Coming up to date from where you are would take ~10 minutes on my home connection...

Move wallet.bin.keys wherever you want to access funds, it will work on all platforms. wallet.bin only holds the sync data, and I don't think the Windows version is compatible with the linux version.

A new wallet.bin for your address will be generated if you put wallet.bin.keys in the directory where you try to open wallet.bin. simplewallet will rescan the blockchain for your transactions and then you can send funds.

HELP a noob.

1 - using monero wallet GUI to mine i get:



2 - Using CryptoNoteminer, it mines but where is the wallet where the coins are mined to? I only see the address...

If there is a CN ASIC, will the dev core commit to changing the hash, in the case where it is substantially more cost-effective than cpu or gpu mining?

I see, http://monero.crypto-pool.fr/#getting_started i downloaded easyminer there, how do I get access to the wallet with the address created by that miner?

No Gui wallet it will down to 0.002

This is a misconception of how p2p coins work. The users and miners have to agree to upgrade, and this is a decentralized, not centralized, decision. They can refuse to upgrade, ignoring the developers. Inevitably new developers would come forward to take over maintaining and developing the old fork, as has happened countless times in open source when the original developers made some decision not supported by a significant portion of the user base.

With bitcoin it is much too late, because the miners already have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in ASICs and the users simply want security and stability so they would likely stay with the miners. The devs' fork by adopted by no one and would die.

But this is not necessarily true for a coin if the change were made before a large investment were made in ASICs. In fact miners might well prefer not being arms-raced into giving money to ASIC developers for no real gain to themselves and support the fork. Users would likely support it as well, since ASICs would lead to increased centralization and many users are likely also small scale miners (especially for a coin where CPU mining remains viable, as with this one).

Furthermore if the decision is made ahead of time, or even just left open as an option ahead of time, there is no loss of trust, because there was no commitment to not change, and therefore no breach of trust. While there is no stated commitment on the part of the developers of this coin to change the PoW for any particular reason, changes have been considered. At one point there was thought given to throwing out CryptoNight and replacing it with one of the functions in widespread use (but of course keeping the rest of the cryptonote functionality such as ring signatures, etc. -- the two are in fact not linked at all).

There is no change under consideration at the present time, but don't count on there never being a change.

This is not a particularly useful discussion, honestly.

(a)  CryptoNight is going to do quite well against ASICs.  Anything can be optimized, of course, but the design of CN is probably good to keeping the gap to an order of magnitude or so.  I could be very wrong - but I think you'll see CN scale in some very interesting ways with future CPU designs.  This is one of the best designs I've seen for keeping the gap relatively small.

(b)  By the time an ASIC comes out, it will be too late to reasonably effect a change of that magnitude.  But if it happens, why worry?  It will mean that a strongly anonymous coin design has become a major enough player to justify tens of millions of dollars of design, test, and manufacturing effort on asics.  That would be a pretty impressive win for the cryptonote family.

(c) (the big discussion of whether or not ASICs are a bad thing in the first place - energy efficiency, botnet-resistance, etc.  we're at the tip of starting to see botnets emerge as major players in XMR now, and that trend is going to get worse -- EC2 has become unprofitable for XMR, and the void will be filled by a mix of smaller individual miners and botnets.)

I agree with Mumbles. I'm a humble troll but I speak the truth when needed. Any coin, that includes Bitcoin, Monero, Darkcoin, etc needs good marketing, not everyone is a genius crypto specialist, most people need fancy graphics and text to instill confidence. That means having a good looking website and etc.

This is really at the core of your post, because if it were impossible to change, then no point in discussing it, I'll agree with you there.

I disagree with this statement however, I believe a change would be possible prior to ASICs being widely deployed if the stakeholders (miners and users) wanted it.

It seems no clear consensus has emerged on whether ASICs are a good or bad idea though. Perhaps a coin that resists centralization by massive GPU and ASIC farms long enough to provide some basis of comparison will help form that consensus (if there is one).


This statement is quite interesting because the longer term role of botnets is as yet unclear, and all we have at this point is speculation about their eventual scope. If mining ends up being dominated by large botnets that isn't really any different from any other form of centralized mining, and not very interesting. But if smaller individual miners play a large role, that would actually be something new.