[XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1906.

Patel

legendary

Activity: 1320

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Whylolzz on May 29, 2014, 07:54:21 PM

Hi, could someone help me out?
I've withdrawn Monero from the Cryptonote-exchange site and deposited to my Cryptnote (GUI) wallet but it's still not showing up? It's been around 10 hours now. The status is ready. I used the address under the 'Wallet' tab, copied it to the clipboard and used that address for the money to be deposited into. Is there something else I need to synch for it to show up?

Cryptonote-exchange does manual withdrawals, so it probably hasn't processed yet

Whylolzz

newbie

Activity: 11

Merit: 0

Hi, could someone help me out?
I've withdrawn Monero from the Cryptonote-exchange site and deposited to my Cryptnote (GUI) wallet but it's still not showing up? It's been around 10 hours now. The status is ready. I used the address under the 'Wallet' tab, copied it to the clipboard and used that address for the money to be deposited into. Is there something else I need to synch for it to show up?

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

Quote from: tacotime on May 29, 2014, 05:15:24 PM

Quote from: eizh on May 29, 2014, 11:18:55 AM

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

Hmm... that may also present an attack vector, in the sense of someone running intentionally a lot of problematic clients in the network to prevent the network from transacting. Some check has to be performed so that when there is an older client => rejected or something. It's not acceptable to expect 100% compatibility from all so that the network can play.

tacotime

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1005

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.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: Spekulatius on May 29, 2014, 05:23:51 PM

Quote from: GreekBitcoin on May 29, 2014, 04:25:05 PM

Quote from: Spekulatius on May 29, 2014, 04:19:32 PM

Quote from: BitWalker1 on May 29, 2014, 01:08:50 PM

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

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.

Spekulatius

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1000

Quote from: GreekBitcoin on May 29, 2014, 04:25:05 PM

Quote from: Spekulatius on May 29, 2014, 04:19:32 PM

Quote from: BitWalker1 on May 29, 2014, 01:08:50 PM

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

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..?

dbzenhosting

sr. member

Activity: 301

Merit: 250

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.

tacotime

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1005

Quote from: eizh on May 29, 2014, 11:18:55 AM

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

zechiel

newbie

Activity: 20

Merit: 0

Quote from: smooth on May 29, 2014, 04:50:43 PM

Quote from: zechiel on May 29, 2014, 04:45:54 PM

Quote from: iruu on May 29, 2014, 01:57:14 PM

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...

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.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: zechiel on May 29, 2014, 04:45:54 PM

Quote from: iruu on May 29, 2014, 01:57:14 PM

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...

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.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: ?? on ??

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

zechiel

newbie

Activity: 20

Merit: 0

Quote from: iruu on May 29, 2014, 01:57:14 PM

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...

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)?

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: LimLims on May 29, 2014, 04:39:26 PM

Quote from: smooth on May 29, 2014, 04:33:04 PM

Quote from: LimLims on May 29, 2014, 04:27:32 PM

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.

LimLims

sr. member

Activity: 1204

Merit: 272

1xbit.com

Quote from: smooth on May 29, 2014, 04:33:04 PM

Quote from: LimLims on May 29, 2014, 04:27:32 PM

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).

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: LimLims on May 29, 2014, 04:27:32 PM

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.

LimLims

sr. member

Activity: 1204

Merit: 272

1xbit.com

Quote from: smooth on May 29, 2014, 04:18:54 PM

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.

GreekBitcoin

legendary

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1001

getmonero.org

Quote from: Spekulatius on May 29, 2014, 04:19:32 PM

Quote from: BitWalker1 on May 29, 2014, 01:08:50 PM

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

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...

Spekulatius

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1000

Quote from: BitWalker1 on May 29, 2014, 01:08:50 PM

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

Good question.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

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.

LimLims

sr. member

Activity: 1204

Merit: 272

1xbit.com

Quote from: Zer0Sum on May 29, 2014, 03:59:41 PM

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.

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.

Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1906. (Read 4671910 times)