Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1906. (Read 4670606 times)
Just a reminder to everyone to please update their codebase -- a bunch of people experienced failed tx today because their codebase was not on the latest version.
Hi again,
does someone tried this "merged mining" of BCN, MRO and QCN with this Fantomcoin (FCN) ?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fcn-fantomcoin-cn-based-anonymous-merge-mine-with-bcn-xmr-qcn-duck-598823
Thx, BitWalker
does someone tried this "merged mining" of BCN, MRO and QCN with this Fantomcoin (FCN) ?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fcn-fantomcoin-cn-based-anonymous-merge-mine-with-bcn-xmr-qcn-duck-598823
Thx, BitWalker
Good question.
as far as i know their miners were always really slower than monero miners so there was no point in mining it if you cant mine monero with the same hash you would without mining FCN. And i think the implementation cannot be supported by pools...
Is the problem that FCN cant keep up with updates to the code base of its merge mined coins? It seems to work for Namecoin though..?
It works for namecoin because the pace of development is much, much slower, and there is also more money involved, even though namecoin is only worth maybe 1% of bitcoin. 1% of a bitcoin block is still significant. FCN is not worth the trouble at this point.
Hi again,
does someone tried this "merged mining" of BCN, MRO and QCN with this Fantomcoin (FCN) ?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fcn-fantomcoin-cn-based-anonymous-merge-mine-with-bcn-xmr-qcn-duck-598823
Thx, BitWalker
does someone tried this "merged mining" of BCN, MRO and QCN with this Fantomcoin (FCN) ?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fcn-fantomcoin-cn-based-anonymous-merge-mine-with-bcn-xmr-qcn-duck-598823
Thx, BitWalker
Good question.
as far as i know their miners were always really slower than monero miners so there was no point in mining it if you cant mine monero with the same hash you would without mining FCN. And i think the implementation cannot be supported by pools...
Is the problem that FCN cant keep up with updates to the code base of its merge mined coins? It seems to work for Namecoin though..?
Whats going on with the prices? why such major dump? coin dead already? I had tons of hope and hype for this coin... Still mining.
There's a bug inherited by all CryptoNote coins where a transaction gets stuck in the tx_pool because of disagreements between the wallet and daemon. When this happens, your tx fails and doesn't show up on the blockchain, but you start seeing spent key image errors when trying to spend again. This will be fixed in the next release, but for now if you want to send large amounts, do it in batches less than 100 MRO.
The bug was actually not really a bug at all (except in BBR, because they were on the old BCN codebase). At least afaik.
Transaction fees were change to 5 * 10^9 AMU several days ago in the main branch and in the windows client. However, a bunch of users failed to upgrade and sending tx through without proper fees, and their tx were getting stuck in limbo.
All clients need to update their software to the latest fees schedule as previously indicated.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6993826
I looked at mining algorithm and I see that pow is calculated over WHOLE block (sha3). Not block header like in bitcoin, but whole block with transactions. Is that true or am I mistaken?
If that's true this means that ignoring transactions gives a small speed boost in mining. That's not very good for the future...
If that's true this means that ignoring transactions gives a small speed boost in mining. That's not very good for the future...
I skimmed the code, and you may be right.
src/cryptonote_core/miner.cpp:
...
b.nonce = nonce;
crypto::hash h;
get_block_longhash(b, h, height);
if(check_hash(h, local_diff))
{
//we lucky!
...
Could a developer comment on that? Will larger blocks hash slower? If so, what incentives do miners have to include more than the coinbase transaction in their blocks (transaction fees seem negligible at the moment imo)?
The slow hash is not computed on the entire block, directly. There is an intermediate fast hash, just as with other coins. But just as with other coins it is indeed the case that larger blocks are slower. After all you still have to validate the transactions and compute the block hash. That's why there need to be some transaction fees to get miners to include transactions into a block, otherwise they won't. There can also bit a bit of social pressure to do the right thing. For example, with bitcoin there is no real incentive to include the fee-free high-priority transactions, but most of the big pools do it anyway. With this coin there is not currently a transaction priority mechanism so fee-free transactions are not workable, even if they are workable for bitcoin (which is questionable longer term).
EDIT: BTW transaction fees were raised in the last update and may be raised again. They need to be economically significant.
Looking into the get_block_longhash function I see that you are right. I did not know about that quick tree hash/slow pow hash thing.
Thank you for your quick answer.
I looked at mining algorithm and I see that pow is calculated over WHOLE block (sha3). Not block header like in bitcoin, but whole block with transactions. Is that true or am I mistaken?
If that's true this means that ignoring transactions gives a small speed boost in mining. That's not very good for the future...
If that's true this means that ignoring transactions gives a small speed boost in mining. That's not very good for the future...
I skimmed the code, and you may be right.
src/cryptonote_core/miner.cpp:
...
b.nonce = nonce;
crypto::hash h;
get_block_longhash(b, h, height);
if(check_hash(h, local_diff))
{
//we lucky!
...
Could a developer comment on that? Will larger blocks hash slower? If so, what incentives do miners have to include more than the coinbase transaction in their blocks (transaction fees seem negligible at the moment imo)?
The slow hash is not computed on the entire block, directly. There is an intermediate fast hash, just as with other coins. But just as with other coins it is indeed the case that larger blocks are slower. After all you still have to validate the transactions and compute the block hash. That's why there need to be some transaction fees to get miners to include transactions into a block, otherwise they won't. There can also bit a bit of social pressure to do the right thing. For example, with bitcoin there is no real incentive to include the fee-free high-priority transactions, but most of the big pools do it anyway. With this coin there is not currently a transaction priority mechanism so fee-free transactions are not workable, even if they are workable for bitcoin (which is questionable longer term).
EDIT: BTW transaction fees were raised in the last update and may be raised again. They need to be economically significant.
Will Monero ever reach 0.008? Seems like a constant downfall every day I check poloniex.
Speculation thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/monero-xmr-speculation-thread-622708
I looked at mining algorithm and I see that pow is calculated over WHOLE block (sha3). Not block header like in bitcoin, but whole block with transactions. Is that true or am I mistaken?
If that's true this means that ignoring transactions gives a small speed boost in mining. That's not very good for the future...
If that's true this means that ignoring transactions gives a small speed boost in mining. That's not very good for the future...
I skimmed the code, and you may be right.
src/cryptonote_core/miner.cpp:
...
b.nonce = nonce;
crypto::hash h;
get_block_longhash(b, h, height);
if(check_hash(h, local_diff))
{
//we lucky!
...
Could a developer comment on that? Will larger blocks hash slower? If so, what incentives do miners have to include more than the coinbase transaction in their blocks (transaction fees seem negligible at the moment imo)?
Quote
If you want less dumping, get more of the mining into the hands of smaller scale non-professionals. This coin is poised to do just that with the CPU miner.
Mining dynamics tend in the opposite direction (because efficiency wins out, and larger operations are more efficient).Efficiency is a tricky beast though. Someone who already owns a computer for another purpose, doesn't even bother tracking the electricity use for mining because it is too small to matter (or in some cases actually free), and doesn't need any cooling system (not even free flow) because he is operating on a small scale, has a zero cost structure. No professional miner can compete with that on efficiency.
Sure. We're effectively arguing the same logic though, from different angles. I'm saying the gpu mining community is comprised of a lot of small scale operations, whereas MRO's current mining distribution would (I expect) be dominated by a few large cloud mining ops. Far, FAR easier & cheaper to scale up cloud mining infrastructure than scaling up GPU mining. So introducing a gpu miner would be moving in the right direction in that respect (not to mention the benefit to adoption, attention, etc).
Show term yes, but long term no. The GPU mining community is orders of magnitudes smaller than the wider community of people with a computer.
Anyway, a GPU miner will happen if it is feasible, which is debatable. You are more than welcome to start a bounty for it, collect donations, etc. as some of us have done for other things we thought were important (GUI, etc.). I happen not to think that GPU mining is that important so I won't participate at this time. If at some point it looks like there are secret GPU miners, then yes I would participate in a bounty to open source them or develop and open source alternative.
Quote
If you want less dumping, get more of the mining into the hands of smaller scale non-professionals. This coin is poised to do just that with the CPU miner.
Mining dynamics tend in the opposite direction (because efficiency wins out, and larger operations are more efficient).Efficiency is a tricky beast though. Someone who already owns a computer for another purpose, doesn't even bother tracking the electricity use for mining because it is too small to matter (or in some cases actually free), and doesn't need any cooling system (not even free flow) because he is operating on a small scale, has a zero cost structure. No professional miner can compete with that on efficiency.
Sure. We're effectively arguing the same logic though, from different angles. I'm saying the gpu mining community is comprised of a lot of small scale operations, whereas MRO's current mining distribution would (I expect) be dominated by a few large cloud mining ops. Far, FAR easier & cheaper to scale up cloud mining infrastructure than scaling up GPU mining. So introducing a gpu miner would be moving in the right direction in that respect (not to mention the benefit to adoption, attention, etc).
Quote
If you want less dumping, get more of the mining into the hands of smaller scale non-professionals. This coin is poised to do just that with the CPU miner.
Mining dynamics tend in the opposite direction (because efficiency wins out, and larger operations are more efficient).Efficiency is a tricky beast though. Someone who already owns a computer for another purpose, doesn't even bother tracking the electricity use for mining because it is too small to matter (or in some cases actually free), and doesn't need any cooling system (not even free flow) because he is operating on a small scale, has a zero cost structure. No professional miner can compete with that on efficiency.
All professional miners dump. It doesn't matter if they are GPU farmers, botnets, cloud miners or something else. They're in business to mine and then get their cash out to recycle it into something else.
Agreed. But consider that this component of overall sell pressure is determined by the proportion of dumped vs held mined coins. That proportion can make a really big difference if there's relatively low volume on the buy side. Whether it's going to be a problem for MRO remains to be seen.Quote
If you want less dumping, get more of the mining into the hands of smaller scale non-professionals. This coin is poised to do just that with the CPU miner.
Mining dynamics tend in the opposite direction (because efficiency wins out, and larger operations are more efficient). But I agree these would help:Quote
The missing pieces are: 1) a more user-friendly wallet, and 2) something to actually do with the damn thing.
Hi again,
does someone tried this "merged mining" of BCN, MRO and QCN with this Fantomcoin (FCN) ?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fcn-fantomcoin-cn-based-anonymous-merge-mine-with-bcn-xmr-qcn-duck-598823
Thx, BitWalker
does someone tried this "merged mining" of BCN, MRO and QCN with this Fantomcoin (FCN) ?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fcn-fantomcoin-cn-based-anonymous-merge-mine-with-bcn-xmr-qcn-duck-598823
Thx, BitWalker
Good question.
as far as i know their miners were always really slower than monero miners so there was no point in mining it if you cant mine monero with the same hash you would without mining FCN. And i think the implementation cannot be supported by pools...
Hi again,
does someone tried this "merged mining" of BCN, MRO and QCN with this Fantomcoin (FCN) ?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fcn-fantomcoin-cn-based-anonymous-merge-mine-with-bcn-xmr-qcn-duck-598823
Thx, BitWalker
does someone tried this "merged mining" of BCN, MRO and QCN with this Fantomcoin (FCN) ?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fcn-fantomcoin-cn-based-anonymous-merge-mine-with-bcn-xmr-qcn-duck-598823
Thx, BitWalker
Good question.
All professional miners dump. It doesn't matter if they are GPU farmers, botnets, cloud miners or something else. They're in business to mine and then get their cash out to recycle it into something else.
Speculators can drive prices up but they can also drive them down, when they jump off to the new hot coin. They bring volatility, not sustained increases.
If you want less dumping, get more of the mining into the hands of smaller scale non-professionals. This coin is poised to do just that with the CPU miner. The missing pieces are: 1) a more user-friendly wallet, and 2) something to actually do with the damn thing. A GPU miner would actually be somewhat counterproductive, because they tend to be harder to set up for small scale non-professionals, and favor those with the most optimized GPU models and configurations.
If it is is just large scale miners and speculators, you will see a lot of volatility but no major sustained price increase.
Speculators can drive prices up but they can also drive them down, when they jump off to the new hot coin. They bring volatility, not sustained increases.
If you want less dumping, get more of the mining into the hands of smaller scale non-professionals. This coin is poised to do just that with the CPU miner. The missing pieces are: 1) a more user-friendly wallet, and 2) something to actually do with the damn thing. A GPU miner would actually be somewhat counterproductive, because they tend to be harder to set up for small scale non-professionals, and favor those with the most optimized GPU models and configurations.
If it is is just large scale miners and speculators, you will see a lot of volatility but no major sustained price increase.
This coin (and technology) is either gonna be a Big Hit or a Big Bust...
Not the kind of marginal alt where your short term logic might apply.
Not the kind of marginal alt where your short term logic might apply.
My assumption is that people here are invested in Monero specifically, and not necessarily in the cryptonote / bytecoin codebase, which could spawn any number of highly competitive clones. In which case, cryptonote being a big hit doesn't guarantee Monero anything. If MRO is consistently underperforming on the market, another cryptonote clone will beat it and fill the niche, making MRO redundant.
The equilibrium is set by spot instance pricing.
I just wanted to address this too: mining costs are a factor underlying price, but ultimately price dynamics are determined by buying & selling, which are in turn determined by humans & emotions. Mining can be unprofitable for weeks/months without nethash suffering (DRK demonstrated this). Or mining profitability can be huge for long periods of time, sustained by strong buy pressure. Or the price can crash and burn, causing miners to leave to the point where nobody bothers anymore. Equilibriums might work on paper, but in practice it's never that neat.
Bottom line is: you can't trust that the price will equilibrate to butt mining costs after a period of hype & speculative adoption. It really could go in any direction depending on competition, media attention, tech problems, all kinds of things really. And the market can be fickle. So it's better to cover your bases where you can.
DRK had pretty good marketing and media attention. Monero hasnt even started yet...
The equilibrium is set by spot instance pricing.
I just wanted to address this too: mining costs are a factor underlying price, but ultimately price dynamics are determined by buying & selling, which are in turn determined by humans & emotions. Mining can be unprofitable for weeks/months without nethash suffering (DRK demonstrated this). Or mining profitability can be huge for long periods of time, sustained by strong buy pressure. Or the price can crash and burn, causing miners to leave to the point where nobody bothers anymore. Equilibriums might work on paper, but in practice it's never that neat.
Bottom line is: you can't trust that the price will equilibrate to butt mining costs after a period of hype & speculative adoption. It really could go in any direction depending on competition, media attention, tech problems, all kinds of things really. And the market can be fickle. So it's better to cover your bases where you can.
and one has to wonder those going the Amazon route how long they will keep hashing for a loss... With the price dropping daily one would have to think its getting close to being break even/unprofitable.
The equilibrium is set by spot instance pricing.
I just wanted to address this too: mining costs are a factor underlying price, but ultimately price dynamics are determined by buying & selling, which are in turn determined by humans & emotions. Mining can be unprofitable for weeks/months without nethash suffering (DRK demonstrated this). Or mining profitability can be huge for long periods of time, sustained by strong buy pressure. Or the price can crash and burn, causing miners to leave to the point where nobody bothers anymore. Equilibriums might work on paper, but in practice it's never that neat.
Bottom line is: you can't trust that the price will equilibrate to butt mining costs after a period of hype & speculative adoption. It really could go in any direction depending on competition, media attention, tech problems, all kinds of things really. And the market can be fickle. So it's better to cover your bases where you can.
Jump to: