[XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 766.

MoneroMooo

legendary

Activity: 1276

Merit: 1001

Quote from: GingerAle on October 25, 2015, 02:55:02 PM

For the sake of argument, re: "able to build an arbitrary branch of monero", would you want the beta tester to compile in for windows?

If the tester can reliably reproduce it for windows, yes.
Though if ends up in some windows code (as opposed to normal code that just happens to break on Windows), I guess I'll have to leave it to someone else.

GingerAle

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1008

Quote from: MoneroMooo on October 25, 2015, 01:36:08 PM

Quote from: nioc on October 25, 2015, 09:45:36 AM

Quote from: myagui on October 25, 2015, 09:41:34 AM

Quote from: nioc on October 25, 2015, 09:30:37 AM

Trip report on running the windows 0.9 beta for the past week or two. Other than the known issue of needing to type exit 2 separate times in order to exit it has been running smoothly. It has been using <40MB memory

I've been on the latest Windows beta for ages now, have done quite a few transactions, no issues at all here.
On exit, the daemon looks to have a wait right after stopping some network function. I don't ever need to type exit 2 times. I just type exit once, then after a few seconds, I just hit enter again.

Yes that worked, Thanks

Is anyone able to reproduce this problem reliably, and able to build an arbitrary branch of monero, and willing to test and report any patch I make to try and fix this problem ?

It might be windows only, and it might be related to that specific beta build (which was months ago at this point). for me, recent head exits cleanly in ubuntu. For the sake of argument, re: "able to build an arbitrary branch of monero", would you want the beta tester to compile in for windows?

GingerAle

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1008

Quote from: wpalczynski on October 25, 2015, 02:43:43 PM

Anyone running any of the GUIs with the latest non official DB version of Monero?

I did recently run jwinterms wallet to a remote daemon (in my home network) that was running the latest git build.

wpalczynski

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

Anyone running any of the GUIs with the latest non official DB version of Monero?

MoneroMooo

legendary

Activity: 1276

Merit: 1001

Quote from: nioc on October 25, 2015, 09:45:36 AM

Quote from: myagui on October 25, 2015, 09:41:34 AM

Quote from: nioc on October 25, 2015, 09:30:37 AM

Trip report on running the windows 0.9 beta for the past week or two. Other than the known issue of needing to type exit 2 separate times in order to exit it has been running smoothly. It has been using <40MB memory

I've been on the latest Windows beta for ages now, have done quite a few transactions, no issues at all here.
On exit, the daemon looks to have a wait right after stopping some network function. I don't ever need to type exit 2 times. I just type exit once, then after a few seconds, I just hit enter again.

Yes that worked, Thanks

Is anyone able to reproduce this problem reliably, and able to build an arbitrary branch of monero, and willing to test and report any patch I make to try and fix this problem ?

othe

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Did you set the bandwith limit? I think the default is 1 mbps still.

dEBRUYNE

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 1141

Quote from: digicoin on October 25, 2015, 12:39:48 PM

My first report on 0.9 beta release

+ Windows 7
+ Sync from start to block 797721: take more than a day
+ Database size after sync-ed: data.mdb 9,437,187 KB (9.4 GB) (block 797721)
+ Memory:

Private Working Set): 21,277 KB (21 MB)
Commit Size: 109,880 KB (109 MB)
Working Set: 38,040 KB (38 MB)

+ Startup time: About 2 seconds
+ Exit time: About 3-5 seconds

Huge improvements over 0.8.8 release!

Nice report! The bolded is probably due to a slow connection or a HDD. It takes around 45-60 min to fully sync from scratch on an SSD and it took me around 4 hours on a HDD.

digicoin

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1000

My first report on 0.9 beta release

+ Windows 7
+ Sync from start to block 797721: take more than a day
+ Database size after sync-ed: data.mdb 9,437,187 KB (9.4 GB) (block 797721)
+ Memory:

Private Working Set): 21,277 KB (21 MB)
Commit Size: 109,880 KB (109 MB)
Working Set: 38,040 KB (38 MB)

+ Startup time: About 2 seconds
+ Exit time: About 3-5 seconds

Huge improvements over 0.8.8 release!

nioc

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 1008

Quote from: myagui on October 25, 2015, 09:41:34 AM

Quote from: nioc on October 25, 2015, 09:30:37 AM

Trip report on running the windows 0.9 beta for the past week or two. Other than the known issue of needing to type exit 2 separate times in order to exit it has been running smoothly. It has been using <40MB memory

I've been on the latest Windows beta for ages now, have done quite a few transactions, no issues at all here.
On exit, the daemon looks to have a wait right after stopping some network function. I don't ever need to type exit 2 times. I just type exit once, then after a few seconds, I just hit enter again.

Yes that worked, Thanks

myagui

legendary

Activity: 1154

Merit: 1001

Quote from: nioc on October 25, 2015, 09:30:37 AM

Trip report on running the windows 0.9 beta for the past week or two. Other than the known issue of needing to type exit 2 separate times in order to exit it has been running smoothly. It has been using <40MB memory

I've been on the latest Windows beta for ages now, have done quite a few transactions, no issues at all here.
On exit, the daemon looks to have a wait right after stopping some network function. I don't ever need to type exit 2 times. I just type exit once, then after a few seconds, I just hit enter again.

nioc

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 1008

Trip report on running the windows 0.9 beta for the past week or two. Other than the known issue of needing to type exit 2 separate times in order to exit it has been running smoothly. It has been using <40MB memory

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: GingerAle on October 25, 2015, 08:28:12 AM

Quote from: TooDumbForBitcoin on October 25, 2015, 04:00:10 AM

Some questions, with upfront apologies for not searching the thread for answers:

Re the current blocksize debate now creating a duststorm in the bitcoin world - is there a similar blocksize controversy in monero's future?

Oversimplifying one aspect of the debate - centralization - if the next 3 to 5 years see a destruction of the decentralization of bitcoin, is monero in a position to observe, learn, and survive, or will monero be swept away by the same forces of centralization (in the event monero becomes the "alpha coin" after the demise of bitcoin)?

tl;dr If centralization destroys bitcoin, will centralization inevitably destroy all cryptocurrency?

also, moneromoo has come up with a pool resistance approach that passed the smooth filter, something none of my ideas have ever done. no idea how it will do in the wild.

It's more of a rough concept, no specific design, no code, etc. We'll see how it looks once some details are worked out, but there is potential it could work.

GingerAle

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1008

Quote from: TooDumbForBitcoin on October 25, 2015, 04:00:10 AM

Some questions, with upfront apologies for not searching the thread for answers:

Re the current blocksize debate now creating a duststorm in the bitcoin world - is there a similar blocksize controversy in monero's future?

Oversimplifying one aspect of the debate - centralization - if the next 3 to 5 years see a destruction of the decentralization of bitcoin, is monero in a position to observe, learn, and survive, or will monero be swept away by the same forces of centralization (in the event monero becomes the "alpha coin" after the demise of bitcoin)?

tl;dr If centralization destroys bitcoin, will centralization inevitably destroy all cryptocurrency?

also, moneromoo has come up with a pool resistance approach that passed the smooth filter, something none of my ideas have ever done. no idea how it will do in the wild.

dEBRUYNE

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 1141

Quote from: TRilon on October 25, 2015, 04:29:51 AM

When waiting for the next big release? .

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3pgvbd/secret_agendas/cw68luv?context=3

TRilon

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

When waiting for the next big release? .

rpietila

donator

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1036

Quote from: TooDumbForBitcoin on October 25, 2015, 04:00:10 AM

If centralization destroys bitcoin, will centralization inevitably destroy all cryptocurrency?

Cryptocurrency is not necessarily an end state, it can also be a process: I have enjoyed a great increase of freedom in my life through cryptocurrency, and I don't place a great emphasis on which particular crypto has done it in which year. In my own thinking, the "spirit of silver" moved to Bitcoin, and later to Monero, and may move on. Each move any more, is not a disruptive but incremental change - I still own more value in physical silver than Monero, for instance. All the previous stages of innovation serve as backups should the latest one end up "being forked".

The cutting edge cryptography will be tried in the high end projects first, and the trend towards fragmentation of the virtual assets sphere is also there. 2 years' slaughter has not killed any even remotely legit alts, for instance. This is an indication that in the future, you can own a myriad of virtual assets secured or unsecured by cryptography; accessed publicly, pseudo- or anonymously; and allocate your portfolio between them without friction.

pa

hero member

Activity: 528

Merit: 501

Quote from: TooDumbForBitcoin on October 25, 2015, 04:00:10 AM

Some questions, with upfront apologies for not searching the thread for answers:

Re the current blocksize debate now creating a duststorm in the bitcoin world - is there a similar blocksize controversy in monero's future?

Oversimplifying one aspect of the debate - centralization - if the next 3 to 5 years see a destruction of the decentralization of bitcoin, is monero in a position to observe, learn, and survive, or will monero be swept away by the same forces of centralization (in the event monero becomes the "alpha coin" after the demise of bitcoin)?

tl;dr If centralization destroys bitcoin, will centralization inevitably destroy all cryptocurrency?

Monero has an adaptive blocksize, so no blocksize debate. The plan is to use "smart mining" and ASIC resistant POW and pruning to minimize centralization.

TooDumbForBitcoin

legendary

Activity: 1638

Merit: 1001

Some questions, with upfront apologies for not searching the thread for answers:

Re the current blocksize debate now creating a duststorm in the bitcoin world - is there a similar blocksize controversy in monero's future?

Oversimplifying one aspect of the debate - centralization - if the next 3 to 5 years see a destruction of the decentralization of bitcoin, is monero in a position to observe, learn, and survive, or will monero be swept away by the same forces of centralization (in the event monero becomes the "alpha coin" after the demise of bitcoin)?

tl;dr If centralization destroys bitcoin, will centralization inevitably destroy all cryptocurrency?

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1491

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: newb4now on October 24, 2015, 08:22:22 PM

Quote from: Hueristic on October 24, 2015, 05:23:44 PM

Quote from: kazuki49 on October 24, 2015, 05:18:58 PM

Quote from: smooth on October 24, 2015, 05:15:34 PM

Quote from: kazuki49 on October 24, 2015, 05:03:46 PM

Quote from: Hueristic on October 24, 2015, 01:58:06 PM

So really not to worrisome. Quantum is the real danger.

Quantum is no danger.

Quote

Is the encryption used by VeraCrypt vulnerable to Quantum attacks?

VeraCrypt uses block ciphers (AES, Serpent, Twofish) for its encryption. Quantum attacks against these block ciphers are just a faster brute-force since the best know attack against these algorithms is exhaustive search (related keys attacks are irrelevant to our case because all keys are random and independent from each other).
Since VeraCrypt always uses 256-bit random and independent keys, we are assured of a 128-bit security
level against quantum algorithms which makes VeraCrypt encryption immune to such attacks.

I think the algorithms used in Monero are even stronger than in VeraCrypt.

Quantum attacks are potentially a danger to Monero. The distinction is that symmetric encryption like AES, etc. are much less vulnerable than signatures. All widely-used signature algorithms including those in Monero and Bitcoin are potentially vulnerable. It will be something that cryptocurrency will need to deal with in time but no one is panicking quite yet.

then its a good thing Monero has a hardfork schedule in place, I assume it could be invoked in emergencies such as an indentified quantum attack is in place and a known remedy can be implemented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography

it is good to be prepared but I think it will be a while before we have to worry about that

I'd say at least another decade. But then again maybe several.

newb4now

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Quote from: Hueristic on October 24, 2015, 05:23:44 PM

Quote from: kazuki49 on October 24, 2015, 05:18:58 PM

Quote from: smooth on October 24, 2015, 05:15:34 PM

Quote from: kazuki49 on October 24, 2015, 05:03:46 PM

Quote from: Hueristic on October 24, 2015, 01:58:06 PM

So really not to worrisome. Quantum is the real danger.

Quantum is no danger.

Quote

Is the encryption used by VeraCrypt vulnerable to Quantum attacks?

VeraCrypt uses block ciphers (AES, Serpent, Twofish) for its encryption. Quantum attacks against these block ciphers are just a faster brute-force since the best know attack against these algorithms is exhaustive search (related keys attacks are irrelevant to our case because all keys are random and independent from each other).
Since VeraCrypt always uses 256-bit random and independent keys, we are assured of a 128-bit security
level against quantum algorithms which makes VeraCrypt encryption immune to such attacks.

I think the algorithms used in Monero are even stronger than in VeraCrypt.

Quantum attacks are potentially a danger to Monero. The distinction is that symmetric encryption like AES, etc. are much less vulnerable than signatures. All widely-used signature algorithms including those in Monero and Bitcoin are potentially vulnerable. It will be something that cryptocurrency will need to deal with in time but no one is panicking quite yet.

then its a good thing Monero has a hardfork schedule in place, I assume it could be invoked in emergencies such as an indentified quantum attack is in place and a known remedy can be implemented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography

it is good to be prepared but I think it will be a while before we have to worry about that

Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 766. (Read 4671575 times)