synechist
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
|
 |
September 11, 2014, 05:35:52 PM |
|
So when this REV2 is release we will be getting paid For our Xnodes now/X mixer whatever were calling it
Hello I was wondering if for the xnode you will need it to run in a single wallet with 1000 xc or can you have multiple xnodes in a single wallet putting 1000 xc in different addresses? Yes nodes with a dedicated address containing 1000 XC will receive revenue for trustlessly forwarding transactions. You can run as many wallets as you like. You'd need a virtualisation environment to do this on a single computer. Do the wallets still need separate public IP or just different VM and single IP is fine? Yes they still do. Run them all over TOR. Oh boy... I think I will need some more bandwidth. Might get some VM from azure or amazon or something... Heh. Bring on the tx revenue! |
Co-Founder, the Blocknet
|
|
|
bitAsp
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
|
|
September 11, 2014, 05:40:45 PM |
|
Removed all the quotes to save screen space... When will it be possible to run Xnodes with our Wallets having at least 1000 XC coins?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CryptoGretzky
|
|
September 11, 2014, 05:43:04 PM |
|
So when this REV2 is release we will be getting paid For our Xnodes now/X mixer whatever were calling it
Hello I was wondering if for the xnode you will need it to run in a single wallet with 1000 xc or can you have multiple xnodes in a single wallet putting 1000 xc in different addresses? Yes nodes with a dedicated address containing 1000 XC will receive revenue for trustlessly forwarding transactions. You can run as many wallets as you like. You'd need a virtualisation environment to do this on a single computer. Do the wallets still need separate public IP or just different VM and single IP is fine? Yes they still do. Run them all over TOR. Oh boy... I think I will need some more bandwidth. Might get some VM from azure or amazon or something... Heh. Bring on the tx revenue! Any chance Dan can make it so that say you have multiple input/address that adds to up more than 1000 XC to act as a xmixer rather than separate wallets? Say you have 50k in a wallet, then it acts like 50 Xmixers rather than needing to run 50 separate wallets?? |
|
|
|
synechist
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
|
|
September 11, 2014, 05:43:59 PM |
|
Removed all the quotes to save screen space... When will it be possible to run Xnodes with our Wallets having at least 1000 XC coins?
This Monday. On Monday we're also including a feature that's a "coinjoin killer". Brace yourself. |
Co-Founder, the Blocknet
|
|
|
synechist
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
|
|
September 11, 2014, 05:47:58 PM |
|
So when this REV2 is release we will be getting paid For our Xnodes now/X mixer whatever were calling it
Hello I was wondering if for the xnode you will need it to run in a single wallet with 1000 xc or can you have multiple xnodes in a single wallet putting 1000 xc in different addresses? Yes nodes with a dedicated address containing 1000 XC will receive revenue for trustlessly forwarding transactions. You can run as many wallets as you like. You'd need a virtualisation environment to do this on a single computer. Do the wallets still need separate public IP or just different VM and single IP is fine? Yes they still do. Run them all over TOR. Oh boy... I think I will need some more bandwidth. Might get some VM from azure or amazon or something... Heh. Bring on the tx revenue! Any chance Dan can make it so that say you have multiple input/address that adds to up more than 1000 XC to act as a xmixer rather than separate wallets? Say you have 50k in a wallet, then it acts like 50 Xmixers rather than needing to run 50 separate wallets?? I doubt that'll be a good idea in terms of the blockchain. It's not a good idea to run multiple copies of your wallet.dat and then spend from both. You can corrupt the wallet.dat. Xmixers will be continually receiving and sending fragments. Imagine how much higher the chances of corrupting your wallet would be with that! In any case, having several wallets, each with a smaller balance, is more secure. If I had 50k I'd certainly spread them around a bit. :-) |
Co-Founder, the Blocknet
|
|
|
|
CryptoGretzky
|
|
September 11, 2014, 05:53:21 PM |
|
So when this REV2 is release we will be getting paid For our Xnodes now/X mixer whatever were calling it
Hello I was wondering if for the xnode you will need it to run in a single wallet with 1000 xc or can you have multiple xnodes in a single wallet putting 1000 xc in different addresses? Yes nodes with a dedicated address containing 1000 XC will receive revenue for trustlessly forwarding transactions. You can run as many wallets as you like. You'd need a virtualisation environment to do this on a single computer. Do the wallets still need separate public IP or just different VM and single IP is fine? Yes they still do. Run them all over TOR. Oh boy... I think I will need some more bandwidth. Might get some VM from azure or amazon or something... Heh. Bring on the tx revenue! Any chance Dan can make it so that say you have multiple input/address that adds to up more than 1000 XC to act as a xmixer rather than separate wallets? Say you have 50k in a wallet, then it acts like 50 Xmixers rather than needing to run 50 separate wallets?? I doubt that'll be a good idea in terms of the blockchain. It's not a good idea to run multiple copies of your wallet.dat and then spend from both. You can corrupt the wallet.dat. Xmixers will be continually receiving and sending fragments. Imagine how much higher the chances of corrupting your wallet would be with that! In any case, having several wallets, each with a smaller balance, is more secure. If I had 50k I'd certainly spread them around a bit. :-) But... The need to run like 100 to 200 or more wallets... Omg... The number of VM that's needed is insane. I am just saying if you have inputs that are 1000 XC that it's automatically treated as one xmixer since the mixing is based on UTXO unspent output anyway. |
|
|
|
synechist
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
|
|
September 11, 2014, 06:05:55 PM |
|
So when this REV2 is release we will be getting paid For our Xnodes now/X mixer whatever were calling it
Hello I was wondering if for the xnode you will need it to run in a single wallet with 1000 xc or can you have multiple xnodes in a single wallet putting 1000 xc in different addresses? Yes nodes with a dedicated address containing 1000 XC will receive revenue for trustlessly forwarding transactions. You can run as many wallets as you like. You'd need a virtualisation environment to do this on a single computer. Do the wallets still need separate public IP or just different VM and single IP is fine? Yes they still do. Run them all over TOR. Oh boy... I think I will need some more bandwidth. Might get some VM from azure or amazon or something... Heh. Bring on the tx revenue! Any chance Dan can make it so that say you have multiple input/address that adds to up more than 1000 XC to act as a xmixer rather than separate wallets? Say you have 50k in a wallet, then it acts like 50 Xmixers rather than needing to run 50 separate wallets?? I doubt that'll be a good idea in terms of the blockchain. It's not a good idea to run multiple copies of your wallet.dat and then spend from both. You can corrupt the wallet.dat. Xmixers will be continually receiving and sending fragments. Imagine how much higher the chances of corrupting your wallet would be with that! In any case, having several wallets, each with a smaller balance, is more secure. If I had 50k I'd certainly spread them around a bit. :-) But... The need to run like 100 to 200 or more wallets... Omg... The number of VM that's needed is insane. I am just saying if you have inputs that are 1000 XC that it's automatically treated as one xmixer since the mixing is based on UTXO unspent output anyway. Indeed, that amount of VM would be hectic. I wonder if this will be possible... mixing involves continually creating new addresses that fragments are paid to/from, and so the inputs/outputs are multiple and not just a single 1000 XC address. Conceivably a mixer could get more transactions simply by having more coins available for mixing... and also more network speed, processing power, etc. Perhaps a single mixer could have 50k in it and be on a big server somewhere and thereby generate more revenue. However, I think this would centralise the network dangerously. On the other hand, I'm all for incentivising nodes to perform better. Quicker service, or fewer issues, etc. might be pretty important in a web 3.0/blockchain 2.0 scenario. |
Co-Founder, the Blocknet
|
|
|
|
Mountaingoat
|
|
September 11, 2014, 06:16:35 PM |
|
Does running an Xnode have a big influence on your Internet speed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
cryptico
|
|
September 11, 2014, 06:18:26 PM |
|
But... The need to run like 100 to 200 or more wallets... Omg... The number of VM that's needed is insane. I am just saying if you have inputs that are 1000 XC that it's automatically treated as one xmixer since the mixing is based on UTXO unspent output anyway. Indeed, that amount of VM would be hectic. I wonder if this will be possible... mixing involves continually creating new addresses that fragments are paid to/from, and so the inputs/outputs are multiple and not just a single 1000 XC address. Conceivably a mixer could get more transactions simply by having more coins available for mixing... and also more network speed, processing power, etc. Perhaps a single mixer could have 50k in it and be on a big server somewhere and thereby generate more revenue. However, I think this would centralise the network dangerously. On the other hand, I'm all for incentivising nodes to perform better. Quicker service, or fewer issues, etc. might be pretty important in a web 3.0/blockchain 2.0 scenario. How many wallet do you need one can run in a pc with 8 gb of ram and a regular internet connection.. lets say 25 to mbts |
|
|
|
|
cryptico
|
|
September 11, 2014, 06:19:25 PM |
|
But... The need to run like 100 to 200 or more wallets... Omg... The number of VM that's needed is insane.
I am just saying if you have inputs that are 1000 XC that it's automatically treated as one xmixer since the mixing is based on UTXO unspent output anyway.
Indeed, that amount of VM would be hectic. I wonder if this will be possible... mixing involves continually creating new addresses that fragments are paid to/from, and so the inputs/outputs are multiple and not just a single 1000 XC address. Conceivably a mixer could get more transactions simply by having more coins available for mixing... and also more network speed, processing power, etc. Perhaps a single mixer could have 50k in it and be on a big server somewhere and thereby generate more revenue. However, I think this would centralise the network dangerously. On the other hand, I'm all for incentivising nodes to perform better. Quicker service, or fewer issues, etc. might be pretty important in a web 3.0/blockchain 2.0 scenario. How many wallet do you need one can run in a pc with 8 gb of ram and a regular internet connection.. lets say 25 to 50 mbts... would be nice as well if one of the community more technical guys can do a video guide for the Installation process of the virtual machine and the setting up of the xnode.. |
|
|
|
|
KimmyF
|
|
September 11, 2014, 06:21:08 PM |
|
So when this REV2 is release we will be getting paid For our Xnodes now/X mixer whatever were calling it
Hello I was wondering if for the xnode you will need it to run in a single wallet with 1000 xc or can you have multiple xnodes in a single wallet putting 1000 xc in different addresses? Yes nodes with a dedicated address containing 1000 XC will receive revenue for trustlessly forwarding transactions. You can run as many wallets as you like. You'd need a virtualisation environment to do this on a single computer. Do the wallets still need separate public IP or just different VM and single IP is fine? Yes they still do. Run them all over TOR. Oh boy... I think I will need some more bandwidth. Might get some VM from azure or amazon or something... Heh. Bring on the tx revenue! Any chance Dan can make it so that say you have multiple input/address that adds to up more than 1000 XC to act as a xmixer rather than separate wallets? Say you have 50k in a wallet, then it acts like 50 Xmixers rather than needing to run 50 separate wallets?? I doubt that'll be a good idea in terms of the blockchain. It's not a good idea to run multiple copies of your wallet.dat and then spend from both. You can corrupt the wallet.dat. Xmixers will be continually receiving and sending fragments. Imagine how much higher the chances of corrupting your wallet would be with that! In any case, having several wallets, each with a smaller balance, is more secure. If I had 50k I'd certainly spread them around a bit. :-) But... The need to run like 100 to 200 or more wallets... Omg... The number of VM that's needed is insane. I am just saying if you have inputs that are 1000 XC that it's automatically treated as one xmixer since the mixing is based on UTXO unspent output anyway. Indeed, that amount of VM would be hectic. I wonder if this will be possible... mixing involves continually creating new addresses that fragments are paid to/from, and so the inputs/outputs are multiple and not just a single 1000 XC address. Conceivably a mixer could get more transactions simply by having more coins available for mixing... and also more network speed, processing power, etc. Perhaps a single mixer could have 50k in it and be on a big server somewhere and thereby generate more revenue. However, I think this would centralise the network dangerously. On the other hand, I'm all for incentivising nodes to perform better. Quicker service, or fewer issues, etc. might be pretty important in a web 3.0/blockchain 2.0 scenario. Atm I'm more looking for answers on two questions If I have a wallet with more then 1K coins, can I somehow isolate those 1K coins from the rest so they can stake? Like the previous version with the xmixer address. And what kind of revenue will be paid,? before people start mixing (and reset coinage all the time) they need to get more than just staking, eg over 34xc a year |
|
|
|
|
|
KimmyF
|
|
September 11, 2014, 06:23:00 PM |
|
But... The need to run like 100 to 200 or more wallets... Omg... The number of VM that's needed is insane.
I am just saying if you have inputs that are 1000 XC that it's automatically treated as one xmixer since the mixing is based on UTXO unspent output anyway.
Indeed, that amount of VM would be hectic. I wonder if this will be possible... mixing involves continually creating new addresses that fragments are paid to/from, and so the inputs/outputs are multiple and not just a single 1000 XC address. Conceivably a mixer could get more transactions simply by having more coins available for mixing... and also more network speed, processing power, etc. Perhaps a single mixer could have 50k in it and be on a big server somewhere and thereby generate more revenue. However, I think this would centralise the network dangerously. On the other hand, I'm all for incentivising nodes to perform better. Quicker service, or fewer issues, etc. might be pretty important in a web 3.0/blockchain 2.0 scenario. How many wallet do you need one can run in a pc with 8 gb of ram and a regular internet connection.. lets say 25 to 50 mbts As long as the xc port number is fixed, one wallet for each public IP address you got. Or start tricking things with tor |
|
|
|
|
five8andten
Member
Offline
Activity: 71
Merit: 10
|
|
September 11, 2014, 06:24:16 PM |
|
someone want to help me install the wallet on my raspberry pi model B+ ? I bought one for shits and giggles and am having trouble even installing the damn wallet haha.
|
HYP - pURCi5HeWabYfF3WoCuAWRCWz5G1hxuhMz
|
|
|
|
cryptico
|
|
September 11, 2014, 06:28:04 PM |
|
But... The need to run like 100 to 200 or more wallets... Omg... The number of VM that's needed is insane.
I am just saying if you have inputs that are 1000 XC that it's automatically treated as one xmixer since the mixing is based on UTXO unspent output anyway.
Indeed, that amount of VM would be hectic. I wonder if this will be possible... mixing involves continually creating new addresses that fragments are paid to/from, and so the inputs/outputs are multiple and not just a single 1000 XC address. Conceivably a mixer could get more transactions simply by having more coins available for mixing... and also more network speed, processing power, etc. Perhaps a single mixer could have 50k in it and be on a big server somewhere and thereby generate more revenue. However, I think this would centralise the network dangerously. On the other hand, I'm all for incentivising nodes to perform better. Quicker service, or fewer issues, etc. might be pretty important in a web 3.0/blockchain 2.0 scenario. How many wallet do you need one can run in a pc with 8 gb of ram and a regular internet connection.. lets say 25 to 50 mbts As long as the xc port number is fixed, one wallet for each public IP address you got. Or start tricking things with tor Yes what I mean that all virtual machines will need at least one GB of ram to run so I suppose max 8 wallets but it might be less |
|
|
|
|
atcsecure
|
|
September 11, 2014, 06:48:46 PM |
|
Does running an Xnode have a big influence on your Internet speed?
Running an XNode + Mixer would increase your internet traffic but not by a noticeable amount |
Join the revolution - XC - Decentralized Trustless Multi-Node Private Transactions
|
|
|
|
atcsecure
|
|
September 11, 2014, 06:50:20 PM |
|
XC MultiPool Update -
I've disabled 42Coin as its hashrate is too high for the MP at this time. Profitability stats have been looking good
scrypt is 0.00049709 BTC/day per Mh/s
x11 is 0.00020984 BTC/day per Mh/s
Dan
|
Join the revolution - XC - Decentralized Trustless Multi-Node Private Transactions
|
|
|
synechist
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market
|
|
September 11, 2014, 06:53:51 PM |
|
So when this REV2 is release we will be getting paid For our Xnodes now/X mixer whatever were calling it
Hello I was wondering if for the xnode you will need it to run in a single wallet with 1000 xc or can you have multiple xnodes in a single wallet putting 1000 xc in different addresses? Yes nodes with a dedicated address containing 1000 XC will receive revenue for trustlessly forwarding transactions. You can run as many wallets as you like. You'd need a virtualisation environment to do this on a single computer. Do the wallets still need separate public IP or just different VM and single IP is fine? Yes they still do. Run them all over TOR. Oh boy... I think I will need some more bandwidth. Might get some VM from azure or amazon or something... Heh. Bring on the tx revenue! Any chance Dan can make it so that say you have multiple input/address that adds to up more than 1000 XC to act as a xmixer rather than separate wallets? Say you have 50k in a wallet, then it acts like 50 Xmixers rather than needing to run 50 separate wallets?? I doubt that'll be a good idea in terms of the blockchain. It's not a good idea to run multiple copies of your wallet.dat and then spend from both. You can corrupt the wallet.dat. Xmixers will be continually receiving and sending fragments. Imagine how much higher the chances of corrupting your wallet would be with that! In any case, having several wallets, each with a smaller balance, is more secure. If I had 50k I'd certainly spread them around a bit. :-) But... The need to run like 100 to 200 or more wallets... Omg... The number of VM that's needed is insane. I am just saying if you have inputs that are 1000 XC that it's automatically treated as one xmixer since the mixing is based on UTXO unspent output anyway. Indeed, that amount of VM would be hectic. I wonder if this will be possible... mixing involves continually creating new addresses that fragments are paid to/from, and so the inputs/outputs are multiple and not just a single 1000 XC address. Conceivably a mixer could get more transactions simply by having more coins available for mixing... and also more network speed, processing power, etc. Perhaps a single mixer could have 50k in it and be on a big server somewhere and thereby generate more revenue. However, I think this would centralise the network dangerously. On the other hand, I'm all for incentivising nodes to perform better. Quicker service, or fewer issues, etc. might be pretty important in a web 3.0/blockchain 2.0 scenario. Atm I'm more looking for answers on two questions If I have a wallet with more then 1K coins, can I somehow isolate those 1K coins from the rest so they can stake? Like the previous version with the xmixer address. And what kind of revenue will be paid,? before people start mixing (and reset coinage all the time) they need to get more than just staking, eg over 34xc a year At the moment, since your 1000 XC will be fragmenting and moving from address to address all the time, you won't be able to isolate your other balances from the coins you use for mixing. So you'll need to keep a personal wallet.dat, and a separate wallet.dat for a mixing node. You're right that coin-age will reset all the time, and so you won't stake your 1000 XC. It will be more profitable to use your 1000 XC to trustlessly forward transactions. I don't have figures on what the revenues will be at this stage. We'll release those details soon. |
Co-Founder, the Blocknet
|
|
|
|
tr8kr
|
|
September 11, 2014, 07:00:03 PM |
|
Atm I'm more looking for answers on two questions
If I have a wallet with more then 1K coins, can I somehow isolate those 1K coins from the rest so they can stake? Like the previous version with the xmixer address.
And what kind of revenue will be paid,?
before people start mixing (and reset coinage all the time) they need to get more than just staking, eg over 34xc a year
http://xctalk.com/index.php?/topic/71-xnode-and-the-incentive-to-run-it/Sometime ago i was speaking of this incentive to run a xnode VS staking at 3,33% , i was imagining a system that gradualy increase the possible number of transaction of a xnode mixer based on the reserve balance with a maximal 1000xc by wallet. The example was with 0.01 of fee by transaction perhaps its too much i dont know but the idea behind was to let's small holder of XC to work like a xnode mixer increasing drastically the potential of xnode mixer running. |
|
|
|
|
|
tr8kr
|
|
September 11, 2014, 07:07:30 PM |
|
And for privacy perhaps using multiple degree of privacy each with a cost like "Simple degree of privacy normal fee but quick" , "Intermediate degree of privacy fee increased like .001" and "Maximal privacy fee increased like 0.01 but slow".
But i always think that XC must be used all the time with this privacy system at some degree , if you want no privacy you can use BTC.
BTC>Credit card XC>Cash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
sugarboy321
|
|
September 11, 2014, 07:50:18 PM |
|
So when this REV2 is release we will be getting paid For our Xnodes now/X mixer whatever were calling it
Hello I was wondering if for the xnode you will need it to run in a single wallet with 1000 xc or can you have multiple xnodes in a single wallet putting 1000 xc in different addresses? Yes nodes with a dedicated address containing 1000 XC will receive revenue for trustlessly forwarding transactions. You can run as many wallets as you like. You'd need a virtualisation environment to do this on a single computer. As long as you bought the TOR stick you should be ok? |
|
|
|
|
|
