Bitcoin Forum
July 19, 2019, 05:49:58 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 ... 2047 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency  (Read 4569914 times)
surfer43
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 250


"Trading Platform of The Future!"


View Profile
May 05, 2014, 08:02:32 PM
 #741

Is making a Monero paper wallet possible?

1563558598
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563558598

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563558598
Reply with quote  #2

1563558598
Report to moderator
1563558598
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563558598

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563558598
Reply with quote  #2

1563558598
Report to moderator
1563558598
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563558598

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563558598
Reply with quote  #2

1563558598
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
MCOnyx
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 177
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 05, 2014, 08:08:50 PM
 #742

Can't download binaries either from MEGA. Someone upload somewhere else please, thanks.

VidioShare:  VHQRWnpV2MX9WBEnR5NbF4D2gqfkAZbW1H

QORA | 2ND GEN | NEW SOURCE CODE | QWfwFHPJ2GMnW5cMCY6RA7vkfQsBS1P4aL
Free SIGNs giving everyday. Be part, do not miss!. StF84GSmES8FSNQdTdhse95CdEYrngdro9
pozmu
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 504


(っ◔◡◔)っ🍪


View Profile
May 05, 2014, 08:11:18 PM
 #743

Simplewallet can read a list of incoming transfers. The command is incoming_transfers

I know Smiley. The command I'm refering to is not entered at the command line, but sent via HTTP messages, specifically used for communication between two processes.

API is the "right way" to do it, but if it's not complete it may be possible to make graphic wallet as a front-end to command line one...

Can't download binaries either from MEGA. Someone upload somewhere else please, thanks.

Patience, it eventually works

kuno
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 37
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 05, 2014, 08:18:29 PM
 #744

I have updated master to 0.8.6.

Are NoodleDoodle's windows enhancements included in this version? Or were the windows improvements due to his windows compiler settings?

Also I have one feature request. Can we have the daemon auto-save the blockchain? Maybe every 30 minutes or so.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2184
Merit: 1130



View Profile
May 05, 2014, 08:21:13 PM
 #745

Can we have the daemon auto-save the blockchain? Maybe every 30 minutes or so.

It does that. I don't know what triggers it though.
pozmu
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 504


(っ◔◡◔)っ🍪


View Profile
May 05, 2014, 08:21:40 PM
 #746

Also I have one feature request. Can we have the daemon auto-save the blockchain? Maybe every 30 minutes or so.

I think it's already implemented  Huh

emontmon
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 05, 2014, 08:22:03 PM
 #747

i here tft is no longer part of the project. so is he forking or relaunching bytecoin under new name and new parameters (merged mining with flatter emission curve.) also. what is the end consensus for the emission curve for monero. will it be adjusted.

just curious.
pozmu
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 504


(っ◔◡◔)っ🍪


View Profile
May 05, 2014, 08:27:01 PM
 #748


When & where did TFT say he's no longer part of the project?

Keyboard-Mash
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 05, 2014, 08:33:01 PM
 #749

i here tft is no longer part of the project. so is he forking or relaunching bytecoin under new name and new parameters (merged mining with flatter emission curve.) also. what is the end consensus for the emission curve for monero. will it be adjusted.

just curious.

I don't think anyone's addressed the emission curve. It's a tough issue and I'm glad it seems like everyone's decided to wait. With more people coming in over time, we'd get a better vote of what people want . . rather than prematurely deciding. I would think it will need to be addressed soon though, if it's going to happen.

Also, I don't know about tft. I would imagine he's reading the thread/irc often enough to hear the updates. Maybe posting under a different name? Maybe still contributing, quietly? It's too bad, he and amphibian seemed to have quite a bit to bring to the development of the coin. But the consensus was that not enough people wanted merge mining to make it a viable option for the coin.

I do hope tft returns to the community, at least actively. Fortunately we still have many very experienced, talented and driven people keeping up with development.

It seems HoneyPenny is implementing a merge-mining concept, so possibly they've paired up? There was a thread started for tft's/amphibian's fork, but it's been quiet for almost a week now.
eizh
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 05, 2014, 08:38:32 PM
 #750

- OSX binaries to be uploaded soon, check for a date change.

- Hashrate increase was for Windows binaries only. This new Linux version doesn't increase it.

- We'll wait on Noodle for the Windows. Currently what's on the OP is pre-0.8.6.

- Mega is working, just let it load for a minute or two.
emontmon
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 05, 2014, 08:42:51 PM
 #751

i have been reading this in some of the posts:
tft has left...
now that tft is gone...
tft left project....

there are so many threads regarding monero, bitmonero, bcn, that its hard to keep track whre i read it. last one was in emision curve i think.
kuno
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 37
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 05, 2014, 08:55:44 PM
 #752

Can we have the daemon auto-save the blockchain? Maybe every 30 minutes or so.

It does that. I don't know what triggers it though.


My windows computer automatically restarted itself last night for a windows update. The blockchain went back to when I manually saved it 10 hours ago so it doesn't seem to be saving. It only saves when you type "save" or "exit".
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2184
Merit: 1130



View Profile
May 05, 2014, 09:00:30 PM
 #753

Can we have the daemon auto-save the blockchain? Maybe every 30 minutes or so.

It does that. I don't know what triggers it though.


My windows computer automatically restarted itself last night for a windows update. The blockchain went back to when I manually saved it 10 hours ago so it doesn't seem to be saving. It only saves when you type "save" or "exit".

Well I see it claiming to do so in the daemon output, but I'm on linux. Maybe that makes a difference, or maybe its not really saving it.


kuno
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 37
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 05, 2014, 09:03:21 PM
 #754

Can we have the daemon auto-save the blockchain? Maybe every 30 minutes or so.

It does that. I don't know what triggers it though.


My windows computer automatically restarted itself last night for a windows update. The blockchain went back to when I manually saved it 10 hours ago so it doesn't seem to be saving. It only saves when you type "save" or "exit".

Well I see it claiming to do so in the daemon output, but I'm on linux. Maybe that makes a difference, or maybe its not really saving it.




Ok, I checked today and you are right. It does save automatically. I just saw the below message and I didn't type save this time.

2014-May-05 11:21:21.400675 [P2P8]Storing blockchain...
2014-May-05 11:21:22.418777 [P2P8]Blockchain stored OK.
eizh
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 05, 2014, 09:04:29 PM
Last edit: May 05, 2014, 09:25:15 PM by eizh
 #755

The emission curve vote was rejected by a bit over 60% earlier when there were fewer people involved so it will fail by even larger margin now. The reason is simple: the OTC exchange has a pretty sizable volume and the amount of hardware dedicated to this coin is getting larger. Part of how people price the currency unit or decide how much hardware to dedicate to mining it is to compare the amounts they gain to the eventual maximum supply. Amount relative to current supply also matters, certainly even more, but it's undeniable that the former is involved. People have been making these decisions based on the current curve.

In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.

So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miners don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.
Keyboard-Mash
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 05, 2014, 09:12:05 PM
 #756

The emission curve vote was rejected by a bit over 60% earlier when there were fewer people involved so it will fail by even larger margin now. The reason is simple: the OTC exchange has a pretty sizable volume and the amount of hardware dedicated to this coin is getting larger. Part of how people price the currency unit or decide how much hardware to dedicate to mining it is to compare the amounts they gain to the eventual maximum supply. Amount relative to current supply also matters, certainly even more, but it's undeniable that the former is involved. People have been making these decisions based on the current curve.

In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.

So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miner don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.

Thanks eizh for explaining, I missed this news that this was what was decided.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2184
Merit: 1130



View Profile
May 05, 2014, 09:16:23 PM
 #757

The emission curve vote was rejected by a bit over 60% earlier when there were fewer people involved so it will fail by even larger margin now. The reason is simple: the OTC exchange has a pretty sizable volume and the amount of hardware dedicated to this coin is getting larger. Part of how people price the currency unit or decide how much hardware to dedicate to mining it is to compare the amounts they gain to the eventual maximum supply. Amount relative to current supply also matters, certainly even more, but it's undeniable that the former is involved. People have been making these decisions based on the current curve.

In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.

So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miner don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.

Thanks eizh for explaining, I missed this news that this was what was decided.

Well the pool on the forum failed to get a majority but there is zero protection against ballot stuffing with newbie accounts so who knows what that really means. If we had a voting mechanism in the coin itself we could use that to get a more reliable vote, but we don't.

I do agree there is a widespread objection about either taking coins away or giving early miners an unfair advantage, so it likely best to just leave it the way it is and implement a longer term fix to the somewhat overly fast curve over the scale of years/decades as eizh mentioned.

Keyboard-Mash
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 05, 2014, 09:25:59 PM
 #758

The emission curve vote was rejected by a bit over 60% earlier when there were fewer people involved so it will fail by even larger margin now. The reason is simple: the OTC exchange has a pretty sizable volume and the amount of hardware dedicated to this coin is getting larger. Part of how people price the currency unit or decide how much hardware to dedicate to mining it is to compare the amounts they gain to the eventual maximum supply. Amount relative to current supply also matters, certainly even more, but it's undeniable that the former is involved. People have been making these decisions based on the current curve.

In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.

So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miner don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.

Thanks eizh for explaining, I missed this news that this was what was decided.

Well the pool on the forum failed to get a majority but there is zero protection against ballot stuffing with newbie accounts so who knows what that really means. If we had a voting mechanism in the coin itself we could use that to get a more reliable vote, but we don't.

I do agree there is a widespread objection about either taking coins away or giving early miners an unfair advantage, so it likely best to just leave it the way it is and implement a longer term fix to the somewhat overly fast curve over the scale of years/decades as eizh mentioned.



Can this be resolved with something like slowly moving the block target to 2 or 2.5 or x minutes over the course of a few years? At this point, it would probably be much more favorable to come up with long-term, barely visible solutions rather than shocks. I don't know the protocol though -- you guys do so I'm probably just making it harder than it needs to be. It sounds like you're in favor of somehting like this too.

I get what you're saying about ballot stuffing, lots of new accounts in this thread.

I understand the need to have a correction, but is there any way to cause it to appear as a crawl rather than a shock? I'd rather lose a miniscule amount every day rather than rip out a tooth all at once . . if possible.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2184
Merit: 1130



View Profile
May 05, 2014, 09:27:37 PM
 #759

The emission curve vote was rejected by a bit over 60% earlier when there were fewer people involved so it will fail by even larger margin now. The reason is simple: the OTC exchange has a pretty sizable volume and the amount of hardware dedicated to this coin is getting larger. Part of how people price the currency unit or decide how much hardware to dedicate to mining it is to compare the amounts they gain to the eventual maximum supply. Amount relative to current supply also matters, certainly even more, but it's undeniable that the former is involved. People have been making these decisions based on the current curve.

In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.

So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miner don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.

Thanks eizh for explaining, I missed this news that this was what was decided.

Well the pool on the forum failed to get a majority but there is zero protection against ballot stuffing with newbie accounts so who knows what that really means. If we had a voting mechanism in the coin itself we could use that to get a more reliable vote, but we don't.

I do agree there is a widespread objection about either taking coins away or giving early miners an unfair advantage, so it likely best to just leave it the way it is and implement a longer term fix to the somewhat overly fast curve over the scale of years/decades as eizh mentioned.



Can this be resolved with something like slowly moving the block target to 2 or 2.5 or x minutes over the course of a few years? At this point, it would probably be much more favorable to come up with long-term, barely visible solutions rather than shocks. I don't know the protocol though -- you guys do so I'm probably just making it harder than it needs to be. It sounds like you're in favor of somehting like this too.

I get what you're saying about ballot stuffing, lots of new accounts in this thread.

I understand the need to have a correction, but is there any way to cause it to appear as a crawl rather than a shock? I'd rather lose a miniscule amount every day rather than rip out a tooth all at once . . if possible.

Yeah anything that's done will probably be slow like that. The leading idea of just making the reward bound at some minimum or perhaps slow to some minimum won't even kick in for years.
blaaaaacksuit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250

Who cares?


View Profile
May 05, 2014, 09:30:30 PM
 #760

The emission curve vote was rejected by a bit over 60% earlier when there were fewer people involved so it will fail by even larger margin now. The reason is simple: the OTC exchange has a pretty sizable volume and the amount of hardware dedicated to this coin is getting larger. Part of how people price the currency unit or decide how much hardware to dedicate to mining it is to compare the amounts they gain to the eventual maximum supply. Amount relative to current supply also matters, certainly even more, but it's undeniable that the former is involved. People have been making these decisions based on the current curve.

In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.

So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miner don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.

Thanks eizh for explaining, I missed this news that this was what was decided.

Well the pool on the forum failed to get a majority but there is zero protection against ballot stuffing with newbie accounts so who knows what that really means. If we had a voting mechanism in the coin itself we could use that to get a more reliable vote, but we don't.

I do agree there is a widespread objection about either taking coins away or giving early miners an unfair advantage, so it likely best to just leave it the way it is and implement a longer term fix to the somewhat overly fast curve over the scale of years/decades as eizh mentioned.



It could and was argued that DRK gave early miners an unfair advantage, ninja launch etc.  but in the end had no effect on its future.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 ... 2047 »
  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!