monerodice is not working properly is it?
Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1588. (Read 3313576 times)
Since I am a little disappointed in Monero's RAM usage since version 0.9 (it is so low that my VPS is way overkill with it's meager 512mb RAM), I think that running a Monero node on a cheap Raspberry Pi 2 model B gets really interesting again. On https://getmonero.org/downloads/ the status is soontm.
However the recent Hydrogen Helix, Point Release 1 (0.9.1.0) has some interesting release notes, next to the urgent fix for the 'block 913193 attack' of course. Someone with more insight than me can shine some light on the status of development for building on ARM?
- Bug fix for the block 913193 attack, plus checkpoints
- Restored CMake 2.9 support
- Added --password-file option to simplewallet
- Various fixes for building on ARM
- Fixed importing with verify off
However the recent Hydrogen Helix, Point Release 1 (0.9.1.0) has some interesting release notes, next to the urgent fix for the 'block 913193 attack' of course. Someone with more insight than me can shine some light on the status of development for building on ARM?
- Bug fix for the block 913193 attack, plus checkpoints
- Restored CMake 2.9 support
- Added --password-file option to simplewallet
- Various fixes for building on ARM
- Fixed importing with verify off
Both posts were continued back-and-forth attacks and were deleted. Without commenting on the merits of the statements made they are off topic for the thread. Please take it elsewhere
Please refrain from posting about how wonderful your crypto currency solution is until such a time as you have working code. You spam various threads with your delusional attempts at promoting yourself with nothing tangible to back up your claims. Anyone who gave any credence to your musings in the past has by now figured out you are full of hot air and nothing else. Your constant criticism of everyone else along with your delusions of grandeur are getting old and boring.
Smooth asked you to please stop posting drama. I complied but you didn't, thus forcing me to respond to your pumping attempt drama.
Discussing the facts of technological designs is new information and is absolutely necessary so as to not waste time creating useless software. ArticMine sent me a PM and said he was looking at my posts and he would post later.
You however are just a pumper and creating useless noise posts. I don't care how you deal with your insecurities by convincing yourself that more useless code is irrelevant. Coding smart is more important than coding stupid.
Discussing the facts of technological designs is new information and is absolutely necessary so as to not waste time creating useless software. ArticMine sent me a PM and said he was looking at my posts and he would post later.
You however are just a pumper and creating useless noise posts. I don't care how you deal with your insecurities by convincing yourself that more useless code is irrelevant. Coding smart is more important than coding stupid.
Please do not engage in petty back and forth on this thread. Disagreements and different perspectives are fine but please make sure each post is substantive (i.e. new content)
Not this again.....
Facts don't have an ego. Study the facts, so you don't need to create needless drama spam posts.
If the facts are incomprehensible to you, then you will be inclined to post drama bullshit.
I ask you again, have you coded anything yet?
Yes. And probably before you were an adult. And yes again on crypto code (there is more private code hiding at BitBucket).
And a fact is that you are moving the goal posts. My post was about facts concerning what problems Monero does not solve. My post was not about who coded useless software.
More B-lister female bitch slapping drama posts coming?
Not this again.....
Facts don't have an ego. Study the facts, so you don't need to create needless drama spam posts.
If the facts are incomprehensible to you, then you will be inclined to post drama bullshit.
I ask you again, have you coded anything yet?
Not this again.....
Facts don't have an ego. Study the facts, so you don't need to create needless drama spam posts.
If the facts are incomprehensible to you, then you will be inclined to post drama bullshit.
Do facts have a code base?
That is another fact.
Not this again.....
Facts don't have an ego. Study the facts, so you don't need to create needless drama spam posts.
If the facts are incomprehensible to you, then you will be inclined to post drama bullshit.
Do facts have a code base?
Not this again.....
Facts don't have an ego. Study the facts, so you don't need to create needless drama spam posts.
If the facts are incomprehensible to you, then you will be inclined to post drama bullshit.
Mike Hearn has an interesting new article on some of the failures of Bitcoin...
https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7
https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7
He makes some very valid points and he is of course right about the negative impacts of the 1 MB blocksize. He is also correct in saying the "bloat" is not the issue, in fact the small blocksize in Bitcoin may have led to the massive concentration of the Bitcoin hash rate in China effectively allowing the Government of China to control Bitcoin. On the other hand I do not agree at all with the criticism of people such as Gregory Maxwell, who I must say has also made many very valid points on the matter of scaling Bitcoin. The simple reality is that the Bytecoin solution of adaptive blocksize limits without a tail emission is also a prescription for disaster.
The problem with Bitcoin is that nobody has found and it may well be impossible to find a way to develop a fee market, in the, absence of a block subsidy, that does not over time converge to one of two undesirable results: Fixed blocksize and infinite fees or infinite blocksize and zero fees. Mike Hearn has made a very persuasive argument as to why a fixed blocksize and infinite fees is such an undesirable outcome; however I am sure that Gregory Maxwell can make an equally persuasive argument as to why an infinite blocksize and zero fees is an equally undesirable outcome.
Maybe the real reason why there has not been a solution to Bitcoin blocksize debate is that a solution may in fact not be possible, if one keeps the 21,000,000 maximum number of XBT limit in place, rather than because of the personalities involved.
So in all of this where does Monero stand? Well Monero is the highest capitalization coin that has solved this problem in a pure proof of work coin. My philosophy on this is that when one takes care of the long term the short term will take care of itself. On the other hand focus on the short term and expect grief over the long term. Monero has taken care of the long term, unfortunately Bitcoin and for that matter most other crypto currencies have not.
Excellent insight. The problem of hash concentration could still be something that needs to be smartly tackled. Otherwise XMR has got some pretty solid design for a crypto currency. I am a big believer in PoW but hash concentration is a potential problem (down the road)
On the markets, seeing some minor positive action even at this hour for a change.
The problem of Bitcoin hash concentration in China was paradoxically a direct result of keeping the blocksize small. This happened because ASIC production is most economical in China. With an adaptive blocksize limit in Bitcoin this likely would not have happened since The Great Firewall of China would have placed miners in China at a very significant disadvantage due to latency. This would have forced Chinese ASIC manufacturers to sell their devices for export. The lesson I see here is that a well designed crypto currency will route around censorship and drive mining to those jurisdictions that do not engage in Internet censorship. Monero is way less vulnerable here since it is likely that both China will be the most cost effective place to manufacture electronics and will also continue to censor the Internet.
Well the myth that "bloat" leads to centralization has been debunked.
Edit: Monero has also other ways to mitigate this risk such as an ASIC resistant algorithm, and initiatives such as smart mining; nevertheless I do agree that this risk will need to be addressed and minimized.
ArticMine is correct about the problem and incorrect to claim Monero (or Aeon or any other crypto currency) has a solution. Only my design has a solution. Details at the following link:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13569087
Not this again.....
Mike Hearn has an interesting new article on some of the failures of Bitcoin...
https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7
https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7
He makes some very valid points and he is of course right about the negative impacts of the 1 MB blocksize. He is also correct in saying the "bloat" is not the issue, in fact the small blocksize in Bitcoin may have led to the massive concentration of the Bitcoin hash rate in China effectively allowing the Government of China to control Bitcoin. On the other hand I do not agree at all with the criticism of people such as Gregory Maxwell, who I must say has also made many very valid points on the matter of scaling Bitcoin. The simple reality is that the Bytecoin solution of adaptive blocksize limits without a tail emission is also a prescription for disaster.
The problem with Bitcoin is that nobody has found and it may well be impossible to find a way to develop a fee market, in the, absence of a block subsidy, that does not over time converge to one of two undesirable results: Fixed blocksize and infinite fees or infinite blocksize and zero fees. Mike Hearn has made a very persuasive argument as to why a fixed blocksize and infinite fees is such an undesirable outcome; however I am sure that Gregory Maxwell can make an equally persuasive argument as to why an infinite blocksize and zero fees is an equally undesirable outcome.
Maybe the real reason why there has not been a solution to Bitcoin blocksize debate is that a solution may in fact not be possible, if one keeps the 21,000,000 maximum number of XBT limit in place, rather than because of the personalities involved.
So in all of this where does Monero stand? Well Monero is the highest capitalization coin that has solved this problem in a pure proof of work coin. My philosophy on this is that when one takes care of the long term the short term will take care of itself. On the other hand focus on the short term and expect grief over the long term. Monero has taken care of the long term, unfortunately Bitcoin and for that matter most other crypto currencies have not.
Excellent insight. The problem of hash concentration could still be something that needs to be smartly tackled. Otherwise XMR has got some pretty solid design for a crypto currency. I am a big believer in PoW but hash concentration is a potential problem (down the road)
On the markets, seeing some minor positive action even at this hour for a change.
The problem of Bitcoin hash concentration in China was paradoxically a direct result of keeping the blocksize small. This happened because ASIC production is most economical in China. With an adaptive blocksize limit in Bitcoin this likely would not have happened since The Great Firewall of China would have placed miners in China at a very significant disadvantage due to latency. This would have forced Chinese ASIC manufacturers to sell their devices for export. The lesson I see here is that a well designed crypto currency will route around censorship and drive mining to those jurisdictions that do not engage in Internet censorship. Monero is way less vulnerable here since it is likely that both China will be the most cost effective place to manufacture electronics and will also continue to censor the Internet.
Well the myth that "bloat" leads to centralization has been debunked.
Edit: Monero has also other ways to mitigate this risk such as an ASIC resistant algorithm, and initiatives such as smart mining; nevertheless I do agree that this risk will need to be addressed and minimized.
ArticMine is correct about the problem and incorrect to claim Monero (or Aeon or any other crypto currency) has a solution. Only my design has a solution. Details at the following link:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13569087
I stand corrected. I think the chance of getting one or more double block in a day, including any double that's part of a triple
1 - (1 - .025^2)^1339 =~57%
Using exponents 3 and 1338, you have about a 2% chance of hitting a triple on any given day.
1 - (1 - .025^2)^1339 =~57%
Using exponents 3 and 1338, you have about a 2% chance of hitting a triple on any given day.
Now we're on the same page. Though, I don't think it's correct to subtract from the exponent like that, but I could be wrong.
Consider a group of three consecutive blocks.
Your chance of winning at least one is
1 - (1 - .025^1)^3
Your chance of winning at least two in a row is
1 - (1 - .025^2)^2
Your chance of winning all three is .025^3, or 1 - (1 - .025^3)^1.
The sum of the exponents is constant.
This still isn't right, but it's fairly close. For example:
1 - (1 - .025^2)^2 = 0.001249609375, but the true odds of "2 in a row out of 3 'rolls'" seem to be 79 / 64,000 or 0.001234375.
Anyway, I think neither of us are really correct. We need something more like: https://www.quora.com/How-many-times-do-I-have-to-roll-a-dice-to-roll-the-same-number-six-times-in-a-row
If I did it right, I think it should take 65,640 blocks on average for a triple, or like 2.19% / day.
Nice volume and price up from what now looks like a definitive bottom test in spite of BTC rise...
Much more positive.
Much more positive.
Thanks for posting this here dEBRUYNE, really important to spread this news quickly.
Everyone that is running 0.9 needs to mandatory upgrade to 0.9.1!!
https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/releases/tag/v0.9.1
Again, mandatory upgrade for everyone that is running 0.9
This resolves the issues caused by the malicious fork which is described here -> https://forum.getmonero.org/1/news-announcements-and-editorials/2452/monero-network-malicious-fork-from-block-913193-updates-and-resolution
EDIT: All pools listed here seem to be on the correct chain -> https://monerohash.com/#network
** IMPORTANT **
Everyone that is running 0.9 needs to mandatory upgrade to 0.9.1!!
https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/releases/tag/v0.9.1
Again, mandatory upgrade for everyone that is running 0.9
This resolves the issues caused by the malicious fork which is described here -> https://forum.getmonero.org/1/news-announcements-and-editorials/2452/monero-network-malicious-fork-from-block-913193-updates-and-resolution
EDIT: All pools listed here seem to be on the correct chain -> https://monerohash.com/#network
** IMPORTANT **
Everyone that is running 0.9 needs to mandatory upgrade to 0.9.1!!
https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/releases/tag/v0.9.1
Again, mandatory upgrade for everyone that is running 0.9
This resolves the issues caused by the malicious fork which is described here -> https://forum.getmonero.org/1/news-announcements-and-editorials/2452/monero-network-malicious-fork-from-block-913193-updates-and-resolution
EDIT: All pools listed here seem to be on the correct chain -> https://monerohash.com/#network
Crosspost:
NB: https://forum.getmonero.org/1/news-announcements-and-editorials/2452/monero-network-malicious-fork-from-block-913193-updates-and-resolution
From that post (which will be kept updated) -
Hi all,
The Monero network was (once again) the subject of an attack. Due to an error during the development of 0.9, Hydrogen Helix, we omitted a check that allowed for v2 blocks to be added to the network prior to the hard fork block height. Thus instead of forking on March 20, at block height 1009827, a v2 block was added to the network at block height 913193.
This is obviously problematic as not all services have updated to 0.9, and the bulk of the network hash rate is still on 0.8.x. We are preparing a point release to 0.9 that resolves this, but in the meantime only if you are running 0.9 you can do the following as a quick patch:
Shut down your Monero daemon
Grab a checkpoints.json file from getmonero: https://downloads.getmonero.org/checkpoints.json
Put the file in your bitmonero working directory (eg. ~/.bitmonero or C:\ProgramData\bitmonero)
Restart the daemon
As soon as the patched point release is out you can remove the checkpoints.json file, if you wish, and run the updated version. The checkpoints.json patch is a quick fix and does not prevent the attacker from replaying their attack at a later block.
From that post (which will be kept updated) -
Hi all,
The Monero network was (once again) the subject of an attack. Due to an error during the development of 0.9, Hydrogen Helix, we omitted a check that allowed for v2 blocks to be added to the network prior to the hard fork block height. Thus instead of forking on March 20, at block height 1009827, a v2 block was added to the network at block height 913193.
This is obviously problematic as not all services have updated to 0.9, and the bulk of the network hash rate is still on 0.8.x. We are preparing a point release to 0.9 that resolves this, but in the meantime only if you are running 0.9 you can do the following as a quick patch:
Shut down your Monero daemon
Grab a checkpoints.json file from getmonero: https://downloads.getmonero.org/checkpoints.json
Put the file in your bitmonero working directory (eg. ~/.bitmonero or C:\ProgramData\bitmonero)
Restart the daemon
As soon as the patched point release is out you can remove the checkpoints.json file, if you wish, and run the updated version. The checkpoints.json patch is a quick fix and does not prevent the attacker from replaying their attack at a later block.
Thanks for sharing, fix applied successfully on the Linux VPS node. Mumbling something about anti-fragile..
Wonder what the real impact of this attack is. For example https://monerohash.com/nodes-distribution.html seems to be down (nodes not updated for >5 hours).
@ Hueristic, I am cross posting it so it reaches as many people as possible. Some read this thread and not the ANN thread and vice-versa, hence.
@Smooth: This shit is really all over the place can you enforce thread discipline?
We're getting close to the line but I think it is okay so far. Issues such as the quality of development and centralization pressure compared to Bitcoin are on-topic as long as substantive and not mere insults. The announcement of the forking issue and patch is also somewhat relevant to potential price action, though the market seems to have shrugged it off (in addition to the valid point of wanting to get the word out on an important announcement).
***INSULT TOWARDS THE DEV TEAM***
Did you contribute any line of code so the core devs had more eyes to check for errors?
Did you donate any eto to the dev fund so the devs had more incentive to check the code?
I guess the answer is NO and NO.
So STFU and GFY
Hasn't hurt the price any.
***INSULT TOWARDS THE DEV TEAM***
Did you contribute any line of code so the core devs had more eyes to check for errors?
Did you donate any eto to the dev fund so the devs had more incentive to check the code?
I guess the answer is NO and NO.
So STFU and GFY
Jump to: