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

[drawingthesun]

Payments will always require an address and a payment ID...you can't have real anonymity and still have traceability:)

*I think this is incorrect*

The exchange can make a new address for every user like it does with Bitcoin, then the user can send the MRO without the need for payment ID.

However I do see that the payment ID might be a more efficient way of doing things.

[drawingthesun]

Whats going on with the prices? why such major dump? coin dead already? I had tons of hope and hype for this coin... Still mining.

lol
coin is just beginning, don't dismiss such ingenuous approach because of a temporary volatility.

A lot of people are in it for the money and could care less about what it offers a community.

I suppose you're in it only to help mankind and for absolutely no other reason.

Is it going to be an entire 3-4 months to a GUI wallet / easy-exchange-usability?

Exchange usability is outside of our control. Payments will always require an address and a payment ID...you can't have real anonymity and still have traceability:)

A GUI wallet is something we're working on, and within the next 3-4 months I am certain it will be completed. However, that is a tool more geared towards mainstream adoption. In the meantime, there are extremely important internal aspects of the code (such as the incomplete RPC API) that have to be worked on as a matter of urgency.

Understood - thank you for the complete answer. I respect the solid professionalism and focus of the MRO team. It's a stark contrast to what's going on with other coins.

I agree 100% and I hope to be in a position to help in someway in the coming weeks.

I think Monero will take a while to gain any ground, I doubt we'll have a XC pump where the coin goes up several thousand times in a matter of weeks.

[fluffypony]

Payments will always require an address and a payment ID...you can't have real anonymity and still have traceability:)

*I think this is incorrect*

The exchange can make a new address for every user like it does with Bitcoin, then the user can send the MRO without the need for payment ID.

However I do see that the payment ID might be a more efficient way of doing things.

Yes - but remember: 1 address = 1 wallet. They'd have to manually balance funds between wallets for withdrawals etc. It could be done, but it would be massively inefficient and a PITA to code up. Payment IDs are the easiest / best way.

That's not to say the current system cannot be improved upon. I can foresee us integrating something akin to the Bitcoin Payments Protocol (BIP 0070), but doing it sooner rather than later so that from the very first real merchant integration payments are easier.

[fluffypony]

Exchange usability is outside of our control. Payments will always require an address and a payment ID...you can't have real anonymity and still have traceability:)

A GUI wallet is something we're working on, and within the next 3-4 months I am certain it will be completed. However, that is a tool more geared towards mainstream adoption. In the meantime, there are extremely important internal aspects of the code (such as the incomplete RPC API) that have to be worked on as a matter of urgency.

Understood - thank you for the complete answer. I respect the solid professionalism and focus of the MRO team. It's a stark contrast to what's going on with other coins.

Thanks - we're working as hard as we can, and we hope to continue to deliver awesomeness:)

[smooth]

Yes - but remember: 1 address = 1 wallet. They'd have to manually balance funds between wallets for withdrawals etc. It could be done, but it would be massively inefficient and a PITA to code up. Payment IDs are the easiest / best way.

It is pretty common in bitcoin world to sweep payment wallets into master wallets (some in cold storage) anyway, so this is not necessarily a show stopper.

I'd like to see the payment IDs removed from the block chain eventually and replaced with something else. That could be a payment protocol (i.e. off blockchain) or some other approach. I don't know that address-per-customer or address-per-transaction is necessarily the way to go with MRO but it isn't on its face unworkable.

In any case it works for now. Once we have GUI wallets the UI issues should be reduced.

[David Latapie]

I agree 100% and I hope to be in a position to help in someway in the coming weeks.

You already are : ) You have a solid presence on the forum and this helps, really.

[thankful_for_today]

Updated binaries (all changes from BCN and other CN-coins included) are available at http://bitmonero.org.

Win 32
Win 64
Unix
Mac

[trand]

anyone can help me
i was try 3 pool for mining MRO, but no one MRO i got from come to my account
any idea for that

First, need to know a few things.

Have you checked to insure your address is correct?
Is your address to a exchange?
What is your current Hash?
Is your bitmonerod synced?
Have you mined long enough to get shares of a block?

1. yes i've check my address and its correct
2. no i use simplewalet
3. i use cpu-cloud and my has around 120-150 H/s
4. yes my bimonerod have sync
5. i have minned 12h and got 0.5 MRO in total paid

[DemocraticRepublicOfDave]

Wohoo! Got my minerd going under ubuntu 14.04.  And my old server is now hashing at an incredible 18H/s 

However the current version of cpu-miner I downloaded from github https://github.com/Lucasjones/cpuminer-multi has some build issues under ubuntu 14.04

./autogen.sh
configure.ac:13: installing './compile'
configure.ac:4: installing './config.guess'
configure.ac:4: installing './config.sub'
configure.ac:6: installing './install-sh'
configure.ac:6: installing './missing'
Makefile.am:12: warning: 'INCLUDES' is the old name for 'AM_CPPFLAGS' (or '*_CPPFLAGS')
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'sha3/sph_keccak.c' is in a subdirectory,
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
automake: warning: possible forward-incompatibility.
automake: At least a source file is in a subdirectory, but the 'subdir-objects'
automake: automake option hasn't been enabled.  For now, the corresponding output
automake: object file(s) will be placed in the top-level directory.  However,
automake: this behaviour will change in future Automake versions: they will
automake: unconditionally cause object files to be placed in the same subdirectory
automake: of the corresponding sources.
automake: You are advised to start using 'subdir-objects' option throughout your
automake: project, to avoid future incompatibilities.
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'sha3/sph_hefty1.c' is in a subdirectory,
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'sha3/sph_groestl.c' is in a subdirectory,
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'sha3/sph_skein.c' is in a subdirectory,
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'sha3/sph_bmw.c' is in a subdirectory,
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'sha3/sph_jh.c' is in a subdirectory,                                                                                           
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled                                                                                                               
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'sha3/sph_shavite.c' is in a subdirectory,                                                                                       
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled                                                                                                               
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'sha3/sph_blake.c' is in a subdirectory,                                                                                         
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled                                                                                                               
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'sha3/sph_luffa.c' is in a subdirectory,                                                                                         
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled                                                                                                               
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'sha3/sph_cubehash.c' is in a subdirectory,                                                                                     
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled                                                                                                               
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'sha3/sph_simd.c' is in a subdirectory,                                                                                         
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled                                                                                                               
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'sha3/sph_echo.c' is in a subdirectory,                                                                                         
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'crypto/oaes_lib.c' is in a subdirectory,
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'crypto/c_keccak.c' is in a subdirectory,
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'crypto/c_groestl.c' is in a subdirectory,
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'crypto/c_blake256.c' is in a subdirectory,
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'crypto/c_jh.c' is in a subdirectory,
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'crypto/c_skein.c' is in a subdirectory,
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'crypto/hash.c' is in a subdirectory,
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
Makefile.am:18: warning: source file 'crypto/aesb.c' is in a subdirectory,
Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
Makefile.am:54: warning: source file 'crypto/aesb-x86-impl.c' is in a subdirectory,
Makefile.am:54: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
Makefile.am: installing './depcomp'

To bypass this issue I changed "INCLUDE" to "AM_CPPFLAGS" in line 12 of Makefile.am, and changed line 6 in configure.ac (AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE) to

AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([foreign] subdir-objects)

then...

./autogen.sh
./configure CFLAGS="-O3"
make

and all was well.

ah...
someone has already raised a ticket for this...

https://github.com/LucasJones/cpuminer-multi/issues/7


Cheers

Dave

[Shrikez]

I'm holding a substantial and expensive bag here....I trust you will keep pushing forward and keep the community updated.

[giveBTCpls]

Im extremely happy about the i2p support. i2p > TOR, MRO > DRK.

To the Moonero.

[nakaone]

i am not in the irc chat - is there something fundamentally broken or other fud? or is this just market madness?

[DemocraticRepublicOfDave]

If you are referring to the price drop, bitcoin is on a bit of a surge at the moment, most alts are dropping against it.

Cheers

Dave

[TTM]

This coin was hot on first days on Polo just because those day traders was thinking that MRO would be added to Mintpal soon so they could make some quick profits. It's turned out that Mintpal either has no interest on MRO or has problem with implementing a totally new protocol. As results, day traders quickly lost their patience, volume and price decrease slowly. PoW coins could take months to start kicking in. I'm still a big believer in CryptoNote and gonna buy some more if the price continue dropping lower.

[bitcoin.newsfeed]

So I am IN, my first ALT, i bought some MRO and DRK today, i threw 1btc into each, so another thread to watch, good luck to all 

[Spekulatius]

So if all thats required to authenticate your deposit into some exchange wallet is the publicly available tx ID, arent we just waiting for some scammers to claim deposits that never happened?

If a sender/buyer/exchanger doesnt send his/her MRO to your address but claims to have done it, then there is no recourse right? Any way to get around this?

[kurious]

If you are referring to the price drop, bitcoin is on a bit of a surge at the moment, most alts are dropping against it.

Cheers

Dave

Most alts are not dropping anywhere near as much.   And Yes - I do have MRO, but let's get real, it has collapsed even in the past 24 hours...!

[wizzardTim]

Why the heck is MRO cheaper than DRK?

[parker928]

it's cus people are cloud mining monero and dumping it just chill they can only push it down to the point where it is not profitable...which i think happened in the low 20's. price seems to be coming back up just fine.

[parker928]

Why the heck is MRO cheaper than DRK?

because you haven't bought them up yet =)

go go go