Can you run Monero miner through TOR? If yes, what change would need to made to the bat file on the opening page? I'm using Windows.
thanks
Topic: [ANN][MRO] Monero - an anonymous coin based on CryptoNote technology (Read 23565 times)
April 24, 2014, 07:38:54 PM
April 24, 2014, 07:32:19 PM
My personal opinion is that I will abandon the fork if merge mining is added. And then we can discuss a new fork. Until then I don't think Monero will be taken over by another fork.
Ditto on this. If the intention wasn't to provide a clearweb launched alternative to BCN, then I don't see a reason for this fork to exist. BCN is competition and miners should make a choice.
+1 Even at the expense of how much I already "invested" in this coin.
April 24, 2014, 07:23:23 PM
My personal opinion is that I will abandon the fork if merge mining is added. And then we can discuss a new fork. Until then I don't think Monero will be taken over by another fork.
Ditto on this. If the intention wasn't to provide a clearweb launched alternative to BCN, then I don't see a reason for this fork to exist. BCN is competition and miners should make a choice.
April 24, 2014, 07:14:57 PM
monero.cc is registered, website is forthcoming.
April 24, 2014, 07:09:21 PM
One minute blocks that are of size ~1 KB (most of the blocks right now) double the likelihood of a miner getting a block. Selfish mining only becomes a severe issue when blocksize becomes large. Very few tx are going through the network right now, and few reorgs have taken place.
Additionally, the network hash rate is now 4655 H/s. A Core i7 2600k does 14 H/s in Ubuntu 13.10 and would represent 0.3% of the network and thus get 4.32 blocks per day. Solo mining is for sure not out of the picture.
My personal opinion is that I will abandon the fork if merge mining is added. And then we can discuss a new fork. Until then I don't think Monero will be taken over by another fork.
Additionally, the network hash rate is now 4655 H/s. A Core i7 2600k does 14 H/s in Ubuntu 13.10 and would represent 0.3% of the network and thus get 4.32 blocks per day. Solo mining is for sure not out of the picture.
My personal opinion is that I will abandon the fork if merge mining is added. And then we can discuss a new fork. Until then I don't think Monero will be taken over by another fork.
April 24, 2014, 07:06:23 PM
If people want a pool, they can make one. There's no point in centralizing the network when it's just began, though. Surely you must feel this way.
It wouldn't centralize the network, at least not initially.The larger miners would still solo mine. The people with one little laptop would still get something, instead of getting nothing at all for days and quitting. I'm solo mining bytecoin even though its hash rate is twice this coin.
What centralizes a network is having the block target too short. Like one minute. Look at all the one minute coins, they are all dominated by one or two huge pools. Smaller pools can't compete because they orphan too much. And, yet, the target for this coin was changed from two minutes to one "for solo mining," which is patently absurd. Even one week into it, and solo mining is already chasing small miners away. Having a two minute (or longer) blocks with at least one pool would be far better.
Nobody involved with this coin seems to care about these sorts of fundamental issues, which is why I doubt this coin is the right vehicle. Its still early though, things may turn around, and yes there are talented team members. That is the one source of promise I see here.
April 24, 2014, 07:03:06 PM
I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin.
At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:
1. No GUI
2. No web site
3. Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
4. No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
5. No effective team behind it at launch
6. No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)
I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure.
I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.).
We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.
At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:
1. No GUI
2. No web site
3. Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
4. No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
5. No effective team behind it at launch
6. No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)
I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure.
I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.).
We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.
There's no point in fragmenting talent.
If you don't think merge mining is a good idea, I'd prefer we just not add it to the code.
Bitcoin had no web site or GUI either initially. Bitcoin-QT was the third Bitcoin client.
If people want a pool, they can make one. There's no point in centralizing the network when it's just began, though. Surely you must feel this way.
my vote is back to root
after all is that what crypto is all about ... isn't it ?
April 24, 2014, 06:59:15 PM
I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin.
At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:
1. No GUI
2. No web site
3. Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
4. No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
5. No effective team behind it at launch
6. No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)
I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure.
I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.).
We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.
At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:
1. No GUI
2. No web site
3. Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
4. No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
5. No effective team behind it at launch
6. No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)
I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure.
I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.).
We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.
There's no point in fragmenting talent.
If you don't think merge mining is a good idea, I'd prefer we just not add it to the code.
Bitcoin had no web site or GUI either initially. Bitcoin-QT was the third Bitcoin client.
If people want a pool, they can make one. There's no point in centralizing the network when it's just began, though. Surely you must feel this way.
April 24, 2014, 05:44:24 PM
That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.
Except that this is a relaunch and clone already. It's starting with two strikes against it on that basis alone. Add the other issues I outlined, and it is very questionable whether it can succeed, unless of course its intended goal is not to succeed on its own, but to poison the well against other bytecoin clones. Who would have the incentive to do that? Follow the money.
It was gaining on BCN in diff within a relatively short time, so it seems it was on target (currently 280k = 560k in BCN).
BCN is still growing as well. It is up to 1.2 million now.
If merged mining happens, (almost) everyone will just mine both. The difficulty on this coin will jump up to match BCN (in fact both will likely go higher since the hash rate will be combined) and again it is an instamine situation. (Those here the first week get the benefit of easy non-merged mining, everyone else does not.)
Comments were made on this thread about this not being yet another pump-and-dump alt. I think that could have been the case, but sadly, I don't really believe that it is.
my non tech fellow ... is it really anon
am I be able to buy my g19 now?
April 24, 2014, 05:35:30 PM
That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.
Except that this is a relaunch and clone already. It's starting with two strikes against it on that basis alone. Add the other issues I outlined, and it is very questionable whether it can succeed, unless of course its intended goal is not to succeed on its own, but to poison the well against other bytecoin clones. Who would have the incentive to do that? Follow the money.
It was gaining on BCN in diff within a relatively short time, so it seems it was on target (currently 280k = 560k in BCN).
BCN is still growing as well. It is up to 1.2 million now.
If merged mining happens, (almost) everyone will just mine both. The difficulty on this coin will jump up to match BCN (in fact both will likely go higher since the hash rate will be combined) and again it is an instamine situation. (Those here the first week get the benefit of easy non-merged mining, everyone else does not.)
Comments were made on this thread about this not being yet another pump-and-dump alt. I think that could have been the case, but sadly, I don't really believe that it is.
April 24, 2014, 05:27:03 PM
That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.
Except that this is a relaunch and clone already. It's starting with two strikes against it on that basis alone. Add the other issues I outlined, and it is very questionable whether it can succeed, unless of course its intended goal is not to succeed on its own, but to poison the well against other bytecoin clones. Who would have the incentive to do that? Follow the money.
It was gaining on BCN in diff within a relatively short time, so it seems it was on target (currently 280k = 560k in BCN). Will that change with a relaunch of a relaunch that has a website, GUI, and Mac binaries? Only one way to find out: someone get on it. It'd be especially interesting if this new coin was late enough that taco already had a GUI for MRO. I don't know how that would go, but I have a guess.
What need help with? I know webpage but limited with other programming skills
You can contact David Latapie. He was asking for help with this.
April 24, 2014, 05:25:29 PM
That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.
Except that this is a relaunch and clone already. It's starting with two strikes against it on that basis alone. Add the other issues I outlined, and it is very questionable whether it can succeed, unless of course its intended goal is not to succeed on its own, but to poison the well against other bytecoin clones. Who would have the incentive to do that? Follow the money.
It was gaining on BCN in diff within a relatively short time, so it seems it was on target (currently 280k = 560k in BCN). Will that change with a relaunch of a relaunch that has a website, GUI, and Mac binaries? Only one way to find out: someone get on it. It'd be especially interesting if this new coin was late enough that taco already had a GUI for MRO. I don't know how that would go, but I have a guess.
What need help with? I know webpage but limited with other programming skills
April 24, 2014, 05:16:35 PM
That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.
Except that this is a relaunch and clone already. It's starting with two strikes against it on that basis alone. Add the other issues I outlined, and it is very questionable whether it can succeed, unless of course its intended goal is not to succeed on its own, but to poison the well against other bytecoin clones. Who would have the incentive to do that? Follow the money.
It was gaining on BCN in diff within a relatively short time, so it seems it was on target (currently 280k = 560k in BCN). Will that change with a relaunch of a relaunch that has a website, GUI, and Mac binaries? Only one way to find out: someone get on it. It'd be especially interesting if this new coin was late enough that taco already had a GUI for MRO. I don't know how that would go, but I have a guess.
April 24, 2014, 05:02:10 PM
That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.
Except that this is a relaunch and clone already. It's starting with two strikes against it on that basis alone. Add the other issues I outlined, and it is very questionable whether it can succeed, unless of course its intended goal is not to succeed on its own, but to poison the well against other bytecoin clones. Who would have the incentive to do that? Follow the money.
April 24, 2014, 04:57:10 PM
I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin.
At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:
1. No GUI
2. No web site
3. Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
4. No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
5. No effective team behind it at launch
6. No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)
I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure.
I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.).
We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.
The website does exist now, it's just not particularly informative yet.
But, I agree that thankful_for_today has severely mislead everyone by stating the emission was "close to Bitcoin's" (if he's denying that /2 rather than /4 emission schedule was unintentional, as he seems to be). I'm also against BCN merge mining. It works against the goal of overtaking BCN and if that's not a goal, I don't know what we're even doing here. I'll dedicate my meagre mining to voting against that.That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.
April 24, 2014, 04:46:06 PM
So what you are saying is this coin will have a reward curve that is in fact nothing at all like bitcoin (which has neither such fast emission nor a fixed final reward)? Fair enough, but not as advertised.
Yeah, well. We need to change the front page to reflect this if we can all agree on it.
We should post the emissions curve and the height and value that subsidy will be locked in to.
In my opinion this is the least disruptive thing we can do at the moment, and should ensure that the fork continues to be mineable in about 8 years time without relying on fees to secure it (which I think you agree is a bad idea).
Obviously not what either of us intended to be getting when we started mining, but I don't think there is a long term harm in the 1 minute blocktime and current subsidy schedule.
I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin.
At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:
1. No GUI
2. No web site
3. Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
4. No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
5. No effective team behind it at launch
6. No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)
I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure.
I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.).
We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.
April 24, 2014, 04:39:22 PM
I already saw people at voting-system just following the crowd ( such as; check where the majority is going to and follow the trend, because I know am not expert )
so I am not expert either and I'm not really sure the implications among options ... but as Albert Einstein quoted... If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
That's why I asked for explanations and got them on IRC. Go vote there #bitmonera @freenode.so I am not expert either and I'm not really sure the implications among options ... but as Albert Einstein quoted... If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
yep thanks for channel .. but what IP:PORT ? sorry I am old school not really believe in DNS table ...
April 24, 2014, 04:32:04 PM
So what you are saying is this coin will have a reward curve that is in fact nothing at all like bitcoin (which has neither such fast emission nor a fixed final reward)? Fair enough, but not as advertised.
Yeah, well. We need to change the front page to reflect this if we can all agree on it.
We should post the emissions curve and the height and value that subsidy will be locked in to.
In my opinion this is the least disruptive thing we can do at the moment, and should ensure that the fork continues to be mineable and secure in about 8 years time without relying on fees to secure it (which I think you agree is a bad idea).
It's unlikely that uint64 values will ever overflow given these numbers, and we can make it so that the max coins at any address is 2^64-1 (so if you have more you just split them up).
Obviously not what either of us intended to be getting when we started mining, but I don't think there is a long term harm in the 1 minute blocktime and current subsidy schedule.
April 24, 2014, 04:30:17 PM
I already saw people at voting-system just following the crowd ( such as; check where the majority is going to and follow the trend, because I know am not expert )
so I am not expert either and I'm not really sure the implications among options ... but as Albert Einstein quoted... If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
That's why I asked for explanations and got them on IRC. Go vote there #bitmonera @freenode. so I am not expert either and I'm not really sure the implications among options ... but as Albert Einstein quoted... If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
April 24, 2014, 04:27:30 PM
We have added a poll in the freenode IRC room
"Poll #2: "Emission future of Monero, please vote!!" started by stickh3ad. Options: #1: "Keep emission like now"; #2: "Keep emission but change blocktime and final reward"; #3: "Keep emission but change blocktime"; #4: "Keep emission but change final reward"; #5: "Change emission"; #6: "Change emission and block time"; #7: "Change emission and block time and final reward"
To vote type
Where # is what you vote for.
Right now everyone is voting for #4, including me.
"Poll #2: "Emission future of Monero, please vote!!" started by stickh3ad. Options: #1: "Keep emission like now"; #2: "Keep emission but change blocktime and final reward"; #3: "Keep emission but change blocktime"; #4: "Keep emission but change final reward"; #5: "Change emission"; #6: "Change emission and block time"; #7: "Change emission and block time and final reward"
To vote type
Code:
vote 2 #
Where # is what you vote for.
Right now everyone is voting for #4, including me.
COOL !!!
but,
I already saw people at voting-system just following the crowd ( such as; check where the majority is going to and follow the trend, because I know am not expert )
so I am not expert either and I'm not really sure the implications among options ... but as Albert Einstein quoted... If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Jump to: