Where is a good place to contribute constructive, critical feedback about the CCS process?

CCS is great in general, and because I care about keeping things that way, I'd like to address something that seems like it's vulnerable to going astray if taken advantage of the way it has been by certain actors

* by certain bad-faith actors

* CCS is great in general, and because I care about keeping things that way, I'd like to address something that seems like it's vulnerable to going astray if taken advantage of the way the review process has been in some instances by certain bad-faith actors

* CCS is great in general, and because I care about keeping things that way, I'd like to address something that seems like it's vulnerable to going astray if taken advantage of the way the review process has been in some instances by a few certain bad-faith actors

* CCS is great in general, and because I care about keeping things that way, I'd like to address something that seems like it could lead things more astray if taken advantage of the way the review process has been in some instances by a few bad-faith actors

I want to identify the issue and propose a general solution that I think would be very reasonable

You could create an issue in the Monero GitHub, under meta/issues

dartian[m]: ^^^

Then create a Reddit post/community post and point people to the issue for discussion

thank you midipoet:

If avalanche implement private vm with trustless snark or some technology allow privacy on second layer, is that a threat to monero?

Why privacy on first layer is essential?(bitcoiner has argument that in the future people will use only layer 2 and layer 1 is settlement layer for layers built on top)

well ARRR uses zksnarks and stuff which some say is better than the monero system, but like 5 people use it so thats not even close to being a "threat"

also if layer 1 is good enough then why would you need a layer 2?

<zeroeff[m]> "also if layer 1 is good enough..." <- What if node become too hard to run?

* What if node become too hard to run?(as it only scale via blocksize)

<Monerostandoge[m> "What if node become too hard..." <- then youve got a fundamental issue that will never go away

* What if node become too hard to set up?(as it only scale via blocksize and increase requirements)

# of p2pool miners is at 380, over 2x from February

Mini*

How does PIVX compare to Monero?

<PsychoAnnihilato> "How does PIVX compare to Monero?" <- it doesn't

link me to the source code so i can tell you

<snex> "link me to the source code so..." <- github.com/PIVX-Project

last commit march 8

they on vacation?

ok since this is proof of stake, how to i obtain some without anyone else's permission?

you know, so i can test it out while remaining 100% anonymous