Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1486. (Read 4670972 times)

I haven't looked at it (we are forked from bytecoin, though the copyrights on the code still say cryptonote) but from what I remember, their reference code is more of a toolkit and probably requires some edits to turn into a working coin.

Any of the working cryptonote forks should be easiler to build. I've never done anything other than (install dependencies and) type make.

Peter Todd is the new CEO of Monero!  That's great news!  

I am curious if the cryptonote code base is intentionally done with crayons and monkeys. What is to be gained from this?
Simple things like their reference code didnt compile for me. Now I am always having problems getting all the modules installed, but I would think a supposed reference code should compile. So if it doesnt compile, then what other problems are there?

Didnt make sense to me and I didnt have time to investigate

James

I agree with this position.  I am disappointed at that display.  I think it can be said, but this was a bad way to do it.

Thanks for the answers to my questions. I have nothing to add.

There is no plan to replace the codebase entirely. We are open to input and considering ideas. Two very different things.

other trolls could learn a thing or two from you.

Whatever works.

But:

"glad to hear the devs had the same idea" sounds more like you were? are? considering changing the codebase entirely.

We've discussed this through and through, and the general consensus is that the effort it would take to port everything over is huge, and then we'd be stuck inheriting a lot of other stuff that would make what we want to do in future more difficult.

Yes, please.

Trolls are gonna troll.  But if you are just a supporter who favors one coin.  STAY OUT of their game.

I agree that the C in the codebase in insane and dangerous. In the least, we need to refactor to C++ and comment the code.

At a high level there is a lot of merit in it. At the level of actual development, doing that would be a tremendous effort. We're not pursing that course at the present time, but we are always open to input (abrasive or otherwise) and we are also definitely open to dropping some of the parts that don't work well and redesigning them or replacing them with something better. In fact we have done some of that already.

The thread is 670 pages long, and most of it is repeating the same unfounded criticisms over and over again by accounts that have been created during the short history of Monero, and whose posting history includes nothing constructive.

Since your post fell into this category, the answers by one of the core developers, in the day of intense fighting against an attack made possible by (B)CN scamdevs, may sound terse.

TBH the alternative code base (although it's likely weaker in quality) is a large factor in my investment. Redundancy is very very nice

Thanks for setting it straight.

It is perfectly safe to mine, as long as you pick a pool that is running on the right chain. I know that Dwarfpool is on the right chain, but about now, probably all pools are... To be on the safe size, you should check on IRC if your usual pool is on the right chain or not (or post the pool name here if you're not into the IRC thing).

Cheers,
~ Myagui

Thank you for trying.  It would be nice if you could decide how to improve your helping skills, and then try again.


Those who respond to your post are trying to correct defects in your views.  If they are not corrected, you are likely to injure yourself and others.  Please don't interpret that as meaning you should go away.  Try to incorporate the valid parts of the criticism into your thinking, and reject the invalid parts.  Some things taste bad because they are poison.  Some things taste bad because they are medicine.  This is not a candy store.  You are welcome, but if you wish to divest, we are also happy to accept your monero into a more nurturing home.

I agree with you. I believe you also agree that "centralized leadership" means fundamentally different things when applied to a blockchain or a central bank? One should also not forget that participation is voluntary.

As an aside you might or might not be interested in, majority as a function on boolean vectors returning a boolean also has a number of algebraic properties that make it interesting. In short, imagine you had a number of agents, voting yes/no for some arbitrary binary question. You need to construct a family of functions (from {0,1}^n for all n, to {0,1}) to aggregate votes into a group decision. You can practically invent any function you want. For example, a full dictatorship would be a family of projections f(x1, x2, ...) = x1 which always choose whatever x1 chose. Majority is another such family of functions. It has the advantages that is symmetrical in agents (each agent contributes in the exact same way a priori of other votes), symmetrical in range(*) (labeling all yes to no and vice versa does not change the function in any way), monotonic (changing any votes from yes to no cannot change a no outcome to a yes outcome), and some other more abstract properties. It is also interesting that from a computational complexity point of view, it is a counter-intuitively complex function to compute. One of the most celebrated results is that it is not in class AC0 (more or less the simplest computation class that people are interested in - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC0).

(*) this is not always desirable, and you can use super-majority in that case

Alright, makes sense. That's not really the question that's on my mind though.

The abrasive style aside (I can even see some virtue in that), this...





... kind of begs for a comment from the dev team.

Is it safe to mine or should we wait for a fix to come out first?