Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 94. (Read 387491 times)

"once again" - are you implying that I've lied about BBR before? You'd do well to think through your words before writing.

What other than the name is illegitimate about BBR?

I expect that answer will be criticize - nevertheless i would like to ask what you mean by "legitimacy"  ? and by "other things" ?
I realize that you already chosen Monero and invested in it - so i'm just interested to know investor's vision, and may be to learn my own errors.

Digicoin, if you enable first logging level, we could see how long does it take to calculate PoW in message started from "+++++ BLOCK SUCCESSFULLY ADDED ...", it is a last number in Brackets.
Put log's here and we could exactly see what time is spended on PoW.

When I was choosing between the two, I personally felt that both the block interval and coin generation schedule were better in BBR. But unfortunately all the other things were worse, with legitimacy on the top of the list.

Sure but why would he be syncing at only 4 blocks/sec? That's a very low rate.

If you really respect my work, bother to explain and prove that Wild Keccak is broken. Have you found the way to hack it ?

Because if haven't - it's just a lie, once again.

Another difference is block interval - Monero have twice more blocks per day.

The 4200U has AES-NI so verification should be extremely fast...much faster than 4 H/s. If you try start_mining 1 in the wallet and then do show_hr in the daemon what hash rate do you get?

I'm pretty sure you are seeing some other bottleneck besides the hash algorithm, though what that is exactly I'm not sure.

There's no doubt that verification is slower with CryptoNight. That having been said, the reduced performance gap benefits vastly outweigh any "perception" benefits switching algorithms at this stage. If we switched algorithms it definitely wouldn't be to something that is as broken as Wild Keccak (no offence to BBR, I greatly respect what CZ has done), it would be to something technically superior to CryptoNight.

Same laptop: Dell Inspiron 15 - Intel Core i5 - 4200U 1.6 Ghz - 6 GB RAM. XMR is always much slower than BBR on my laptop. I open XMR wallet more often than BBR one: every day or every 3-4 days. XMR daemon is slow all the time. It is strange that BBR can sync the blockchain much much faster than XMR

That's a hash rate of 4/sec. Doubtful the PoW algorithm had much to do with this. What device is it?

PoW is not the only difference between BBR and XMR. Another is many more transactions on XMR. Or you may simply have been connected to slower peers.

I think that XMR should change its algorithm.

My XMR blockchain was 6 days behind the network: 8600 blocks unsync-ed. It took me 40 minutes sync-ing the blockchain from 1h33 - 2h25 PM

My BBR blockchain was 23 days behind the network: 16900 block unsync-ed. It took me less than 3 minutes sync-ing the blockchain.

To end user, BoolBerry is technically better than XMR. I don't think BCN's CryptoNight is good for XMR in long term.

I deleted the post. I don't post in any of the other rpietila Bitcoin discussion threads so I forgot that this thread is about a specific subtopic.

My mistake.

Apparently a lot of people read this thread?

LTC breaking down again...

There are two big walls by the way @ poloniex (on BBR), 53 BTC @ 0.00014550 and 34 BTC @ 0.00019550. Personally Monero is the number 1 CN coin for me, but are there opinions on BBR here? Maybe we can see it as the LTC of CN coins..

Correct.  I believe he's moved his development of privacy-enhanced NXT to a BoolBerry-derived fork instead:

https://github.com/jl777/pNXT

which is a little more active.   He posted about this on July 5:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7691010

When the hashrate is rising sufficiently fast, it makes more sense to rent than to acquire sunk costs. In this case, price changes transfer more efficiently to difficulty, thus investors are more in control of the price, not miners. Or you have professionals who can do complex analysis and hedging of their sunk costs so that price volatility and trend transfer efficiently to difficulty (although quants usually don't correctly account for long-tail events).

But for a home PC owner, renting is more expensive than deploying unused CPU cycles. And if the appliances in the home use significantly more electricity than the PC (or the PC was on all the time any way and wasn't using idle power down), then mined coins are essentially free from the perspective of the home miner. Thus this hashrate is insensitive to changes in price, thus the miners are more in control of the price. In this case, they are more likely to spend $50 a year[1] of coins (generated throughout the year, not all at once) on micro transactions, than to bother with selling them on an exchange. Essentially they have transferred underutilized value from the cost of their PC into the coin.

[1]Some computation of the rate at which CPUs are replaced by newer models and the performance increases for the PoW for the new models, yields the lifespan of the CPU for mining and thus how much value from the cost of the system transferred into the coin each year.

Or we can look at Bitcoin's example market cap of $billions for millions of users, so the annual debasement rate times $1000s per user. Again $50 seems ballpark.

Note that Metcalf's law as verified by Peter R for transactions says the value should scale by the square of some proxy for users, so apparently the number of transactions is not growing uniformly with the number of users, otherwise would expect the market cap of Bitcoin to be $trillions already (perhaps that $50 rises to $5000 in a virtual economy that is booming beyond current imagination). And this is true because most users are investors, not currency users.

In the Quantity Theory of Money increasing velocity-of-money (with a non-declining money supply) is coincident with an expanding economy and higher GDP..

Scale the currency usage more and fiat is toast. We can move on to the Knowledge Age and be done with this all this crap the world is mired in now.

This is why I have a problem supporting Monero because it can't scale up, or at least not without mining being very centralized with such professional miners possessing an incentive to kill home PC mining.

Professional mining is all about control of capital, financing, and economies-of-scale (i.e. proxy control by our fiat overlords). The home PC users don't have this, but they can mitigate the professional miners if the professional miners can not attain a Mhash/$ and Mhash/Watt advantage, e.g. which professional miners normally can attain by funding the development of ASICs that are not in the home PC users' sunk cost.

Another boost for home PC mining, would be if there was some other popular advantage to mining in addition to the "free coins" generated, but that did not generate any additional financial gain for the professional miners.

Ah, but XMR is different.  More like early BTC than DOGE, in terms of mindshare.  Other coins, not so much.  Mark my words, when XMR sees a broader demographic, it will inspire all the extravagant absurdities that human imagination can devise:  Music videos a la style de zhoutonged, infant tattoos, fremen performance art, and the ilk.  Meanwhile, I think it has a substantial enthusiast appeal, and consequent mining behaviour.  But I don't have a way to measure the relative proportions of various mining demographics, so it is fundamentally conjectural.