How fast is it in comparison with Claymore's ?
Open Source and Linux friendly (for rigs)
Regarding speed I don't known yet.
Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1582. (Read 4670622 times)
Open Source and Linux friendly (for rigs)
Regarding speed I don't known yet.
I have worked on CryptoNight ATI sgminer based on sph-sgminer.
I have already lost more then one week for this full-time job
, but currently I don't have time for this project. 
Here is repo: https://github.com/Atrides/sgminer-monero
What is done: all, except of right cryptonight.cl
Miner works currently via RPCv1, available on test-port 8001 on erebor.dwarfpool.com
I have integrated djm's cpu-miner to compare hash, so, debuggers can see it in logs as "DIFFERENT_HASH" if OpenCL gives wrong hash.
In "cryptonight.cl_withaes_noworking" I have added AES implementation from djm. But with some errors.
"cryptonight.cl" == "cryptonight.cl_withkeccak_noaes" does not have AES therefore bad hashes.
So, if anybody can check and make normal "cryptonight.cl", you can use test port 8001.
How fast is it in comparison with Claymore's ?
I have already lost more then one week for this full-time job
, but currently I don't have time for this project. Here is repo: https://github.com/Atrides/sgminer-monero
What is done: all, except of right cryptonight.cl
Miner works currently via RPCv1, available on test-port 8001 on erebor.dwarfpool.com
I have integrated djm's cpu-miner to compare hash, so, debuggers can see it in logs as "DIFFERENT_HASH" if OpenCL gives wrong hash.
In "cryptonight.cl_withaes_noworking" I have added AES implementation from djm. But with some errors.
"cryptonight.cl" == "cryptonight.cl_withkeccak_noaes" does not have AES therefore bad hashes.
So, if anybody can check and make normal "cryptonight.cl", you can use test port 8001.
How fast is it in comparison with Claymore's ?
I have worked on CryptoNight ATI sgminer based on sph-sgminer.
I have already lost more then one week for this full-time job , but currently I don't have time for this project.
Here is repo: https://github.com/Atrides/sgminer-monero
What is done: all, except of right cryptonight.cl
Miner works currently via RPCv1, available on test-port 8001 on erebor.dwarfpool.com
I have integrated wolf's cpu-miner to compare hash, so, debuggers can see it in logs as "DIFFERENT_HASH" if OpenCL gives wrong hash.
In "cryptonight.cl_withaes_noworking" I have added AES implementation from djm. But with some errors.
"cryptonight.cl" == "cryptonight.cl_withkeccak_noaes" does not have AES therefore bad hashes.
So, if anybody can check and make normal "cryptonight.cl", you can use test port 8001.
I have already lost more then one week for this full-time job
, but currently I don't have time for this project. Here is repo: https://github.com/Atrides/sgminer-monero
What is done: all, except of right cryptonight.cl
Miner works currently via RPCv1, available on test-port 8001 on erebor.dwarfpool.com
I have integrated wolf's cpu-miner to compare hash, so, debuggers can see it in logs as "DIFFERENT_HASH" if OpenCL gives wrong hash.
In "cryptonight.cl_withaes_noworking" I have added AES implementation from djm. But with some errors.
"cryptonight.cl" == "cryptonight.cl_withkeccak_noaes" does not have AES therefore bad hashes.
So, if anybody can check and make normal "cryptonight.cl", you can use test port 8001.
This is not a (weak) attempt at breaking the PoW vs PoS chain, but just as there are other interesting things to talk about: 
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/advertising-spam-is-not-allowed-718124
I'm not going to say that this is a good or a bad thing, though in general pool adverts really annoy me as they clutter the thread and I get less ROI for my reading time. Perhaps a more sensible rule would be to allow for a single pool advert per alt ANN thread, so that new pools are quickly known about, but not allowing the mass spamming from then onwards.
~ Myagui
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/advertising-spam-is-not-allowed-718124
I'm not going to say that this is a good or a bad thing, though in general pool adverts really annoy me as they clutter the thread and I get less ROI for my reading time. Perhaps a more sensible rule would be to allow for a single pool advert per alt ANN thread, so that new pools are quickly known about, but not allowing the mass spamming from then onwards.
~ Myagui
windjc, without going into all the other ins and outs of PoS I'm intersted in whether you feel its "fair" that with PoS coins exchanges for example can create value out of thin air just by staking coins that don't belong to them (this is apart from the obvious security issues with keeping PoS coins in hot wallets).
I'm not really a proponent of "fair" so I rarely look at systems from that perspective. Could you reframed your question so I understand it better?
Sure, an exchange is simply supposed to be holding coins for you as a third party but they get value out of thin air by staking coins that don't belong to them. Do you think this is fair ? As in do you think proof of stake works when this can be done while not being the true owner of the coins? Lets not also forget that in PoS holding a large percentage of the coins is the same as having a large percentage of the HR in a PoW coin. The difference being that an exchange is being given this power for free and have no financial outlay to acheive this as would be the case with PoW.
windjc, without going into all the other ins and outs of PoS I'm intersted in whether you feel its "fair" that with PoS coins exchanges for example can create value out of thin air just by staking coins that don't belong to them (this is apart from the obvious security issues with keeping PoS coins in hot wallets).
I'm not really a proponent of "fair" so I rarely look at systems from that perspective. Could you reframed your question so I understand it better?
windjc, without going into all the other ins and outs of PoS I'm intersted in whether you feel its "fair" that with PoS coins exchanges for example can create value out of thin air just by staking coins that don't belong to them (this is apart from the obvious security issues with keeping PoS coins in hot wallets).
monero to the fucking stars and beyond the milkway!
~CfA~
~CfA~
So in a way you agree POW does not provide real advantages to the most important thing - network effect.
Not really no. Since PoW networks are competing for energy there will be fewer of them with any scale at all, and it will therefore be easier for one network (or perhaps a small number of networks) to get extremely large, after which point it will have a large network effect. As was said earlier, competing for a scarce resource prevents unlimited duplication at the level of networks.
Quote
And, in actuality, one can assume that at least one POS will create network effect. Therefore being diversified in the best of the POS coins would be a wise proposition.
No I don't think we can assume that at all. We can't even assume that Bitcoin will ever get large relative to fiat. There is certainly no guarantee that any PoS will ever get large, even as large as Bitcoin (which is small). It might happen. I might even agree that diversification is smart. But it is not something that can be assumed.
Network effect. That cannot be duplicated. So, we could have a trillion POS coins. It doesnt matter. Go start a social network. Let us know how that works out for you.
That is true. But just as powerful as network effect is, it is also hard to achieve. How many startups become Facebook?
None of these coins is very big. Possibly excluding Bitcoin. So their network effect is not very big either. Look at the market cap of bitcoin vs. fiat (i.e. tiny). That is an indication of the size of its network effect. All PoS coins are far, far, far below that.
If any of them become a big success then it will have strong network effect, but not before.
(Yes this applies to Monero as well. We are trying to build something but we're not going to go running around saying we have this huge network effect. And as for FCN or whatever, I'm not even sure I need to answer that question, the differences between that and XMR in terms of how likely they are to grow into something big are pretty obvious.)
So in a way you agree POW does not provide real advantages to the most important thing - network effect.
So POS would for this same reason hard pressed to compete with Bitcoin at the things that Bitcoin can do. However, if A POS coin focused on all the things that Bitcoin will never do, then that's a completely different matter. And, in actuality, one can assume that at least one POS will create network effect. Therefore being diversified in the best of the POS coins would be a wise proposition.
Network effect. That cannot be duplicated. So, we could have a trillion POS coins. It doesnt matter. Go start a social network. Let us know how that works out for you.
That is true. But just as powerful as network effect is, it is also hard to achieve. How many startups become Facebook?
None of these coins is very big. Possibly excluding Bitcoin. So their network effect is not very big either. Look at the market cap of bitcoin vs. fiat (i.e. tiny). That is an indication of the size of its network effect. All PoS coins are far, far, far below that.
If any of them become a big success then it will have strong network effect, but not before.
(Yes this applies to Monero as well. We are trying to build something but we're not going to go running around saying we have this huge network effect. And as for FCN or whatever, I'm not even sure I need to answer that question, the differences between that and XMR in terms of how likely they are to grow into something big are pretty obvious.)
That PoS are called "coins" is a misnomer. What makes digital things "coins" is the real world energy that restricts their creation. Without mining, there is nothing that prevents duplicating PoS schemes endlessly, because doing that is free. With mining, the difference between Bitcoin and mineable altcoins stays clear because the meager demand of altcoins means meager price and less mining.
If it were true, if tomorrow someone invent a cheaper source of energy all PoW would be doomed. It's not the case because it's not the energy which restricts the creation of coins, it's the protocole rules. In PoW miners vote upon this rules, in PoS holder vote upon this rules. Not much difference, except that one can argue interests are better aligned with PoS.
No. As long as energy has any cost, the competitive situation in mining will lead to that the marginal return is zero (as is the case in every activity as per Economics 101). What exactly is the cost of energy is irrelevant, since all coins' difficulty adjustments are structured to adjust to a fixed number of coins per day regardless of the hash rate.
I am not going to argue more about why PoS does not work, because others have done it better, and you have not believed them. It is not the lack of good will and wishful thinking
That PoS are called "coins" is a misnomer. What makes digital things "coins" is the real world energy that restricts their creation. Without mining, there is nothing that prevents duplicating PoS schemes endlessly, because doing that is free. With mining, the difference between Bitcoin and mineable altcoins stays clear because the meager demand of altcoins means meager price and less mining.
If it were true, if tomorrow someone invent a cheaper source of energy all PoW would be doomed. No the difficulties would just go up, more energy would be used. The fraction of energy used in the entire economy would be largely unchanged and would continue to be a mirror of the relative value placed on the cryptocoins as opposed to other energy uses throughout the economy. (There would be a slight change because cheaper energy would shift around other uses.)
Quote
It's not the case because it's not the energy which restrict the creation of coins, it's the protocole rules.
It is the scarcity of energy that prevents having many coins with high energy usage. People have to choose between them, and the ones not so-chosen fail to survive because they can't secure their networks. This need to choose creates scarcity not only at the level of tokens, but at the level of coin duplication.
Luckily your opinion has no much bearing on the real world. You can invest your government salary for anything you like, I also do the same with my business earnings. My horse has done +20,000% in the past 3 years, not only because of luck but because I understand things even when I cannot explain them to hardheaded people. Despite this, I enjoy much more following than you.
I am not buying PoS coins, because my economics understanding puts them in the same category as fiat, creating value out of nothing, and even though that may sound smart at first, it impoverishes the masses and ends sadly. Cf. USD.
I also support honest initiatives for that merit alone, and reject scams and pumps (imagine how many times I have been approached because some new coin wanted me to join a pump, I could have easily lived on those gains alone
)
I am not buying PoS coins, because my economics understanding puts them in the same category as fiat, creating value out of nothing, and even though that may sound smart at first, it impoverishes the masses and ends sadly. Cf. USD.
I also support honest initiatives for that merit alone, and reject scams and pumps (imagine how many times I have been approached because some new coin wanted me to join a pump, I could have easily lived on those gains alone
)Thats fine. But it just means your horse won't make 20k% returns in the next 3 years. In fact, your horse won't make nearly as much returns as those who are well diversified in the best POW and POS coin portfolios.
That PoS are called "coins" is a misnomer. What makes digital things "coins" is the real world energy that restricts their creation. Without mining, there is nothing that prevents duplicating PoS schemes endlessly, because doing that is free. With mining, the difference between Bitcoin and mineable altcoins stays clear because the meager demand of altcoins means meager price and less mining.
If it were true, if tomorrow someone invent a cheaper source of energy all PoW would be doomed. It's not the case because it's not the energy which restricts the creation of coins, it's the protocole rules. In PoW miners vote upon this rules, in PoS holder vote upon this rules. Not much difference, except that one can argue interests are better aligned with PoS.
Digital currency is digital. It doesn't need ENERGY to survive to justify itself. POS can be duplicated. Just like Bitcoin can be duplicated and XMR can be duplicated.
Not exactly. He's right in a way. Energy is scarce. You can't duplicate Bitcoin or Monero a million times with their high hash rates because the energy usage would be prohibitive. You can create a little million shitcoins with virtualy no hash rate, or which are constantly stealing hash rate from each other as miner jump to the latest scam, and these might indeed be clones of the BTC or XMR code, but those are not duplicates of the BTC or XMR network
POS coins can be duplicated quite literally without physical limit. That is a major difference.
I don't totally agree this means they can never have value though.
Network effect. That cannot be duplicated. So, we could have a trillion POS coins. It doesnt matter. Go start a social network. Let us know how that works out for you.
Once entities outside of the tight knit crypto community (ie banks that are reaching out to partner with Nxt services) start interacting with POS independently from Bitcoin and POW alts, value will be added. This cannot be taken away.
It boggles my mind that high level thinkers and innovators struggle with the concept of POS. But that statement in itself is a misnomer, because many of these individuals don't struggle with the concept. In fact they embrace it. They just are less vocal on this forum.
Digital currency is digital. It doesn't need ENERGY to survive to justify itself. POS can be duplicated. Just like Bitcoin can be duplicated and XMR can be duplicated.
Not exactly. He's right in a way. Energy is scarce. You can't duplicate Bitcoin or Monero a million times with their high hash rates because the energy usage would be prohibitive. You can create a little million shitcoins with virtualy no hash rate, or which are constantly stealing hash rate from each other as miner jump to the latest scam, but those are not duplicates of the BTC or XMR network.
POS coins can be duplicated quite literally without physical limit. That is a major difference.
I don't totally agree this means they can never have value though.
If that logic is applied, would you say that Fantomcoin should be more valuable than Monero, because it can be merge-mined with it and a few others, meaning it can easily have more energy spent on mining it (larger total hashrate) than any other single CN coin? So why does it not happen? Is it because of energy spent or because there are not enough users/marketing/development efforts of Fantomcoin after all? What comes first - users see value in a coin or miners come to mine it? I would say miners follow the price, not vice versa, which proves my point that it's useful properties of a coin that matter, not how much energy is spent on it.
@kbm, see my post on why energy spent doesn't back a coin, because there is no guarantee that you can exchange a PoW coin for kWhs of spent energy. Backing a currency with some tangible things in the past centuries meant you can redeem bank notes for gold or silver. You can't do that with a crypto, so it's pointless to talk about some sort of backing with energy.
Luckily your opinion has no much bearing on the real world. You can invest your government salary for anything you like, I also do the same with my business earnings. My horse has done +20,000% in the past 3 years, not only because of luck but because I understand things even when I cannot explain them to hardheaded people. Despite this, I enjoy much more following than you.
I am not buying PoS coins, because my economics understanding puts them in the same category as fiat, creating value out of nothing, and even though that may sound smart at first, it impoverishes the masses and ends sadly. Cf. USD.
I also support honest initiatives for that merit alone, and reject scams and pumps (imagine how many times I have been approached because some new coin wanted me to join a pump, I could have easily lived on those gains alone)
I am not buying PoS coins, because my economics understanding puts them in the same category as fiat, creating value out of nothing, and even though that may sound smart at first, it impoverishes the masses and ends sadly. Cf. USD.
I also support honest initiatives for that merit alone, and reject scams and pumps (imagine how many times I have been approached because some new coin wanted me to join a pump, I could have easily lived on those gains alone
) Fortunately, miners are only 0.00001% of the population. The rest have to buy coins, and they don't have a concern if it's PoW or PoS as long as it does what they need it to.
How can you be so sure about that?
While the number is exagerated the general view is true, think about anyone now wanting to get 1000XMR, are they going to buy it or are they going to spend x amount of time mining it and hoping the difficulty doesn't increase etc. Yes lots of people mine a few coins here and there but for the majoirty of people the larger parts of their holdings are bought.
The more questionable part of the statement was the assertion that buyers don't care about PoW or PoS. They might not care about the inner workings, but they damn well care in so far as it affects the security (incl perceived security) and value (incl perceived value) of their investment. To some extent this may be arbitrary or unfair (or perhaps a better word is undeserved). PoS might just has a bad reputation for whatever reasons not based in actual security (and being associated hundreds of PoS scam coins might well be part of the reason), which affects its perceived value and therefore is value. In that case it is still a bad investment (unless you want to make a bet on this changing in the future).
Yep fully agree with that, to say that buyers don't care whether they are buying PoW or PoS is nonsensical. I care, most others care . Many will immediately dismiss a coin for being PoS. With so many options in regards to alts around people make quick snap decisions about what they like the look of, with all the PoS scams that have been ran its hardly suprising that people quickly chose not to invest. Its simply harder to make gains on PoS coins when half the crypto community instantly dismisses them.
The value of a coin is not found in how much hardware it takes to 'extract' it, but in useful features it offers to users.
The same can be said about software, which is generally all I consider PoS good for. Good software alone does not make a good cryptocurrency, because software does not make a good currency. I'd need to see my currency based on something that links it to physical reality, because that's how it's been for thousands of years. To eliminate that link leaves me with a nice software system, that I don't want to use as money.
Jump to: