Topic: Why the monero/bitmonero/MRO/BMR/XMR Ninjalaunched Cripplemined Fastmine matters - page 4. (Read 13682 times)

I really thought you are an expert in making own assumptions and giving your own answers after all that bullshit i read from you on dash ... how often did you tell us eduffield has mined almost every xcoin within the instamine days? *facepalm* (or are you in blockchain analysis now, and can prove any of the "instamine scam" - "eduffield mined almost 2 mio coins" bullshit?!)

I really hate people throwing shit, and then if the shit hits the fan, and comes back to their own face, they just say, "hey that's something totally different" LOL

The situation is worse than you think. For years, almost every CPU coin is actually cripplemined (to different degrees). The reason is that all the "sse, avx" ets enhanced miners, do not use packed commands / SIMDs.

This means that if a hash has like 3 steps (usually lot more than 10), a sequential-non-packed version will go like

1. 5-10 cpu cycles : first step of hashing
2. 5-10 cpu cycles: second step
3. 5-10 cpu cycles: last step of hashing

If you load 4 different hash candidates simultaneously, in the same thread, you can "pack" them with AVX/SSE and go like

1. 5-10 cpu cycles: first step of hashing for ALL 4 hashes
2. 5-10 cpu cycles: second step of hashing for ALL 4 hashes
3. 5-10 cpu cycles: last step of hashing for ALL 4 hashes

Again, that's in the context of the same cpu thread btw. It's kind of parallelism within the same core/thread.

In this way, Haswell can go from something like 8cycles per byte to ~2.5 with AVX2 for SHA256 and down to <1cycle/byte with AVX-512.

I initially thought coins who use memory hard algorithms are more immune, and they are to some extent, but since memory use (reduced scratchpad) can be traded for more processing work (shortcut), if the processing work is multiplied -say- by 8x, then the underlying assumptions of trading less memory use (shortcut) for (supposedly waaaaay) more cpu performance could be invalidated (to some degree). Because the assumption of what cpu power levels are, is based on ...scalar and not SIMD use.

That miner comment again Icebreaker is bullshit an you know it.
Often in crypto we have seen a wide range of unfair stunts pulled with miners.
I have a million stories..

I could make a coin then code a GPU miner around it's new algo *mod*
Then only post a CPU miner and rape the shit out of it ..it's been done ..lots ..and YOU KNOW IT TOO !

Or how about making obstacles for windows user to have to try and fail to compile a miner
after the coin launched when Linux private miners are optimized compiled and running by the dev & friends on launch.

You guys making coins have pulled every fucking stunt in the book and played dumb every single step of the way.

Couple years back i had a jab and laughed at iGotSpots on a Troll Box..
I said to him ya ya you had 80+ GPU's mining you told me before.
He laughed back at me and said "i got far more than that" LOL

He made how many coins ?

Do i need to go on ? ..probably.

You guys love playing dumb (for the audience)

This isn't fucking FUD or Trolling either you whiny shilling corrupt greedy manipulative deceitful pricks.
This is ACTUALLY what happens behind closed doors 24/7 !

Ask an objective question (in which case you can answer it from a block explorer, etc.) or might as well just make up your own answer.

how many bitmonero, bmr, mro, xmr monero were cripplemined the first 3 months? 

the question they don't want to answer. 

When do you plan on trolling the STEEM topic and their premined/instamined scam where they state no premine/instamine in the OP? I would love to see it.

Or is it off-limits because Smooth is invested?   

Oh that myth, the one always dragged out by instaminers who want to throw up the "but Bitcoin" defense (which would still be nonsense even if it were true). Should really be added to "Lies Instaminers Tell Themselves" thread.

Miners use souped-up versions of cgminer.

Therefor, plain vanilla cgminer is crippled and CK is a scammer.

[/your especially stupid kind of fake logic]

Let me guess, you also believe Bitcoin was instamined, because only Satoshi and a couple of others cared to mine the very early blocks....   

congratulation!

with a single line you just invalidated your ~1200 troll posts

you are complete nonsense

No implication needed.. it's unfair and we all know it (no matter who does it)
You guys know that line is a complete crock of shit.

It speaks volumes you would go even further than down playing it but saying it's not even a problem.

Pure Retarded .

Disclaimer:
I have never had nor will i any Dash or Monero coins.
I offer my observations + opinions objectively.

I was using the term "reward algorithm" in the broad sense, which includes the penalty function.

If I intended to exclude penalty function, I would have said "reward schedule" instead.

You could also complain I didn't explicitly account for the block spacing compression effect from rising hashrate, but I think it's obvious my statement was made ceteris parabus (a neat Latin phrase that means "while waving your hands" and also ameliorates smooth's niggling over variance).

dga posted that they spent $100K+ per month on their mining operation. I have no reason to doubt it.

Very early mined coins (a relatively small number of them, due to the well-behaved emission curve) were very cheap, of course, no different than any other new and relatively unknown coin. iCEBREAKER just posted about mining blocks using the public miner on a $5 VPS, I did the same on my own equipment, etc.

The existence of customized private miners does not imply the public ones are "crippled."

Using public software, I had no problem pool mining very early XMR on Vultr VPS and solo mining on some laptops.  I still have the solved blocks sitting in their wallets, so I can prove the previous claim (unlike Duffield's dubious claim his instamine was "accidental").

All your bluster about "zomg cripplemine" is an attempt to create and appeal to supposed hypocrisy of those taking notice and making public warnings about Dash's instamine and subsequent radical emission slashing.

Appeal to hypocrisy is a logical fallacy, but we all know the DashHoles of the Evan's Gate cargo cult don't care about such trivial details of rational thought.

Another question is how much was the size of the financial scam for those buying the non-cripple-mined coins (or those generating cripple mined coins).

It's one thing if mined coins cost 0.000001 BTC and another if they cost 0.1 BTC.

That is one question but the total amount of coins mined during the time period in question is also certainly relevant as an upper bound and is objective.

Also relevant that the emission was not later reduced as some wanted to do, which would have magnified the effect of any early irregularities.

The right question is who was able to mine at multiple efficiency compared to ordinary (crippled) miners... Who was gaining disproportionate amount of coins due to the cripplemine.

"Exactly" is a bit extreme. There are always some variations due to random block production and other details (hash rate adjustment isn't perfectly instantaneous, etc.). The point is it was damn close.

Actually it is somewhat less because of the adaptive blocksize limit penalty function, which makes the actual reward dependent on changes in the blocksize.

Edit: Take block 10019 for example. https://minergate.com/blockchain/xmr/block/100019. The actual coins emitted are less than the base reward because of the penalty. This slows the emission down by a very slight amount. If one compares the actual emission with the emission calculated from the reward algorithm alone one will notice a systematic effect of a slightly lower actual emission rate.

In the first 3 months, exactly as many xmr were mined as mathematically specified by the reward algorithm.

That's what all honest, competently tested, and fairly launched coins do (in glaring contrast to Dash's massive "accidental" instamine and subsequent drastic emission cut).

Why don't you check a block explorer? Or you could estimate from the published emission curve. Since difficulty adjustment worked properly, the latter is pretty close.