Bitcoin Forum
February 17, 2019, 11:03:30 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 [119] 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 ... 291 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] AEON [2018-11-30: update to 0.12.7.0+ ASAP; 0.12.8.0 on Windows]  (Read 591025 times)
muchoman
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 466
Merit: 250


View Profile
November 02, 2015, 08:41:00 PM
 #2361

Hi, I have some problem to start the miner aeon_gpu_miner_149debb, I get thise message: Error -1 when calling clGetDeviceIDs for number of device.

Kminer and Claymore miner for cryptonight algo works fine!

Sapphire 280x
Catalyst version 15.8 beta

Please help Sad

Uninstall Intel video drivers, disable integrated graphics from bios first, worked for me.
1550401410
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550401410

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1550401410
Reply with quote  #2

1550401410
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Arux
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 500
Merit: 500



View Profile
November 02, 2015, 08:45:16 PM
 #2362

and check opencl info with clinfo.exe
typically at C:\Program Files (x86)\AMD APP SDK\3.0\bin\x86_64

Arux
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 500
Merit: 500



View Profile
November 02, 2015, 09:05:52 PM
 #2363

i finished a test of my windows binary (aeon_gpu_miner_149debb.zip) on my pool

miner started: 2015-11-01 00:30:00
last share sent: 2015-11-02 18:30:00
the miner didn't crash and still connect to the pool but the gpu is not hashing anymore (card is cold, no power drain)
total : 43h of hashing.

for unknown reason, i was banned 4 times
Code:
2015-11-01 02:38:11 (Thread 1) Banned Wmxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
2015-11-01 05:36:04 (Thread 1) Banned Wmxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
2015-11-01 22:47:30 (Thread 1) Banned Wmxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
2015-11-02 15:53:19 (Thread 1) Banned Wmxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
dunno if error is on my side.

accepted rate was around ~91%

americanpegasus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
November 03, 2015, 01:23:24 AM
 #2364

For those involved in the Aeon debate about enabling actual inflation, smooth has proposed the easiest and most socially acceptable solution would be just to leave in the first year's inflation rate (~0.85%) after the initial issue.  
  
This ensures we grow at a different pace than Monero (for better or worse), gives us unique identity, and solves the issue of having actual inflation without any possible fears of it being too high of a number.  Also, since this amount of inflation was already in the cards to begin with (after forking from Monero) this doesn't really alter the social contract.
  
On a long enough time span, this would result in significantly more Aeon being created each year vs. Monero, but the total values will stay relatively comparative for many years before this happens.  
  
As far as the idea for smart inflation, it sounds like a great idea (as did digital cash initially in the 80's and 90's) but sounds like it might need some new brilliant combination of mathematics plus some vetting on an experimental blockchain before it could be considered to be incorporated into one of the major cryptonotes.

Account is back under control of the real AmericanPegasus.
opennux
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 231
Merit: 100


View Profile
November 03, 2015, 01:55:20 AM
 #2365

For those involved in the Aeon debate about enabling actual inflation, smooth has proposed the easiest and most socially acceptable solution would be just to leave in the first year's inflation rate (~0.85%) after the initial issue.  
  
This ensures we grow at a different pace than Monero (for better or worse), gives us unique identity, and solves the issue of having actual inflation without any possible fears of it being too high of a number.  Also, since this amount of inflation was already in the cards to begin with (after forking from Monero) this doesn't really alter the social contract.
  
On a long enough time span, this would result in significantly more Aeon being created each year vs. Monero, but the total values will stay relatively comparative for many years before this happens.  
  
As far as the idea for smart inflation, it sounds like a great idea (as did digital cash initially in the 80's and 90's) but sounds like it might need some new brilliant combination of mathematics plus some vetting on an experimental blockchain before it could be considered to be incorporated into one of the major cryptonotes.

I'm in much more agreement with Johnny Mnemonic here. I can see the usefulness in "smart inflation" though.

Just remember that you are applying existing (and arguably failed) economics to brand new technology.

Did increased inflation and/or lowered/negative interest rates help anything ever? Was there ever a cause correlation?

Exponential growth is a thing. Fixing the inflation rate at a % of total emission per year vs. 0.3 per block is significantly different.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1077



View Profile
November 03, 2015, 02:00:12 AM
 #2366

For those involved in the Aeon debate about enabling actual inflation, smooth has proposed the easiest and most socially acceptable solution would be just to leave in the first year's inflation rate (~0.85%) after the initial issue. 
 
This ensures we grow at a different pace than Monero (for better or worse), gives us unique identity, and solves the issue of having actual inflation without any possible fears of it being too high of a number.  Also, since this amount of inflation was already in the cards to begin with (after forking from Monero) this doesn't really alter the social contract.
 
On a long enough time span, this would result in significantly more Aeon being created each year vs. Monero, but the total values will stay relatively comparative for many years before this happens. 
 
As far as the idea for smart inflation, it sounds like a great idea (as did digital cash initially in the 80's and 90's) but sounds like it might need some new brilliant combination of mathematics plus some vetting on an experimental blockchain before it could be considered to be incorporated into one of the major cryptonotes.

I'm in much more agreement with Johnny Mnemonic here. I can see the usefulness in "smart inflation" though.

Just remember that you are applying existing (and arguably failed) economics to brand new technology.

Did increased inflation and/or lowered/negative interest rates help anything ever? Was there ever a cause correlation?

Exponential growth is a thing. Fixing the inflation rate at a % of total emission per year vs. 0.3 per block is significantly different.

I'm a little confused.

What did JM say that you agree with?

In your last sentence what are you suggesting?
DrkLvr_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 724
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 03, 2015, 02:09:34 AM
 #2367

0.85% fixed sounds like a fine solution to me.

In my opinion "smart inflation" is introducing complexity and subjectivity where none is needed

Exponential inflation is a thing, but consider:

year 1: 18,000,000 x 0.0085 = 153,000 emitted (419.17 coins per day)
year 2: 18,153,000 x 0.0085 = 154,300.5 emitted (422.74 coins per day)

Hardly unreasonable.. you could add other fixed parameters to control longer term inflation (100+ years..) for example.. reduce the inflation rate by 1.618% every 5 years.. (after year 5 inflation drops from 0.85% to 0.836247% per year)
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250



View Profile
November 03, 2015, 02:34:08 AM
Last edit: November 03, 2015, 04:33:39 AM by kazuki49
 #2368

0.85% fixed sounds like a fine solution to me.

year 1: 18,000,000 x 0.0085 = 153,000 emitted (419.17 coins per day)
year 2: 18,153,000 x 0.0085 = 154,300.5 emitted (422.74 coins per day)


+1, this or leave as it is. But for practical purposes it should be 0.75% or even 0.5% (0.9%1% is ok too).
opennux
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 231
Merit: 100


View Profile
November 03, 2015, 04:38:34 AM
 #2369

For those involved in the Aeon debate about enabling actual inflation, smooth has proposed the easiest and most socially acceptable solution would be just to leave in the first year's inflation rate (~0.85%) after the initial issue. 
 
This ensures we grow at a different pace than Monero (for better or worse), gives us unique identity, and solves the issue of having actual inflation without any possible fears of it being too high of a number.  Also, since this amount of inflation was already in the cards to begin with (after forking from Monero) this doesn't really alter the social contract.
 
On a long enough time span, this would result in significantly more Aeon being created each year vs. Monero, but the total values will stay relatively comparative for many years before this happens. 
 
As far as the idea for smart inflation, it sounds like a great idea (as did digital cash initially in the 80's and 90's) but sounds like it might need some new brilliant combination of mathematics plus some vetting on an experimental blockchain before it could be considered to be incorporated into one of the major cryptonotes.

I'm in much more agreement with Johnny Mnemonic here. I can see the usefulness in "smart inflation" though.

Just remember that you are applying existing (and arguably failed) economics to brand new technology.

Did increased inflation and/or lowered/negative interest rates help anything ever? Was there ever a cause correlation?

Exponential growth is a thing. Fixing the inflation rate at a % of total emission per year vs. 0.3 per block is significantly different.

I'm a little confused.

What did JM say that you agree with?

In your last sentence what are you suggesting?


I don't think you are confused. I think I am the one that is confused.  Cheesy

I tend to agree with what he said here: (Note it's a quote from 2 replies of his). And I put in a disclaimer of "tend to".

Quote
It would be great to see a "smart inflation" of sorts, where the rate of debasement is determined somehow by the transaction volume. This way, the money supply grows in proportion with the network.

However, "moar inflation" does not automatically mean more spending. You need enough to disincentivize hodling vs the opportunity risk of investing in productivity. Beyond that there's little incentive to spend (until you get to hyperinflation territory).

In my last sentence I am saying there is a difference between a % inflation rate and a fixed block reward - where the former eventually will grow the money-supply at a rapid pace. There was no suggestion to be honest.

DrkLvr_ makes a sound suggestion with lowering the % each year/period. I assume you would calculate a per block percentage, so the "compounded interest" would not only be per year, but would be from each block reward.

And maybe the percentages are so low compared to the time-line we are looking at.


serpintine101
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 58
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 03, 2015, 03:17:28 PM
 #2370

Hey ive been mining on mooos pool since yesterday and i guess a few hours ago i got disconnected. Wont let me connect for some reason. Im using fixed diff. I can connect to arux pool just fine. Any thoughts?
serpintine101
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 58
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 03, 2015, 03:36:47 PM
 #2371

Nvm im reconnected but it seems now all the shares from my amd card are being rejected. Wonder why
Nxtblg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
November 03, 2015, 04:56:47 PM
 #2372

i think we hashed out something like this before... do you remember? maybe it was something related.

I might have missed this discussed earlier - please forgive me for being wrapped up in something else atm - but money velocity for XMR, AEON & others: doesn't it correlate to the statistical untraceability of transactions? Iow: the more txs, the more mixed-up they are for a given mixin level?






██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▄▄▄███████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀▀▀████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████





...INTRODUCING WAVES........
...ULTIMATE ASSET/CUSTOM TOKEN BLOCKCHAIN PLATFORM...






americanpegasus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
November 03, 2015, 04:58:18 PM
 #2373


DrkLvr_ makes a sound suggestion with lowering the % each year/period. I assume you would calculate a per block percentage, so the "compounded interest" would not only be per year, but would be from each block reward.

And maybe the percentages are so low compared to the time-line we are looking at.

 
  
If you're going to go into reducing the %'s each year and other complicated mechanisms, you might as well just remain at a fixed block reward.  The "Keep it simple principle" holds true here.  In my mind it's either a low fixed rate (inflationary), or a fixed block reward (disinflationary).  I think we should choose between those two.  
  
I'm fine with the fixed blocks that were planned to be implemented, but if we want to move to 0.75% - 0.9% fixed rate, I'd be OK with that too.

Account is back under control of the real AmericanPegasus.
MoneroMooo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1280
Merit: 1001


View Profile
November 03, 2015, 05:10:28 PM
 #2374

Nvm im reconnected but it seems now all the shares from my amd card are being rejected. Wonder why

It looks like you're sending extremely low diff shares. Range 1 to 15. It looks like you're sending every single hash, in fact. That'd mean you get a flood of messages. If you don't, then possibly the CPU part doesn't send what the GPU found...



░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████▄▄
░░░░░░░░░▄▄░░░░░░░░░████████
░░░░░▄▄██████▄▄░░░░░███████████▄▄
░▄▄██████████████▄▄███████████████▄
░▀▀██████████████▀▀░░░▀▀████████████
██▄▄▀▀██████▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░▀▀████████
██████▄▄▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀███████
████████░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░░░░░░░░▀▀███
████████░░░░░▄▄███████▄▄░░░░░███▄▄░░▀
████████░░░███████████████░░░███████▄
░░▀▀████░░░░░▀▀███████▀▀░░░░░████████
██▄▄░░▀▀░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░████████
██████▄▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄░░▀███████
████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄██████▄▄▀▀███
██████████▄▄░░░░▄▄██████████████▄▄
██████████████▄▄▀▀██████████████▀▀
░░▀▀████████████░░░░▀▀██████▀▀
░░░░░░▀▀████████░░░░░░░░▀▀
░░░░░░░░░▀▀██████
░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▀██
OATH

████▀
███▀  ▀
██▀  ▀
█▀  ▀
▀  ▀
▄  ▄
█▄  ▄
██▄  ▄
███▄  ▄
████▄


▀████
▀  ▀███
▀  ▀██
▀  ▀█
▀  ▀
▄  ▄
▄  ▄█
▄  ▄██
▄  ▄███
▄████


             ▄████▄▄   ▄
█▄          ██████████▀▄
███        ███████████▀
▐████▄     ██████████▌
▄▄██████▄▄▄▄█████████▌
▀████████████████████
  ▀█████████████████
  ▄▄███████████████
   ▀█████████████▀
    ▄▄█████████▀
▀▀██████████▀
    ▀▀▀▀▀


                   ▄▄████
              ▄▄████████▌
         ▄▄█████████▀███
    ▄▄██████████▀▀ ▄███▌
▄████████████▀▀  ▄█████
▀▀▀███████▀   ▄███████▌
      ██    ▄█████████
       █  ▄██████████▌
       █  ███████████
       █ ██▀ ▀██████▌
       ██▀     ▀████
                 ▀█▌


█▄▄              █▄▄
█████▄▄         ██████▄▄
████████       ████████ █
████████ ██   ████████ ██
████████ ███ ████████ ███
████████ ████ ██████ ████
████████ █████ ████ █████
████████ ▀█████ ██ ██████
████████    ▀▀██  ███████
▀███████         ▀███████
   ▀▀███            ▀▀███
       ▀                ▀
Factor0008
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 55
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 03, 2015, 06:11:57 PM
 #2375


DrkLvr_ makes a sound suggestion with lowering the % each year/period. I assume you would calculate a per block percentage, so the "compounded interest" would not only be per year, but would be from each block reward.

And maybe the percentages are so low compared to the time-line we are looking at.

 
  
If you're going to go into reducing the %'s each year and other complicated mechanisms, you might as well just remain at a fixed block reward.  The "Keep it simple principle" holds true here.  In my mind it's either a low fixed rate (inflationary), or a fixed block reward (disinflationary).  I think we should choose between those two.  
  
I'm fine with the fixed blocks that were planned to be implemented, but if we want to move to 0.75% - 0.9% fixed rate, I'd be OK with that too.

Pegasus, what about a "proof of share"?

Where would be only for a amount of shares submitted;
>3day at Arux pool with I5-3331cpu / R7 240 gpu. I got [4,841,899] of shares (didn't mined all the day long) #example

let's say the reward would be from 10kk shares to 30kk shares (every 5k the reward, that would cost a month mining to reach the max?)

that would "invite" new miners (For the amount of coins for the few blocks mining at the start), create new coins for the network and increase it's power.
Factor0008
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 55
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 03, 2015, 06:21:33 PM
 #2376

i finished a test of my windows binary (aeon_gpu_miner_149debb.zip) on my pool

miner started: 2015-11-01 00:30:00
last share sent: 2015-11-02 18:30:00
the miner didn't crash and still connect to the pool but the gpu is not hashing anymore (card is cold, no power drain)
total : 43h of hashing.

for unknown reason, i was banned 4 times
Code:
2015-11-01 02:38:11 (Thread 1) Banned Wmxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
2015-11-01 05:36:04 (Thread 1) Banned Wmxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
2015-11-01 22:47:30 (Thread 1) Banned Wmxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
2015-11-02 15:53:19 (Thread 1) Banned Wmxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
dunno if error is on my side.

accepted rate was around ~91%


Arux, yesterday when i was heading to bed found this
Code:
03:17:29 Got something: {"id":1, "jsonrpc":"2.0", "error":{"code":-1, "message":"Unauthenticaded"}}
03:17:29 Share rejected <<null>> 23/759 (2.89%)
03:17:29 Total Hashrate: 164.82H/s
03:17:32 Got sometthing: {"id":1, "jsonrpc":"2.0", "error":{"code":-1, "message":"Unauthenticaded"}}
03:17:32 Share rejected <<null>> 22/760 (2.89%)
03:17:32 Total Hashrate: 164.82H/s

i thought could be related about we talk so waited a bit more to confirm if i would get banned.
which i did.

I don't know if you already knew it was this error, but i'm posting here thinking it might help  Tongue
americanpegasus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
November 03, 2015, 07:22:33 PM
 #2377


Pegasus, what about a "proof of share"?

I am not a developer, just a community lead.  The technical insiders have made it pretty clear they will support either a fixed block reward or a fixed rate for Aeon, but not experimental or complex emissions (in order to preserve the social contract of Aeon).  
  
Other ideas are certainly encouraged, and if you look around you can find some easy tools online to generate Cryptonote coins. From there, with the proper coding abilities, you could implement any reward mechanism you like.  
  
But it feels like since a decision needs to be made quickly, that decision must be between two simple choices: fixed blocks or fixed rate.  
  
Also, I need to do some research into Boolberry.  Do they have a trailing block reward or are they pure hard capped deflationary?  If they have a hard cap on coins, then it makes the case for low inflation in Aeon all the stronger - that way there is an original Cryptonote fork with all three economic mechanisms: deflation, disinflation, and inflation.

Account is back under control of the real AmericanPegasus.
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250



View Profile
November 03, 2015, 07:43:55 PM
 #2378

Also, I need to do some research into Boolberry.  Do they have a trailing block reward or are they pure hard capped deflationary?  If they have a hard cap on coins, then it makes the case for low inflation in Aeon all the stronger - that way there is an original Cryptonote fork with all three economic mechanisms: deflation, disinflation, and inflation.

They are deflationary - and the dev gets 1% of all coins per block mined unless the miner bother to add a special flag, I don't have problem with this but it could easily mean trouble in the future (for the dev). They got lucky the emission is considerable slower than Monero and its making up for the lack of development (but it shows signs of not being completely abandoned).
americanpegasus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
November 03, 2015, 07:58:02 PM
 #2379

They are deflationary - and the dev gets 1% of all coins per block mined unless the miner bother to add a special flag, I don't have problem with this but it could easily mean trouble in the future (for the dev). They got lucky the emission is considerable slower than Monero and its making up for the lack of development (but it shows signs of not being completely abandoned).

I have mixed feelings about this.  On one hand, it is vastly superior to any IPO in existence, made even more valid by the fact that with a few additional bytes of code any miner is free to opt out.  
  
I believe that perhaps it is defendable if the collected funds go to a "development account" and not just to one person's wallet.  
  
Also, knowing that Boolberry is deflationary pushes my resolve on this issue farther.  
  
I humbly propose we should move to a fixed inflation rate, and the subject of discussion should be what rate is appropriate.  I feel like anything between 0.75% and 0.9% would be fine (but lean towards a nice crisp 0.9%)

Account is back under control of the real AmericanPegasus.
erok
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 1000


Avatars are overrated.


View Profile
November 03, 2015, 08:14:55 PM
 #2380

They are deflationary - and the dev gets 1% of all coins per block mined unless the miner bother to add a special flag, I don't have problem with this but it could easily mean trouble in the future (for the dev). They got lucky the emission is considerable slower than Monero and its making up for the lack of development (but it shows signs of not being completely abandoned).

I have mixed feelings about this.  On one hand, it is vastly superior to any IPO in existence, made even more valid by the fact that with a few additional bytes of code any miner is free to opt out.  
  
I believe that perhaps it is defendable if the collected funds go to a "development account" and not just to one person's wallet.  
  
Also, knowing that Boolberry is deflationary pushes my resolve on this issue farther.  
  
I humbly propose we should move to a fixed inflation rate, and the subject of discussion should be what rate is appropriate.  I feel like anything between 0.75% and 0.9% would be fine (but lean towards a nice crisp 0.9%)
Most currencies are 2-4% I think that a .75% rate would not be earthshattering and could give be the evergreen tree from the rear view mirror fresh smell. The fixed rate idea and deflationary theories are fundamentally flawed for crypto imho in many many ways including accidental and purposeful burning of currencies and network activity. I liked the idea before about having an algo that addresses that which controls a dynamic inflation rate... but yeah most countries are 2-4. Now hyperinflation is an interesting concept but when mixed with POS gives the ponzi feels. I dunno what is right but I think 0.75 wont burn the world to the ground, nor will it create a second earth. Run with it. GJ.

"the destruction of privacy widens the existing power imbalance between the ruling factions and everyone else" -- Julian Assange
Pages: « 1 ... 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 [119] 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 ... 291 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bitcointalk.org is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!