Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 2059. (Read 4670504 times)
Looks very complicated, it will be the next BTC it?
I am very excited about this project!Keep up a good work guys
Hey look: registered on 2014-03-06 and two pages of one line posts:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/jadehorse-263597
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/jadehorse-263597;sa=showPosts
Hey look: registered on 2014-03-06 and two pages of one line posts:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/trustnobody-264292
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/trustnobody-264292;sa=showPosts
You guys should really just stop trying. It is quite transparent what you are doing. Or if you want to do it, do it somewhere else.
Everyone else: ignore them please.
I feel like Monero is surrounded by a circle of three unknown entities.
Need help:wallet failed to connect to daemon!!! 
1. Make sure daemon has fully synced. If not, wait.
2. Type "save" in the daemon window.
3. Try wallet again.
Need help:wallet failed to connect to daemon!!!
How many threads does this coin need?
You can give it as many threads as your hardware has (number of cores or number of cores times two if your processor supports hyperthreading). Fewer threads will probably mine slower (but test it, this is not always the case) but will generally result in less fan noise, power usage, and heat.
Hey look: registered on 2014-03-06 and two pages of one line posts:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/jadehorse-263597
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/jadehorse-263597;sa=showPosts
Hey look: registered on 2014-03-06 and two pages of one line posts:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/trustnobody-264292
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/trustnobody-264292;sa=showPosts
You guys should really just stop trying. It is quite transparent what you are doing. Or if you want to do it, do it somewhere else.
Everyone else: ignore them please.
It's funny. These guys claim so difficult to mine yet hashrate keeps going up. Most people figure it out. If not there plenty of help right here. Maybe these guys need more school to learn things or they just spread nonsense on purpose.
Hey look: registered on 2014-03-06 and two pages of one line posts:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/jadehorse-263597
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/jadehorse-263597;sa=showPosts
Hey look: registered on 2014-03-06 and two pages of one line posts:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/trustnobody-264292
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/trustnobody-264292;sa=showPosts
You guys should really just stop trying. It is quite transparent what you are doing. Or if you want to do it, do it somewhere else.
Everyone else: ignore them please.
Very complex...I can't understand it... 
and I can't understand why the difficulty is so high. in fact it's not an old currency
Many people have discovered Monero and are now mining. It's a coin with a future. Everyone wants some.
I've messaged those who already translate. Russian, Portugese, Chinese. And will provide 100 MRO to each as a bounty. Spanish and other translation is needed. I'll start translation bounty with a 300 MRO donation if setup like pool/gui bounty That could be made 100 MRO for translation for beginning. Donations after that would be split at later date equal between translators so first translators get same as later.
I am against bounty for Portugese translation while it is very outdated.
I asked anonimus to update the Portuguese page and it looks like he's in the process.
Very complex...I can't understand it...
and I can't understand why the difficulty is so high. in fact it's not an old currency
Very complex...I can't understand it...
I cannot mining. Hope after testing and troubleshooting it will work at last!
https://github.com/archit120/Monero-Pool
Theoretically completely working pool code. yet to be completely tested though.
A request to the coin developers, please change the http timeout in simple miner to 10 seconds and make a windows 64 bit build, I desperately need it to test this
Theoretically completely working pool code. yet to be completely tested though.
A request to the coin developers, please change the http timeout in simple miner to 10 seconds and make a windows 64 bit build, I desperately need it to test this
How many threads does this coin need?
2^Good spot.
Edit: That's why my build was 3 times faster and that's why it was not working - I broke the hash function as someone spotted earlier It's working now, but no improvements on the hash speed. I'm sorry guys - all those uint8_t there made me think it's uint8_t.
Edit: That's why my build was 3 times faster and that's why it was not working - I broke the hash function as someone spotted earlier
It's working now, but no improvements on the hash speed. I'm sorry guys - all those uint8_t there made me think it's uint8_t.
GOOD GIRL!
Awesome, GUI and an exchange!
I was able to compile Monero with Intel C++ Compiler for linux, but got no improvement for 2nd generation optimizations. I'm going to test compiling with different settings soon.
Did you tried with SSE3 (/QxSSE3)? Did you turn on all Optimization and Optimization[intell C++ 14.0] options (screenshots here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5l3t5gysk4uhu7n/screenshots_intel_options.rar). Did you used at least value 8 for "loop unrolling"? Did you removed the unneeded divisions in the slow_hash function:I was able to compile Monero with Intel C++ Compiler for linux, but got no improvement for 2nd generation optimizations. I'm going to test compiling with different settings soon.
add:
uint8_t temp_i_max = MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE;
at the beginning of the function,
and then replace in TWO places:
for (i = 0; i < MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE; i++)
with:
for (i = 0; i < temp_i_max; i++)
Did you also compiled boost with the Intel compiler for Pentium M processor (SSE3) (see here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6622637) (you could add -j4 or -j8 for this compilation, because otherwise it takes forever)?
Actually this code looks wrong. unit8_t is only 8 bits. MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE is 8192. Assuming this actually compiles, which I think it does (I don't remember the rules on these truncations but it should at least give a warning I think) temp_i_max would be 0. So this may be faster because it has changed (broken) the algorithm. Won't work.
^Yes, it'll be very strange if the compiler don't optimize it, but someone reported here, that this made about 4-5 percent of a difference (23+ instead of 22) on a linux compile with GCC.
EDIT: Not tested.
EDIT: Not tested.
add:
uint8_t temp_i_max = MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE;
at the beginning of the function,
and then replace in TWO places:
for (i = 0; i < MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE; i++)
with:
for (i = 0; i < temp_i_max; i++)
uint8_t temp_i_max = MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE;
at the beginning of the function,
and then replace in TWO places:
for (i = 0; i < MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE; i++)
with:
for (i = 0; i < temp_i_max; i++)
That won't matter because because this is a constant expression.
Your other suggestions seemed good.
if (a != b)
do something
else
do other
Is 30% faster (yes, 30%!) than
if (a == b)
do other
else
do something
This is true but constant expressions (where every part of the expression is a compile-time constant) are part of the language, so it is less likely the compiler won't get them right (and if it doesn't it is likely a bug). This is subtly different from cases where the expression is logically a constant and can get pulled out of the loop but not syntactically at compile time. In those cases sometimes the compiler may miss it or there may be something subtle like aliasing that make the optimization impossible for the compiler as the code is written (in which case as you say modifying it may help). But that's not the case here.
Jump to: