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

[tistoni]

Could it be the problem that I'm behind a corporate firewall. My internet connection is really fast. How often is the blockchain updated in OP's post?

[cAPSLOCK]

Could it be the problem that I'm behind a corporate firewall. My internet connection is really fast. How often is the blockchain updated in OP's post?

Coming up to date from where you are would take ~10 minutes on my home connection...

[tistoni]

so foolishly I downloaded the win32 client and generated a new address. Now I have XMR on the address. Is there a way I can use my wallet.bin file on a linux platform to access my funds with the current blockchain? Or is it necessary to use a win32 client from now on whenever I want to access my funds? (I tried a win64 client, it wouldn't open my wallet.)

[surfer43]

so foolishly I downloaded the win32 client and generated a new address. Now I have XMR on the address. Is there a way I can use my wallet.bin file on a linux platform to access my funds with the current blockchain? Or is it necessary to use a win32 client from now on whenever I want to access my funds? (I tried a win64 client, it wouldn't open my wallet.)

Move wallet.bin.keys wherever you want to access funds, it will work on all platforms. wallet.bin only holds the sync data, and I don't think the Windows version is compatible with the linux version.

A new wallet.bin for your address will be generated if you put wallet.bin.keys in the directory where you try to open wallet.bin. simplewallet will rescan the blockchain for your transactions and then you can send funds.

[shfc]

who dump??

[phosphorush]

HELP a noob.

1 - using monero wallet GUI to mine i get:



2 - Using CryptoNoteminer, it mines but where is the wallet where the coins are mined to? I only see the address...

[RentaMouse]

Dont use the basic wallet miner for pool mining, most pools dont support it any more. Try CPUminer-multi, Claymore's GPU miner (for AMD gfx cards) or there is ccminer for Nvidia now. 1st post of this thread has download links.

[aminorex]

If there is a CN ASIC, will the dev core commit to changing the hash, in the case where it is substantially more cost-effective than cpu or gpu mining?

[parker928]

so foolishly I downloaded the win32 client and generated a new address. Now I have XMR on the address. Is there a way I can use my wallet.bin file on a linux platform to access my funds with the current blockchain? Or is it necessary to use a win32 client from now on whenever I want to access my funds? (I tried a win64 client, it wouldn't open my wallet.)

doesn't matter what os you use.

I believe this holds true for both cryptonote and bitcoin protocol

[phosphorush]

Dont use the basic wallet miner for pool mining, most pools dont support it any more. Try CPUminer-multi, Claymore's GPU miner (for AMD gfx cards) or there is ccminer for Nvidia now. 1st post of this thread has download links.

I see, http://monero.crypto-pool.fr/#getting_started i downloaded easyminer there, how do I get access to the wallet with the address created by that miner?

[noelmal]

Oh so this is the home of ltc super troll dakota, he's not making you guys any friends 

[Djinou94]

No Gui wallet it will down to 0.002

[binaryFate]

If there is a CN ASIC, will the dev core commit to changing the hash, in the case where it is substantially more cost-effective than cpu or gpu mining?

That would be a centralized decision, and by doing so it would greatly undermine the trust people have in the coin. I think it is pretty much impossible for any coin established (except if it's really a matter of life and death, say if the hash function is broken).
For instance Bitcoin would go to less than a $ instantly if a bunch of guys (the devs of bitcoin core) would decide to switch from sha256 to another hash function, no matter the motivations behind.
And if it's not established, well there's no ASIC...

[smooth]

If there is a CN ASIC, will the dev core commit to changing the hash, in the case where it is substantially more cost-effective than cpu or gpu mining?

That would be a centralized decision, and by doing so it would greatly undermine the trust people have in the coin. I think it is pretty much impossible for any coin established (except if it's really a matter of life and death, say if the hash function is broken).
For instance Bitcoin would go to less than a $ instantly if a bunch of guys (the devs of bitcoin core) would decide to switch from sha256 to another hash function, no matter the motivations behind.
And if it's not established, well there's no ASIC...

This is a misconception of how p2p coins work. The users and miners have to agree to upgrade, and this is a decentralized, not centralized, decision. They can refuse to upgrade, ignoring the developers. Inevitably new developers would come forward to take over maintaining and developing the old fork, as has happened countless times in open source when the original developers made some decision not supported by a significant portion of the user base.

With bitcoin it is much too late, because the miners already have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in ASICs and the users simply want security and stability so they would likely stay with the miners. The devs' fork by adopted by no one and would die.

But this is not necessarily true for a coin if the change were made before a large investment were made in ASICs. In fact miners might well prefer not being arms-raced into giving money to ASIC developers for no real gain to themselves and support the fork. Users would likely support it as well, since ASICs would lead to increased centralization and many users are likely also small scale miners (especially for a coin where CPU mining remains viable, as with this one).

Furthermore if the decision is made ahead of time, or even just left open as an option ahead of time, there is no loss of trust, because there was no commitment to not change, and therefore no breach of trust. While there is no stated commitment on the part of the developers of this coin to change the PoW for any particular reason, changes have been considered. At one point there was thought given to throwing out CryptoNight and replacing it with one of the functions in widespread use (but of course keeping the rest of the cryptonote functionality such as ring signatures, etc. -- the two are in fact not linked at all).

There is no change under consideration at the present time, but don't count on there never being a change.

[phosphorush]

I woudl appreaciate some help :\

I downloaded wolf miner, but when i execute minerd, the window closes right away...

Also, how do I copy paste command lines into the command windows? -_-

[dga]

If there is a CN ASIC, will the dev core commit to changing the hash, in the case where it is substantially more cost-effective than cpu or gpu mining?

That would be a centralized decision, and by doing so it would greatly undermine the trust people have in the coin. I think it is pretty much impossible for any coin established (except if it's really a matter of life and death, say if the hash function is broken).
For instance Bitcoin would go to less than a $ instantly if a bunch of guys (the devs of bitcoin core) would decide to switch from sha256 to another hash function, no matter the motivations behind.
And if it's not established, well there's no ASIC...

This is not a particularly useful discussion, honestly.

(a)  CryptoNight is going to do quite well against ASICs.  Anything can be optimized, of course, but the design of CN is probably good to keeping the gap to an order of magnitude or so.  I could be very wrong - but I think you'll see CN scale in some very interesting ways with future CPU designs.  This is one of the best designs I've seen for keeping the gap relatively small.

(b)  By the time an ASIC comes out, it will be too late to reasonably effect a change of that magnitude.  But if it happens, why worry?  It will mean that a strongly anonymous coin design has become a major enough player to justify tens of millions of dollars of design, test, and manufacturing effort on asics.  That would be a pretty impressive win for the cryptonote family.

(c) (the big discussion of whether or not ASICs are a bad thing in the first place - energy efficiency, botnet-resistance, etc.  we're at the tip of starting to see botnets emerge as major players in XMR now, and that trend is going to get worse -- EC2 has become unprofitable for XMR, and the void will be filled by a mix of smaller individual miners and botnets.)

[Mumbles]

If you think the website is fine and just needs a few periodic updates that is an idication of the lack of understanding of the level of polish and marketing required to make a coin successful and stand out in the crowded market. Pretty website and drop dead easy to use software may not matter to you or other early adopters, but it is absolutely essential if this is to become anything more than a subset of a subset project. I wouldn't bother writing on here if I didn't want it to succeed. But being honest this project has a very long way to go and the recent pace has not been impressive. I still haven't seen a reason for the dev team to not accept more help. Its just bizarre.

The proper benchmark for comparison of development progress is not a throw-away pump&dump coin, but bitcoin, or possibly nxt, ethereum, xcp.
Development on these scales is somewhere between blazingly fast and fairly moderate.

It's silly to say core won't accept help, given that the code is in git.  Did you submit a pull request that was rejected?  No?  Then what are you up about?

The "size issue" is a non-issue as long as one can easily run a fullnode.  There is no time-scale on which you can reasonably project that it will be difficult to run a full-node on high-end commodity hardware.  Given thin-clients, what more do you need?  Thin clients are in development.
EDIT: I thought you were referring to the recurrent criticism that the blockchain is larger than bitcoin's.  I suspect you were referring to transaction size.  That is addressed by tacotime, below.

In short, everything you mentioned as a problem was not, in fact, a problem, with the possible exception of the fact that the website is neglected, but not much.  It could use a few periodic updates, perhaps some more external links, but it covers what it really needs to cover.

[darkota]

If you think the website is fine and just needs a few periodic updates that is an idication of the lack of understanding of the level of polish and marketing required to make a coin successful and stand out in the crowded market. Pretty website and drop dead easy to use software may not matter to you or other early adopters, but it is absolutely essential if this is to become anything more than a subset of a subset project. I wouldn't bother writing on here if I didn't want it to succeed. But being honest this project has a very long way to go and the recent pace has not been impressive. I still haven't seen a reason for the dev team to not accept more help. Its just bizarre.

The proper benchmark for comparison of development progress is not a throw-away pump&dump coin, but bitcoin, or possibly nxt, ethereum, xcp.
Development on these scales is somewhere between blazingly fast and fairly moderate.

It's silly to say core won't accept help, given that the code is in git.  Did you submit a pull request that was rejected?  No?  Then what are you up about?

The "size issue" is a non-issue as long as one can easily run a fullnode.  There is no time-scale on which you can reasonably project that it will be difficult to run a full-node on high-end commodity hardware.  Given thin-clients, what more do you need?  Thin clients are in development.
EDIT: I thought you were referring to the recurrent criticism that the blockchain is larger than bitcoin's.  I suspect you were referring to transaction size.  That is addressed by tacotime, below.

In short, everything you mentioned as a problem was not, in fact, a problem, with the possible exception of the fact that the website is neglected, but not much.  It could use a few periodic updates, perhaps some more external links, but it covers what it really needs to cover.

I agree with Mumbles. I'm a humble troll but I speak the truth when needed. Any coin, that includes Bitcoin, Monero, Darkcoin, etc needs good marketing, not everyone is a genius crypto specialist, most people need fancy graphics and text to instill confidence. That means having a good looking website and etc.

[phosphorush]

If you think the website is fine and just needs a few periodic updates that is an idication of the lack of understanding of the level of polish and marketing required to make a coin successful and stand out in the crowded market. Pretty website and drop dead easy to use software may not matter to you or other early adopters, but it is absolutely essential if this is to become anything more than a subset of a subset project. I wouldn't bother writing on here if I didn't want it to succeed. But being honest this project has a very long way to go and the recent pace has not been impressive. I still haven't seen a reason for the dev team to not accept more help. Its just bizarre.

The proper benchmark for comparison of development progress is not a throw-away pump&dump coin, but bitcoin, or possibly nxt, ethereum, xcp.
Development on these scales is somewhere between blazingly fast and fairly moderate.

It's silly to say core won't accept help, given that the code is in git.  Did you submit a pull request that was rejected?  No?  Then what are you up about?

The "size issue" is a non-issue as long as one can easily run a fullnode.  There is no time-scale on which you can reasonably project that it will be difficult to run a full-node on high-end commodity hardware.  Given thin-clients, what more do you need?  Thin clients are in development.
EDIT: I thought you were referring to the recurrent criticism that the blockchain is larger than bitcoin's.  I suspect you were referring to transaction size.  That is addressed by tacotime, below.

In short, everything you mentioned as a problem was not, in fact, a problem, with the possible exception of the fact that the website is neglected, but not much.  It could use a few periodic updates, perhaps some more external links, but it covers what it really needs to cover.

I agree with Mumbles. I'm a humble troll but I speak the truth when needed. Any coin, that includes Bitcoin, Monero, Darkcoin, etc needs good marketing, not everyone is a genius crypto specialist, most people need fancy graphics and text to instill confidence. That means having a good looking website and etc.

and people here don't help the noobs such as me :\

[smooth]

(b)  By the time an ASIC comes out, it will be too late to reasonably effect a change of that magnitude.

This is really at the core of your post, because if it were impossible to change, then no point in discussing it, I'll agree with you there.

I disagree with this statement however, I believe a change would be possible prior to ASICs being widely deployed if the stakeholders (miners and users) wanted it.

It seems no clear consensus has emerged on whether ASICs are a good or bad idea though. Perhaps a coin that resists centralization by massive GPU and ASIC farms long enough to provide some basis of comparison will help form that consensus (if there is one).

a mix of smaller individual miners and botnets

This statement is quite interesting because the longer term role of botnets is as yet unclear, and all we have at this point is speculation about their eventual scope. If mining ends up being dominated by large botnets that isn't really any different from any other form of centralized mining, and not very interesting. But if smaller individual miners play a large role, that would actually be something new.