[XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 733.

megges

sr. member

Activity: 371

Merit: 250

Quote from: dalistar on December 10, 2015, 01:04:04 PM

so how can make good rig to mine xmr Huh

Infect some torrents / run a botnet which mines for you Grin

i guess you would need a gpu and not a cpu, but i guess also you can't build a rig which mines break even, perhaps if the power is for free ...

dalistar

member

Activity: 126

Merit: 10

so how can make good rig to mine xmr Huh

luigi1111

legendary

Activity: 1105

Merit: 1000

Quote from: dalistar on December 10, 2015, 12:49:05 PM

Quote from: luigi1111 on December 10, 2015, 12:35:23 PM

Quote from: dalistar on December 10, 2015, 12:09:17 PM

Quote from: MoneroMooo on December 10, 2015, 12:06:33 PM

Not sure about any of the numbers above, but 32.9 mHash/s (assuming the m stands for M) is higher than the total net hash (last I looked, 11 MH/s, might have moved now), so if you could sustain that you'd be getting maybe 7000 monero a day (order of magnitude). So no. A desktop i7 should be getting you between 50 and 500 hashes a second (order of magnitude again), and 1 monero a day (oom yet again). So 27 seems very wrong.

first i also calculated 7000 xmr a day but i didnt believe it

I must knew how much exactly i cant get by day before buy this cpu

i am confused

New CPUs are extremely expensive on a price-per-hash basis. Don't buy it expecting to break even in a reasonable amount of time.

Also note that "bitcoin mining score" is an entirely useless measure for mining Monero.

I'd guess that CPU to be not faster than 400h/s (300-400 possibly).

if it is 400 h/s so can make 0.33744434 XMR daily
are you make sure ?

Yup, sounds right.

dalistar

member

Activity: 126

Merit: 10

Quote from: luigi1111 on December 10, 2015, 12:35:23 PM

Quote from: dalistar on December 10, 2015, 12:09:17 PM

Quote from: MoneroMooo on December 10, 2015, 12:06:33 PM

Not sure about any of the numbers above, but 32.9 mHash/s (assuming the m stands for M) is higher than the total net hash (last I looked, 11 MH/s, might have moved now), so if you could sustain that you'd be getting maybe 7000 monero a day (order of magnitude). So no. A desktop i7 should be getting you between 50 and 500 hashes a second (order of magnitude again), and 1 monero a day (oom yet again). So 27 seems very wrong.

first i also calculated 7000 xmr a day but i didnt believe it

I must knew how much exactly i cant get by day before buy this cpu

i am confused

New CPUs are extremely expensive on a price-per-hash basis. Don't buy it expecting to break even in a reasonable amount of time.

Also note that "bitcoin mining score" is an entirely useless measure for mining Monero.

I'd guess that CPU to be not faster than 400h/s (300-400 possibly).

if it is 400 h/s so can make 0.33744434 XMR daily
are you make sure ?

luigi1111

legendary

Activity: 1105

Merit: 1000

Quote from: dalistar on December 10, 2015, 12:09:17 PM

Quote from: MoneroMooo on December 10, 2015, 12:06:33 PM

Not sure about any of the numbers above, but 32.9 mHash/s (assuming the m stands for M) is higher than the total net hash (last I looked, 11 MH/s, might have moved now), so if you could sustain that you'd be getting maybe 7000 monero a day (order of magnitude). So no. A desktop i7 should be getting you between 50 and 500 hashes a second (order of magnitude again), and 1 monero a day (oom yet again). So 27 seems very wrong.

first i also calculated 7000 xmr a day but i didnt believe it

I must knew how much exactly i cant get by day before buy this cpu

i am confused

New CPUs are extremely expensive on a price-per-hash basis. Don't buy it expecting to break even in a reasonable amount of time.

Also note that "bitcoin mining score" is an entirely useless measure for mining Monero.

I'd guess that CPU to be not faster than 400h/s (300-400 possibly).

equipoise

hero member

Activity: 794

Merit: 1000

Monero (XMR) - secure, private, untraceable

Quote from: dalistar on December 10, 2015, 12:09:17 PM

Quote from: MoneroMooo on December 10, 2015, 12:06:33 PM

Not sure about any of the numbers above, but 32.9 mHash/s (assuming the m stands for M) is higher than the total net hash (last I looked, 11 MH/s, might have moved now), so if you could sustain that you'd be getting maybe 7000 monero a day (order of magnitude). So no. A desktop i7 should be getting you between 50 and 500 hashes a second (order of magnitude again), and 1 monero a day (oom yet again). So 27 seems very wrong.

first i also calculated 7000 xmr a day but i didnt believe it

I must knew how much exactly i cant get by day before buy this cpu

i am confused

Monero and Bitcoin use different hash functions and CPU mining Monero produce less H/s. You'll mine with something like 150-400 H/s with this processor. Monero mining thread here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/xmr-monero-mining-653467

binaryFate

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Still wild and free

Quote from: dalistar on December 10, 2015, 11:58:24 AM

Better CompuBench 1.5 bitcoin mining score 32.9 mHash/s

I don't know what that is but I'd guess SHA256.

dalistar

member

Activity: 126

Merit: 10

Quote from: MoneroMooo on December 10, 2015, 12:06:33 PM

Not sure about any of the numbers above, but 32.9 mHash/s (assuming the m stands for M) is higher than the total net hash (last I looked, 11 MH/s, might have moved now), so if you could sustain that you'd be getting maybe 7000 monero a day (order of magnitude). So no. A desktop i7 should be getting you between 50 and 500 hashes a second (order of magnitude again), and 1 monero a day (oom yet again). So 27 seems very wrong.

first i also calculated 7000 xmr a day but i didnt believe it

I must knew how much exactly i cant get by day before buy this cpu

i am confused

MoneroMooo

legendary

Activity: 1276

Merit: 1001

Not sure about any of the numbers above, but 32.9 mHash/s (assuming the m stands for M) is higher than the total net hash (last I looked, 11 MH/s, might have moved now), so if you could sustain that you'd be getting maybe 7000 monero a day (order of magnitude). So no. A desktop i7 should be getting you between 50 and 500 hashes a second (order of magnitude again), and 1 monero a day (oom yet again). So 27 seems very wrong.

dalistar

member

Activity: 126

Merit: 10

have the following rig

Intel Core i7 6700K

Higher clock speed 4 GHz
Significantly newer manufacturing process 14 nm
Higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz
Better CompuBench 1.5 bitcoin mining score 32.9 mHash/s
Better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 17,241
Better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 8,981
Slightly better PassMark (Single core) score 2,318
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 36,746
Slightly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.79 GHz

this is cpu information
they wrote can produce 32.9 mHash/s

so according to coinwarz calculater Monero
it can make 27 coin per day Huh?

is that right Huh

how i can make sure before start mining

please help me

thanks

Hueristic

legendary

Activity: 3836

Merit: 4969

Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it

Is anyone going to be there?

http://conference.rt.com/

luigi1111

legendary

Activity: 1105

Merit: 1000

Quote from: medusa13 on December 08, 2015, 05:25:59 PM

ok when i think about it its not so bad at all, since timestamps are visible no?

so if i want to declare my potential xmr salary, it is difficult to fake because i would need to make real transactions every month so it looks plausible, correct?

ok it could be the same money all the time..xmr washing machine Lips sealed

someone should make a 18 million viewkey on testnet Grin

I think this is a really critical point:

Quote from: smooth on December 08, 2015, 04:33:56 PM

It is sufficient for general auditing because you can demand that the owner account for everything that was received.

It is still easy to prove and/or require proof for all outputs; it's just not a 1-and-done-for-all-time thing. The needed data is simple enough that I think a good UX should still be completely achievable.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: medusa13 on December 08, 2015, 05:25:59 PM

ok when i think about it its not so bad at all, since timestamps are visible no?

Yes.

Quote

so if i want to declare my potential xmr salary, it is difficult to fake because i would need to make real transactions every month so it looks plausible, correct?

Sure but not sure why you would do that. You could also be asked to show where you spent money on mortgage, taxes, etc. If you did that you wouldn't have enough left unaccounted to send the same money back to yourself.

medusa13

sr. member

Activity: 453

Merit: 500

hello world

ok when i think about it its not so bad at all, since timestamps are visible no?

so if i want to declare my potential xmr salary, it is difficult to fake because i would need to make real transactions every month so it looks plausible, correct?

ok it could be the same money all the time..xmr washing machine Lips sealed

someone should make a 18 million viewkey on testnet Grin

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: medusa13 on December 08, 2015, 05:15:20 PM

Quote from: smooth on December 08, 2015, 04:33:56 PM

Quote from: medusa13 on December 08, 2015, 04:16:11 PM

i did not know this about the viewkey.

doesnt this take all the magic away? i mean maybe i misunderstood, but if you cant see outgoing transactions with the viewkey, how is it usefull at all?
the information that something was there once is not enough for auditing.

It isn't sufficient for proof-of-solvency. To do that you need a more interactive protocol where the site moves the coins or discloses key images.

It is sufficient for general auditing because you can demand that the owner account for everything that was received. The owner can prove what was spent and can then disclose that proof (either publically or privately to an auditor).

wow sorry guys i did not know this...

have to say i find the information about this (the picture above or what fluffy sayd in that presentation the other day) very missleading when it comes to this to be honest..

but maybe its also good like that, more like sitzerland, declare whatever you like

so..if i send the same money to the same account again and again, what balance does the viewkey show? all incoming transactions combined?

Yeah it would show that. View-only wallets really should just disable the balance display instead, or maybe change the label to "Total amount received". It is somewhat misleading the way it is now.

I'd say the picture is more confusing than misleading. All of the auditing use cases are still supportable as voluntary transparency. I'm not sure what is meant by the last item about parents monitoring spending though, that seems a bit misplaced.

medusa13

sr. member

Activity: 453

Merit: 500

hello world

Quote from: smooth on December 08, 2015, 04:33:56 PM

Quote from: medusa13 on December 08, 2015, 04:16:11 PM

i did not know this about the viewkey.

doesnt this take all the magic away? i mean maybe i misunderstood, but if you cant see outgoing transactions with the viewkey, how is it usefull at all?
the information that something was there once is not enough for auditing.

It isn't sufficient for proof-of-solvency. To do that you need a more interactive protocol where the site moves the coins or discloses key images.

It is sufficient for general auditing because you can demand that the owner account for everything that was received. The owner can prove what was spent and can then disclose that proof (either publically or privately to an auditor).

wow sorry guys i did not know this...

have to say i find the information about this (the picture above or what fluffy sayd in that presentation the other day) very missleading when it comes to this to be honest..

but maybe its also good like that, more like switzerland, declare whatever you like

so..if i send the same money to the same account again and again, what balance does the viewkey show? all incoming transactions combined?

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: luigi1111 on December 08, 2015, 04:49:57 PM

Just for reference, this has been discussed somewhat in depth quite some time ago, so it's not a new discovery. It might not be widely known outside this thread though.

Yup. Agree on this and your entire comment. Not everyone reads the thread all the time, and new people arrive so it is reasonable to summarize and/or address the same common questions more than once. We are still getting questions about the emission curve (though that was speculation thread). Nothing wrong with that, it is a good sign.

luigi1111

legendary

Activity: 1105

Merit: 1000

Quote from: smooth on December 08, 2015, 04:40:29 PM

Quote from: luigi1111 on December 08, 2015, 12:39:24 PM

Quote from: MoneroMooo on December 08, 2015, 04:54:19 AM

To expand, it is theoretically possible to, when sending a tx, create the tx in such a way that the tx key is derivable by the owner of the view secret key. That way, the watch only wallet would see both incoming txes, and those outgoing txes. If your goal is to view your normal wallet usage, then it'd work fine. I had a patch to do that, which worked IIRC. However, this requires that the spender is not an adversary, as the spender is free to build a tx that does not follow this scheme, in which case the watch wallet user will not see the spend. So in that sense, it is voluntary, and works if the user of both wallets is you, which is a common use case.

If you hold a spend key, and want to give the view key to an adversary, such that the adversary can be sure you can't spend without it being able to tell, there are roundabout ways. A prominent one which was dissussed involves making an unspendable tx (or several) with all your allegedly unspent coins, and give it to the adversary, which can then check the blockchain for the key images. Unspendable in this case means that the tx must be valid, but unredeemable. The easiest way is to double spend an extra output I guess.

That method has the advantage that such snooping is only done at the particular time the spender sends that checking tx. This means that, should a company change auditors, the auditor will not be able to see spends in the future, since no "checking tx" will be sent to them later. Though they will still see incoming txes as they have the view key.

Maybe sending a signed bunch of key images would also just work, not sure.

Bolded above: this should be the proper way to do it. 0-mixin ring sign a hash of the viewkey (or anything else) for all of your inputs.

For creating a "monitor friendly" wallet, we should probably put a bit more thought into it, but mooo's general idea should work.

More work needs to go into the bolded portion as well. It has the same negative effects as any other 0-mixin transaction if widely used and disclosed these key image lists are disclosed. The original purpose for which this was proposed at the end of MRL-0004 was for an auditor to verify privately and then destroy. Even that is somewhat dangerous if the same auditor is auditing many clients.

Absolutely. If large lists of key image<>output mappings are made public, that's a potentially big reduction in the anonymity set.

Quote from: smooth on December 08, 2015, 04:33:56 PM

Quote from: medusa13 on December 08, 2015, 04:16:11 PM

i did not know this about the viewkey.

doesnt this take all the magic away? i mean maybe i misunderstood, but if you cant see outgoing transactions with the viewkey, how is it usefull at all?
the information that something was there once is not enough for auditing.

It isn't sufficient for proof-of-solvency. To do that you need a more interactive protocol where the site moves the coins or discloses key images.

It is sufficient for general auditing because you can demand that the owner account for everything that was received. The owner can prove what was spent and can then disclose that proof (either publically or privately to an auditor).

Just for reference, this has been discussed somewhat in depth quite some time ago, so it's not a new discovery. It might not be widely known outside this thread though.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: luigi1111 on December 08, 2015, 12:39:24 PM

Quote from: MoneroMooo on December 08, 2015, 04:54:19 AM

To expand, it is theoretically possible to, when sending a tx, create the tx in such a way that the tx key is derivable by the owner of the view secret key. That way, the watch only wallet would see both incoming txes, and those outgoing txes. If your goal is to view your normal wallet usage, then it'd work fine. I had a patch to do that, which worked IIRC. However, this requires that the spender is not an adversary, as the spender is free to build a tx that does not follow this scheme, in which case the watch wallet user will not see the spend. So in that sense, it is voluntary, and works if the user of both wallets is you, which is a common use case.

If you hold a spend key, and want to give the view key to an adversary, such that the adversary can be sure you can't spend without it being able to tell, there are roundabout ways. A prominent one which was dissussed involves making an unspendable tx (or several) with all your allegedly unspent coins, and give it to the adversary, which can then check the blockchain for the key images. Unspendable in this case means that the tx must be valid, but unredeemable. The easiest way is to double spend an extra output I guess.

That method has the advantage that such snooping is only done at the particular time the spender sends that checking tx. This means that, should a company change auditors, the auditor will not be able to see spends in the future, since no "checking tx" will be sent to them later. Though they will still see incoming txes as they have the view key.

Maybe sending a signed bunch of key images would also just work, not sure.

Bolded above: this should be the proper way to do it. 0-mixin ring sign a hash of the viewkey (or anything else) for all of your inputs.

For creating a "monitor friendly" wallet, we should probably put a bit more thought into it, but mooo's general idea should work.

More work needs to go into the bolded portion as well. It has the same negative effects as any other 0-mixin transaction if widely used and disclosed these key image lists are disclosed. The original purpose for which this was proposed at the end of MRL-0004 was for an auditor to verify privately and then destroy. Even that is somewhat dangerous if the same auditor is auditing many clients.

dEBRUYNE

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 1141

Quote from: medusa13 on December 08, 2015, 04:16:11 PM

i did not know this about the viewkey.

doesnt this take all the magic away? i mean maybe i misunderstood, but if you cant see outgoing transactions with the viewkey, how is it usefull at all?
the information that something was there once is not enough for auditing.

an example: monerodice funds get a public audit and a viewkey is posted so everyone can see the bankroll is still there. but...if we cant see outgoing transactions, how do we know?

this picture: https://i.imgur.com/gQlj9Oy.png

is the first point really true? it does not sound possible..it sounds like there has to be some cooperation(using another way to create trx) by the spender so all the transactions are visible, is this correct?

please explain to me, i was absent some time.

Moneromooo and luigi1111 just discussed a few possible methods to accomplish this (on the top of this same page). MoneroMooo even said he had a patch for on of them. I think it's currently more a matter of figuring out which option is the best (also taking privacy into account).

Also, what smooth said.

Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 733. (Read 4670673 times)