Topic: [ANN][OMBRE] Cryptonote privacy coin - page 15. (Read 31035 times)

Wow another cryptonote coin

In you shedule about emission  https://www.ombre.io/emission.jpg
I see what start block reward must bee ~20 coins and and gradually grow.

But at start block reward was 90.02 and now too

Why so

Hi,
No exchange yet ?

It seems like a good project, I will study it carefully!

We were transparent since the beginning and we actively patch any issues... It's not something the miners know or not.

Hi everyone!

I just wanted to share my new Ombre pool: ombre.bathmatminingpools.com

Some features:
 - PPLNS
 - Low fees (0.5%)
 - Low min payout (1 IPBC)
 - Payouts every hour
 - Individual worker stats
 - Email if worker(s) stop
 - Supports xmr-node-proxy

Thanks for looking!

OMB is now on mineallcrypto.com. Enjoy!


Mining Ombre with cryptnight algo :

---

• Stratum  : pool.mineallcrypto.com:7456
• User     : YOUR_OMB_ADDRESS
• Password : x

mineAllCrypto info :

---

• Website     : mineallcrypto.com/ombre
• Web Mining  : Supported!
• Fee         : 1.00 %

Mining software :

---

• GPU Nvidia ccminer : https://github.com/tpruvot/ccminer/releases
• GPU AMD sgminer    : https://github.com/nicehash/sgminer/releases
• CPUMiner           : https://github.com/tpruvot/cpuminer-multi/releases

Examples of command line :

---

• Nvidia   : ccminer.exe -a cryptonight -o stratum+tcp://pool.mineallcrypto.com:7456 -u cashWRFm8Wk1kLpt8FW8To6kMJkBxjt2mdCRVaufULjv3jbCzTNhEo6TcoQdWTepQWScMaeNXSnt3GL X154kfAwZ8NaeTnz8zo -p x
• AMD      : sgminer.exe --algorithm cryptonight -o stratum+tcp://pool.mineallcrypto.com:7456 -u cashWRFm8Wk1kLpt8FW8To6kMJkBxjt2mdCRVaufULjv3jbCzTNhEo6TcoQdWTepQWScMaeNXSnt3GL X154kfAwZ8NaeTnz8zo -p x

Funny how a coin with 1 day life,no GUI wallet, no exchange has an hashrate of 1250 kh/s and other cryptonote coin with longer history, traded on exchanges get just half or less of that.
Some miners must know something that I don't

A good policy and hopefully the proposals can be considered, very appreciative of the ideas given.
Have a great activity.

When approximately will the exchange be?

"https://ombrewallet.com Wallet generator"
Him may trusted? This is official generate wallet?

Hey, essentially, the mixins automatically are routed through existing wallets - they don't need to necessarily be running a transaction at the same time.

However, you are correct, enforcing a higher mixin results in longer waiting times as you need to wait for the funds to be routed through the increased number of 'proxy' wallets.

Additionally, a higher mixin size can result in higher transaction costs.

We picked a ring-size of 10 for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest that a ring-mixin size of 12 is statistically safer than a size of 10. Some evidence was put forward to suggest that there would be no security benefit incurred above a size of 4 (which is what Monero originally used, you can read about their original decision in this Monero Research Lab paper: https://lab.getmonero.org/pubs/MRL-0004.pdf).

However, a paper was put forward suggesting that this default ring-size was linkable (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.04299.pdf). Monero labs published an official response addressing this paper.

In a nutshell, lots of discussion happened within community, and many believe that 10 is the ideal minimum for preserving security (https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/1673).

We countered the downside of the increase in transaction time by reducing the mean time between blocks from 240s to 60 seconds (which is still considered safe, even though it can increase the number of orphan blocks created, causing the blockchain to become a little more bloated). This substantially increased transaction speed, even when using a mixin size of 10. Additionally, we (@SadBatman) implemented some compression on the blockchain to counter the effects of transmitting/ downloading the slight additional bloat this incurred.

Finally, some other things were done to reduce transaction costs such that the cost incurred from this ring-size was negated. I wasn't directly involved with reducing the transaction costs, so I can't speak in great detail about it. But, I believe we actually reduced the transaction costs by significantly more than just the amount required to counter the incurred ring-size cost.

It is discused between devs ... We will update the comunity when we reach a final decision.

will you implement MN's system?

1000+ blocks and have 1mhs network. tooo high

Thanks for reporting and please ignore the hardfork warning. I will get rid of it with an update later today or tomorrow.

I'm getting alert on the ombred.exe

"Last scheduled hard fork time shows a daemon update is needed now."

Is there a download I'm supposed to run to update this?

Can't the mixing only be done if enough people want to transact at the same time? If you enforce a higher minimum of mixing rounds, could that lead to waiting times or how does it work?

The nicehash IP Rene is known, so pool owners could block workers from it, but I’m not sure that’s fair to do and also it would a) require all pools to do it and b) there is nothing to stop someone from setting up their own pool to send the hash to. So basically it’s not viable to try and block, it’s better to rely on a fast acting difficulty algo to make it unprofitable.

Yeah, i realised that later. Can't pools limit the difficulty and reject shares above a difficulty threshold ? Usually new coins give small miners a slight advantage by getting in early. I don't see that anymore with the cryptonight coins. The argument by the devs might be  that the difficutly algorithm takes care of nicehash, but actually it affects small miners even more. The more the time taken to mine a block the more inefficient it will become to mine.

I guess this is the way it is.

It will not make any difference...those ports are only for starting diff ... we user vardiff so even if we close ports they will still be mining on normal ports and their diff will go up.