Happy new year
and see what the dev's brought to us as a new year present...
https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/releases/tag/v0.9.0
Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1604. (Read 3313576 times)
OK OK OK As they say, you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. 
Correct.
Quote
I have started my node again and am solo mining. Instead of using both cores I am now mining with only one. The second core doesn't increase the HR by 100% but only 30% and using one core enables me to do anything else I want with my supercomputer while getting 25 H/s.
That is perfect. Or even part time (just mine when you aren't using the computer). Every little bit helps. Also, ask your friends to do the same.
i don't expect squat (re price) with then new release unless their are those that "invest" based on "performance" of a core team.
i mean, really, besides the ability of the network to perform its primary function, there is the ability of the network to perform that function in a secure fashion. 0.9 will allow many more nodes to come online... we've all witnessed newcomers to the scene be like "yo i downloaded this thing on the website and wtf". So 0,9 will make that whole situation somewhat better.
but as was eluded to in that fast talkin bitcoin podcast, its all about network security. And our hashrate just doesn't cut it yet. What cuts it? I have no idea. As a supporter, you can do many things:
1. run a solo node and mine on it
2. build up massive mining infrastructure
3. keep the price high
the current evolution of crypto allows #3 to work in some extent to address the overarching problem - lack of net hash. If monero was worth 10$ at current emission, what would the net hash be? so many cloud services would be burned keeping it up. But thats not what we want. We want a natural net hash. We want organic. Home grown. A real network of contributors. A real network of miners with dedicated rigs.
Yes it has been posited that we're just not there yet to justify high net hash..... but when? when the emission curve is bollux?
i mean, really, besides the ability of the network to perform its primary function, there is the ability of the network to perform that function in a secure fashion. 0.9 will allow many more nodes to come online... we've all witnessed newcomers to the scene be like "yo i downloaded this thing on the website and wtf". So 0,9 will make that whole situation somewhat better.
but as was eluded to in that fast talkin bitcoin podcast, its all about network security. And our hashrate just doesn't cut it yet. What cuts it? I have no idea. As a supporter, you can do many things:
1. run a solo node and mine on it
2. build up massive mining infrastructure
3. keep the price high
the current evolution of crypto allows #3 to work in some extent to address the overarching problem - lack of net hash. If monero was worth 10$ at current emission, what would the net hash be? so many cloud services would be burned keeping it up. But thats not what we want. We want a natural net hash. We want organic. Home grown. A real network of contributors. A real network of miners with dedicated rigs.
Yes it has been posited that we're just not there yet to justify high net hash..... but when? when the emission curve is bollux?
#1 is a very easy thing to do. Any believer in Monero should absolutely start solo mining today to support the network regardless of profitability. If your profitabilty calculations (based on your equipment and electricity costs) tell you it is more "efficient to just buy on the exchange then buy on the exchange AND mine Monero. It is the right thing to do and essential to network security
I'd add that even if profitability of mining works out that it is cheaper to buy, for the specific case of just running one solo mining node, the difference is going to be very, very small in absolute terms. No one is suggesting to go out and build a farm at significant expense if the profitability isn't there, but solo mining on one computer is a small price to pay to help support the network and the coin.
OK OK OK As they say, you are either part of the problem or part of the solution.
I have started my node again and am solo mining. Instead of using both cores I am now mining with only one. The second core doesn't increase the HR by 100% but only 30% and using one core enables me to do anything else I want with my supercomputer while getting 25 H/s.
When using the standalone miner on a pool the second core gives me a 50% increase.I'll go out on a limb and speculate that 0.9 will not be released this year.
Quote
There is a problem with this build (called Beta 3). Beta 2 (build November 01) loads block chain at C:\Users\
While we are waiting for 0.9, there are 2 new betas available. Always treat betas with caution (not recommended to use for funds, just testing) and make sure to upgrade once the official binaries are released!
Windows 32-bit from hyc, the guy from LMDB (https://github.com/hyc):
for anyone who wants it, my unofficial build for win32 http://highlandsun.com/hyc/monero.win32.v0-9-beta.zip
built from current master
sha1sum a1dc27be4e21450207db80d9859a0556355c83cd
Windows 64-bit from fluffypony:
CptSoloMiner: https://downloads.getmonero.org/monero.win.x64.v0-9-beta.zip updated
Again, make sure to upgrade once 0.9 is released!
P.S. Both links were posted in #monero @ freenode.
Windows 32-bit from hyc, the guy from LMDB (https://github.com/hyc):
Quote
Windows 64-bit from fluffypony:
Quote
Again, make sure to upgrade once 0.9 is released!
P.S. Both links were posted in #monero @ freenode.
is there an open pool software somewhere worthy of recommendation? I can tap a LOT of xeon cores but don't want to spend a lot of time on it. they are behind a draconian mitm cert and whitelist firewall, which makes it a bit complicated.
((Ob. my favorite soft: if the freeze−kill on ukraine/russian wheat turns out worse than expected, we could see 600 by March - 750 even. It all depends on how much snow cover there is on the coldest night of winter. I had to reduce at 479 yesterday, since 480 wasn't going to happen. Now adding again at 469.))
((Ob. my favorite soft: if the freeze−kill on ukraine/russian wheat turns out worse than expected, we could see 600 by March - 750 even. It all depends on how much snow cover there is on the coldest night of winter. I had to reduce at 479 yesterday, since 480 wasn't going to happen. Now adding again at 469.))
You can use this -> https://github.com/zone117x/node-cryptonote-pool
Credits go to fluffypony for linking it to me.
is there an open pool software somewhere worthy of recommendation? I can tap a LOT of xeon cores but don't want to spend a lot of time on it. they are behind a draconian mitm cert and whitelist firewall, which makes it a bit complicated.
((Ob. my favorite soft: if the freeze−kill on ukraine/russian wheat turns out worse than expected, we could see 600 by March - 750 even. It all depends on how much snow cover there is on the coldest night of winter. I had to reduce at 479 yesterday, since 480 wasn't going to happen. Now adding again at 469.))
((Ob. my favorite soft: if the freeze−kill on ukraine/russian wheat turns out worse than expected, we could see 600 by March - 750 even. It all depends on how much snow cover there is on the coldest night of winter. I had to reduce at 479 yesterday, since 480 wasn't going to happen. Now adding again at 469.))
I'd add that even if profitability of mining works out that it is cheaper to buy, for the specific case of just running one solo mining node, the difference is going to be very, very small in absolute terms. No one is suggesting to go out and build a farm at significant expense if the profitability isn't there, but solo mining on one computer is a small price to pay to help support the network and the coin.
i don't expect squat (re price) with then new release unless their are those that "invest" based on "performance" of a core team.
i mean, really, besides the ability of the network to perform its primary function, there is the ability of the network to perform that function in a secure fashion. 0.9 will allow many more nodes to come online... we've all witnessed newcomers to the scene be like "yo i downloaded this thing on the website and wtf". So 0,9 will make that whole situation somewhat better.
but as was eluded to in that fast talkin bitcoin podcast, its all about network security. And our hashrate just doesn't cut it yet. What cuts it? I have no idea. As a supporter, you can do many things:
1. run a solo node and mine on it
2. build up massive mining infrastructure
3. keep the price high
the current evolution of crypto allows #3 to work in some extent to address the overarching problem - lack of net hash. If monero was worth 10$ at current emission, what would the net hash be? so many cloud services would be burned keeping it up. But thats not what we want. We want a natural net hash. We want organic. Home grown. A real network of contributors. A real network of miners with dedicated rigs.
Yes it has been posited that we're just not there yet to justify high net hash..... but when? when the emission curve is bollux?
i mean, really, besides the ability of the network to perform its primary function, there is the ability of the network to perform that function in a secure fashion. 0.9 will allow many more nodes to come online... we've all witnessed newcomers to the scene be like "yo i downloaded this thing on the website and wtf". So 0,9 will make that whole situation somewhat better.
but as was eluded to in that fast talkin bitcoin podcast, its all about network security. And our hashrate just doesn't cut it yet. What cuts it? I have no idea. As a supporter, you can do many things:
1. run a solo node and mine on it
2. build up massive mining infrastructure
3. keep the price high
the current evolution of crypto allows #3 to work in some extent to address the overarching problem - lack of net hash. If monero was worth 10$ at current emission, what would the net hash be? so many cloud services would be burned keeping it up. But thats not what we want. We want a natural net hash. We want organic. Home grown. A real network of contributors. A real network of miners with dedicated rigs.
Yes it has been posited that we're just not there yet to justify high net hash..... but when? when the emission curve is bollux?
#1 is a very easy thing to do. Any believer in Monero should absolutely start solo mining today to support the network regardless of profitability. If your profitabilty calculations (based on your equipment and electricity costs) tell you it is more "efficient to just buy on the exchange then buy on the exchange AND mine Monero. It is the right thing to do and essential to network security
i don't expect squat (re price) with then new release unless their are those that "invest" based on "performance" of a core team.
i mean, really, besides the ability of the network to perform its primary function, there is the ability of the network to perform that function in a secure fashion. 0.9 will allow many more nodes to come online... we've all witnessed newcomers to the scene be like "yo i downloaded this thing on the website and wtf". So 0,9 will make that whole situation somewhat better.
but as was eluded to in that fast talkin bitcoin podcast, its all about network security. And our hashrate just doesn't cut it yet. What cuts it? I have no idea. As a supporter, you can do many things:
1. run a solo node and mine on it
2. build up massive mining infrastructure
3. keep the price high
the current evolution of crypto allows #3 to work in some extent to address the overarching problem - lack of net hash. If monero was worth 10$ at current emission, what would the net hash be? so many cloud services would be burned keeping it up. But thats not what we want. We want a natural net hash. We want organic. Home grown. A real network of contributors. A real network of miners with dedicated rigs.
Yes it has been posited that we're just not there yet to justify high net hash..... but when? when the emission curve is bollux?
i mean, really, besides the ability of the network to perform its primary function, there is the ability of the network to perform that function in a secure fashion. 0.9 will allow many more nodes to come online... we've all witnessed newcomers to the scene be like "yo i downloaded this thing on the website and wtf". So 0,9 will make that whole situation somewhat better.
but as was eluded to in that fast talkin bitcoin podcast, its all about network security. And our hashrate just doesn't cut it yet. What cuts it? I have no idea. As a supporter, you can do many things:
1. run a solo node and mine on it
2. build up massive mining infrastructure
3. keep the price high
the current evolution of crypto allows #3 to work in some extent to address the overarching problem - lack of net hash. If monero was worth 10$ at current emission, what would the net hash be? so many cloud services would be burned keeping it up. But thats not what we want. We want a natural net hash. We want organic. Home grown. A real network of contributors. A real network of miners with dedicated rigs.
Yes it has been posited that we're just not there yet to justify high net hash..... but when? when the emission curve is bollux?
...
GUI and MyMonero and DB (and payment processing services) are not enough for widespread adoption. This is clear from coins that already have (the equivalent of) these things and even in the case of Bitcoin still only have limited adoption, with other coins lagging even more.
It will take more work and time, or some sort of positive black swan, or both.
GUI and MyMonero and DB (and payment processing services) are not enough for widespread adoption. This is clear from coins that already have (the equivalent of) these things and even in the case of Bitcoin still only have limited adoption, with other coins lagging even more.
It will take more work and time, or some sort of positive black swan, or both.
Bitcoin's adoption has been stymied by the blocksize issue that Monero does not have. Why is it that virtually every major Bitcoin business is concerned about the blocksize issue?
Edit: To be blunt the limited adoption of Bitcoin is hard coded into the Bitcoin protocol. Furthermore this is also the case for every POW coin with a higher capitalization than Monero. Doge and Bytecoin only have partial solutions, and Bytecoin's partial solution is untenable when its block subsidy runs out or becomes minimal.
Peercoin has been running now since 2012. What's your opinion on PoS?
Peercoin has limited capacity by design (and I guess social contract) due to the 0.01 minimum TX fee (which is burned, so a high volume of transactions would destroy the entire money supply). It seems intended as a settlement layer. Discussed here: https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=4175.0
Other PoS coins have different approaches though. BTS with DPoS for example is clearly trying to be high capacity (but wait a year or two when scalability isn't the "hot" crypto thing any more, and it will probably try to be something different).
EDIT: Looks like you don't even need to wait. Smart contracts and being a "platform" is the hot thing now. http://bytemaster.github.io/blog/2015/12/30/Why-I-like-Ethereum/
...
GUI and MyMonero and DB (and payment processing services) are not enough for widespread adoption. This is clear from coins that already have (the equivalent of) these things and even in the case of Bitcoin still only have limited adoption, with other coins lagging even more.
It will take more work and time, or some sort of positive black swan, or both.
GUI and MyMonero and DB (and payment processing services) are not enough for widespread adoption. This is clear from coins that already have (the equivalent of) these things and even in the case of Bitcoin still only have limited adoption, with other coins lagging even more.
It will take more work and time, or some sort of positive black swan, or both.
Bitcoin's adoption has been stymied by the blocksize issue that Monero does not have. Why is it that virtually every major Bitcoin business is concerned about the blocksize issue?
Edit: To be blunt the limited adoption of Bitcoin is hard coded into the Bitcoin protocol. Furthermore this is also the case for every POW coin with a higher capitalization than Monero. Doge and Bytecoin only have partial solutions, and Bytecoin's partial solution is untenable when its block subsidy runs out or becomes minimal.
This is all true, and may become important in the future. Bitcoin's block limit, while recognized as a long term issue for years, hasn't been a practical barrier until very recently if at all.
It is also true that markets are forward looking, so when all the pieces are in place and the sort of technical and social risk factors that still exist in Bitcoin to this day (for example, there is widespread disagreement about the so-called "scalability roadmap" from some of the developers that is only a partial solution anyway) are absent in something like Monero it is indeed possible he results could be explosive. But this is also very speculative.
I do not believe that the primary barriers to crypto adoption are purely technical/capacity, but that is just a belief. I can't prove it.
...
Peercoin has been running now since 2012. What's your opinion on PoS?
Peercoin has been running now since 2012. What's your opinion on PoS?
It is fundamentally flawed.
The basic problem with PoS is that the coin network has no way of detecting if the stakeholder has shorted the coin on a derivatives market, and / or is using borrowed stake. If the stakeholder is in a net short position then the stakeholder would logically vote her stake against the best interests of the coin undermining the very premise of PoS. The reason PoS has not been called to task on this issue is that crypto currency derivatives markets are very small and for the most part limited to Bitcoin. There is no liquid way to short Peercoin yet.
A failing exchange such MTGox is also a huge risk for any PoS coin.
Edit: I did formulate "The Second Pirate Savings and Trust" attack on PoS. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10182752
...
GUI and MyMonero and DB (and payment processing services) are not enough for widespread adoption. This is clear from coins that already have (the equivalent of) these things and even in the case of Bitcoin still only have limited adoption, with other coins lagging even more.
It will take more work and time, or some sort of positive black swan, or both.
GUI and MyMonero and DB (and payment processing services) are not enough for widespread adoption. This is clear from coins that already have (the equivalent of) these things and even in the case of Bitcoin still only have limited adoption, with other coins lagging even more.
It will take more work and time, or some sort of positive black swan, or both.
Bitcoin's adoption has been stymied by the blocksize issue that Monero does not have. Why is it that virtually every major Bitcoin business is concerned about the blocksize issue?
Edit: To be blunt the limited adoption of Bitcoin is hard coded into the Bitcoin protocol. Furthermore this is also the case for every POW coin with a higher capitalization than Monero. Doge and Bytecoin only have partial solutions, and Bytecoin's partial solution is untenable when its block subsidy runs out or becomes minimal.
Peercoin has been running now since 2012. What's your opinion on PoS?
...
GUI and MyMonero and DB (and payment processing services) are not enough for widespread adoption. This is clear from coins that already have (the equivalent of) these things and even in the case of Bitcoin still only have limited adoption, with other coins lagging even more.
It will take more work and time, or some sort of positive black swan, or both.
GUI and MyMonero and DB (and payment processing services) are not enough for widespread adoption. This is clear from coins that already have (the equivalent of) these things and even in the case of Bitcoin still only have limited adoption, with other coins lagging even more.
It will take more work and time, or some sort of positive black swan, or both.
Bitcoin's adoption has been stymied by the blocksize issue that Monero does not have. Why is it that virtually every major Bitcoin business is concerned about the blocksize issue?
Edit: To be blunt the limited adoption of Bitcoin is hard coded into the Bitcoin protocol. Furthermore this is also the case for every POW coin with a higher capitalization than Monero. Doge and Bytecoin only have partial solutions, and Bytecoin's partial solution is untenable when its block subsidy runs out or becomes minimal.
Privacy coins were a fad in May 2014.
Newton was a fad. Palm was a productivity tool. Usability features are converging, and the demand will come, inevitably. As long as the usability is there when the demand spike emerges (at some sweet, stochastic moment) the outcome should be quite nice. Maybe it needs a GSM radio to reach a subsequent tier of market expansion, but first things first, walk then run.
How many of you are expecting a demand spike with the next release? To me the db work is more important than the GUI but I suspect the general population (even those who care about privacy) will disagree with me for usability concerns.
1. db plus command line works well for me already
2. Some (less concerned with security and to some degree privacy) will think mymonero.com is sufficient
3. Will those who want the new db and an official GUI (as opposed to existing "unofficial" 3rd party solutions outnumber both groups 1 and 2 above?
GUI and MyMonero and DB (and payment processing services) are not enough for widespread adoption. This is clear from coins that already have (the equivalent of) these things and even in the case of Bitcoin still only have limited adoption, with other coins lagging even more.
It will take more work and time, or some sort of positive black swan, or both.
Privacy coins were a fad in May 2014.
Newton was a fad. Palm was a productivity tool. Usability features are converging, and the demand will come, inevitably. As long as the usability is there when the demand spike emerges (at some sweet, stochastic moment) the outcome should be quite nice. Maybe it needs a GSM radio to reach a subsequent tier of market expansion, but first things first, walk then run.
How many of you are expecting a demand spike with the next release? To me the db work is more important than the GUI but I suspect the general population (even those who care about privacy) will disagree with me for usability concerns.
1. db plus command line works well for me already
2. Some (less concerned with security and to some degree privacy) will think mymonero.com is sufficient
3. Will those who want the new db and an official GUI (as opposed to existing "unofficial" 3rd party solutions outnumber both groups 1 and 2 above?
Privacy coins were a fad in May 2014.
Newton was a fad. Palm was a productivity tool. Usability features are converging, and the demand will come, inevitably. As long as the usability is there when the demand spike emerges (at some sweet, stochastic moment) the outcome should be quite nice. Maybe it needs a GSM radio to reach a subsequent tier of market expansion, but first things first, walk then run.
Privacy coins were a fad in May 2014.
It is interesting to note that the two big XMR rallies in June 2014 and March 2015 happened shortly after DASH rises. Not sure what it means, but just saying.
Might be due to a positive spillover effect. That is, a DASH rally brings (new) people and awareness to privacy oriented coins such that they research other privacy oriented coins besides DASH.
@medusa13: I guess you are watching on a linear scale, whereas it generally is better to watch on a log scale (certainly with large swings that are salient in cryptocurrencies). On log scale the line is currently at ~150k sat.
Jump to: