mmortal03
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1762
Merit: 1011
|
 |
August 03, 2016, 02:26:16 PM |
|
Lets not forget there are things called compression algorithm's as well if need be. I think the bloat bullshit is being BLOWN way out of proportion!  Yeah, we'll need this at the network level before we'll need it at the storage level, at least if comparing to Bitcoin. From what I've read, the higher priority for the Core devs hasn't been hard drive space, but network throughput. There needs to be various protocol solutions to maintain the network's decentralized state as much as possible and which don't rely upon a centralized relay network to propagate blocks sufficiently for the miners. The miners have already resorted to using a centralized block propagation system for profitability reasons. I suspect that as Monero becomes more popular, a similar situation will arise. While it's probably true that a decentralized network can never directly compete with the throughput of a centralized solution in this respect, there still needs to be an improved solution at the protocol level that's more thoroughly decentralized, if only as a fallback option.
|
|
|
|
|
Hueristic
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4424
Merit: 6780
Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it
|
 |
August 03, 2016, 04:24:48 PM |
|
Lets not forget there are things called compression algorithm's as well if need be. I think the bloat bullshit is being BLOWN way out of proportion!  Yeah, we'll need this at the network level before we'll need it at the storage level, at least if comparing to Bitcoin. From what I've read, the higher priority for the Core devs hasn't been hard drive space, but network throughput. There needs to be various protocol solutions to maintain the network's decentralized state as much as possible and which don't rely upon a centralized relay network to propagate blocks sufficiently for the miners. The miners have already resorted to using a centralized block propagation system for profitability reasons. I suspect that as Monero becomes more popular, a similar situation will arise. While it's probably true that a decentralized network can never directly compete with the throughput of a centralized solution in this respect, there still needs to be an improved solution at the protocol level that's more thoroughly decentralized, if only as a fallback option. Yeah the point is that storage is a non issue atm. ... No but it was only a relatively short time in this thread before the above exchange. Shouldn't be hard to find.
The basic idea was to get a hash of the message mined into the blockchain (for example doing a tiny transaction and putting the hash of the message in the payment ID), and paying a fee. The mined hash is then honored by the p2p network to allow relaying that specific message for some limited period like two weeks. This doesn't give a direct incentive to the nodes but at least it minimizes the bloat on the blockchain and prevents cost-free spamming of the p2p.
When I get some time (been a premium lately) I'll check it out.
|
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”
|
|
|
luigi1111
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1105
Merit: 1000
|
 |
August 03, 2016, 04:27:20 PM |
|
Lets not forget there are things called compression algorithm's as well if need be. I think the bloat bullshit is being BLOWN way out of proportion!  Yeah, we'll need this at the network level before we'll need it at the storage level, at least if comparing to Bitcoin. From what I've read, the higher priority for the Core devs hasn't been hard drive space, but network throughput. There needs to be various protocol solutions to maintain the network's decentralized state as much as possible and which don't rely upon a centralized relay network to propagate blocks sufficiently for the miners. The miners have already resorted to using a centralized block propagation system for profitability reasons. I suspect that as Monero becomes more popular, a similar situation will arise. While it's probably true that a decentralized network can never directly compete with the throughput of a centralized solution in this respect, there still needs to be an improved solution at the protocol level that's more thoroughly decentralized, if only as a fallback option. The BTC miners have been using the relay network for quite some time. Only more recently have decentralized solutions (Xthin/Compact Blocks) been released with comparable (but of course slightly worse) performance. Of course these solutions are not compression, and there's little hope for any meaningful compression anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bucktotal
|
 |
August 04, 2016, 12:04:07 PM |
|
i would like to donate to the devs working on the Trezoro. can you please point me to the devs names or their groups' donation address? thanks! It's just NoodleDoodle's work. I can ask if he'd like to accept donations for it. He said he doesn't want to release the source for the current version with RingCT coming so soon tm. Donate [ 47AYtJeNKJjYNZLj71nBW938mbFSFwq1x4qVcNhBmdfUjhaqiGN7wqpVjH419eLYPzHFeF3TgzY2fDi vz5EyGBYUSbAXwed ] (from his initial post at forum.getmonero.org) https://forum.getmonero.org/4/academic-and-technical/2495/experimental-trezor-firmware-testingthanks for the info. keep up the great work!
|
|
|
|
|
|
schnib
|
 |
August 04, 2016, 06:01:59 PM |
|
Why is the transaction fee so high for Monero at Poloniex ? It is 0.2 XMR which means ~35cent ?
|
| █ █ | | █ █ | | ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████
|
|
|
|
GingerAle
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
|
 |
August 04, 2016, 08:14:00 PM |
|
Why is the transaction fee so high for Monero at Poloniex ? It is 0.2 XMR which means ~35cent ?
because ppl mine straight to exchanges from pools so their accounts get filled with tiny inputs so when you go to withdraw large amounts, they have to use lots of inputs.
|
|
|
|
|
schnib
|
 |
August 04, 2016, 08:27:33 PM |
|
Ok thanks. And why isn't this the same issue for other coins ?
|
| █ █ | | █ █ | | ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████
|
|
|
|
|
ReturnBits
|
 |
August 04, 2016, 09:01:59 PM |
|
Buying moar...
|
|
|
|
|
landomata
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2184
Merit: 1000
|
 |
August 04, 2016, 09:28:34 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Kewde
Member

Offline
Activity: 111
Merit: 15
Eat, sleep, code, repeat.
|
 |
August 04, 2016, 11:25:53 PM |
|
No but it was only a relatively short time in this thread before the above exchange. Shouldn't be hard to find.
The basic idea was to get a hash of the message mined into the blockchain (for example doing a tiny transaction and putting the hash of the message in the payment ID), and paying a fee. The mined hash is then honored by the p2p network to allow relaying that specific message for some limited period like two weeks. This doesn't give a direct incentive to the nodes but at least it minimizes the bloat on the blockchain and prevents cost-free spamming of the p2p.
Hi, That's the only right model to follow in my opinion. BitBay "time locks" funds but that doesn't properly stop constant spam attacks, it only limits them for a period of time. On a side note, I don't know Monero's block interval but with a sufficiently low block interval you can create it such that off-chain messaging has a priority list. A node would scan the transactions as they're coming in and process those that contain a fee for a message, the messages with those hashes get processed in the order of highest fee to lowest. Any additional throughput, given sufficient disk space can be used to relay and store "free" messages. In case of a spam attack or just too much traffic, those with a fee attached will be processed first. -- Congratulations on the stackexchange by the way.
|
|
|
|
Hueristic
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4424
Merit: 6780
Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it
|
 |
August 05, 2016, 02:04:43 AM |
|
Not a pump, by lack of choice people are realizing that XMR is a true store of value which is a aberration in CC.
|
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”
|
|
|
|
novag
|
 |
August 05, 2016, 07:58:16 AM |
|
Not a pump, by lack of choice people are realizing that XMR is a true store of value which is a aberration in CC. I also think that this is not the pump and the natural growth that will last up to the intermediate value 0.01.
|
Donate for the support of a new Martial arts Style - Aikivindo = Aikido + Wing-Chun (in Ukraine) 5168757318423326 PrivatBank. http://aikivindo.com.uaBTC:1DpRaQjdVmrkSopRV8p9RdwvBMWNA9faCS
|
|
|
canth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1001
|
 |
August 05, 2016, 12:25:37 PM |
|
I had thought that I was as exposed to XMR as I felt comfortable with and then this week's lower prices drew me in. I currently hold more than I've ever held...in for the long ride.
|
|
|
|
Globb0
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2716
Merit: 2053
Free spirit
|
 |
August 05, 2016, 01:35:26 PM |
|
BTC goes up and down, while XMR holds fairly stable in relation to BTC.
Not so good for flipping, or am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
|
dEBRUYNE
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1141
|
 |
August 05, 2016, 03:36:14 PM |
|
BTC goes up and down, while XMR holds fairly stable in relation to BTC.
Not so good for flipping, or am I missing something?
Except for a (temporary) significant drop in USD value after the announcement of the Bitfinex hack it has been relatively stable fiat wise, see: https://www.tradingview.com/chart/?symbol=XMRBTC*BTCUSDP.S. These posts are better fitted in the speculation thread.
|
|
|
|
dEBRUYNE
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1141
|
 |
August 05, 2016, 03:39:19 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
dEBRUYNE
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1141
|
 |
August 05, 2016, 04:31:13 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Globb0
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2716
Merit: 2053
Free spirit
|
 |
August 05, 2016, 07:03:59 PM |
|
Yeah sorry, all these threads are like old friends. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drhiggins
|
 |
August 07, 2016, 06:34:30 PM |
|
So I saw this today for the first time. The message came from the daemon. Any ideas what it means?
2016-Aug-07 09:03:36.615102 [P2P6]WARNING: no two valid MoneroPulse DNS checkpoi nt records were received
|
Monerohash.com U.S. Mining Pool
|
|
|
|