Topic: [ANN][BMR] Bitmonero - a new coin based on CryptoNote technology - LAUNCHED - page 25. (Read 68802 times)
April 15, 2014, 04:29:48 PM
Has there been anything new about this coin? Has it been put on hold or is it still schedule for release. Also a name?
April 14, 2014, 08:58:11 AM
Hey thankful, any update on this?
By the way, I agree with x0rcist that maybe you could just block time to change after a certain block height. 1 minute in the solo mining phase (~1 month) and 2-2.5 minutes afterwards.
By the way, I agree with x0rcist that maybe you could just block time to change after a certain block height. 1 minute in the solo mining phase (~1 month) and 2-2.5 minutes afterwards.
April 13, 2014, 02:42:17 AM
thankful for today -
I would be thankful if you stopped creating shitcoins. Thanks!
"fudbuster" - a one day-old account going around calling everything "shitcoin".I would be thankful if you stopped creating shitcoins. Thanks!
Do you even understand what this coin is? Probably not - I'm betting you're a teenager based on the depth of these posts.
April 12, 2014, 09:24:13 PM
thankful for today -
I would be thankful if you stopped creating shitcoins. Thanks!
I would be thankful if you stopped creating shitcoins. Thanks!
April 12, 2014, 09:11:10 PM
@ OP: Pls take your time to discuss your project thoroughly before you start implementing! If this fork is made in a rush, in a rush it will be forgotten.
Pls take time to think about the best ways to do what you do. Thats all I ask for.
Good luck!
Pls take time to think about the best ways to do what you do. Thats all I ask for.
Good luck!
April 10, 2014, 02:36:59 PM
It also influences the chance to get block in solomining: with the same total hashrate it's twice easier to find block with 60 sec block target than with 120 secs. Solo mining gives decentralization. This way faster blocks lead to more decentralized network in the beginning.
From another point of view faster block are smaller (less transactions per block). Small blocks are easier to propagate through network.
From another point of view faster block are smaller (less transactions per block). Small blocks are easier to propagate through network.
You raise an interesting question.
I've seen the argument that faster block times increase centralization because of orphans. But it is true that the blocks will be smaller so the correct comparison is orphans with twice the block time and double the block size (plus header) versus half the block time and half the block size (plus header). I don't think I've seen that comparison.
Also, any coin that is successful wont be feasible to solo mine eventually. The orphan effect has to dominate.
I agree. It's a valid point that shorter block times will increase a solo miner's chances of finding a block, but even with a cpu-only coin it's only a matter of time before pooling becomes a necessity. At that point the shorter block time yields no benefit to the miners, but you're still left with the additional orphan blocks and wasted work.
April 10, 2014, 02:11:28 PM
It also influences the chance to get block in solomining: with the same total hashrate it's twice easier to find block with 60 sec block target than with 120 secs. Solo mining gives decentralization. This way faster blocks lead to more decentralized network in the beginning.
From another point of view faster block are smaller (less transactions per block). Small blocks are easier to propagate through network.
From another point of view faster block are smaller (less transactions per block). Small blocks are easier to propagate through network.
You raise an interesting question.
I've seen the argument that faster block times increase centralization because of orphans. But it is true that the blocks will be smaller so the correct comparison is orphans with twice the block time and double the block size (plus header) versus half the block time and half the block size (plus header). I don't think I've seen that comparison.
Also, any coin that is successful wont be feasible to solo mine eventually. The orphan effect has to dominate.
April 10, 2014, 01:06:03 PM
I honestly don't see the advantage of bringing the block time down to 1 minute. You're ultimately looking at increasing orphan blocks and decreasing hash power, and all you get is a feature that looks great on paper but has little purpose. I wouldn't mess with it. Apparently the BCN devs wanted 5-10 minute block times but settled on 2 minutes after lengthy disputes. Their decision is explained in more detail here:
https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=20
https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=20
I agree. If 2 minutes isn't fast enough for a particular transaction, neither is 1 minute. So there's no point chasing this particular metric and 2 minutes seems like a reasonable compromise.
Block target isn't only about transaction speed.
It also influences the chance to get block in solomining: with the same total hashrate it's twice easier to find block with 60 sec block target than with 120 secs. Solo mining gives decentralization. This way faster blocks lead to more decentralized network in the beginning.
From another point of view faster block are smaller (less transactions per block). Small blocks are easier to propagate through network.
April 10, 2014, 12:59:58 PM
oh ,I can translate into chinese.
This would be great!
April 10, 2014, 11:59:33 AM
oh ,I can translate into chinese.
April 10, 2014, 11:10:41 AM
I honestly don't see the advantage of bringing the block time down to 1 minute. You're ultimately looking at increasing orphan blocks and decreasing hash power, and all you get is a feature that looks great on paper but has little purpose. I wouldn't mess with it. Apparently the BCN devs wanted 5-10 minute block times but settled on 2 minutes after lengthy disputes. Their decision is explained in more detail here:
https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=20
https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=20
I agree. If 2 minutes isn't fast enough for a particular transaction, neither is 1 minute. So there's no point chasing this particular metric and 2 minutes seems like a reasonable compromise.
April 10, 2014, 12:16:21 AM
I honestly don't see the advantage of bringing the block time down to 1 minute. You're ultimately looking at increasing orphan blocks and decreasing hash power, and all you get is a feature that looks great on paper but has little purpose. I wouldn't mess with it. Apparently the BCN devs wanted 5-10 minute block times but settled on 2 minutes after lengthy disputes. Their decision is explained in more detail here:
https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=20
https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=20
April 09, 2014, 04:44:44 PM
I'm not sure either is a good idea. With a BTC-like model if you end up with high coin values then people then want to switch to mBTC or uBTC because >2 digits after the decimal are hard to deal with.
True, but if the decimal is changed to a max of two then you need to have more max supply in my opinion. Im not a prophet or supporter of a high coin value when there can be more coins and serve the same purpose.
If you don't change the atomic units you can put the decimal wherever you want. It's a totally arbitrary convention. I'm arguing that a model like BTC that starts out with small (2 digit) reward units ends up with small fractions of a unit for ordinary transactions if the coin becomes widely adopted and gains in value. This seems not to be a widely-liked attribute of BTC.
April 09, 2014, 04:41:29 PM
I'm not sure either is a good idea. With a BTC-like model if you end up with high coin values then people then want to switch to mBTC or uBTC because >2 digits after the decimal are hard to deal with.
True, but if the decimal is changed to a max of two then you need to have more max supply in my opinion. Im not a prophet or full time supporter of a high coin value when there can be more coins and serve the same purpose. Also thinking about adoption, a max of 2 decimals would make more sense, but then im only talking from an adoptive standpoint for the masses. One thing i learned is Keep It Simple Stupid
April 09, 2014, 04:37:01 PM
I will be full supporting this.
Did you think about just changing the 2^64 parm to something like 2^56 and keep the Atomic Unit/Decimal in place? I dont see proper a reason on changing the decimal point?
Did you think about just changing the 2^64 parm to something like 2^56 and keep the Atomic Unit/Decimal in place? I dont see proper a reason on changing the decimal point?
I'm not sure either is a good idea. With a BTC-like model if you end up with high coin values then people then want to switch to mBTC or uBTC because >2 digits after the decimal are hard to deal with.
In fact I say avoid changing things just to change them.
There are some (potentially) good reasons for changing the reward schedule and for rejecting the legitimacy of the dark web premine unless they want to come out of hiding and show us why their coin is worth adopting and is not just a premine.
The rest I don't really see a need to change at all. Less code and design changes, less risk of unforeseen issues and bugs. The existing code seems to be somewhat well tested.
April 09, 2014, 04:32:11 PM
Does this coin have any new, revolutionary idea? Why does one use it instead of btc/ltc?
The coin is not a revolutionary new idea, but its based on a revolutionary idea called cryptonote (https://cryptonote.org/inside.php). Also the fact that cryptonote/bytecoin was hidden deep for the last few years and was being mined by a "big" unknown community the fork would give people a fair start on this new technology.
April 09, 2014, 04:30:04 PM
Does this coin have any new, revolutionary idea? Why does one use it instead of btc/ltc?
It's supposedly anonymous thanks to the implementation of ring signatures. Significantly more robust and decentralized than CoinJoin, if it works. April 09, 2014, 04:26:52 PM
Does this coin have any new, revolutionary idea? Why does one use it instead of btc/ltc?
April 09, 2014, 04:21:26 PM
Excellent. Can we vote on the name? 
Is there a rationale for sticking with the CryptoNite hashing algo? Some issues I pointed out before: 1) the CPU mining phase is prone to botnets 2) Someone will inevitably develop a GPU miner and it's in their interest not to release it, creating a fairness problem. (I'd personally prefer X11, because it's CPU+GPU and draws much less power than scrypt.)
edit: I actually can't find anything on this algo. Is this even a sound hashing function with a low probability of being cracked in the future? Most of the algos that the crypto community has been using are well-established and created by professionals and researchers (like the NIST finalists).
8. Probably merged mining with Bytecoin. This needs a lot of work to be done :-/
Is there a rationale for sticking with the CryptoNite hashing algo? Some issues I pointed out before: 1) the CPU mining phase is prone to botnets 2) Someone will inevitably develop a GPU miner and it's in their interest not to release it, creating a fairness problem. (I'd personally prefer X11, because it's CPU+GPU and draws much less power than scrypt.)
edit: I actually can't find anything on this algo. Is this even a sound hashing function with a low probability of being cracked in the future? Most of the algos that the crypto community has been using are well-established and created by professionals and researchers (like the NIST finalists).
April 09, 2014, 04:10:12 PM
how about wallet with gui not only with command line?))
Jump to: