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

[smooth]

Can we try to keep it on topic here, not arguing about some other coin. Thanks.

What is the status on the GUI and the database work?

Missives is scheduled "soon."

[bit1]

Moneroholders  please support this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=767343.0

[David Latapie]

1.  Sorry for putting the apostrophe in the wrong place.  Thanks Spelling Nazi.  
2. Linux = Linus Torvalds UNIX

Linus Torvalds' UNIX.
When you have both a possessive and a word ending in -s, you use an apostrophe without s. so, "s'" and not "s's".

Regarding all the buzz about me, what really matters is:
1. Crowds are stupids. If not, why was the dedicated thread so much balanced? A handful of persons talking, intelligent conversations.
this is about crowd thinking, so don't feel insulted as a person - it is like considering statistics are about you - they aren't. I'm stupid in a crowd too
2. It's about terminology ("We just got all confused with our words"). First thing to do when discussing ideas with someone: make sure we are talking about the same thing.
3. No snap judgement. Do you invest your BTC in the new flashy coin or do you investigate before? Same for judging someone (any one, even a convicted criminal, an incompetent worker or an politician).

This is not about me. This is about us.
And thanks to Nekomata for the sunk cost fallacy. It was a great read, which I will hopefully put into practice in the future (I involuntarily put it into practice this morning, before even knowing it by name). The more it goes, the more I am interested in becoming a rationalist but that's another topic

[iCEBREAKER]

2. Linux = Linus Torvalds UNIX

Linus Torvalds' UNIX.
When you have both a possessive and a word ending in -s, you use an apostrophe without s. so, "s'" and not "s's".

"Torvalds" in the above context isn't a possessive noun but rather a descriptive modifier.  So no apostrophe is required.

The convention is to use the noun preceding Unix as an adjective.  EG: AT&T Unix (not AT&T's Unix), Berkeley Unix (not Berkeley's Unix), SCO Unix (not SCO's Unix), and Wollongong Unix (not Wollongong's Unix).

Sorry English is such a confusing language, especially for you non-native speakers.   

Think of it like a color; the word 'red' is a often a noun, but when placed before another noun it turns into an adjective.  Because magic.

Now get back to work on the missives!  Your public is waiting.   

[aminorex]

If the "mandatory upgrade" text is to be retained in the title, it should also incorporate a date or version number, so that users are not constantly forced to check the OP in case of a second mandatory upgrade event.

[fluffypony]

Is XMR going to implement aliases like BBR?

If not, why not?

So I happen to be around now, and you register Jung. Then someone else registers Jung1. Then Jung1982. Then Jung57. And eventually in a couple of years I have an address book that says that "Bob Simons is Jung27_AwesomeSauce"...so what have you really achieved? You're not negating the need to have address books.

There are ways to alias addresses, but this isn't one of them (see Zooko's triangle as an example of why this is a hard problem to solve).

[cAPSLOCK]

Is XMR going to implement aliases like BBR?

If not, why not?

So I happen to be around now, and you register Jung. Then someone else registers Jung1. Then Jung1982. Then Jung57. And eventually in a couple of years I have an address book that says that "Bob Simons is Jung27_AwesomeSauce"...so what have you really achieved? You're not negating the need to have address books.

There are ways to alias addresses, but this isn't one of them (see Zooko's triangle as an example of why this is a hard problem to solve).

I agree with you aliases are perhaps overrated and would, as you describe, create their own set of new problems.  But your argument would also have us just using IP addresses in the http url field up there.  I suppose the main reason is the comfort with a somewhat human readable alias as opposed to a fairly indecipherable string of ascii.

I actually identify my addresses I use by finding some sort of word or mnemonic in the first 10 characters or so.  Sort of like a poor mans alias.

[smooth]

I agree with you aliases are perhaps overrated and would, as you describe, create their own set of new problems.  But your argument would also have us just using IP addresses in the http url field up there.  I suppose the main reason is the comfort with a somewhat human readable alias as opposed to a fairly indecipherable string of ascii.

No that is not his argument at all. His argument is that the BBR mechanism does not address the very complex set of issues surrounding distributed naming in a sensible way. Having a debate over the merits of DNS would be even more off topic here than a debate over BBR.

Nobody said you need to type long sequences of numbers. fluffypony specifically mentioned address books and there may be other mechanisms too. Don't set up a false choice between BBR-style aliases and typing numbers.

[cAPSLOCK]

I agree with you aliases are perhaps overrated and would, as you describe, create their own set of new problems.  But your argument would also have us just using IP addresses in the http url field up there.  I suppose the main reason is the comfort with a somewhat human readable alias as opposed to a fairly indecipherable string of ascii.

Don't set up a false choice between BBR-style aliases and typing numbers.

I am not intending to.  I was only talking about the advantage of aliases in a very general way, and how I would see it as beneficial.  To be honest I don't really care a lot how or if it is implemented, and am making NO comparisons to other coins at all.  I think there are issues much much more important than the trivial issue of aliases.  Still I like discussing things here in the forum, and did not mean to create a misunderstanding. 

I will back off.

[smooth]

I agree with you aliases are perhaps overrated and would, as you describe, create their own set of new problems.  But your argument would also have us just using IP addresses in the http url field up there.  I suppose the main reason is the comfort with a somewhat human readable alias as opposed to a fairly indecipherable string of ascii.

Don't set up a false choice between BBR-style aliases and typing numbers.

I am not intending to.  I was only talking about the advantage of aliases in a very general way, and how I would see it as beneficial.  To be honest I don't really care a lot how or if it is implemented, and am making NO comparisons to other coins at all.  I think there are issues much much more important than the trivial issue of aliases.  Still I like discussing things here in the forum, and did not mean to create a misunderstanding. 

In that case, I'm pretty sure we all agree!

The original question (not yours but I didn't realize that when I wrote my previous reply) was phrased in terms of "aliases like BBR" so that led to some confusion on my part and I apologize if my reply was a bit off the target.

[secousa]

silly question, considering there's only a 64-bit linux build... can the wallet + daemon run on a raspberry pi?

[rdnkjdi]

silly question, considering there's only a 64-bit linux build... can the wallet + daemon run on a raspberry pi?

Doesn't it still require loading the entire blockchain in ram?

[Anotheranonlol]

Sure - its major advantage right now derives from its better choice of block time, the fact that it didn't have an early-stage dust problem, and that its transaction fees weren't as easily exploitable for DoS attacks.

That is incorrect on all three counts. Take a look at the details (proportion attributable to these factors, etc.) and you will see that these are not the main reasons for the block chain being smaller and faster. Even the difference in PoW is relatively unimportant right now (but might have some advantage -- or disadvantage -- in the future). My friend othe was right it is almost all a difference right now is lower BBR usage causing the chain to be much smaller.

Can any senior XMR developers or proponents refute the reply to that assertion?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577267.msg8648753#msg8648753

specifically this part:

with current implementation and with equal transaction flow Boolberry synchronization 4x times faster than Monero. This is just an established fact.

[smooth]

Sure - its major advantage right now derives from its better choice of block time, the fact that it didn't have an early-stage dust problem, and that its transaction fees weren't as easily exploitable for DoS attacks.

That is incorrect on all three counts. Take a look at the details (proportion attributable to these factors, etc.) and you will see that these are not the main reasons for the block chain being smaller and faster. Even the difference in PoW is relatively unimportant right now (but might have some advantage -- or disadvantage -- in the future). My friend othe was right it is almost all a difference right now is lower BBR usage causing the chain to be much smaller.

Can any senior XMR developers or proponents refute the reply to that assertion?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577267.msg8648753#msg8648753

specifically this part:

with current implementation and with equal transaction flow Boolberry synchronization 4x times faster than Monero. This is just an established fact.

I raised some questions on the thread. The truth is we don't fully understand it. The proof of work adds about 30 seconds to sync time over the course of a day. Processing blocks and processing transactions accounts for the rest, but it is difficult to separate the two. The difference in the former is a fundamental (though ultimately changeable), but the latter is something that will affect both coins as their usage (and usage history) increases. It is unexplained why, even after accounting for the PoW time, Monero takes more time per block even though it has fewer transactions per block. This definitely requires further investigation. I expect we will have a better understanding of it over time as we work on removing bottlenecks.

[nioc]

What are the thoughts on using multiple wallets?

I have a small amount in my original wallet from mining.  I just created another wallet as I want to move most of my stash off the exchange and I'm considering more than one for this.  I have multiple btc wallets and understand that the primary reason for doing this does not exist with Monero.  I guess for Monero I'm thinking of it more as my own organization, [mining wallet, long term wallet(s), transaction wallet(s)], as well as a don't keep all your eggs in one basket reflex.

I've also heard advice that one should do a test transfer to a new wallet to make sure everything is working.  Is this necessary? 

[owlcatz]

What are the thoughts on using multiple wallets?

I have a small amount in my original wallet from mining.  I just created another wallet as I want to move most of my stash off the exchange and I'm considering more than one for this.  I have multiple btc wallets and understand that the primary reason for doing this does not exist with Monero.  I guess for Monero I'm thinking of it more as my own organization, [mining wallet, long term wallet(s), transaction wallet(s)], as well as a don't keep all your eggs in one basket reflex.

I've also heard advice that one should do a test transfer to a new wallet to make sure everything is working.  Is this necessary?  

personally, i can understand the idea that you dont' want all eggs in one basket. However, with XMR (not BTC), noone but you can know what your address holds for a balance. I admit, I honestly don't know how hard it is for hackers to attack wallets etc etc, but I can say the coin's technical properties make me use only like 2 wallets. one online, one offline..this is the (mostly correct?) procedure i used for my offline wallet, directly from fluffypony, one of the devs. However - It's difficult, because unlike BTC, you cannot actually see your balance unless you verify the txid on the blockchain, but so far i'm ok with that, until viewkey feature is working)!

Edit - DO NOT send fromany exchange to your cold wallet/offline wallet (use a temporary Simplewallet address as the middlman)!, UNLESS they can give you the TXID for the monero blockchain verification, otherwise you have no way of verifying the transfer. (Correct me all night guys if i'm wrong and thanks to all for the help lately, especially smooth and fluffypony)!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg8246348#msg8246348

[smooth]

Edit - DO NOT send fromany exchange to your cold wallet/offline wallet, UNLESS they can give you the TXID for the monero blockchain verification, otherwise you have no way of verifying the transfer. (Correct me all night guys if i'm wrong and thanks to all for the help lately, especially smooth and fluffypony)!

You are correct. Complain to the exchange if they won't give you a txid.

However, if you are truly paranoid, even a txid isn't good enough enough because you can't verify that the correct amount is going to your address. Best to withdraw from the exchange to a live wallet, verify the correctness of the transaction, and then send to a cold wallet yourself.

This will be addressed with the view key functionality, eventually.  You will be able to observe and verify the transactions into your cold wallet online without you or anyone else being able to spend from it.

[smooth]

silly question, considering there's only a 64-bit linux build... can the wallet + daemon run on a raspberry pi?

Right now since the blockchain is being stored in RAM, absolutely not. Maybe in the future.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

It is unexplained why, even after accounting for the PoW time, Monero takes more time per block even though it has fewer transactions per block. This definitely requires further investigation. I expect we will have a better understanding of it over time as we work on removing bottlenecks.

I read elsewhere that BBR uses a block format that is revised form the original CN block format.  Can any of the time difference per block be attributed to this difference in block formatting?

[smooth]

It is unexplained why, even after accounting for the PoW time, Monero takes more time per block even though it has fewer transactions per block. This definitely requires further investigation. I expect we will have a better understanding of it over time as we work on removing bottlenecks.

I read elsewhere that BBR uses a block format that is revised form the original CN block format.  Can any of the time difference per block be attributed to this difference in block formatting?

Not likely but until we understand specifically what is going on it can't be ruled out. My understanding is that the format change involves not including the ring signatures in the block hash. However the block hash is computed using an extremely fast algorithm (for both coins), so I can't imagine this making more than a negligible difference.