Is this coin bitmonero?
Can this coin be merge mined with fantomcoin? What hashrate do you get with the fantomcoin merge miner?
Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 2071. (Read 4669897 times)
How do I get my receive address?
You execute simplewallet to create a wallet. If you already have created a wallet just type "address" into simplewallet or look in the file walletname.bin.address.txt 
How do I get my receive address?
when you open wallet it is written somewhere
also simple write in the wallet address
How do I get my receive address somewhere that I can copy it?
I've made a research on the commit that the NoodleDoodle has claimed to make publicly available. And you know what, I have found something very weird.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
DISCLOSURE: I am not a coder
BUT
When I built on linux from the updated git my hashrate doubled on my FX8350
So not sure what you are gettin on about.
Yesterday I was convinced that Monero devs engage an instamine, but today you posted the source code of the optimized miner. I apologize.
I believe that cryptocurrency with the CryptoNight algorithm will have a great future, and our market is for everyone.
Here is announcement new cryptocoin, QuazarCoin - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-qcn-quazarcoin-full-privacydata-protection-egalitarian-pow-600658. This is not MRO relaunch, this is QCN launch, welcome.
I believe that cryptocurrency with the CryptoNight algorithm will have a great future, and our market is for everyone.
Here is announcement new cryptocoin, QuazarCoin - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-qcn-quazarcoin-full-privacydata-protection-egalitarian-pow-600658. This is not MRO relaunch, this is QCN launch, welcome.
I've made a research on the commit that the NoodleDoodle has claimed to make publicly available. And you know what, I have found something very weird.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
I ran the same test on my dedicated boxes (mostly Xeon E5-2620 v2 processors) on Ubuntu 12.04. Hashrate pulled from screenlog (screen -L) and averaged after an hour of mining. Boost 1.55 is installed from source, and built with gcc 4.8. The results:
1. Original build from source: 9.8741h/s
2. Original build from source w/ march=native, -funroll-loops: 10.2491h/s
3. Pre-compiled binaries from this topic: 20.7734h/s
4. Build from updated source: 21.8741h/s (faster than pre-compiled binaries!!)
5. Build from updated source with constants instead of divs: 22.8004h/s
6. Build from updated source with constants instead of divs, w/ march=native, -funroll-loops: 23.0526h/s
Out the box the changes NoodleDoodle committed are faster than his precompiled bins. I am not building with icc at this stage, but that might give a slight improvement.
Difficulty is absolutely insane now
Blockchain was deliberately attacked by someone. Checkpointing permitted fast sync by skipping verification of early blocks. Attacker used this to flood the chain with fake blocks and corrupted it.
To be clear: it's not enough to recompile and relaunch. Delete your blockchain.bin first. A clean blockchain will be uploaded when available and it will be dated May 8.
To be clear: it's not enough to recompile and relaunch. Delete your blockchain.bin first. A clean blockchain will be uploaded when available and it will be dated May 8.
I've made a research on the commit that the NoodleDoodle has claimed to make publicly available. And you know what, I have found something very weird.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
You should try compiling with ubuntu/linux, you'll see that it will run as fast as the "pre-compiled" windows binaries. This means that the build environment is the difference. For windows, you need the intel C++ compiler (version 14.0 sp1) and turn SSE3 optimization and loop unrolling for the "crypto" project only. The rest can be built using the VS2012 compiler.
Cheers.
I've made a research on the commit that the NoodleDoodle has claimed to make publicly available. And you know what, I have found something very weird.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
Absolute Bullshit - i get an increase from 9 to 22 hashes with the actual master branch. You have no idea what you do, thats the problem i guess.
Everyone please update your clients and remove your blockchain.bins and resync with the network. It looks like we are experiencing blockchain corruption.
New windows binaries will be out soon. In the meantime, you can still mine OK with old binaries.
New windows binaries will be out soon. In the meantime, you can still mine OK with old binaries.
developers will likely mean others can't readily fill in the gaps to release clones early in the ramp up.
Checkpointing disabled in latest commit, as I'm worried about blockchain corruption attacks.
TODO: multithread blockchain validation
https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commit/5ceffa8c8abb96bb8314939bf75c9b935ea7b5bc
TODO: multithread blockchain validation
https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commit/5ceffa8c8abb96bb8314939bf75c9b935ea7b5bc
OK，I have to give up mine this
I have 4 E3 CPUs mined at 100H/S for two days and got none block
I have 4 E3 CPUs mined at 100H/S for two days and got none block
Strange even at 10h/s on a laptop Ive found a block in the last 36 hours.
I had the bad luck
I've made a research on the commit that the NoodleDoodle has claimed to make publicly available. And you know what, I have found something very weird.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
With the Bytecoin reference code and original build put out, Windows was roughly 2-3x slower than Linux. Noodle doubled Windows hashrates twice. The first time was with compiler optimization and affected Windows only. The second time was the loop change (now incorporated) and that doubled both Linux and Windows hashrates. From IRC:
14:57 NoodleDoodle: No, the first one is compiler "optimization" and the second one is the commit.
14:58 equipoise: which compiller are you using? I tried with intel
14:59 equipoise: compilling with avx
15:00 NoodleDoodle: You don't need avx.
15:00 NoodleDoodle: Just sse3.
I've made a research on the commit that the NoodleDoodle has claimed to make publicly available. And you know what, I have found something very weird.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
Which compiler you using? I think Noodle said he built with intelc++
I've made a research on the commit that the NoodleDoodle has claimed to make publicly available. And you know what, I have found something very weird.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
OK，I have to give up mine this
I have 4 E3 CPUs mined at 100H/S for two days and got none block
I have 4 E3 CPUs mined at 100H/S for two days and got none block
Strange even at 10h/s on a laptop Ive found a block in the last 36 hours.
OK，I have to give up mine this
I have 4 E3 CPUs mined at 100H/S for two days and got none block
I have 4 E3 CPUs mined at 100H/S for two days and got none block
Jump to: