 2019, 05:40:26 PM
 #40587



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


.freebitcoin.       ▄▄▄█▀▀██▄▄▄
   ▄▄██████▄▄█  █▀▀█▄▄
  ███  █▀▀███████▄▄██▀
   ▀▀▀██▄▄█  ████▀▀  ▄██
▄███▄▄  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▄▄██████
██▀▀█████▄     ▄██▀█ ▀▀██
██▄▄███▀▀██   ███▀ ▄▄  ▀█
███████▄▄███ ███▄▄ ▀▀▄  █
██▀▀████████ █████  █▀▄██
 █▄▄████████ █████   ███
  ▀████  ███ ████▄▄███▀
     ▀▀████   ████▀▀
BITCOIN
DICE
EVENT
BETTING
WIN A LAMBO !

.
            ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████▄▄▄▄▄
▄▄▄▄▄██████████████████████████████████▄▄▄▄
▀██████████████████████████████████████████████▄▄▄
▄▄████▄█████▄████████████████████████████▄█████▄████▄▄
▀████████▀▀▀████████████████████████████████▀▀▀██████████▄
  ▀▀▀████▄▄▄███████████████████████████████▄▄▄██████████
       ▀█████▀  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▀█████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.PLAY NOW.
jwinterm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338
Merit: 1070



View Profile
March 15, 2019, 09:16:41 PM
 #40588

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

Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408
Merit: 1592


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
March 16, 2019, 01:37:36 AM
Last edit: March 16, 2019, 01:54:36 AM by Hueristic
Merited by Globb0 (2)
 #40589

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 Smiley

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. Smiley




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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408
Merit: 1592


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
March 16, 2019, 01:53:05 AM
 #40590

dbl

Globb0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296
Merit: 1843


Aint nobody got time for that


View Profile
March 16, 2019, 10:28:16 AM
 #40591

Seems clear thanks

.freebitcoin.       ▄▄▄█▀▀██▄▄▄
   ▄▄██████▄▄█  █▀▀█▄▄
  ███  █▀▀███████▄▄██▀
   ▀▀▀██▄▄█  ████▀▀  ▄██
▄███▄▄  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▄▄██████
██▀▀█████▄     ▄██▀█ ▀▀██
██▄▄███▀▀██   ███▀ ▄▄  ▀█
███████▄▄███ ███▄▄ ▀▀▄  █
██▀▀████████ █████  █▀▄██
 █▄▄████████ █████   ███
  ▀████  ███ ████▄▄███▀
     ▀▀████   ████▀▀
BITCOIN
DICE
EVENT
BETTING
WIN A LAMBO !

.
            ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████▄▄▄▄▄
▄▄▄▄▄██████████████████████████████████▄▄▄▄
▀██████████████████████████████████████████████▄▄▄
▄▄████▄█████▄████████████████████████████▄█████▄████▄▄
▀████████▀▀▀████████████████████████████████▀▀▀██████████▄
  ▀▀▀████▄▄▄███████████████████████████████▄▄▄██████████
       ▀█████▀  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▀█████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.PLAY NOW.
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 960


www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
March 17, 2019, 09:49:15 AM
 #40592

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

Quote

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?

▄▄█████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀████▄
████▀██████▀█▀██████▀████
██████████████████████████
▐█████▄███████████████▄█████▌
▐███████▄▄█████████▄▄███████▌
▐██████▀█████████████▀██████▌
▐███████████████████████████▌
▀██████████████████████▀
▀████▄████▄▀▀▄████▄████▀
▀███████▀███▀███████▀
▀▀█████████████▀▀
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
★.★.★   8 GAMES   ★   WAGERING CONTEST   ★   JACKPOTS   ★   FAUCET   ★.★.★
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀█▀█▄

 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄██▀▄█▄
██▀▄███
 ▀▄▄▄▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ █ ██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀▄▄▄▀▄
█▀▀▀▀▄█
 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀   ▀▄
█  █▄ █
 ▀▄██▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▀ █ ▀
▀▀▄▀▀
 ▀▄█▄
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
|
equipoise
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 794
Merit: 1000


Monero (XMR) - secure, private, untraceable


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2019, 01:19:09 PM
 #40593

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

Quote

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"

About me | zRMicroArray - phase 2 - Gene Expression Analysis software | [Weed Like to Talk - Bulgaria] Start a wave of cannabis seminars in Europe | Monero weighted average price stats: moneroprice.i2p
BTC: 1KoCX7TWKVGwqmmFw3CKyUSrKRSStueZar | NMC: NKhYEYpe1Le9MwHrwKsdSm5617J4toVar9 | XMR (Tip me a beer OpenAlias Monero address): tip.changetheworldwork.com
[XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency: 4AyRmUcxzefB5quumzK3HNE4zmCiGc8vhG6fE1oJpGVyVZF7fvDgSpt3MzgLfQ6Q1719xQhmfkM9Z2u NXgDMqYhjJVmc6KX
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408
Merit: 1592


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
March 17, 2019, 03:56:22 PM
 #40594

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

Quote

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 960


www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
March 18, 2019, 06:35:44 AM
 #40595

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

Quote

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

Quote

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.

▄▄█████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀████▄
████▀██████▀█▀██████▀████
██████████████████████████
▐█████▄███████████████▄█████▌
▐███████▄▄█████████▄▄███████▌
▐██████▀█████████████▀██████▌
▐███████████████████████████▌
▀██████████████████████▀
▀████▄████▄▀▀▄████▄████▀
▀███████▀███▀███████▀
▀▀█████████████▀▀
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
★.★.★   8 GAMES   ★   WAGERING CONTEST   ★   JACKPOTS   ★   FAUCET   ★.★.★
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀█▀█▄

 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄██▀▄█▄
██▀▄███
 ▀▄▄▄▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ █ ██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀▄▄▄▀▄
█▀▀▀▀▄█
 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀   ▀▄
█  █▄ █
 ▀▄██▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▀ █ ▀
▀▀▄▀▀
 ▀▄█▄
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
|
Febo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1183



View Profile
March 18, 2019, 03:06:11 PM
 #40596

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

Quote

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

Quote

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.

.BitDice.               ▄▄███▄▄
           ▄▄██▀▀ ▄ ▀▀██▄▄
      ▄▄█ ▀▀  ▄▄█████▄▄  ▀▀ █▄▄
  ▄▄██▀▀     ▀▀ █████ ▀▀     ▀▀██▄▄
██▀▀ ▄▄██▀      ▀███▀      ▀██▄▄ ▀▀██
██  ████▄▄       ███       ▄▄████  ██
██  █▀▀████▄▄  ▄█████▄  ▄▄████▀▀█  ██
██  ▀     ▀▀▀███████████▀▀▀     ▀  ██
             ███████████
██  ▄     ▄▄▄███████████▄▄▄     ▄  ██
██  █▄▄████▀▀  ▀█████▀  ▀▀████▄▄█  ██
██  ████▀▀       ███       ▀▀████  ██
██▄▄ ▀▀██▄      ▄███▄      ▄██▀▀ ▄▄██
  ▀▀██▄▄     ▄▄ █████ ▄▄     ▄▄██▀▀
      ▀▀█ ▄▄  ▀▀█████▀▀  ▄▄ █▀▀
           ▀▀██▄▄ ▀ ▄▄██▀▀
               ▀▀███▀▀
        ▄▄███████▄▄
     ▄███████████████▄
    ████▀▀       ▀▀████
   ████▀           ▀████
   ████             ████
   ████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ████
▄█████████████████████████▄
██████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██████████
████                   ████
████                   ████
████                   ████
████                   ████
████                   ████
████▄                 ▄████
████████▄▄▄     ▄▄▄████████
  ▀▀▀█████████████████▀▀▀
        ▀▀▀█████▀▀▀
▄▄████████████████████████████████▄▄
██████████████████████████████████████
█████                            █████
█████                            █████
█████                            █████
█████                            █████
█████                     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
█████                   ▄█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█▄
█████                   ██          ██
█████                   ██          ██
█████                   ██          ██
██████████████████▀▀███ ██          ██
 ████████████████▄  ▄██ ██          ██
   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██          ██
             ██████████ ██          ██
           ▄███████████ ██████▀▀██████
          █████████████  ▀████▄▄████▀
[/]
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408
Merit: 1592


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
March 19, 2019, 04:55:29 AM
Merited by Wind_FURY (1)
 #40597


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
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 19
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
March 20, 2019, 03:49:10 AM
 #40598

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 977
Merit: 1003


View Profile
March 20, 2019, 10:12:58 AM
 #40599

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1130


View Profile
March 20, 2019, 10:51:45 AM
Merited by Hueristic (1)
 #40600

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

Privacy matters, use Monero - A true untraceable cryptocurrency
Why Monero matters? http://weuse.cash/2016/03/05/bitcoiners-hedge-your-position/
Pages: « 1 ... 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 [2030] 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!