Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 2083. (Read 4670972 times)

Whether or not large farms or botnets show up, the hash rate will certainly continue to rise if the coin is successful and pools will be needed if small miners want consistent payouts. Fortunately an open source pool solution is being developed.

But it can, and it will happen.  Probably sooner than later considering how fast the value of this coin is rising.  I have six computers mining and only found one block so far back when the difficulty was in the 1000000 range.  At 6000000 I'm just going to stop mining because there really is no point.  Not trying to be a thorn in anybody's side here, just saying this could turn into a problem.  Only time will tell i guess.

Sure, if that happens. It hasn't happened yet. The whole network is around 5000 computers. Even with one little computer you should get a block every 3 days.

People may be impatient, but I can't help that. I solo mined bitcoin until I only got a block every few months. 


 

So, I'm trying to understand -- AES does not take in completely random input size and value, and output a consistent length string, but instead takes in a consistent length random value string, and outputs a consistent size string? The effect being that you have limited your sources of particular outputs (inputs) to strings of size 'x' rather than strings of any size?



I would like to see a bounty raised for GPU miner, to prevent deception or groupthinking. Putting it in the headline gives the implication that it will be permanent to people seeing it for the first time.

I can agree with the spirit of this, but from common usage on this forum "CPU only" just means currently a GPU miner isn't available. Usually someone comes along and develops one, often demanding payment to open source it. ASICs follow if/when economic feasibility allows. So it seems valid at least as far as the thread title goes. The CryptoNote developers' description of their PoW as "egalitarian" (implying true CPU only) is a different issue.

In any case, I changed it to say "CPU only currently".

If a couple of large farms show up it's going to chase all the miners off because there's no pool yet.  Nobody will have any realistic chance of getting a block.

I think you've misunderstood my point. From ocular inspection of the code, the current 16 word value in the 2MB array is 'hashed' by applying AES encryption and this produces a new value and index into the array to store. Thus the uniform, random oracle, and thus non-patterned distribution of indices is assumed, otherwise an algorithm similar to a birthday attack can be applied to reduce the storage requirements in order to fun it faster on for example a GPU because more instances could be run simultaneously.

In short, AES encryption is not a cryptographic hash function and shouldn't be employed as one.

Thus I am not talking about breaking CryptoNote's slowhash function, rather I am pointing out that by misusing AES encryption, you are breaking the memory hard assumption.

If you are not concerned with keeping it CPU-only, then why call it "CPU only"? There are so many altcoins which have deceived on this point.

Where is this 32-bit update located? Would like to try it.

I don't think it is necessarily anything.

Every day we see people coming on here trying to figure out how to mine. Some of those people have multiple computers, some have many computers. I remember yesterday two people were specifically asking about how to set up multiple computers to mine to one wallet. I have no idea how many computers either of them have or how many other people like that didn't post. There was an optimized Windows miner released recently that doubled the has rate on a lot of hardware. With the price going up like crazy yesterday that was clearly going to attract a lot of people.

All of this is going to rapidly drive up the amount of mining and the hash rate, which in total still isn't that high, only 5000 or so computers.

With the sudden onset, whoever it is doesn't care much in the way of entering quietly. Not all botnet operators are trying to kill off a network, just a different way of investing in the coin.

Either way, hopefully the intention is to hold onto the coin for a long time. With the amount of hardware and money invested in even supplying that much HR, I don't think this is a negative event. More something to just sit back and observe.

Hope I don't have to eat my words.

Same thing happened to DRK earlier on in it's life.  Someone popped into a pool with 2 GH/s back when everyone was still CPU mining.  Drove the diff so high nobody else could get a block and he hung around until the dev had to implement a gravity well just to get rid of him.  After the well was in place the guy immediately pulled the plug and he never came back.  This is what made me think it wasn't a botnet but a HUGE server farm.  That plus the fact that the hashrate was very consistent.  Didn't stop him from getting around 50,000 DRK in the meantime though.  

Yes, but doesn't appear to be related to MMing as fantom HR is relatively low.

So, not sure. I did push the 32-bit update the other day, it could be a botnet.

Difficulty is absolutely insane now, over 5,100,000

Yes, this is correct. A plot of what this looks like is below. Y-axis is in 10s of millions and the dashed line is the maximum supply (~18.446 million).

the formula is hell, I tried the same on bytecoin, which is more or less the same formula. but I do not see your conclusion?

isn't it that simple that early miners are more rewarded than late miners? - I think regarding fairness that is totally fine

Why oh WHY do people do stuff like this!? I know that this was already discussed somewhere else, but the block rewards equation is rather difficult to plot/understand, and it really should be clarified.
Assuming that's correct, if we want to break that down into something people are actually able to understand (without resorting to serious spreadsheet calculations or function plotting software), let's start by removing those exponentials:
Block reward...
= (2⁶⁴ - 1 - A) * 0.00000000000000000095367431640625
= 17.592186 - 0.00000000000000000095367431640625 - A * 0.00000000000000000095367431640625
= 17.592186 - 0.00000000000000000095367431640625 - A * 0.00000000000000000095367431640625

If A is 0 to 18400000, we could basically drop both the second terms and the block rewards would be ~17.592186. Except that's clearly not the case, so what's going on? Well, A is obviously not going from 0 to 18400000; it's instead going from 0 to some large number -- but not so large that (A * 0.00000000000000000095367431640625) would be more than 17.592186, since we don't want negative block rewards.

I looked around in the source code (which is frankly a mess to understand -- hooray for security through obfuscation and complex code!), and anything even remotely resembling "2⁶⁴ - 1 - A) * 2^-20 * 10^-12" is nowhere to be seen in the block rewards calculations. Instead, we get bitwise shift operations and other items that again only seem to serve to obscure the true meaning of what's happening. It appears the coin supply (A) is actually scaled by 1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion) -- the reward is also limited in some way by the block size (). So, applying that scaling factor, what we get is that the block rewards are

17.592186044415 - A * 0.00000095367431640625, with A going from 0 to 18400000. (I dropped the second term as it appears to be insignificant -- even when scaled by 1 trillion.)

The result is that we're seeing block rewards of around 17.14 right now, so we're down ~0.45 from the initial rewards level in a couple weeks I guess. Over the long haul, it looks like we smoothly scale block rewards such that the reward is cut in half every ~504 days (give or take) -- and about half of the remaining coins are mined every ~504 days. That's really not that bad, but rather than such a clearly stated progression we get "Block reward: Smoothly varying using the formula (2⁶⁴ - 1 - A) * 2^-20 * 10^-12, where A = supply mined to date".

Thanks for that... it only took me a few hours to actually dig through the code, run some numbers, and figure out in plain English what is actually happening. It will take about nine years for 99% of MRO to be mined, or 4.5 years for 90% of MRO to be mined. That's a far faster distribution than BTC or LTC of course, but far slower than most of the other coins coming out these days.

Back to "real" work.... LOL

It's not completely pointless, the tx_extra field with low fee blockchain can allow you to upload information. They can do things like Mastercoin w/ colored coins.

I won't be supporting it, but it's not totally pointless -- competition will make the best of us all.

No need to post pointless forks here

BitMonero may be forked and merged soon but right now it is the same.

Do not chose BitMonero over Monero when it happen, it is obvious that a merged coin will have much less value than a proper coin.

BitMonero = Monero