Author

Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1050. (Read 4670673 times)

legendary
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036
Facts are more efficient than fud
Can we cool off posting in Darkcoin threads? It is nothing but beating dead horses. Fools cant be helped and its certainly getting us a bad name

I would ask the same.  2 of the core monero devs (Smooth and Fluffypony) have been posting fulltime in DRK thread and reddit for days: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10862640

a lot of people are asking why - this is very unusual for a top 20 coin.  And drk is in the top 5 so why are they bothered to spend all there time there instead of here.  IDK.

They are concerned with privacy and drk is selling itself as a privacy solution. If they think it is a fraud, then they'd be remiss not to.

*also, I don't think you know what all means.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1030
Sine secretum non libertas
Personally, I have come to prefer "privacy" to "anonymity".
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 255
Can we cool off posting in Darkcoin threads? It is nothing but beating dead horses. Fools cant be helped and its certainly getting us a bad name

I would ask the same.  2 of the core monero devs (Smooth and Fluffypony) have been posting fulltime in DRK thread and reddit for days: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10862640

a lot of people are asking why - this is very unusual for a top 20 coin.  And drk is in the top 5 so why are they bothered to spend all there time there instead of here.  IDK.
sr. member
Activity: 400
Merit: 263
Can we cool off posting in Darkcoin threads? It is nothing but beating dead horses. Fools cant be helped and its certainly getting us a bad name

yes, I agree. I don't care if it gives us a bad name with the D(r)ash crowd but I think the points have been made.
legendary
Activity: 952
Merit: 1000
Stagnation is Death
Can we cool off posting in Darkcoin threads? It is nothing but beating dead horses. Fools cant be helped and its certainly getting us a bad name
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
Okay, i have downloaded the tsiv ccminer and i put the script mine program in the same file witht the ccminer. i starting the miner and he closed direct after i´m starting this.

lets take this to the mining thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=653467.560
sr. member
Activity: 358
Merit: 250
Okay, i have downloaded the tsiv ccminer and i put the script mine program in the same file witht the ccminer. i starting the miner and he closed direct after i´m starting this.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
Hello, i have start with mining today. My problem is, my miner don´t work. I have a nvidia GPU und use ccminer. Here the script:

ccminer -o stratum+tcp://monerohash.com:3333 -u 43F11qm2pS4Upf7ELT3kJjVSmRnsvUXLGPzP6BkGBYJx6ddnAahPPgbNJsma3vzq9FVhfzTLEQG35PG A2Tj4XuPBPoNqKh1 -p x

VDechand, check out this thread on Monero Mining:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/xmr-monero-mining-653467

You are going to want to run tsiv's special version of ccminer:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7487737

Regular ccminer is (AFAIK) not for mining Monero's algorithm, Cryptonote.


^^^ that. if you're using a standard version of ccminer, you can not mine monero. You have to install tsivs version.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 502
Hello, i have start with mining today. My problem is, my miner don´t work. I have a nvidia GPU und use ccminer. Here the script:

ccminer -o stratum+tcp://monerohash.com:3333 -u 43F11qm2pS4Upf7ELT3kJjVSmRnsvUXLGPzP6BkGBYJx6ddnAahPPgbNJsma3vzq9FVhfzTLEQG35PG A2Tj4XuPBPoNqKh1 -p x

VDechand, check out this thread on Monero Mining:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/xmr-monero-mining-653467

You are going to want to run tsiv's special version of ccminer:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7487737

Regular ccminer is (AFAIK) not for mining Monero's algorithm, Cryptonote.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 502
...
"pro-reddit" - yeah, thats the idea,.... create an economic cost for voting / posting content. I'm sure it any forum implemented a per-post cost, there'd be a significant signal-noise ratio increase.

Maybe so.
But also, it may end up like television networks, magazines, etc: the broadcast/published content has been purchased or serves to benefit the main organization itself.

It is, though, an interesting idea, GingerAle.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
Hello, i have start with mining today. My problem is, my miner don´t work. I have a nvidia GPU und use ccminer. Here the script:

ccminer -o stratum+tcp://monerohash.com:3333 -u 43F11qm2pS4Upf7ELT3kJjVSmRnsvUXLGPzP6BkGBYJx6ddnAahPPgbNJsma3vzq9FVhfzTLEQG35PG A2Tj4XuPBPoNqKh1 -p x

whats the error your getting?
sr. member
Activity: 358
Merit: 250
Hello, i have start with mining today. My problem is, my miner don´t work. I have a nvidia GPU und use ccminer. Here the script:

ccminer -o stratum+tcp://monerohash.com:3333 -u 43F11qm2pS4Upf7ELT3kJjVSmRnsvUXLGPzP6BkGBYJx6ddnAahPPgbNJsma3vzq9FVhfzTLEQG35PG A2Tj4XuPBPoNqKh1 -p x
legendary
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036
Facts are more efficient than fud
very nascent idea seed I wanted to plant here to see what may happen.

basically, use the privacy features of monero to somehow fix some of the problems in contemporary science.

from my experience, some of the fundamental problems with modern science is the peer review process - many journals function as gatekeepers, rejecting the publication of certain articles they feel "aren't worthy" of publication in that particular journal. this kind of crap grinds science to a slow tumbling pace. Article submissions can take 6 months. Then it gets rejected. THen its another 6 months. So, something you figure out a year ago still hasn't made it out to the community. Frustrating.

To counter this, open access (somewhat free for all) journals such as PLOS have cropped up -the idea being that the scientific community will eventually determine the worthiness of a publication simply based on its influence on the field - i.e., others will reference it.  I.e., it will undergo peer review for its scientific merit only, as opposed to some ill-defined (and often reviewer-interpreted) journal specific merit.

The problem here of course is that there is soooo much published, it becomes impossible to separate the interesting stuff from the other stuff.

And if this # of citations index is the measure of a publications worth, this takes time - years to do additional research in order to write an article to cite the original article and thus increase its standing in the literature. And if you go the non-PLOS route, add another year for the journal process.

Thus, it'd be great if there was a way for the scientific community to go "yeah, i agree with that article" for whatever reason - they've observed similar phenomena, etc. It would be a way for consensus to form within a much shorter time frame to guide the field more efficiently.

once could imagine that a system such as reddits upvoting may work, but there's no economic cost for exploit. Hence, monero.

this app could also potentially benefit from monero trust and monero ID.

Just throwing out my first thought and not worrying too much.

It could use a system where you are awarded a certain number of vote credits. But let's say that someone is particularly good at picking good material, then once a certain vote threshold is reached, then the votes could be redistributed to all who upvoted the article. You could also use a system that had field specialization (nuclear scientist voting on nuclear materials, botanists voting on botany work, ect.) which would take out the non-specialist who have little insight in other fields. Would be awesome to have a pro-reddit and not have to fish through endless comments to get at the heart of an issue.

hrm, not sure im pickin up what you're putting down here.

it would all be done anonymously, thanks to monero. The potential influence of non-specialists may be mitigated due to the cost of voting.

of course, one could "buy" influence if this works directly off the monero main chain. I guess it could also utilize a daughter chain.

"pro-reddit" - yeah, thats the idea,.... create an economic cost for voting / posting content. I'm sure it any forum implemented a per-post cost, there'd be a significant signal-noise ratio increase.

I was thinking the site would distribute the credits. Like a professor of psychology would be given five credits (max and minimum to be determined by site) a month by Psychologyliterature.to and then you would use those credits (or save them) to vote up materials you liked. maybe develop a base system that could be configured by site owners?
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
very nascent idea seed I wanted to plant here to see what may happen.

basically, use the privacy features of monero to somehow fix some of the problems in contemporary science.

from my experience, some of the fundamental problems with modern science is the peer review process - many journals function as gatekeepers, rejecting the publication of certain articles they feel "aren't worthy" of publication in that particular journal. this kind of crap grinds science to a slow tumbling pace. Article submissions can take 6 months. Then it gets rejected. THen its another 6 months. So, something you figure out a year ago still hasn't made it out to the community. Frustrating.

To counter this, open access (somewhat free for all) journals such as PLOS have cropped up -the idea being that the scientific community will eventually determine the worthiness of a publication simply based on its influence on the field - i.e., others will reference it.  I.e., it will undergo peer review for its scientific merit only, as opposed to some ill-defined (and often reviewer-interpreted) journal specific merit.

The problem here of course is that there is soooo much published, it becomes impossible to separate the interesting stuff from the other stuff.

And if this # of citations index is the measure of a publications worth, this takes time - years to do additional research in order to write an article to cite the original article and thus increase its standing in the literature. And if you go the non-PLOS route, add another year for the journal process.

Thus, it'd be great if there was a way for the scientific community to go "yeah, i agree with that article" for whatever reason - they've observed similar phenomena, etc. It would be a way for consensus to form within a much shorter time frame to guide the field more efficiently.

once could imagine that a system such as reddits upvoting may work, but there's no economic cost for exploit. Hence, monero.

this app could also potentially benefit from monero trust and monero ID.

Just throwing out my first thought and not worrying too much.

It could use a system where you are awarded a certain number of vote credits. But let's say that someone is particularly good at picking good material, then once a certain vote threshold is reached, then the votes could be redistributed to all who upvoted the article. You could also use a system that had field specialization (nuclear scientist voting on nuclear materials, botanists voting on botany work, ect.) which would take out the non-specialist who have little insight in other fields. Would be awesome to have a pro-reddit and not have to fish through endless comments to get at the heart of an issue.

hrm, not sure im pickin up what you're putting down here.

it would all be done anonymously, thanks to monero. The potential influence of non-specialists may be mitigated due to the cost of voting.

of course, one could "buy" influence if this works directly off the monero main chain. I guess it could also utilize a daughter chain.

"pro-reddit" - yeah, thats the idea,.... create an economic cost for voting / posting content. I'm sure it any forum implemented a per-post cost, there'd be a significant signal-noise ratio increase.
legendary
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036
Facts are more efficient than fud
very nascent idea seed I wanted to plant here to see what may happen.

basically, use the privacy features of monero to somehow fix some of the problems in contemporary science.

from my experience, some of the fundamental problems with modern science is the peer review process - many journals function as gatekeepers, rejecting the publication of certain articles they feel "aren't worthy" of publication in that particular journal. this kind of crap grinds science to a slow tumbling pace. Article submissions can take 6 months. Then it gets rejected. THen its another 6 months. So, something you figure out a year ago still hasn't made it out to the community. Frustrating.

To counter this, open access (somewhat free for all) journals such as PLOS have cropped up -the idea being that the scientific community will eventually determine the worthiness of a publication simply based on its influence on the field - i.e., others will reference it.  I.e., it will undergo peer review for its scientific merit only, as opposed to some ill-defined (and often reviewer-interpreted) journal specific merit.

The problem here of course is that there is soooo much published, it becomes impossible to separate the interesting stuff from the other stuff.

And if this # of citations index is the measure of a publications worth, this takes time - years to do additional research in order to write an article to cite the original article and thus increase its standing in the literature. And if you go the non-PLOS route, add another year for the journal process.

Thus, it'd be great if there was a way for the scientific community to go "yeah, i agree with that article" for whatever reason - they've observed similar phenomena, etc. It would be a way for consensus to form within a much shorter time frame to guide the field more efficiently.

once could imagine that a system such as reddits upvoting may work, but there's no economic cost for exploit. Hence, monero.

this app could also potentially benefit from monero trust and monero ID.

Just throwing out my first thought and not worrying too much.

It could use a system where you are awarded a certain number of vote credits. But let's say that someone is particularly good at picking good material, then once a certain vote threshold is reached, then the votes could be redistributed to all who upvoted the article. You could also use a system that had field specialization (nuclear scientist voting on nuclear materials, botanists voting on botany work, ect.) which would take out the non-specialist who have little insight in other fields. Would be awesome to have a pro-reddit and not have to fish through endless comments to get at the heart of an issue.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
very nascent idea seed I wanted to plant here to see what may happen.

basically, use the privacy features of monero to somehow fix some of the problems in contemporary science.

from my experience, some of the fundamental problems with modern science is the peer review process - many journals function as gatekeepers, rejecting the publication of certain articles they feel "aren't worthy" of publication in that particular journal. this kind of crap grinds science to a slow tumbling pace. Article submissions can take 6 months. Then it gets rejected. THen its another 6 months. So, something you figure out a year ago still hasn't made it out to the community. Frustrating.

To counter this, open access (somewhat free for all) journals such as PLOS have cropped up -the idea being that the scientific community will eventually determine the worthiness of a publication simply based on its influence on the field - i.e., others will reference it.  I.e., it will undergo peer review for its scientific merit only, as opposed to some ill-defined (and often reviewer-interpreted) journal specific merit.

The problem here of course is that there is soooo much published, it becomes impossible to separate the interesting stuff from the other stuff.

And if this # of citations index is the measure of a publications worth, this takes time - years to do additional research in order to write an article to cite the original article and thus increase its standing in the literature. And if you go the non-PLOS route, add another year for the journal process.

Thus, it'd be great if there was a way for the scientific community to go "yeah, i agree with that article" for whatever reason - they've observed similar phenomena, etc. It would be a way for consensus to form within a much shorter time frame to guide the field more efficiently.

once could imagine that a system such as reddits upvoting may work, but there's no economic cost for exploit. Hence, monero.

this app could also potentially benefit from monero trust and monero ID.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
Having burned his name, Evan has little choice but to make a career of it.  He is unlikely to tire of promoting and advancing his cause.  He has demonstrated remarkable genius - questionable perhaps on other grounds, but quite shrewd nonetheless - with the multi-level marketing impact of masternodes.  Yes, he has also demonstrated ineptitude in managing image, in concealment, but brazenness has yet to prove itself an impediment.  It is likely that he can perpetuate this program for a remarkably long time.

Bringing this back to Monero, we are likely to be held to comparison with drk for a long while.  I hope it can be endured with congeniality and equanimity.  I agree that continued diligence in managing our own house will bring success to this project and community, and that does not require the decline of any "competitor".

I am more optimistic.  It only takes one whistleblower or unhappy victim of Evan and Edward's HYIP scheme to bring down the wrath of State and National authorities.

In which case, they cannot "perpetuate this program for a remarkably long time" and Monero will not "be held to comparison with drk for a long while."

Just letting them know we know 'where the bodies are buried' may be sufficient to convince them to pull a Friedcat (IE take the money and run) and get out of XMR's hair.

IMO, by publishing that Masternode ROI table they well-and-truly screwed the pooch royally.   Cool
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1030
Sine secretum non libertas
i just cant see DRK as competition (and i really mean this honest and in a non-trolling way).

waiting until the bigger drk-whales are bored and have milked their cow is IMHO all thats needed.
i just feel bad for the bad for the smaller holders.

I intensely hate adding to the dark cloud in this bright thread.  It is off-topic and a minefield, a recurring fount of vomitus.  Yet sometimes there is a thing that needs to be said, in context. We make trade-offs.

Having burned his name, Evan has little choice but to make a career of it.  He is unlikely to tire of promoting and advancing his cause.  He has demonstrated remarkable genius - questionable perhaps on other grounds, but quite shrewd nonetheless - with the multi-level marketing impact of masternodes.  Yes, he has also demonstrated ineptitude in managing image, in concealment, but brazenness has yet to prove itself an impediment.  It is likely that he can perpetuate this program for a remarkably long time.

Bringing this back to Monero, we are likely to be held to comparison with drk for a long while.  I hope it can be endured with congeniality and equanimity.  I agree that continued diligence in managing our own house will bring success to this project and community, and that does not require the decline of any "competitor".




legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
you guys are always pointing out how the project is basically unfunded and you do great work under those conditions no doubt. but i just want to do what i can to help with this situation for 2 reasons, for the good of monero, but also because you guys should be compensated for the work you do. and the thing is, i just dont think that panhandling is ever going to get you the sort of consistent and appropriate compensation you should be getting, and monero should be getting.

We've been working on adding some needed functionality to the forum, and our next major task we're going to tackle is the funding system. The idea is:

1. Users / developers / anyone will pitch an idea in the Ideas section of the forum. This is already happening.

2. After some discussion it will be moved by one of the administrators (currently the Core Team only, but that would change in future) to the Open Tasks section of the forum. No tasks have been moved as yet.

3. Developers (including the core team, and initially probably only the core team for simplicity) will pitch against each of these open tasks. Later on I would expect that there would be more people / teams pitching against tasks, and the most competent / available / reasonably priced will be the one the community will veer towards.

4. Once the developer / team has been selected to complete the task it moves to the Funding Required section of the forum, and it is opened for funding.

5. Funding will be to a core team controlled address with a payment ID for that particular project/task, and there will be a funding progress bar. This information will be mirrored over to a funding page on the website that shows the funding progress per project/task.

6. When funding reaches 70% (for smaller tasks) or 30% (for larger and longer tasks) it goes into the Work in Progress section and work begins.

7. Funds are dispensed by the core team on a regular basis and only if there is actual progress / commits / whatever, so it doesn't go into a black hole.

Advantages of this approach:

- the core team's oversight role can eventually be replaced by a group selected from the community at large, so as not to have a stranglehold over things

- the core team's escrow role can eventually be replaced by a multi-sig system (2-of-3) where the signatories are the core team, the oversight group, and the recipient, so the recipient can't spend those raised funds without the involvement of one of the other 2 signatories

- this isn't limited to dev tasks, and things like "fly David Latapie to speak at a conference" or lobbying or PR or advertising can all have tasks created and funded

- funding is direct and specific to tasks instead of going into a big black hole and hoping for the best

We expect this system will still take us another short while before we can put it live, but we're already crunching away at the functionality for it (and this also further emphasises why the forum couldn't just be SMF with a theme;) )

That sounds awesome. Mr pony already on top of things like usual.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
Looks to me, like (there is a strong chance) the Darkcoin community is going repeat the same errors the Litecoin community did.

More and more regular, vocal posters in their community, show this well known "LTC attitude (& behavior)".
(arrogance, sense of superiority, clearly not technically-versed people are opinion-forming & dominating discusssions/the community, losing touch with reality, very self-centric, (trying) to disallow any neutral & critical opinions, questions & discusssions, anyone not 100% hyping DRK will be stigmatized and ridiculed as troll, fudder, shill, etc.)


This is a new development. Like in the last 3 months. Could get pretty dangerous for them (see Litecoins history).

Why does it matter? Because this observation should be an indication of importance & motivation for us, to further develop and actively maintain our healthy community.

Moneros community must always stay:
open, friendly, objective & open-minded, fact-based, respecting to everyone, esp. non community-members, democratic, fair, transparent, (strictly) skill-based task & job assigments, intelligence driven (always searching for & acknowledging the best solution, even if this best solution is not XMR compatible)

The Monero Project is so strong and well positioned. We can talk openly & objectivly about our (coins) weaknesses.
We don't have to lie, create our "own golden reality" or prohibit open discussions.

With objective discussing & reflecting about XMRs weaknesses. We will find better solutions & improve, we stay focussed (and won't create an hyping circle-jerk scene) and we will gain alot of respect, from all in crypto currencies interested parties (others projects, experts, newbies, press, professionals, ...).

Because, no one likes the LTC attitude.


I see some evidence of it in this camp too esp. on Reddit and encounters with other camps on controversial topics when mostly objective logos type of arguments should be employed. A condescending demeanor is ugly and hurts this collective's ethos appeal.

Not to single anyone out but... https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10717653
I expect much better than this :p

Although I was never around LTC much, my god the DRK attitude. Wow.

I agree with both of you guys. Let's do better. Let's be better.

Jump to: