Two pages of troll posts. They should be scared.
Well you know what they say when fudders and trolls join a coins ann thread
Good luck to BCN but no thanks I prefer XMR
Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1779. (Read 4670606 times)
Well you know what they say when fudders and trolls join a coins ann thread
Good luck to BCN but no thanks I prefer XMR
Two pages of troll posts. They should be scared.
Rias all your posts are in the BCN thread .
Why would someone believe you are not one of the people behind the 80% instamine before the public release of Bytecoin.
Please man if your going to FUD like this do it professionally at least
Theres better ways to lead people into Bytecoin and dump in there faces
Why would someone believe you are not one of the people behind the 80% instamine before the public release of Bytecoin.
Please man if your going to FUD like this do it professionally at least
Theres better ways to lead people into Bytecoin and dump in there faces
Let's do the math.
Top EC2 instance has around 700 hash/sec. One added instance is likely to have 42,000 difficulty increase.
To get 100,000,000 difficulty increase you'd have to add 2,380 of top EC2 instance. Each of the instances costs more than $1000 per month ($33 per day) and requires some work to increase the limits on your account and prepare the servers for mining.
Not only I don't believe someone invest $80,000 a day to mine XMR, it's very unlikely that it could happen in 2 days.
Let me break this down for you:
1) Top EC2 instance has around 700 hash/sec. -- Wrong
2) Each of the instances costs more than $1000 per month ($33 per day) -- Wrong
3) It's very unlikely that it could happen in 2 days. -- Wrong
Your math may be right, but your inputs are all wrong. Botnets can't come anywhere near EC2.
Would you be so kind to provide the proof? I've been mining on c3.8xlarge myself. What's your inputs than?
you contradict yourself:
i dont like botnets and think they are criminal. but i dont really see an issue from a crypto-currency-user perspective
edit: botnets dont havy any influence about how many new coins where generated per day. just how much other miners get
i dont like botnets and think they are criminal. but i dont really see an issue from a crypto-currency-user perspective
edit: botnets dont havy any influence about how many new coins where generated per day. just how much other miners get
Exactly and in my opinion it is way worse than coins in the hands of the devs. Which is not the case for BCN with several hundreds of early miners identified.
This can be crucial for the exchanges and pools. What if a user withdraws the money and it got stuck and reversed after 24 hours?
If you are right, I assume the service gets the transaction back without any notification about that. Suddenly, there is simply money on the wallet with no other information on the transfer. So the service will have to manually recalculate all the incoming and outgoing transactions to test, who is the transaction owner. The larger your service, the more useless work you should be doing on the daily bases.
That's not too friendly towards the businesses working with Monero for sure.
If you are right, I assume the service gets the transaction back without any notification about that. Suddenly, there is simply money on the wallet with no other information on the transfer. So the service will have to manually recalculate all the incoming and outgoing transactions to test, who is the transaction owner. The larger your service, the more useless work you should be doing on the daily bases.
That's not too friendly towards the businesses working with Monero for sure.
Exactly. Monero developers are clearly not qualified enough for this yet. Monero is moving in a completely wrong direction. i2p integration, for instance, is nonsense.
I remember some guy in twitter was not satisfied with Monero developers either. Well, not some regular guy but some big Bitcoin programmer / enthusiast can’t remember his name.
UPD: found him https://twitter.com/lopp/status/472359052736204800
This can be crucial for the exchanges and pools. What if a user withdraws the money and it got stuck and reversed after 24 hours?
If you are right, I assume the service gets the transaction back without any notification about that. Suddenly, there is simply money on the wallet with no other information on the transfer. So the service will have to manually recalculate all the incoming and outgoing transactions to test, who is the transaction owner. The larger your service, the more useless work you should be doing on the daily bases.
That's not too friendly towards the businesses working with Monero for sure.
and whats the differnce with ANY other crypto?
you'll send a transaction and check if the network accepts it...
if not you rebroadcast or doublespent it with a higher fee (the last one only works with btc and eligius - afaik)
It's a different approach. The service should be notified when the transaction is reversed, otherwise it breaks whole user experience. The money were withdrawn, never appeared in the user's wallet and are not identified by the service and couldn't be credited back to the account.
ok... just write a script that checks if a transaction has gone through and execute it regulary?
btw: do you know that a reverse can be reversed to? if the client did already notify the service it would have been resent...
orphan blocks can be the realchain again: they just need a miner who builds on them (and this can happen very fast)
Let me break this down for you:
1) Top EC2 instance has around 700 hash/sec. -- Wrong
2) Each of the instances costs more than $1000 per month ($33 per day) -- Wrong
3) It's very unlikely that it could happen in 2 days. -- Wrong
Your math may be right, but your inputs are all wrong. Botnets can't come anywhere near EC2.
1) Top EC2 instance has around 700 hash/sec. -- Wrong
2) Each of the instances costs more than $1000 per month ($33 per day) -- Wrong
3) It's very unlikely that it could happen in 2 days. -- Wrong
Your math may be right, but your inputs are all wrong. Botnets can't come anywhere near EC2.
Let's check.
http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/
c3.8xlarge is $1.680 per Hour, which is $40 per day. Sorry, I was all wrong, it's even worse than I was writing.
Quote
3) It's very unlikely that it could happen in 2 days. -- Wrong
It would be a nightmare to get the limit and set up 2,800 servers. Is there a shortcut?
This can be crucial for the exchanges and pools. What if a user withdraws the money and it got stuck and reversed after 24 hours?
If you are right, I assume the service gets the transaction back without any notification about that. Suddenly, there is simply money on the wallet with no other information on the transfer. So the service will have to manually recalculate all the incoming and outgoing transactions to test, who is the transaction owner. The larger your service, the more useless work you should be doing on the daily bases.
That's not too friendly towards the businesses working with Monero for sure.
and whats the differnce with ANY other crypto?
you'll send a transaction and check if the network accepts it...
if not you rebroadcast or doublespent it with a higher fee (the last one only works with btc and eligius - afaik)
It's a different approach. The service should be notified when the transaction is reversed, otherwise it breaks whole user experience. The money were withdrawn, never appeared in the user's wallet and are not identified by the service and couldn't be credited back to the account.
Let's do the math.
Top EC2 instance has around 700 hash/sec. One added instance is likely to have 42,000 difficulty increase.
To get 100,000,000 difficulty increase you'd have to add 2,380 of top EC2 instance. Each of the instances costs more than $1000 per month ($33 per day) and requires some work to increase the limits on your account and prepare the servers for mining.
Not only I don't believe someone invest $80,000 a day to mine XMR, it's very unlikely that it could happen in 2 days.
Let me break this down for you:
1) Top EC2 instance has around 700 hash/sec. -- Wrong
2) Each of the instances costs more than $1000 per month ($33 per day) -- Wrong
3) It's very unlikely that it could happen in 2 days. -- Wrong
Your math may be right, but your inputs are all wrong. Botnets can't come anywhere near EC2.
Would you be so kind to provide the proof? I've been mining on c3.8xlarge myself. What's your inputs than?
you contradict yourself:
i dont like botnets and think they are criminal. but i dont really see an issue from a crypto-currency-user perspective
edit: botnets dont havy any influence about how many new coins where generated per day. just how much other miners get
i dont like botnets and think they are criminal. but i dont really see an issue from a crypto-currency-user perspective
edit: botnets dont havy any influence about how many new coins where generated per day. just how much other miners get
Exactly and in my opinion it is way worse than coins in the hands of the devs. Which is not the case for BCN with several hundreds of early miners identified.
This can be crucial for the exchanges and pools. What if a user withdraws the money and it got stuck and reversed after 24 hours?
If you are right, I assume the service gets the transaction back without any notification about that. Suddenly, there is simply money on the wallet with no other information on the transfer. So the service will have to manually recalculate all the incoming and outgoing transactions to test, who is the transaction owner. The larger your service, the more useless work you should be doing on the daily bases.
That's not too friendly towards the businesses working with Monero for sure.
If you are right, I assume the service gets the transaction back without any notification about that. Suddenly, there is simply money on the wallet with no other information on the transfer. So the service will have to manually recalculate all the incoming and outgoing transactions to test, who is the transaction owner. The larger your service, the more useless work you should be doing on the daily bases.
That's not too friendly towards the businesses working with Monero for sure.
Exactly. Monero developers are clearly not qualified enough for this yet. Monero is moving in a completely wrong direction. i2p integration, for instance, is nonsense.
Let's do the math.
Top EC2 instance has around 700 hash/sec. One added instance is likely to have 42,000 difficulty increase.
To get 100,000,000 difficulty increase you'd have to add 2,380 of top EC2 instance. Each of the instances costs more than $1000 per month ($33 per day) and requires some work to increase the limits on your account and prepare the servers for mining.
Not only I don't believe someone invest $80,000 a day to mine XMR, it's very unlikely that it could happen in 2 days.
Let me break this down for you:
1) Top EC2 instance has around 700 hash/sec. -- Wrong
2) Each of the instances costs more than $1000 per month ($33 per day) -- Wrong
3) It's very unlikely that it could happen in 2 days. -- Wrong
Your math may be right, but your inputs are all wrong. Botnets can't come anywhere near EC2.
Could you please provide a real numbers? Don't take it as an offense, I'm just curious.
This can be crucial for the exchanges and pools. What if a user withdraws the money and it got stuck and reversed after 24 hours?
If you are right, I assume the service gets the transaction back without any notification about that. Suddenly, there is simply money on the wallet with no other information on the transfer. So the service will have to manually recalculate all the incoming and outgoing transactions to test, who is the transaction owner. The larger your service, the more useless work you should be doing on the daily bases.
That's not too friendly towards the businesses working with Monero for sure.
and whats the differnce with ANY other crypto?
you'll send a transaction and check if the network accepts it...
if not you rebroadcast or doublespent it with a higher fee (the last one only works with btc and eligius - afaik)
Let's do the math.
Top EC2 instance has around 700 hash/sec. One added instance is likely to have 42,000 difficulty increase.
To get 100,000,000 difficulty increase you'd have to add 2,380 of top EC2 instance. Each of the instances costs more than $1000 per month ($33 per day) and requires some work to increase the limits on your account and prepare the servers for mining.
Not only I don't believe someone invest $80,000 a day to mine XMR, it's very unlikely that it could happen in 2 days.
Let me break this down for you:
1) Top EC2 instance has around 700 hash/sec. -- Wrong
2) Each of the instances costs more than $1000 per month ($33 per day) -- Wrong
3) It's very unlikely that it could happen in 2 days. -- Wrong
Your math may be right, but your inputs are all wrong. Botnets can't come anywhere near EC2.
Come on, give Monero guys some credit. They are maintaining the biggest CryptoNote community there is and doing it pretty well.
Maintaining community is one thing and developing an innovative tech is another.
I really appreciate what XMR does to CryptoNote promotion and development of pools, wallets, etc. However, if you take a look at their recent transaction pool changes, you'll be quite surprised.
Firstly, Monero devs changed the source code so that the transactions could stay in pools forever. This lead to transaction piling up to 250+ transactions in the daemon tx_pools, which were not going anywhere at all and could be stuck for eternity.
Secondly, they took BBR solution to the problem and I assume didn't even bother thinking deeply on what they were adding. The 24h limit for transactions in the pool was a solution but again not a wise one. As there are no wallet notifications, the wallet doesn't know anything about the transactions being reversed. Users, services are not notified on the process at all.
What's more, if there are older daemons in the network, a more interesting case is possible. The transaction is reversed in newer daemons, the inputs are free again for other transactions. But when they're used, the older daemons (which didn't get the transaction out of their tx_pools) have to report double-spending attempts.
This is not how you make critical updates for the currency.
1) Monero developers should evaluate the long term consequences of their commits. Each unthought solution can cause drastic problems in the long run.
2) Monero developers should allow a compatibility window in order to make sure that the network is not split during the update. It's not about "mandatory update" alert on the forum, but a sophisticated approach inside the source code.
And that is why I prefer Bytecoin developers approach. I'm sure they can't ruin the network with one random commit. Can't say the same about XMR devs.
This can be crucial for the exchanges and pools. What if a user withdraws the money and it got stuck and reversed after 24 hours?
If you are right, I assume the service gets the transaction back without any notification about that. Suddenly, there is simply money on the wallet with no other information on the transfer. So the service will have to manually recalculate all the incoming and outgoing transactions to test, who is the transaction owner. The larger your service, the more useless work you should be doing on the daily bases.
That's not too friendly towards the businesses working with Monero for sure.
I wouldn't be too surprised, since Monero is easy and most profitable target for botnet owners. I just wonder how much hash rate can be attributed to botnets currently. Hopefully, not that much. But the difficulty growth happens very fast with a long plato afterwards, which might point to new botnets jumping in.
CPU mined coins are subject to botnets by definition. However, this is not what you want for the coin you're mining or investing in. Large botnet share means that the majority of the coins is obtained by the scammers and is likely to be dumped. This can't be good for the long term development because the coins are spread not among the devs or users, but are obtained by botnet holders.
How much is the case for Monero? I really believe that not all of the spikes are due to botnets, but at least some of them could be.
you contradict yourself:
if botnet owners sell all its good distributed.
if they dont there are no dumps
btw i dont think any of this is true: they should sell.... steadily. as any other miner.
i dont like botnets and think they are criminal. but i dont really see an issue from a crypto-currency-user perspective
edit: botnets dont havy any influence about how many new coins where generated per day. just how much other miners get
I would like to ask you about the botnets in XMR. I've been reading bytecoin thread and stumbled upon XMR mining malware.
There was also a topic on the stealth miner: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/monero-stealth-miner-639375
Did anybody notice any difficulty spikes in early June?
There was also a topic on the stealth miner: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/monero-stealth-miner-639375
Did anybody notice any difficulty spikes in early June?
a bcn shill here? you must be really afraid
i prefer botnets over a 80% premine...
You shouldn't.
Even if the vast majority of the coins is collected in BCN devs hands, it only reassures their commitment to keep developing the technology. Botnet owners are definitely not the case as the money is wasted.
Come on, give Monero guys some credit. They are maintaining the biggest CryptoNote community there is and doing it pretty well.
Maintaining community is one thing and developing an innovative tech is another.
I really appreciate what XMR does to CryptoNote promotion and development of pools, wallets, etc. However, if you take a look at their recent transaction pool changes, you'll be quite surprised.
Firstly, Monero devs changed the source code so that the transactions could stay in pools forever. This lead to transaction piling up to 250+ transactions in the daemon tx_pools, which were not going anywhere at all and could be stuck for eternity.
Secondly, they took BBR solution to the problem and I assume didn't even bother thinking deeply on what they were adding. The 24h limit for transactions in the pool was a solution but again not a wise one. As there are no wallet notifications, the wallet doesn't know anything about the transactions being reversed. Users, services are not notified on the process at all.
What's more, if there are older daemons in the network, a more interesting case is possible. The transaction is reversed in newer daemons, the inputs are free again for other transactions. But when they're used, the older daemons (which didn't get the transaction out of their tx_pools) have to report double-spending attempts.
This is not how you make critical updates for the currency.
1) Monero developers should evaluate the long term consequences of their commits. Each unthought solution can cause drastic problems in the long run.
2) Monero developers should allow a compatibility window in order to make sure that the network is not split during the update. It's not about "mandatory update" alert on the forum, but a sophisticated approach inside the source code.
And that is why I prefer Bytecoin developers approach. I'm sure they can't ruin the network with one random commit. Can't say the same about XMR devs.
I would like to ask you about the botnets in XMR. I've been reading bytecoin thread and stumbled upon XMR mining malware.
There was also a topic on the stealth miner: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/monero-stealth-miner-639375
Did anybody notice any difficulty spikes in early June?
There was also a topic on the stealth miner: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/monero-stealth-miner-639375
Did anybody notice any difficulty spikes in early June?
a bcn shill here? you must be really afraid
i prefer botnets over a 80% premine...
Hey Guys, I'm very new to Monero.
What do you think about the GUI Wallet and Miner from mropool.org ?
Thx for your answers.
What do you think about the GUI Wallet and Miner from mropool.org ?
Thx for your answers.
Checking the y-axis on graphs is hard for some people.
EC2 instances moving in and out move the hashrate much more than the quoted 'spike'.
EC2 instances moving in and out move the hashrate much more than the quoted 'spike'.
Let's do the math.
Top EC2 instance has around 700 hash/sec. One added instance is likely to have 42,000 difficulty increase.
To get 100,000,000 difficulty increase you'd have to add 2,380 of top EC2 instance. Each of the instances costs more than $1000 per month ($33 per day) and requires some work to increase the limits on your account and prepare the servers for mining.
Not only I don't believe someone invest $80,000 a day to mine XMR, it's very unlikely that it could happen in 2 days.
Quote
I'm really glad "they are doing the best they can", but I think botnets have a significant part in moneros hashrate. And THAT'S NOT GOOD AT ALL.
We can’t let viruses and trojans control the currency.
We can’t let viruses and trojans control the currency.
Yeah yeah, doing the best they can instamining the coin with silently updated hash function and FUDing other topics. lol.
Come on, give Monero guys some credit. They are maintaining the biggest CryptoNote community there is and doing it pretty well.
Checking the y-axis on graphs is hard for some people.
EC2 instances moving in and out move the hashrate much more than the quoted 'spike'.
EC2 instances moving in and out move the hashrate much more than the quoted 'spike'.
Let's do the math.
Top EC2 instance has around 700 hash/sec. One added instance is likely to have 42,000 difficulty increase.
To get 100,000,000 difficulty increase you'd have to add 2,380 of top EC2 instance. Each of the instances costs more than $1000 per month ($33 per day) and requires some work to increase the limits on your account and prepare the servers for mining.
Not only I don't believe someone invest $80,000 a day to mine XMR, it's very unlikely that it could happen in 2 days.
Quote
I'm really glad "they are doing the best they can", but I think botnets have a significant part in moneros hashrate. And THAT'S NOT GOOD AT ALL.
We can’t let viruses and trojans control the currency.
We can’t let viruses and trojans control the currency.
Yeah yeah, doing the best they can instamining the coin with silently updated hash function and FUDing other topics. lol.
I wouldn't be too surprised, since Monero is easy and most profitable target for botnet owners. I just wonder how much hash rate can be attributed to botnets currently. Hopefully, not that much. But the difficulty growth happens very fast with a long plato afterwards, which might point to new botnets jumping in.
CPU mined coins are subject to botnets by definition. However, this is not what you want for the coin you're mining or investing in. Large botnet share means that the majority of the coins is obtained by the scammers and is likely to be dumped. This can't be good for the long term development because the coins are spread not among the devs or users, but are obtained by botnet holders.
How much is the case for Monero? I really believe that not all of the spikes are due to botnets, but at least some of them could be.
As far as I know this is not a first botnet in Monero history. Heard something about it not so long before june. Well, certainly it’s not a Monero developers fault - they are doing the best they can.
I'm really glad "they are doing the best they can", but I think botnets have a significant part in moneros hashrate. And THAT'S NOT GOOD AT ALL.
We can’t let viruses and trojans control the currency.
Jump to: