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

[silencesilence]

WOW
Network Hash Rate: 20.97 MH/sec

Are there any more miners with video cards?

if so
it is in which country and how much electrical energy there

[3x2]

WOW
Network Hash Rate: 20.97 MH/sec

Are there any more miners with video cards?

if so
it is in which country and how much electrical energy there

Good for Network but just if Miners dont dump 

[silencesilence]

WOW
Network Hash Rate: 20.97 MH/sec

Are there any more miners with video cards?

if so
it is in which country and how much electrical energy there

Good for Network but just if Miners dont dump 

I think Miners dont dump , but Botnet Miners dump

[e-coinomist]

Can BTC dev team add ring signatures without having to fork?

The team could move quicker than the user base. Which would prep up the gallows, if anyone dares to evolve the code base further. Have that feeling some coin has run stuck.
Just the laws in the technology wilderness are: Evolve, or perish. Cannot help it, that's the law of the tech jungle.

[smooth]

So, sure, there are also applications for increased transparency using Bitcoin, but you can always layer more transparency on top of a more private system... but not the other way around.

This is exactly what we are doing with Monero.

Greg gets privacy. He's the inventor of coinjoin and definitely wants to make Bitcoin more private. But I also think he is swimming against the tide with wanting to turn Bitcoin in to a more private system at its foundation and then implement transparency on top of that. That is a almost a redesign from the inside out. It is one thing to write papers, but it actually making it happen in the real world is something else. The political and practical obstacles are enormous, and not clearly any less challenging our task of building out Monero and layering transparency on top of it.

[dEBRUYNE]

It will be interesting to see whether Bitcoin can adopt CN functionality. It would a win for privacy and freedom, but bad for my XMR investment: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2oh7vq/toward_unlinkable_bitcoin_transactions_andrew/

Can BTC dev team add ring signatures without having to fork?

That topic was discussed in the comments:

The paper will describe some new cryptographic primitives which could be used in a blockchain to avoid explicit linkage between transactions. It certainly does not describe or advocate how to implement such things in Bitcoin. Indeed, this would dramatically change the efficiency and privacy properties of Bitcoin in ways that would be unacceptable to many existing users.

[Eugen123]

So, sure, there are also applications for increased transparency using Bitcoin, but you can always layer more transparency on top of a more private system... but not the other way around.

The political and practical obstacles are enormous, and not clearly more challenging our task of building out Monero and layering transparency on top of it.

This is interesting.. has there been any talk of implementing transparency layers, and their potential function?

[smooth]

So, sure, there are also applications for increased transparency using Bitcoin, but you can always layer more transparency on top of a more private system... but not the other way around.

The political and practical obstacles are enormous, and not clearly more challenging our task of building out Monero and layering transparency on top of it.

This is interesting.. has there been any talk of implementing transparency layers, and their potential function?

Yes there has been. Some of it is right in the original whitepaper, in terms of view keys and auditable addresses. We have also considered other methods of allowing for transparency on specific transactions. People want to be able to selectively prove payments on demand and generally open up to transparency in a controlled manner, without everything being linkable and traceable to the rest of their transactions.

[saddambitcoin]

I've got a problem trying to run 0.8.8.5 on OSX (10.10.1)...

Code:

dyld: Library not loaded: /usr/local/lib/libevent-2.0.5.dylib

I've tried updating libevent but the most recent version I can find is 2.0.21 - any ideas?

EDIT:
I tried brew unlink libevent && brew link libevent. Now I get a completely different error when I try to launch bitmonerod.

Code:

Illegal instruction: 4

[kazuki49]

WOW
Network Hash Rate: 20.97 MH/sec

Are there any more miners with video cards?

if so
it is in which country and how much electrical energy there

Good for Network but just if Miners dont dump  

I think Miners dont dump , but Botnet Miners dump

dump doesnt matter now because xmr is becoming like bitcoin, a long period of low price is good for legitimacy of the coin if it ever reaches a lot higher in the future no one will be able to say that didn't bought xmr because it was too expensive, they can only say they didnt heard about monero or didnt believe on it.

[pa]

I've got a problem trying to run 0.8.8.5 on OSX (10.10.1)...

Code:

dyld: Library not loaded: /usr/local/lib/libevent-2.0.5.dylib

I've tried updating libevent but the most recent version I can find is 2.0.21 - any ideas?

EDIT:
I tried brew unlink libevent && brew link libevent. Now I get a completely different error when I try to launch bitmonerod.

Code:

Illegal instruction: 4

I can't help but I did get mine working on OSX 10.10.1 using Homebrew. I ran into a bit more trouble than usual. Did you run brew doctor? It advised me to link libevent and zeromq. I also had to brew install makedepend. During the build process I was seeing errors from curl, about certificate problems. But it seems to be working now. 

[saddambitcoin]

I've got a problem trying to run 0.8.8.5 on OSX (10.10.1)...

Code:

dyld: Library not loaded: /usr/local/lib/libevent-2.0.5.dylib

I've tried updating libevent but the most recent version I can find is 2.0.21 - any ideas?

EDIT:
I tried brew unlink libevent && brew link libevent. Now I get a completely different error when I try to launch bitmonerod.

Code:

Illegal instruction: 4

I can't help but I did get mine working on OSX 10.10.1 using Homebrew. I ran into a bit more trouble than usual. Did you run brew doctor? It advised me to link libevent and zeromq. I also had to brew install makedepend. During the build process I was seeing errors from curl, about certificate problems. But it seems to be working now.  

Thanks, I ran brew doctor, brew upgrade, brew update and it did seem to make some progress.

Now when I try brew install --HEAD bitmonero, I get a cmake error. Sigh. I'll keep at it.

UPDATE: I got it!! For some reason it worked when I tried brew install bitmonero, not brew install --HEAD bitmonero.

[aminorex]

I am beginning to suspect that my PMs are not getting through.  If you are wondering why I have not responded to your PMs, I did, in fact.

[pa]

Minor bug in simplewallet v0.8.8.5-unknown:

After updated to 0.8.8.5, when I initially opened an old non-deterministic wallet, simplewallet detected that it was a deprecated version of the wallet and then produced a 25-word seed. I assumed that being given a new seed implied that my non-deterministic wallet had been upgraded to a deterministic wallet. But when I entered the "seed" command, I received the message: "Error: The wallet is non-deterministic. Cannot display seed." So my wallet remains in its original non-deterministic format.

Also when I ran simplewallet with the --restore-deterministic-wallet flag, and entered those 25 words at the "Specify electrum seed:" prompt, I received the message "Error: electrum-style wordlist failed verification." I exited and re-opened my non-deterministic wallet, this time without any flag, using my password. The funds are still there and I was not presented with the erroneous 25 word seed this time.

Summary: The new version of simplewallet erroneously presented me with a 25-word seed the first time (but not the second time) I used it to open a non-deterministic wallet.

Edit: It seems safe to just ignore the seed. The new version of simplewallet seems to work fine with a more recent deterministic wallet.

[saddambitcoin]

hey guys check this out. wow. no more having to copy and paste huge addresses! cool new feature in the 0.8.8.5, great work devs 

go to https://openalias.org/ to learn how to make your own alias!

[smooth]

Minor bug in simplewallet v0.8.8.5-unknown:

Follow status here: https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/issues/198

[pa]

hey guys check this out. wow. no more having to copy and paste huge addresses! cool new feature in the 0.8.8.5, great work devs 

go to https://openalias.org/ to learn how to make your own alias!

That is cool! How did you get your the saddam.moneroaddress.org alias you reference in your sig? Did you have to register the domain name moneroaddress.org yourself? Does this mean that to get our own openalias to use with Monero, we have to find domain name registrars that allow anonymous registration?

[saddambitcoin]

hey guys check this out. wow. no more having to copy and paste huge addresses! cool new feature in the 0.8.8.5, great work devs  

go to https://openalias.org/ to learn how to make your own alias!

That is cool! How did you get your the saddam.moneroaddress.org alias you reference in your sig? Did you have to register the domain name moneroaddress.org yourself? Does this mean that to get our own openalias to use with Monero, we have to find domain name registrars that allow anonymous registration?

I already had moneroaddress.org sitting around not being used for anything yet, it was really easy to setup. Just add a TXT record to your domain like so:

Code:

oa1:xmr recipient_address=<your XMR address>; recipient_name=<your name>;

I have yet to configure the domain for DNSSEC, I am still reading up on how to do that.

Also it looks possible to add payment IDs to your alias, would be really cool for example to fund your account at crypto kingdom just by entering saddam.cryptokingdom.com or something like that.

[5w00p]

WOW
Network Hash Rate: 20.97 MH/sec

If I am mining with a given hashrate (let's say 1 kh), will I likely mine more XMR when the network hashrate is lower (~12Mh) versus higher (~20Mh as it is currently)?
I know that the difficulty retargets every block, which is every minute, but I am not certain about this comparison that I am asking about.

Thanks in advance for knowledgeable replies.

[smooth]

WOW
Network Hash Rate: 20.97 MH/sec

If I am mining with a given hashrate (let's say 1 kh), will I likely mine more XMR when the network hashrate is lower (~12Mh) versus higher (~20Mh as it is currently)?
I know that the difficulty retargets every block, which is every minute, but I am not certain about this comparison that I am asking about.

Thanks in advance for knowledgeable replies.

The total number of XMR minted per day is approximately fixed so if you have a fixed hash rate then your share of the total (and therefore your amount mined) is higher if the network hash rate is lower.

That being said, a higher network hash rate is somewhat correlated to a higher price so the XMR you do mine may be worth more under conditions where the network hash rate is higher, all else being equal. In fact over the past few days the price has indeed been stronger (at least not dropping every day).