|
onemorebtc
|
 |
July 23, 2014, 06:00:33 AM |
|
If I am not mistaken, you are a development team member of one.
As I am not a developer at all, you are mistaken, but you are a teammember (marketing if i remember correctly)... I am one person on the Boolberry team and deal mostly with marketing. What is your point? as i am invested in bbr too, i dont really like childplay like the one you played with aminorex. so i just wanted to correct you |
transfer 3 onemorebtc.k1024.de 1
|
|
|
|
btc-mike
|
|
July 23, 2014, 06:35:12 AM |
|
Let me rephrase, "I cannot think of any other cryptocurrency that needs requires QoS.
Which of course includes Monero. It does't have a QoS now, and is up and running. I only questioned QoS because fluffypony brought it up. If it is not that important I will stop talking about it.
If I am not mistaken, you are a development team member of one.
As I am not a developer at all, you are mistaken, but you are a teammember (marketing if i remember correctly)... I am one person on the Boolberry team and deal mostly with marketing. What is your point? as i am invested in bbr too, i dont really like childplay like the one you played with aminorex. so i just wanted to correct you I guess I misunderstood what he was saying, I thought he was saying I was a developer. |
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
July 23, 2014, 07:08:38 AM |
|
Let me rephrase, "I cannot think of any other cryptocurrency that needs requires QoS.
Which of course includes Monero. It does't have a QoS now, and is up and running. I only questioned QoS because fluffypony brought it up. If it is not that important I will stop talking about it. The context was various areas of development that are being done via an open process with progress visible in github. How that turned into a discussion of which coins have or need QoS I have no idea. BTW, here is an open issue for Bitcoin from 2011. This is not a new issue at all. In practice most people end up working around the missing feature by programming it into their router or OS network layer. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/273 |
|
|
|
|
Este Nuno
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 826
Merit: 1002
amarha
|
|
July 23, 2014, 07:24:47 AM |
|
Since we're on the XMR/BBR topic again something that's always bugged me or made me curious at least is the fact that Bytecoin/Monero uses what sounds like a completely new algo(CryptoNight). Which sounds like a really odd choice to me considering what kind of testing and rigor all these other new algos(BLAKE, Grøstl, Keccak ect) have gone through via the NIST competition.
Obviously SHA-2 has been considered a huge success thus far and doesn't look to have any major attacks according to public information despite it being expected to be showing cracks by now(and thus the NIST competition to find 'SHA-3'). Of course no one is using SHA256 anymore in the altscene for obvious reasons, but BBR went with their implementation of ('Wild')Keccak which was the winner of the 'SHA-3' competition and thus went through extremely rigorous testing from some of the top cryptographers in the world.
Maybe I'm thinking this is a bigger issue than it is, but I would expect more people to be complaining about this novel algo that CN uses. Unless of course it's just one or more of those new NIST competition algos with their own name slapped on it. But it doesn't say that on the Bitcoin wiki or the CN website. For all I know it could be worthy of being submitted alongside all those other algos if the competition were still going on but I don't really know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bitdig
|
|
July 23, 2014, 08:25:12 AM |
|
Ethereum is out now, is it something that allowed to be discussed here?
I wanted to "invest", the idea is good... but now, after I learned more...
I just looked at their website they already "raised" about 3000 bitcoins... The odd thing is from what I learned is that there is no cap on number of coins and the future coins coming to the market just a percentage of "presale", which makes me think of a very strange strategy...
as many people invest the less value of each coin will have...
Their prelaunch is actually will dictate next years number of coins, so if there will be 1.000.000 coins mined next year or 300.000.000 coins is simply dictated by their prelaunch... And such a difference in number of next year(s) mined coins will have an impact on coins value for sure... Apparently, more people invest in ethereum the lower value of each coin will have... What the hell??
|
|
|
|
|
onemorebtc
|
|
July 23, 2014, 08:28:11 AM |
|
Ethereum is out now, is it something that allowed to be discussed here?
I wanted to "invest", the idea is good... but now, after I learned more...
I just looked at their website they already "raised" about 3000 bitcoins... The odd thing is from what I learned is that there is no cap on number of coins and the future coins coming to the market just a percentage of "presale", which makes me think of a very strange strategy...
as many people invest the less value of each coin will have...
Their prelaunch is actually will dictate next years number of coins, so if there will be 1.000.000 coins mined next year or 300.000.000 coins is simply dictated by their prelaunch... And such a difference in number of next year(s) mined coins will have an impact on coins value for sure... Apparently, more people invest in ethereum the lower value of each coin will have... What the hell??
its an ipo with an unlimited money supply. it has some interesting aspects: but i'll just wait for forks |
transfer 3 onemorebtc.k1024.de 1
|
|
|
superresistant
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1131
|
|
July 23, 2014, 08:44:46 AM |
|
Apparently, more people invest in ethereum the lower value of each coin will have... What the hell??
Exactly. This is the worst kind of investment you can do. Expect people to lose a lot of money and cry all over this forum and outside. We may have new crypto-regulations because of this shit. Pro-tip : Let the noobs buy. Wait for the next huge-delay-announcement/drama-problems. Enjoy the tears, buy very cheap. Wait for the next hype. Sell. Repeat. Profit. |
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
July 23, 2014, 08:58:32 AM
Last edit: July 23, 2014, 10:32:12 AM by smooth |
|
Since we're on the XMR/BBR topic again something that's always bugged me or made me curious at least is the fact that Bytecoin/Monero uses what sounds like a completely new algo(CryptoNight). Which sounds like a really odd choice to me considering what kind of testing and rigor all these other new algos(BLAKE, Grøstl, Keccak ect) have gone through via the NIST competition.
Obviously SHA-2 has been considered a huge success thus far and doesn't look to have any major attacks according to public information despite it being expected to be showing cracks by now(and thus the NIST competition to find 'SHA-3'). Of course no one is using SHA256 anymore in the altscene for obvious reasons, but BBR went with their implementation of ('Wild')Keccak which was the winner of the 'SHA-3' competition and thus went through extremely rigorous testing from some of the top cryptographers in the world.
Maybe I'm thinking this is a bigger issue than it is, but I would expect more people to be complaining about this novel algo that CN uses. Unless of course it's just one or more of those new NIST competition algos with their own name slapped on it. But it doesn't say that on the Bitcoin wiki or the CN website. For all I know it could be worthy of being submitted alongside all those other algos if the competition were still going on but I don't really know.
The algorithm has little value as a general purpose hashing tool. It is purpose built for proof-of-work. The design is heavily influenced by the desire to resist attempts to massively accelerate it on GPUs or ASICs, or to put it another way, to ensure that similar-cost devices will perform similarly, at least for some period of time. So far this objective has been largely achieved with GPUs. GPU miners don't outperform CPUs that much on a hash/$ metric and don't outperform them at all on a hash/W metric. It remains to be seen how well it does with ASICs. Your point about testing and rigor is valid. It is possible to surmise that with some level of obvious competence having gone into the design, there may have been significant testing, analysis, and scrutiny. Or there may not. Since it is all shrouded in secrecy, we just don't know. |
|
|
|
|
Este Nuno
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 826
Merit: 1002
amarha
|
|
July 23, 2014, 09:59:15 AM |
|
Since we're on the XMR/BBR topic again something that's always bugged me or made me curious at least is the fact that Bytecoin/Monero uses what sounds like a completely new algo(CryptoNight). Which sounds like a really odd choice to me considering what kind of testing and rigor all these other new algos(BLAKE, Grøstl, Keccak ect) have gone through via the NIST competition.
Obviously SHA-2 has been considered a huge success thus far and doesn't look to have any major attacks according to public information despite it being expected to be showing cracks by now(and thus the NIST competition to find 'SHA-3'). Of course no one is using SHA256 anymore in the altscene for obvious reasons, but BBR went with their implementation of ('Wild')Keccak which was the winner of the 'SHA-3' competition and thus went through extremely rigorous testing from some of the top cryptographers in the world.
Maybe I'm thinking this is a bigger issue than it is, but I would expect more people to be complaining about this novel algo that CN uses. Unless of course it's just one or more of those new NIST competition algos with their own name slapped on it. But it doesn't say that on the Bitcoin wiki or the CN website. For all I know it could be worthy of being submitted alongside all those other algos if the competition were still going on but I don't really know.
The algorithm has little value as a general purpose hashing tool. It is purpose built for proof-of-work. The design is heavily influenced by the desire to resist attempts to massively accelerate it on GPUs or ASICs, or to put it another way, to ensure that similar-cost devices will perform similarly, at least for some period of time. So far this objective has been largely achieved with GPUs. GPU miners don't outperform CPUs that much on a hash/$ metric and don't outperform them at all on a hash/W metric. It remains to be seen how well it does with ASICs. Your point about testing and rigor is valid. It is possible to surmise that with some level of obvious competence obviously having gone into the design, there may have been significant testing, analysis, and scrutiny. Or there may not. Since it is all shrouded in secrecy, we just don't know. In the future does Monero plan to try to stay ahead of ASIC producers by changing the algorithm and attempt to keep it limited to CPU/GPU mining? Or will you take the Litecoin route and embrace them? I don't necessarily think ASICs are bad by any means, but it is a hotly debated issue and a lot of people definitely expected Litecoin to stick to it's original stated goal of ASIC resistance. I'm curious what the XMR community is planning on doing when this becomes an issue in the future. |
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
July 23, 2014, 10:16:39 AM |
|
In the future does Monero plan to try to stay ahead of ASIC producers by changing the algorithm and attempt to keep it limited to CPU/GPU mining? Or will you take the Litecoin route and embrace them?
I don't necessarily think ASICs are bad by any means, but it is a hotly debated issue and a lot of people definitely expected Litecoin to stick to it's original stated goal of ASIC resistance. I'm curious what the XMR community is planning on doing when this becomes an issue in the future.
I do not believe an official position has been stated on that issue specifically. Early on there was a statement that we would not change the algorithm and would let the chips fall where they may, but I believe the context of that was GPUs (and at the time the reasonable expectation was that this would turn out to be like most other claimed "GPU-resistant" algorithms and would quickly turn out not to be). Since that time we have seen the Cryptonote claims of GPU-resistance (perhaps surprisingly) hold up reasonably well. When it comes to ASICs I don't know what will happen either way. |
|
|
|
|
aminorex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1030
Sine secretum non libertas
|
|
July 23, 2014, 12:53:25 PM |
|
When it comes to ASICs I don't know what will happen either way.
ASICs represent a threat of centralization and ledger control orders of magnitude beyond what form of consumer hardware ever could. |
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a Poisson distribution and he eats at random times independent of one another, at a constant known rate.
|
|
|
fluffypony
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1274
Merit: 1060
GetMonero.org / MyMonero.com
|
|
July 23, 2014, 01:15:01 PM |
|
When it comes to ASICs I don't know what will happen either way.
ASICs represent a threat of centralization and ledger control orders of magnitude beyond what form of consumer hardware ever could. That depends on the lay of the land as and when we get there. If, for instance, the performance gains are not substantial over a CPU with AES-NI, and if we have a sufficiently widely distributed mining network that is a mix of GPUs and CPUs, then ASICs won't provide enough gain. Certainly they would be no more of a threat than GPUs - any entity able to purchase millions of Dollars worth of ASICs can definitely purchase millions of Dollars of GPUs. In fact, if CryptoNight plays out the way dga and the rest of us expect it to, the addition of ASICs to the network will be substantially less bumpy than with Bitcoin and Litecoin. On the other hand, if ASICs are able to be built that are many orders of magnitude more efficient (both on a cost-per-hash and watts-per-hash basis) than CPUs and/or GPUs, it may dictate a necessary change in PoW to ensure centralisation of mining power does not occur. These are decisions that don't have to be made today, though, as this requires time to play out. |
|
|
|
|
|
r0ach
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 23, 2014, 01:24:32 PM |
|
Since the Ethereum IPO is going on right now, I resurrected an old post on this subject I made months ago that some people will find interesting: Ethereum IPO reboot coming, time to get nervous about the future of cryptohttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=505446.0 |
|
|
|
AlexGR
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
|
|
July 23, 2014, 01:25:40 PM |
|
Is there a fee, and if yes, who gains it? |
|
|
|
|
r0ach
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 23, 2014, 01:32:11 PM |
|
Is there a fee, and if yes, who gains it?
It says no trading fees. It's a shame there's no way for NXT users to prove that the initial distribution of coins didn't go entirely to one single guy using mule accounts, or a number of people that can be counted on one hand. It seems like it has more development than any coin out there. |
|
|
|
aminorex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1030
Sine secretum non libertas
|
|
July 23, 2014, 01:36:53 PM |
|
When it comes to ASICs I don't know what will happen either way.
ASICs represent a threat of centralization and ledger control orders of magnitude beyond what form of consumer hardware ever could. These are decisions that don't have to be made today, though, as this requires time to play out. Establishing a policy position would be good for the social contract. What you do not want is for ASICs to be developed in the first place. You can't prevent it, but you can avoid defaulting on a social contract by making a policy statement now. Once ASICs are developed, changing the algorithm is impossible without defaulting on the current contract, unless you have established the terms of that contract in advance, to allow responsive change. Again, if you don't establish a policy position, then if you make a responsive change, you are destroying the value of an investment made by XMR supporters. That's just dirty. Don't do it. Make the policy statement. That will mitigate uncertainty. It will mean that anyone who invests in a CN ASIC is fully responsible for the outcome. It will avoid creating a foreseeable condition in which you must behave in bad faith to save the coin. |
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a Poisson distribution and he eats at random times independent of one another, at a constant known rate.
|
|
|
Este Nuno
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 826
Merit: 1002
amarha
|
|
July 23, 2014, 01:43:42 PM |
|
When it comes to ASICs I don't know what will happen either way.
ASICs represent a threat of centralization and ledger control orders of magnitude beyond what form of consumer hardware ever could. That depends on the lay of the land as and when we get there. If, for instance, the performance gains are not substantial over a CPU with AES-NI, and if we have a sufficiently widely distributed mining network that is a mix of GPUs and CPUs, then ASICs won't provide enough gain. Certainly they would be no more of a threat than GPUs - any entity able to purchase millions of Dollars worth of ASICs can definitely purchase millions of Dollars of GPUs. In fact, if CryptoNight plays out the way dga and the rest of us expect it to, the addition of ASICs to the network will be substantially less bumpy than with Bitcoin and Litecoin. On the other hand, if ASICs are able to be built that are many orders of magnitude more efficient (both on a cost-per-hash and watts-per-hash basis) than CPUs and/or GPUs, it may dictate a necessary change in PoW to ensure centralisation of mining power does not occur. These are decisions that don't have to be made today, though, as this requires time to play out. A stated policy of continued ASIC resistance by algorithm modification if necessary should be enough to deter anyone thinking about putting up the large upfront cost of designing chips, no? Also, if Monero becomes wildly successful I would say that it would be much more of a potential attack target from a bad government actor than Bitcoin would be. Being anonymous and all. The probability of that actually happening might be miniscule though. ASICs or not any government could take down any crypto if they chose at this point. None of this ASIC resistance policy would have any effect on an attack from a government though, I'm not trying to say that the two things are linked. |
|
|
|
|
r0ach
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 23, 2014, 01:48:47 PM |
|
For an actual "anti-ASIC" social contract, you could wait for the first algorithm to be entirely ASIC monopolized, then soft fork to have an additional algorithm for distribution, Myriadcoin style, but you limit it to either 3 or 4 total PoW algorithms. The idea is just to maximize market penetration for the coin distribution. If Bitcoin did something like this originally, altcoins would either not exist, or only have 1/100th of the current number. There would be much higher interest in BTC as well, since ordinary people would actually have some.
|
|
|
|
Este Nuno
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 826
Merit: 1002
amarha
|
|
July 23, 2014, 02:00:09 PM |
|
For an actual "anti-ASIC" social contract, you could wait for the first algorithm to be entirely ASIC monopolized, then soft fork to have an additional algorithm for distribution, Myriadcoin style, but you limit it to either 3 or 4 total PoW algorithms. The idea is just to maximize market penetration for the coin distribution. If Bitcoin did something like this originally, altcoins would either not exist, or only have 1/100th of the current number. There would be much higher interest in BTC as well, since ordinary people would actually have some.
Would ordinary people have some though? Data centers and optimized racks would still push the average person with their celeron or atom processor on their laptop way out the mining profitability range. |
|
|
|
|
|
