personally i would like to see them punished for their lack of planning and workforce, and then downing tools due to market dump when they failed to deliver in time OTHER than that 😁 this is a great move for MAGIC - donators will be pleased to see that their money is actually being put to work by a pro-active team instead of seemingly collecting dust

Counterpoint: having a private US charity take over CCS funds (even for a one-off project) might be a problematic and/or unpleasant precedent

Having magic cover shortfalls is.... well, it lets people double dip and game the market

Either request usd, stablecoin or xmr and live with your decision

If market dumps and you chose xmr, too fkn bad. Contract should be fulfilled

If market rallies, you keep the extra.

If you chose usd, use magix

If you choose a stablecoin and it goes too 0, too Fkn bad. If it hold value and xmr 20x, too fkn bad

(Moving forward. Whatever it going on with Molly has been a long time. To use magic to support Molly, id say.. donate all of Molly ccs to the general fund, another ccs, or hackerone, and start molly from scratch with magic)

45 euros an hour for each community member who decides to offer feedback

<ofrnxmr[m]> "Having magic cover shortfalls is..." <- Example. Haveno could collect all of its xmr and then when it doesnt work out, get the usd from magic... then hold the xmr until the price recovers and basically get away with getting the magic grant for free.

IF using magic to hedge against depreciation... it should be a loan.. ccs handlers should repay magic once value recovers. Author shouldnt be allowed to open ccs, raise 150xmr @100$ , cry when the price goes down to 33$, get 10000$ from magic to cover the shortfall... keep the 150 xmr now worth "5000$".. then pocket the extra when the price recovers to 100.

So, my suggestion about Molly and magic... is "no".

Or magic buys the xmr off of Molly at the old usd value - magic takes on the risk.

In no way do I think it males any sense at all to pawn the risk off onto donators

<joshhavepigdog> Does Molly have a mobile app like Signal?

<joshhavepigdog> Seems like a good idea

<joshhavepigdog> Agreed

we like Molly as an app though? i have never used it, integration seemed to be a big deal at the time of funding

as in , it was very popular* important to get Monero in there

<plowsof> "we like Molly as an app though..." <- Yeah. I have it installed, but dont use it as it still uses signal servers. Mob > xmr integration would is huge and so is no phone number, no signal server registration

ofrnxmr: I'd like to note this is partially meant to raise awareness of MAGIC's potential, and that this proposal was made before MAGIC was available. The CCS is known for dealing with Monero, despite most proposals detailing the USD breakdowns. It's not that they chose XMR as currency. It's that they chose working with XMR which meant XMR as currency, something MAGIC provides more flexibility on.

We also do not want to or plan to do this for everyone :p I think Haveno specifically commented they wouldn't be interested when the comment about MAGIC came up on Reddit, though there was some confusion there when I read it

But yes. This would create a system where they get their original payment and more on top. The question becomes is that justified given Monero's ecnomic downturn, with the rest of the market, or is this a bad precedent for bad people who should've handled this

(not to actually call anyone at Molly bad people, yet more to speak on why we sought community feedback and comment in general about mis-planned CCS proposals)

* speak on,, * via hyperbole, why we

And then your most recent messages also note why we considered it as a candidate :p

"The question becomes is that justified given Monero's ecnomic downturn, with the rest of the market, or is this a bad precedent for bad people who should've handled this"... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…c417a1ad877062b54aa930f83679431f82a)

<kayabanerve[m]> "(not to actually call anyone..." <- Definitely not saying they are malicios.

Just thinking about how to properly improve the process, and using magic to boost the funds sounds even worse than the current situation, where many people are already actively abusing the system for extra funding, whether they deliver or not.

Asking for 150k then walking away with 180k and then dropping to 90k and asking for more is dishonest.

We're absolutely not discussing covering 38150. That's more than our entire balance sheet.

Moving forward, ccs should specifically imply whether they want xmr, a stablecoin, or fiat (magic), and be held to that contract

We'd either need to take custody of the CCS funds, which require community, Molly, and General Fund approvals, and is its own precedent likely not worth discussing, or solely discuss covering 10-16k (10k with shrunk scope).

There definitely have been irresponsible parties in the past. While I'd have to re-review Haveno's case, the notable one I know is Cypherstack, which I hesitate to bring up because they did the right thing, and I actually do like Diego/Cypherstack.

And we're not discussing a bail out for a party who received funds and held. Molly didn't claim any milestones.

While there is a case for CCS reform here, as well as MAGIC :p

I'd want to focus that Molly wanted to work with Monero and this was the method. It showed its difficulties, and we can accept that, or MAGIC can potentially demonstrate flexibility

Yes, im saying those 177xmr are in custody though, and what to do with them would be to (If they need 38150) is not sell

And tbc, yes, it's obvious my preference. This isn't me trying to talk over you ;) More the back and forth to ensure its all on the table

You do raise points why this shouldn't be done in general, and I can confirm its not something we want as a general policy. We had a joke made about it, and deverick was appropriately aghast ;)

For sure.

For Molly, I think its an important piece of software.

Session is no good, signal is.. Signal.. status im is ETH and missing some basic features

as previously discussed, once xmr is raised via the CCS it can't be converted to any other currency

nioc: CCS milestone paid to Molly

Magic trades Molly 248$/xmr

Once price recovers, magic sells

gotcha

nioc: And thats as of right now, with a broken system. Not after fixing it

nioc: Something like that. Open to other suggestions

ofrnxmr: I think you’ve given some good solutions. I’m torn on this one because I love the idea of a signal client with native Monero support ( even if there is no IOS or desktop client ) but using magic funds as insurance for CCS is a slippery slope.

Moving forward, for new ccs, I think the creator should have to decide xmr, stablecoin, usd.... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…3ddb38a3be2b8e74d8df8b79dc519416fb8)

<joshhavepigdog> Hey ArticMine, I have a more personal question for you since you moved all of your Bitcoin into Monero.

Are you not concerned about the tiny possibility (debatable how large, some may even say effectively 0%) that there is a bug exploit in Monero’s BulletProofs implementation, which breaks Monero’s supply security? I know that everyone seems to agree only a quantum computer *should* be able to do this, but I wanted to hear your thoughts.

I figured you would be a good person to ask as you seem much more confident in Monero than Bitcoin and are quite knowledgeable about technical details of Monero.

Not to speak on behalf of articmine, but for myself... I don't see bitcoin as useful or sustainable with the leadership it is under or direction it is taking.

A bug with the supply is possible, but is also possible (and has happened) in bitcoin.

Or

Direct link to sarang's take

<joshhavepigdog> Thanks for sending it again. I’ve watched it. Sarang wrote most of the implementation for BP right? Did Koe do most of the implementation for BP+? Not that it makes a difference really.

<joshhavepigdog> Yeah Sarang is confident in BP. He thinks only a quantum computer breaks it.

<joshhavepigdog> Which is how it should be. The BP seem to be the sticking point for the BTC guys. I just finished watching part 2 of Doug and Seth’s interview with Giacomo Zucco. So it made me reassess again.

<joshhavepigdog> If BP is secure then we good.

> <@ofrnxmr:monero.social> CCS milestone paid to Molly

> Magic trades Molly 248$/xmr

> Once price recovers, magic sells

I'd like to clarify the MAGIC Monero's Fund investment policies are at the discretion of its members. While we could consider this as a way to subsidize it, we already have a set balance in Monero occasionally updated. Doing this would require deciding a new policy, and while we may, the part we wanted to discuss is this grant, which leaves us to consider how best to afford it ;)

Also, I personally think leaving exchange responsibilities to MAGIC is optimal. While I wouldn't say the CCS user experience wouldn't be better if they'd convert to USDC/DAI upon raise upon request, the CCS is a legal gray area at best, and having exchanges as well... seems to be a lot. It also detracts from its Monero centricity and adds risk. An exchange can flag the deposit. The Monero blockchain won't ;)

my 2c... if Molly is not going to claim their payouts, better cancel the ccs proposal and move funds to general fund. After that, at their on discretion, Molly can apply for a grant on MAGIC indepently. There's no need to mix ccs funds with this

ccs terms alreay state that if proposal goal is not met, funds shall be moved to GF

s/their on/their own/

netrik182: We're generally discussing giving them the additional funds which may, or may not depending on your view of time, be required to complete their CCS milestones. NOT doing anything distinct with the CCS funds

Because yes, that sentiment is agreed with :)

then doing this can open a precedent for proposers to halt their work as soon as the price drops even 1%, seeking for a bail out from MAGIC or what not

not saying that our current ccs is perfect, but they accepted the term when they opened the proposal

item 2 from "for donors" here says it's on discretion from core to deal with exception anyway ccs.getmonero.org/what-is-ccs

default is moving funds, as others also mentioned

> <@ofrnxmr:monero.social> Moving forward, for new ccs, I think the creator should have to decide xmr, stablecoin, usd.... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…a84dbfed24470f92e01997b11efac5aed5c)

haveno chose to sit on that XMR and essentially gambled and lost

wen haveno too big to fail

<r4v3r23[m]> "> <@ofrnxmr:monero.social..." <- Haveno as an example. They required usd to pay the contractors.

The issue with this is milestones.

While they did gamble the first milestone, the current one is valued too low to pay the contractors.

Having immediate payouts works in theory, but requires trusting haveno etc to not gamble up the entire amount.

Money is a public good. The key to the success of a crypto currency is a legitimate public goods funding process. The problem is that we have too many people that come here with this "magic internet money make me rich" attitude. If we look at this haveno drama objectively: no money was lost. 1xmr is still 1 xmr. People had these unrealistic expectations about haveno in the first place. I get the impression people thought they will

drive around in the lambo together with monerochan a few months after haveno launched. Now they are salty because the reality does not meet the expectations. But even if the development was done by now this expectation of lambo driving would not have been met. anyway TLDR: we need to find a way to quiet down the moaning bag holders in our public goods funding process. The way we currently communicate is not really constructive. It

is not really attractive to join the space when potential builders see this.

<r4v3r23[m]> "wen haveno too big to fail" <- would you agree that this "too big to fail" thing is a problem? it seems like the community always hypes up one project or thing that will be "the breakthrough" that makes monero moon. But maybe this one ultimate game changer just does not exist ... Maybe the road to success means we need to slowly improve as a community and as individuals. So over time we attract more and more premium

people that have skills and the right attitude to build stuff..

spirobel[m]: it was sarcasm

haveno can crash and burn for all icare

s/icare/i care/

monero can & will survive and thrive without it

r4v3r23[m]: maybe it didnt matter to you personally, but the community wouldnt have reacted this way if it wasnt "to big to fail"

people put lots of hope and expectations on it

its not. penumbra is already working on a proper replacement

haveno doesnt have a monopoly on DEX

the point I am trying to make is more meta than that. But maybe other people just dont see it.

articulate it clearer then

if youre saying a DEX is important for monero ecosystem then i agree

just not one thats run by a crybaby leftist

haveno is just an example for it. There is a always a "current thing " in the monero community. Something the majority tells themselves when they cuddle with their monerochan body pillow and dream about how the future will be like.

oh yeah i get what you mean

monero's value prop is the core repo itself. not an outside project that builds on it

r4v3r23[m]: moneros value prop is the monero community and the hope that the people in it will become more premium over time.

take any token and look at the people. Look at their attitudes and skills. And ask yourself this: are they winners or are they losers? I think we are very far ahead of other communities that have discord channels and nothing else. People are technically competent, use linux and are willing to self host stuff.

But never the less there is room for improvement. 😅 if we want to succeed we need to get better.

Also, with haveno.. we didnt fund haveno. . We funded contractors to do the interface.

Any/all of haveno features are disconnected from the ccs

Any talk of councils etc.. where were these councils when the money was gambled?

Haveno doesnt owe us a working product, nor to they have to implement a council.. the interface is the only ob'igation.

So "too big to fail" wouldnt matter. Haveno is open source but has no attachment to the ccs or any non-interface related promises made there

<joshhavepigdog> Agreed. But we can’t stop the community members from getting overhyped and making emotional decisions. The road to success is people gradually get pushed out of Bitcoin and fiat due to regulatory presssures and BulletProofs are never broken.

<joshhavepigdog> So did UST (Luna and Terra) investors

<joshhavepigdog> I’m my opinion Monero (the network and the team) will have succeeded if speed and tx size improvements are slowly and consistently made and Inputs = Ouputs is never broken. After that it is up to end users to use the superior project (IQ test as hyc has called it).

<joshhavepigdog> Monero is already pretty darn good, it’s just about gaining adoption. I’m taking efforts to discuss the merits of using. Monero’s competition = (1) Bitcoin (2) Physical cash (3) Fiat in online banking systems. The amount of government regulations that are about to choke online banking will leave cash and Bitcoin as the two only remaining competitors.

<joshhavepigdog> The US government will turn sharply totalitarian at some stage in the near future in an effort to finance its debt burden and debt liabilities. Eventually critically thinking people will “tap out” of the US Financial System once they realize its fate is sealed and is doomed to fail.

<joshhavepigdog> Also Monero provides a return to a full reserve system which Austrian Economics enjoyers, like me, want desperately.

<joshhavepigdog> I wonder if there have been any attempts made to forecast the future increase in fees for transactions on Bitcoin layer 1? Don’t the fees have to go way up after the next few halvings as the block reward goes way down?

<joshhavepigdog> One problem I see with BTC is that fees eventually have to go up to subsidize ASIC miners or fees stay low and it goes back to GPU and CPU mining. The problem with the first scenario is that it’s expensive, but the BTC enjoyers probably don’t care about that. The problem with the second scenario is that it leaves BTC exposed to non-profit malicious ASIC attackers.

<joshhavepigdog> Unless electricity and ASICs get really cheap in the future after the next 2-5 halvings, but I doubt that will happen.

<bridgerton[m]> "<joshhavepigdog> I wonder if..." <- Yes

bridgerton: A damaging bug in the code is a small but finite risk in both Monero and Bitcoin. There was a serious coin printing in Bitcoin in 2010 that required stopping the chain. I understand it was due to a buffer overflow. There was also a bug in Monero that allowed for coin printing that was caught by... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…857283a210598de9a4e328485557cd702b8)

ArticMine @articmine:monero.social: thoughts on the monerotalk 2/3

Mostly interested what you think about the "we could announce a move to ASIC friendly Algo a few years ahead"

I have not had a chance to listen to the talk yet.

The idea of ASIC commoditization was a plan B in case RandomX did not work.

My take is that a RandomX ASIC would provide a minimal advantage and would result in a super efficient CPU.

That assumes randomx doesn't get broken in some way

It's not a 100% given that you can improve efficiency only via more efficient CPU, right?

RandomX is designed to use most of the features of a CPU. So if one got rid of some of the baggage such as support for 40 year old proprietary code or support for DRM one could find efficiencies

<joshhavepigdog> Thanks for the reply ArticMine. You see the small risk of a bug in Monero as a worthwhile (I agree by the way) tradeoff for all of the things Monero does that Bitcoin does not.

<joshhavepigdog> I also highly doubt Bitcoin will ever change its emission schedule. So many knuckleheads are fully committed to a hard cap.

It is also strongly mitigated by the strength of the Monero community.

<joshhavepigdog> Also does anyone have links to the BulletProofs+ audits? I see their CCS’s, but was unable to find links to the audits themselves.

<monerobull[m]> "Mostly interested what you think..." <- that was always the plan more or less. use random x to hold off asic mining until it becomes decentralized enough

r4v3r23[m]: Planned by who?

<joshhavepigdog> True. But if a sophisticated adversary does somehow see an exploit that slipped past everyone, it would probably kill Monero wouldn’t it? Not sure what the response would be from there. I realize this is highly unlikely, but unless I’m misunderstanding something then Monero’s future success is built on the base of the community/team + Amount proofs in tx’s.

* Planned by who? Is it somewhere in the whitepaper?

gonbatfire[m]: that was the idea behind random x - keep mining decentralized. if/when asics become more common then we can start talking about moving to sha3

fluffly mentioned this a while back

gonbatfire[m]: are we bitcoin maxis? can we only stick to the whitepaper?

<joshhavepigdog> My theory is this: if Monero’s foundation of input = output is never broken we should eventually surpass BTC, I don’t see what advantages Bitcoin has other than more people own it presently. If a quantum computer starts breaking stuff then all chains are equally toast (unless new cryptography is integrated in advance)

<joshhavepigdog> This seems like a good strategy. But I’m very educated on how it play out. Would asic miners on BTC just come over to Monero and be able to 51% it or no?

No. Different algo

ofrnxmr[m]: hes talking if monero moved to asics

<joshhavepigdog> Are there already ASICs developed for this algo / SHA3

Yeah. We wouldnt move to bitcoin sha..

oh yeah. shows how much ive forgetten about bitcoin

Otherwise youre just asking for asics to chain hop like they do to attack bch hashrate / block times

<joshhavepigdog> The theory is that we would move to an algorithm that doesn’t already have ASICs or an algorithm that has a variety of ASIC producers?

> <@r4v3r23:matrix.org> > <@gonbatfire:monero.social> Planned by who? Is it somewhere in the whitepaper?

>

> that was the idea behind random x - keep mining decentralized. if/when asics become more common then we can start talking about moving to sha3

Ah interesting, what about the price of the hashrate thought? Afaik because more hardware complex hardware is used to achive 1 hash Monero should be more secure on randomX than on an ASICable algo.

One wants to be the biggest coin using a particular algo

<joshhavepigdog> We are talking about a hypothetical future scenario where RandomX is broken.

If randomx is broken, then it wouldnt be by sha asics

<joshhavepigdog> Seth and Giacomo discussed it in Pt 2 on Doug’s channel

Broken how?

We have come to accept hard forks because privacy IS an arms race, why shouldn't we threat ASIC resistance the same? It *is* an arms race against censorship. Plausible deniability is a privacy technique which like all other will have to improved and maintained.

Would you use an older version of TOR that's easier to be captured by malicious nodes? With Monero mining censorship will be a thing, and the only way we can keep that away is by having a low enough barrier of entry, not just in cheap hardware sense, but in protecting miner's privacy as well.

its not a new idea

<joshhavepigdog> Yes, but what would the plan be if it was broken?

gogoba[m]: you

* youre saying cpus should be able to secure better than asics...?

<joshhavepigdog> ASIC is developed for Random X with large gains over standard CPU (like what used to happen with crypto night)

r4v3r23[m]: Absolutely

bridgerton[m]: Broken = an asic can mine randomx

Doesn't mean it is broken, and would imply the asic was specifically manufactured to handle randomx

gonbatfire[m]: interesting. i always thought of it as hypothetical because theres no way asics will become as common as cpus

r4v3r23[m]: Like I did some rought calculation a while back and it seemed that even thought the hashrate was a really small portion the "total price to 51%" price/hash*total hashrate was not that much far off from Bitcoin. Just counting the hardware.

<joshhavepigdog> I agree with your objectives, but at what point does Monero throw in the towel on the objective of ASIC resistance? You’re suggesting that if RandomX is broken we should try again to tweak the algo for ASIC resistance?

<joshhavepigdog> Yes

<joshhavepigdog> I thought about this as well b

r4v3r23[m]: Against an state actor, it's much easier to mine with general purpose hardware (your laptop, your phone) that to try to hide some circuit specifically designed for that (illegal) purpose

How are gonna get ASICs into venezuela?

gonbatfire[m]: 100%

im not pro asics

Modern cpus hash at +30x hash rate compared 10 year old CPUs at 15kh vs 500h

gonbatfire[m]: Totally, look what happen with the China hashrate crash.

Making asics doesnt make much sense when CPU's are still getting faster

An asic of today would ve obsolete in a few years

Most PoW coins' hashrate crashed, except for Monero.

Take a look at the BCH hashrate trend

<joshhavepigdog> To be real if a nation state actor wanted to attack Monero, they have no morals, they could just remote control exploit people and create their own botnet. It would be like a Spirit Bomb from Dragon Ball. The NSA would have a big bot net and we’d have to all join the second largest pool lol

ASICs mean more power in the hands of state actors = capturing the network (by censoring transactions/whitelisted blocks)

gogoba[m]: not to mention the networks came to a halt. transacting on bitcoin was afucking nightmare

And to be clear, it would be made obsolete by improving CPU's

<joshhavepigdog> Bitcoins hashrate is still closer to its peak than Monero’s is.

that was one of the final straws for me in bitcoin

bridgerton[m]: Bitcoin has manufacturers making asics and plugging them in everyday

<joshhavepigdog> I’ll take your word for it, but what is the point.

As a for-profit business (making, selling, using asics), Bitcoiners hashrate should be at ath, always

Its not like the asics are being repurposed. They are being turned off or chain hopping to manipulate the blocks

<joshhavepigdog> The final straw for me with Bitcoin is no privacy in Layer 1 lol

<joshhavepigdog> I think the question of BTC vs Monero is still unanswered and will depend on the perception of the crypto-market participants and how governments eventually try to attack this thing.

Even if monero had no privscy, dynamic blocks are enough to choose monero over btc

<joshhavepigdog> Why is that?

ofrnxmr[m]: and tail emission

bridgerton[m]: You ever wait 12 hrs to send a btc tx?

> <@r4v3r23:matrix.org> > <@ofrnxmr:monero.social> Even if monero had no privscy, dynamic blocks are enough to choose monero over btc

>

> and tail emission

and a better community

Mempool with 30 blocks pending

<joshhavepigdog> Could you specify on why it was a nightmare?

<joshhavepigdog> Not yet and hope I never will need to.

bridgerton[m]: during the btc miner crack down the network got slammed by people transacting with no miners to mine blocks

difficulty adjustment was 2 WEEKS

10minuted, 3000 tx Max.. is pathetic

in monero the difficulty adjust every block, right?

so even during a hashrate crash, the network should baraely hiccup

And the mempool tx are super fake.

Go from 200tx/ block and 300 tx pending, o 3000tx per block and 30k tx pending

Why do they do this? So you raise you fee on future tx

imagine needing to bid your tx vs whales

just to spend your fucking money

<joshhavepigdog> I agree with the slow tx speed thing. But the BTC people have changed the narrative to Layer 1 being the store of value chain and lightening for transacting. What is your guys rebuttal to that claim?

bridgerton[m]: theyre all idiots

And worse, not just bid. They will push your tx out of the block over and over

<joshhavepigdog> Could you elaborate?

<joshhavepigdog> I’m just playing devil’s advocate to strengthen my own position when conversing with BTC guys.

bridgerton[m]: lightening is KYC paypal 2.0

If I sell you a car, and then it doesnt work, and I start calling it a lawn ornament

bridgerton[m]: dont bother. they are literally a cult. anyone who understands bitcoin moves to monero

Youd be an idiot to buy my story

puss

Ask them "why bitcoin"

r4v3r23[m]: But what about layer 3 fedimints

They cant give an answer that is older than a few months.

<joshhavepigdog> I hold 98% XMR and 2% BTC (in case I ever need to use BISQ because they need collateral for the trade).

<joshhavepigdog> Yeah there is no privacy, but the base instrument is btc and there is next to no fee on lightening right?

No, you pay to open and close the lighting channel

<joshhavepigdog> How much?

ofrnxmr[m]: > we need lightening for when blocks are full and its too expensive to transact on main layer but you can also settle back to main layer anytime you want

The same layer 1 fee each time you open or close

layer 2 only makes sense on a scalable layer 1

stop discussing about dumb things with dumb people

<joshhavepigdog> Yeah I see the contradiction there…

Also, if fees are the ONLY security incentive for miners.. and everyone moves to lightning...

<joshhavepigdog> What if someone just held their BTC for an extended period of time in a lightening channel?

stop being so delusional

there is nothing like layer 2

layer 2 is actually a "paraller chain or network"

<joshhavepigdog> I thought about that issue as well.

If you dont use btc, you dont generate fees

ofrnxmr[m]: fUlL bLoCks & fEe mArKeT

layer 2 that you think, actually exist in your imagination, in reality it is a parallel network

just like base layer

affected with same problems

<joshhavepigdog> Calm down. I’m just asking questions to strengthen my knowledge of why BTC is allegedly doomed. I think there are definitely problems with BTC. The fact that you are complaining and explaining tells quite a bit.

Bitcoin relies on fees increasing massivelt or asic prices dropping massively, or bitcoin doubling every 4 years

<joshhavepigdog> Yes we are on the same page here.

If fees dont increase, asics HAVE to fall to a sustainable price for miners.

Or the price of bitcoin has to double at the next halving to keep up the same pay.

<joshhavepigdog> How so? At least lightening is fast and cheap and BTC is the base medium in exhanges?

<joshhavepigdog> Agree.

If it becomes a losing game to create asics or mine Bitcoin, they will stop. Its business for them, not a hobby

<joshhavepigdog> Agree. But this doesn’t necessarily kill bitcoin. It just is a serious problem.

If I pay 20k for an asic, I want my money back in under 12 months.

If at next halving, im only getting 10k in 12 months...

<joshhavepigdog> That’s why I think it’s still an open question.

bridgerton[m]: No, it kills bitcoin

bridgerton[m]: the problem is, everyone here has half-baked knowledge so you are getting half-of half-baked knowledge from them

avoid discussing about problems and asking serious questions in a chat

i suggest you to go to monero.stackexchange.net

<joshhavepigdog> Explain how this conundrum ascertains BTCs death?

At 0 block reward, vs todays 150k block reward ..

Layer 1 fees are supposed to cover 150k + inflation.

If everyone is on lighting, where do those fees come fromv

At 3000tx/block Max, that is over 50$/tx required on constantly full blocks 3000/3000 tx

50$ in fees* required to replace the current subsidy

Over 100 if we use ath

we will wait for lightning to be scalable

<joshhavepigdog> Why would it be any better over there? The people who build Monero reside in these matrix channels, who better to ask the them? They are the most familiar with Monero at a technical level.

and only those people with money can run lightning node, it is fucking centralised

som1[m]: Speak for yourself

that is you, man

you are a mere user

novice

+1

Coming from the person telling us to open a ccs for them

ofrnxmr[m]: +1

<joshhavepigdog> Ok now we are making some progress and I’m seeing how this could spell defeat. So you think even the Bitcoin sympathizers will move off of transacting on Layer 1 to transact on lightening, which causes a break down in the fee market on Layer 1. So most people use lightening and nobody uses L1 is how you see step 1. What is the next step though? ASICs stop mining L1 due to lack of fees or something else?

most people will use lighening as a custodial KYC wallet

<joshhavepigdog> Curious to hear what you think will happen after people stop using L1 bitcoin.

<joshhavepigdog> I thought lightening could be used non-custodially?

bridgerton[m]: go read lightning whitepaper

and ask questions on bitcoin.stackexchange.com

about lightning network, centralisation, scalability

you will get proper answer my child

<joshhavepigdog> I appreciate the offer but I will pass.

som1[m]: No. They will be told to search as the question has been asked 100000 times and coped everytime

<joshhavepigdog> Ofrnxmr seems to be onto something here.

<joshhavepigdog> That’s why I’m asking you ofrn

<joshhavepigdog> Som1 hasn’t even given a good line of reasoning yet lol

if you are asking question here, you are wasting your own time.. as you are getting half baked knowledge from novice noobs

and those answering here are lurkers

wasting their own time

r/monero mods, approve my post

if you want to ask go to #monero-community-dev:monero.social

thank

or #monero-research-lounge:monero.social

<joshhavepigdog> What’s wrong with them being lurkers? It doesn’t mean they can’t have good ideas or be critical thinkers?

bridgerton[m]: you must be a noob here, who don't understand the technology, there are thousands like you here everyday, a serious person won't waste their time answering

you get a quick answer on stackexchange, please goo

fuck off

what is going on here

som1[m]: Who's a lurker? Or a novice noob? Articmine?

<joshhavepigdog> Anyways, how do you the second part unfolding. Most people move to lightening and L1 txs continue to plummet. This would imply that ASIC miners can’t get enough fees to sustain their mining operations. My question is what do you think happens after that?

ofrnxmr is

beware of that user

Who else

<joshhavepigdog> Triggered

<joshhavepigdog> He’s triggered that’s all

som1 is wasting his time telling others that theyre wasting their time

<joshhavepigdog> Som1 hasn’t made a single good argument against lightening

<joshhavepigdog> Or is too lazy to do so.

<joshhavepigdog> Lmao big brain moment

bridgerton[m]: i did 3 years before

<joshhavepigdog> Got em

yesterday i saw some post about how bitcoin would have to have a marketcap of like 64 quintillion to have the same security and breakeven as right now

<joshhavepigdog> And if you can’t be asked to repeat yourself then that is fine.

a guy like you came there, asking similar questions, that was the first time, i answered it

Som1 is just mad because they were told to do their own work when they came in here telling us to open a ccs and follow their directions

now, you could just visit their post and read the answers

<joshhavepigdog> So what do you think will happen?

<joshhavepigdog> Ignore som1 for now because you still haven’t proved Bitcoin’s assured destruction yet.

bridgerton[m]: you are not getting serious answers man, are you unemployed wasting your time? i think so, inflation and unemployment at its top in europe

<joshhavepigdog> Or maybe you don’t know what will happen after tx’s plummet on L1?

<joshhavepigdog> If you got some remote tasks you want me to do let me know. I can’t program though and I will accept XMR as payment.

I cant tell you if btc will change algos, if governments will take up mining, if it becomes efficient enough to mine cheaply etc.

But Apple to apples. If money block reward went from 0.6 to 0, the fees would not be enough to keep miners mining. Only miners that would stick around would be ones trying to 51% the network

<joshhavepigdog> I’m not employed in the traditional sense of the word

BTC just has first mover advantage and network effects

<joshhavepigdog> This is true, but I don’t think that’s all it has.

None of which matters if fees dont pay the bills

<joshhavepigdog> My thinking is that it’s not so cut and dry.

If miners leave btc, those asics cam come back anytime.

As I said pregiously, in what reality can bitcoin hashrste drop

bytecoin has first mover advantage

If its predominately mined by machines that do nothing other than mine btc.

Those machines are turned off because they arent making enough money

<monerobull[m]> "yesterday i saw some post..." <- link?

plowsof: im selling everything for bytecoin

<joshhavepigdog> Let’s say the government doesn’t 51% it using ASICs and for profit ASICs stop mining on L1, this would lead to a fall in hashrate and then GPUs would mine to secure Bitcoin’s layer 1. They could charge lower fees because their costs are less than ASIC miners which would mean people could transact on Layer 1 again in a somewhat inexpensive manner. So this doesn’t necessarily kill bitcoin, but a drop in

hashrate is very likely in the cards for bitcoin in the 20 years.

<joshhavepigdog> Lol plowsof you are so sarcastic all the time

and we love her for it

Plugging in an asic costs money. Youre not going to spend 20k to make back 10k and pay employees and setup infrastructure.

The block reward + fees has to pay the bills. Its simple math to calculate the Max tx per block vs the current reward. What isnt simple is predicting the future hash rate and cost to produce it

monerobull[m]: * sigh * fine, I'll go work on that paper...

> <@ofrnxmr:monero.social> Plugging in an asic costs money. Youre not going to spend 20k to make back 10k and pay employees and setup infrastructure.

>

> The block reward + fees has to pay the bills. Its simple math to calculate the Max tx per block vs the current reward. What isnt simple is predicting the future hash rate and cost to produce it

Actually it is quite straightforward to go from block reward to hashrate

Im including technological advancements to asics, centralizations by govenrment or industry mining etc.

Those too - though they're mostly irrelevant. New asics generations simply replace the older ones, but they don't change the basic dynamics

So not easy to know whether it is "free" to mine imbrue future, or whether it still costs a lot of money to create or buy an asic / run a farm

merope: Were adding 100 years though.

<joshhavepigdog> I agree, but this just means BTC will regress back to GPU mining.

bridgerton[m]: And be attacked at will if the hashrate drops because of asics leaving

bridgerton[m]: The mining device itself is irrelevant - what matters is how many devices you can support

<joshhavepigdog> I don’t follow?

Absolute hashrate doesn't actually matter. It doesn't matter if the total network hashrate is 1kH/s or 1 PH/s - what matters is how it's distributed

<joshhavepigdog> Let’s assume it’s not attacked by a nation state with ASICs, then how would it be attacked? It would just revert to GPU mining.

<bridgerton[m]> "<joshhavepigdog> Let’s say the..." <- you should be theoretical physicist if you like to think a lot

bridgerton[m]: If the hastate fell due to asics leaving... those asics can come back online and force a chain split whenever they want

<joshhavepigdog> Distributed between unique hardware devices which is effectively miner decentralization, am I understanding you correctly?

Correct

So the "raw" hashrate doesn't matter - what matters is that it is split between a large number of devices

Monero hashrate doesnt have to be high, must high relative to the Max hash that can be put out by 1 device

Newer generations of devices replace the old ones, but as long as the balance doesn't change, the security is roughly the same

<joshhavepigdog> I agree with you, but I think BTC would just go back to GPU mining if ASICs become unprofitable. The network would still work and this would cause a reduction in fees that makes L1 usuable or at least tolerable again.

To put it into perspective: Bitcoin and ETH have roughly similar levels of security, because both have ~10 million devices mining right now

Again.. if asics are unprofitable, you lose all of the ones whobsecure the network for financial gain.

Those asics dont just disappear. They can be used to 51% the network

<joshhavepigdog> That’s my point, but in this case an older device will replace the ASIC because the ASIC won’t be profitable in BTC’s future.

Profitability is determined by hardware efficiency. GPUs are less efficient at bitcoin mining than ASICs

<joshhavepigdog> I get it

bridgerton[m]: your thinking doesn't matter, because there are far more knowledgable people there thinking well about many things that you can't even imagine of.

what you are thinking is result of your half-baked knowledge that you got from here

Actually the opposite: the least profitable devices have the greatest incentive to leave

Malicious actors dont care about mining profits if the goal is to split the chain

> <@som1:matrix.org> your thinking doesn't matter, because there are far more knowledgable people there thinking well about many things that you can't even imagine of.

>

> what you are thinking is result of your half-baked knowledge that you got from here

How about you shut up and let people ask question and share their knowledge?

You keep telling everyone they know nothing, but you bring nothing to the conversation.

merope: ask your mom

i learnt that from you

you are a fucking troll ass mother fucer endor00

endor00:

<joshhavepigdog> Yes, by non-profit actors. I’m assuming they don’t attack Bitcoin though. A private individual wouldn’t do a non-profitable attack on BTC. A state actor might, but for the sake of this example I’m ignoring it.

Now I wonder who som1 is lmao

Use your real handle

bridgerton[m]: A private individual doesnt have the power to sneeze at bitcoin

<joshhavepigdog> Yes, but ASICs use more energy and when BTC’s block reward falls enough the fee market won’t be able to sustain those ASICs thus a GPU mining dominated network will return in Bitcoin’s future. Where is the flaw in my reasoning?

A state actor would not care about profitability, they just want to cause disruption (presumably)

son of bitches everywhere like endor00

An asic manufacturer that went out of business though, or the country that was profiting off of it, has plenty of incentive

bridgerton[m]: Gpus are less efficient, so they spend more energy to "produce" the same amount of work. So they are less profitable

<joshhavepigdog> Could you explain how my example would play out below?

bridgerton[m]: Efficiency

That's why ASICs pushed gpus out

$/hash asics are far less expensive than gpu's

som1 relax, please go to r/bitcoin for some 'eyebleach' and calm down

<joshhavepigdog> Ok, I see what you are saying but what happens when ASICs can’t mine Bitcoin profitably?

<joshhavepigdog> Hahaha so good XD

When profitability is too low, the least profitable miners leave. This increases profitability for those who are left

<joshhavepigdog> I understand your guys point, but how would the situation I described unfold given this fact?

So the least efficient miners with the highest electricity cost leave first

If mining with an asic wasnt profitable, mining with a GPU wouldnt be either.

BUT if asic leave > difficulty falls to GPU levels > sounds good for profit for GPU miners > until asics come back online all at once and reck the chain

^ that is a bit extreme of a swing, but yes

merope: Wich is why nobody mines bitcoin with a CPU

<joshhavepigdog> But what if the fee market is still super dry on Layer 1? The crux of the issue is that Bitcoin’s future will have an adversarial / competitive relationship between L1 transacters and miners.

<joshhavepigdog> So basically I was right?

Mining rewards and tx fees provide a financial incentive for miners. If the incentive dries up, profitability goes down, and miners leave

<joshhavepigdog> But if the ASICs don’t come back then Bitcoin continues to work.

bridgerton[m]: No. GPU miners will never take over bitcoin

Asics exist, and are available to smoke GPUs any time a farm feels like powering up

You're treating all ASICs as a single entity, when in fact you have to look at them at the level of individual devices of multiple generations

<joshhavepigdog> Yes but we are playing through Bitcoin’s end game. We playing chess not checkers here. So what do you think will happen when people flee L1 bitcoin to tx on lightnening and the blockreward on L1 BtC is Tiny

So the older, less efficient asics leave first - leaving only the most efficient ones still in the game

merope: This is what happens ^

<joshhavepigdog> Ok I take this as a true fact, but I’m trying to get you to articulate how you think Bitcoin’s future will be different than the one I explained. What difference does it make?

Less mining incentive => less miners, until there is balance in the profitability again

<joshhavepigdog> Yeah but why would they if it’s not profitable? If there’s not enough fees on L1

bridgerton[m]: Then miners leave (that is, leave the network vulnerable to attack)

You're missing this point

The difference is that the mining network will be much smaller, by a few orders of magnitude

Ok, time to explain the mining incentive:

<joshhavepigdog> Where does that balance emergence in a future where no one wants to pay $20 tx fees and the blockreward is tiny? I want you to stick your neck out and make a prediction.

PoW network generate a certain amount of $/second as a mining incentive

bridgerton[m]: It doesnt

If there are too many people, then each individual gets crumbs

If people start leaving, then those left get a bigger slice of the same cake, so they are happier

<joshhavepigdog> I’m not missing this point. GPUs will mine the network. And ASICs won’t because they stand to gain nothing

<joshhavepigdog> Unless state actor

bridgerton[m]: Wrong

But if the block reward becomes too small, then the cake gets smaller, so people are getting crumbs again

bridgerton[m]: Who makes asics?

So more people will leave, until those left will get a big enough slice of the smaller cake

<joshhavepigdog> Doesn’t only the miner that finds the block get the reward though? So a more accurate description would be that the reward is the same but the ones who don’t drop out just get rewarded for finding blocks more often.

Right now Bitcoin generates ~200 $/second. In the next ~30 years or less, that number will become much smaller unless people start paying massive L1 fees (which they most likely won't)

bridgerton[m]: That's why you have pool mining

<joshhavepigdog> Make a prediction about BTCs future then. What does it look like when Miners want $20 fees for L1 and all the cheap-o btc sympathizers are hiding in lightening network for cheap fees

Miners don't "want" fees. Network hashrate follows the mining incentive, not the other way around

<joshhavepigdog> Yes we are thinking about this situation. What exactly do you think will happen?

<joshhavepigdog> How will it be profitable to mine Bitcoin then when the blockreward is tiny without fees?

So if people pay massive fees then miners will come. If they don't pay the massive fees, then miners will leave. That's it

<joshhavepigdog> Yes this is my point!

<joshhavepigdog> Haha

bridgerton[m]: People living now won't be even alive at that time. BTC maxis don't care about the long term time horizon

bridgerton[m]: It will be profitable because a lot of people will have left in the meantime

<joshhavepigdog> But you keep exercising a mental block and aren’t willing to make a prediction

Josh.

Listen closely

If difficulty is 10t right now, and asics leave and it drops to 10b... and its PROFITABLE to mine with GPUs, do you not understand that this is the most orofiatble time to turn the asics back on? When difficulty is low?

This isnt speculation. Bitcoin and bch do it all the time. Turning off/on farms to manipulate the difficulty

<joshhavepigdog> I disagree. There are still some hard core bitcoin believers participating in Bitcoin.

entry1 we're actually talking less than 30y, so many still will be around

<joshhavepigdog> Yes so it will go back to GPU!

Facepalm

If it can be mined with a GPU profitably

It can be mined with an asic MORE profitably

^

So the asic owners will have no reason to stop

* to stop in the first place

Only reason being is temprarily, to lower the difficuloty

<joshhavepigdog> Yes, but why would they turn their ASIC’s back on if the block’s being mined have next to no block reward and the fees are tiny? Please god it makes no sense to me. Sure they may be able to outcompete the GPUs to find blocks but why the hell would they if the fees and block reward are tiny haha? It makes no sense

Take a break, and re-read the above conversation slower

It's all in there

bridgerton[m]: Difficulty stops by 100x if GPUs mine

Aka, protsbility increases by the same. Returning after difficulty drops means you are competeing against NOBODY

<joshhavepigdog> Ok I think I may see my blind spot now

* Difficulty drops by 100x if GPUs mine

Aka, profitability increases by the same. Returning after difficulty drops means you are competeing against NOBODY

key points:

- asics are more efficient than gpus

- higher efficiency = higher profitability

- the least profitable miners leave first

<joshhavepigdog> ASICs are just that much more efficient that GPUs

BTC Asics are 100x-1000x more efficient than gpus

<joshhavepigdog> If the network goes back to GPU only and you have ASICs your probability of finding consecutive blocks goes way up because the ASIC is magnitudes more powerful than GPU, is this correct?

<joshhavepigdog> Ah

<joshhavepigdog> That’s the thing I was missing

Yes

merope: And only cost 10x as much

<joshhavepigdog> But wait this isn’t over yet.

<joshhavepigdog> There still must come some sort of equilibrium floor between the miners and people tx ing on layer 1

Yes, that's where the mining incentive comes in

More mining rewards = bigger cake = more room for more miners

Dynamic blocks...

Mining rewards go down => smaller cake => fewer people can sustain their mining activity

Limiting the # of tx per block makes those fees have tondistrubute amongst the limited quantity of tx per block

<joshhavepigdog> So basically it’s possible it goes back to GPU only, then all the ASICs come back but because the transacters are being stingy each block will only have a capped reward because people will only be willing to pay so much in fees.

No, because in order to go back to gpu-only you'd have to delete asics from existance

If asics were force offline long enough to allow profitable you security, asics would come back and 95% the network

Forget about 51%

Profitable GPU* security

As long as someone has an asic somewhere (and cares to run it), they will overwhelm any gpu

There is a form of market equilibrium. For a detailed analysis, see Budish, E. (2022). "The economic limits of bitcoin and anonymous, decentralized trust on the blockchain."

<joshhavepigdog> Alright tell me exactly how you see things playing out when BTC’s block reward drops and there is a cap on how much people will pay to transact on Bitcoin Layer 1

So it will never actually be profitable enough to run a gpu

joshhavepigdog: I recommend a course in basic microeconomics. Should clear up some things for you.

<joshhavepigdog> You guys are saying the same thing over and over again. I agree with you I just want you to explain what you think will happen

We have already told you the exact answer to that specific question

bridgerton[m]: I said already. If number of miners doesnt grow, and expected pay stays the same, 50-90$/tx for 3000tx/block 24/7/365 is the only way to replace the reward

<joshhavepigdog> So then Bitcoin won’t die?

<joshhavepigdog> Yes, but then we said everyone would move to lightening which would exacerbate the problem.

<joshhavepigdog> Thanks Rucknium I will check that out

Would YOU pay 100$ per tx on layer 1? No

It would become completely centralized

Either people pay mega L1 fees and the network stays at today's security level, or they don't and the network becomes trivial to attack

Aka dead

<joshhavepigdog> Feel like I’ve been talking in circles or I still just down understand haha

<joshhavepigdog> Attack by who though?

there is no cap on how much people will pay to transact at layer 1. The tx fees are set by the miners, and if the tx fees are too low, mining hash rate falls to a level too low to secure the l1,l2... etc networks making them insecure. The TX fee will always cover the energy+hardware arms race to cover the market cap/hardware production and energy price/availability

merope: These are the only two options for the future ^

Bitcoin can die if there are so many idle bitcoin ASICs that can be used in a 51% attack. The paper I linked above discusses that scenario.

bridgerton[m]: By anyone with a few asics in a basement somewhere. The network hashrate will go down by ~100x

<joshhavepigdog> Your conclusion is unsubstantiated. What evidence do you to support your conclusion?

<joshhavepigdog> Attack by who though

Mine? I'm writing a paper about this exact scenario

China banned mining and bitcoin lost 50% of hashrate overnight.

This is an easy attack vector, especially without a respectable block reward to keep honest miners incentivized

<joshhavepigdog> Who will attack Bitcoin as you said in your scenario?

bridgerton[m]: Math

<joshhavepigdog> Ok, but who will do the attack?

Like I said: it will become trivial to attack for anyone with a few spare asics. I'm not saying they will attack it, I'm saying that the opportunity will be there for the taking for anyone willing to do a double-spend, and it will be easy to pull it off

Bitcoin does not want to increase block size "as to not centralize nodes". If this remains, the Max tx/block is aprox 3000.

The block reward is 6.25 bitcoin.

Blocks are already full. Fees dont cover even 1% of the block reward

Full block fees dont come anywhere near 150k*

Yet the are expected to cover 100% of the block reward AFTER layer 2 is mainstream?

* Yet the fees are expected

<joshhavepigdog> Ok, so anyone with a few ASICs. But what would they gain from doing this? We are operating under the assumption that even if they had 100% of the hashrate no one will pay the god awful fees. So they are just wasting electricity? All the people who used to use bitcoin would be holding BTC and not spending or hiding in Layer 2 Lightening. So am I correct in saying the end-game basically leads to no one using

Layer 1? And then Bitcoin dies?

Look into double spending..

<joshhavepigdog> Ahhhhhh

<joshhavepigdog> Aha

^ Did you read my full message?

<joshhavepigdog> That is a fantastic point ofrnxmr

<joshhavepigdog> Yes

And why someone would try to 51% a network and rewrite the chain

s/Yes/I mean no I’m just now seeing that/

<joshhavepigdog> Double spend

<joshhavepigdog> Holy shit

<joshhavepigdog> Bitcoin really is doomed

<joshhavepigdog> Bitcoin is dependent on the Maxi’s pumping up the price in the short term and long term it will depend on the maxi’s paying ridiculously high Layer 1 fees to keep the ASIC miners on their side.

<joshhavepigdog> If they don’t pay the insane fees it will eventually lead to a breakdown in network security which leads to a for profit double-spend attack by an attacker with the most ASICs

A dynamic block size mitiigates the "ridiculous fee" problem by allowing more people to pitch in

layer 2 must settle and always pay the miners tx fees that they set, which will always cover miner costs even absent any block/minting reward, if later 2 doesn't settle because the tx/settlement fee is "too high" then the layer 2 network in not secured by the layer 1 network and it just a privately owned unsecured database of transactions without use or the "trustless" security backstop of L1 :) If tx volume falls too low to

support continuous miner output and >50% falls offline but could come back at any time, faith in the network could not likely be maintained

<joshhavepigdog> Is the above scenario correct ^^

Yes.

<joshhavepigdog> Yep that’s my point.

<ofrnxmr[m]> Ask them "why bitcoin" They cant give an answer that is older than a few months.

^^ TY for this :D

A possible exception to a drastic drop in hashrate not dooming trust in the network would be if energy production/availability failures was the main cause, i.e. there is no feasible way to bring PoW capacity online due to energy constraints worldwide or something of that nature

Even at the maximum L1 tx volume, the fees would have to be insanely high. In fact, anything less than the maximum tx volume would require even higher fees to maintain the same mining incentive

<joshhavepigdog> Privately owned unsecured database lol

<joshhavepigdog> So Basically Bitcoin is really doomed.

maybe

killswitch[m]: thats the goal of LN. to remove bitcoin's censorship-resistance and re-introduce trusted 3rd parties

<joshhavepigdog> So we know for sure Bitcoin is Not Gonna Make It

all for the sake of "convenience"

r4v3r23[m]: yup that was the debate for the longest time, solving a problem while creating another

<joshhavepigdog> No it is impossible unless lightening gains so much adoption that it subsidized miners on Layer 1 when lightnening channels close and settle on Layer 1.

killswitch[m]: its an attack

bridgerton[m]: No, because you would still need 7 tps worth of L1 settlements

The point if lightning is to keep channels open

And anything less than 7tps means you will need even higher fees to maintain the security

McDonalds isnt depositng money on l1 every 10min. They will close tips every day or month or quarter

Which means that it will cost upwards of 100$ to keep opening and closing channels all the time

lightening was never meant to be a global instant bapyment network. the creator and author of whitepaper said so himself

s/tips/channels/

<joshhavepigdog> So basically my conclusion is correct: Bitcoin’s doom is assured. Bitcoin is ~ Not Gonna Make It

its being re-apporpriated as the next marketing scheme to give maxis hope for hyperbitcoinization in the future

<joshhavepigdog> So we all agree then that Bitcoin is doomed?

aka PUMP OUR BAGS

bridgerton[m]: i think thats why were all here

Doomed as a decentralized competitor to fiat, already dead

<joshhavepigdog> Imagine how happy Peter Schiff will be LMFAO haha

<joshhavepigdog> I love Schiff though

"Store of value"

Bitcoin died over over, everytime the goal changes

maybe itll succeed in a regulated capacity

but thats just fucking boring

<joshhavepigdog> Yes, but I thought the tradeoff was really as simple as we valued privacy and freedom more than TI84 math to audit supply.

give me cold hard digital cashhhh

<joshhavepigdog> No Bitcoin literally can’t succeed.

<joshhavepigdog> The doublespend attack you guys described is what ultimately seals its fate.

Yeah, im good with monero > Bitcoin even without privacy

bridgerton[m]: as p2p cash fuck no

For monero, Nodes, miners, its an honest game

Monero, iirc, has more full nodes than Bitcoin too, and multitudes more nodes /$

<joshhavepigdog> Literally the only way Bitcoin can survive forever is if the cost of securing the Network with ASICs continues decrease by 50% in accordance with each halving but that’s impossible because commodity prices and electricity will continue to moon as Central Banks further expand the amount of fiat and credit in circulation. More fiat chasing after scarce resources.

Even if prices drop etc, its a business with employees

You have to pay people or lay them off.

<joshhavepigdog> And if Monero had to switch mining algorithm to ASICs for some reason, our tail emission would secure the network from hashrate falling right?

The cost of btc mining isnt just the hardware, its infrasteucture, regulations, licenses, taxes, employees

<joshhavepigdog> You’re referring to Bitcoin here right?

Yes

<joshhavepigdog> So basically the fate of Monero depends on the tail emission and also RandomX succeeding against specialized equipment right?

<joshhavepigdog> Because if ASICs are developed for Monero isn’t that problematic or not really?

Tail emission trends to 0. Eventually it isnt, itself, an incentive.

But tail emission allows dynamic blocks

<joshhavepigdog> Maybe a Random X ASIC isn’t so bad because it would be a novel idea that would lead to increased competition amongst our miners

If developed in secret, and fired up all at once. Yes a huge problem.

But as I said, a new ryzen is basically an asic compared to an Intel core 2 duo

<joshhavepigdog> No the blockreward is fixed though. So if the price continues to go up then what’s the problem?

Its not fixed

<joshhavepigdog> So Monero’s fate depends on RandomX to some extent?

It gets penalized

So the block reward can be less than 0.6xmr (and replaced with fees )

<joshhavepigdog> Could you elaborate on tail emission not being an incentive?

> <@ofrnxmr:monero.social> Tail emission trends to 0. Eventually it isnt, itself, an incentive.

>

> But tail emission allows dynamic blocks

Inflation tends to 0. Tail emission is constant 0.6 xmr/block forever

<joshhavepigdog> Yes, but the miners would still benefit from that because the fees would offset the block penalty right?

merope: Yeah yeah, ^ what he said

Inflation rate* trends to 0

<joshhavepigdog> Yes I understand this. I thought he was somehow implying tail emission will have security issues in the future.

But the 0.6 xmr is penalized, donut isnt "fixed"

* But the 0.6 xmr is penalized, so it isnt "fixed"

<joshhavepigdog> Yes, but fees will always offset the pentaly won’t they?

bridgerton[m]: It does. If by the time is it worthless tx volume hasnt increased to have a fee market

Not always, depends on how much people are paying

<joshhavepigdog> And if fees offset the penalty then it’s not a problem.

That penalty gets included in a subsequent block

If they pay higher xmr/byte fees, then the blocks can grow faster because you have more offset

merope: And how many people

If nobody is using xmr, the fee just keeps inflating the supply.

Penalizing the reward means inflation is slowed

nioc: Wut? No, the penalty applies to the block you are mining. If you increase the size of this block, then you get paid less for this block

* And how many people

If nobody is using xmr, the reward just keeps inflating the supply.

Penalizing the reward means inflation is slowed

<joshhavepigdog> Could either of you describe a situation where Tail Emission + Block Penatly + Fees would be inadequate?

But supply inflation is well below 1% yearly and decreasing

Yes the penalty is for current block and AIUI is a bonus for a future block depending on size and stuff

There is no bonus for future blocks

<joshhavepigdog> Yes, but see my question above. Could either of you describe a situation where Tail Emission + Block Penatly + Fees would be inadequate?

<joshhavepigdog> Because the guy was claiming somehow even tail emission + fees could have security issues.

No, that's the point of the tail emission

<joshhavepigdog> I don’t follow how that could happen though.

Block penalty = increased or altogethether replaced by fees from larger blocks = healthy chain, miners getting paid

<joshhavepigdog> Yeah that’s my thought as well, but ofrnxmr claimed otherwise.

Nobody knows, it's all an experiment

I'm conflicted about the idea that the block reward of 0.6XMR eventually does not provide an incentive.

Practically speaking, it is eventually balanced by coin loss over time. So while the ratio of the block reward to the total emitted supply always decreases; it should eventually be a sustained portion of the circulating/active supply. The way I see it, that is true till the end of time.

No block penalty = not enough tx to grow the blocks or penalize miners. Block fees dont grow and miners lose to inflation

<joshhavepigdog> Yes, but I though you were implying that there was some combination of factors that would cause Tail Emission to be insufficient or if fees didn’t cover the block penalty or something.

The model depends on adoption.

No adoption = chain continues to inflate

ofrnxmr[m]: Nope

<joshhavepigdog> Why would miner’s lose though?

<joshhavepigdog> How?

So many questions

<joshhavepigdog> Yeah by 0.87% or less. That is NOTHING compared to Fiat or Gold.

bridgerton[m]: The inflaion at 0 is the miners pay.

<joshhavepigdog> It’s good to ask good questions.

Reward penalty is to discourage spam by increasing the blocksize. Rational miners only increase the blocksize when the fees offset the penalty, and to increase it a lot you need constant transaction pressure for a very long time

<joshhavepigdog> I would say my questions are good.

bridgerton[m]: Your questions are quite rambling and repetitive :)

<joshhavepigdog> Exactly. And that is amazing in my opinion. Thank you for staying it so clearly 🙂

joshhavepigdog: Tail emission will be insufficient if the incentive (either financial or political) to perform a permanent 51% attack on the Monero blockchain is lower than the real purchasing power of that 0.6XMR/block tail emission. Real purchasing power is now approximately the fiat/XMR exchange rate, i.e. price.

^

<joshhavepigdog> One could argue that attack incentive already outweighs the block reward.

<joshhavepigdog> Considerably.

That can occur if either the real purchasing power of 1 XMR decreases substantially -- below some risk limit. Or if the real purchasing power is stable but the incentive increases somehow.

merope: Whereas on Bitcoin, flooding the mempool in incentivized as it forces people to bid their way to the front

(Miners make more money by keeping the the mempool flooded)

Please don't forget to give your cat some high quality catnip

<joshhavepigdog> One could argue we are already at that stage. If MineXMR did a double spend it would likely be worth more than their block reward for multiple blocks mined consecutively.

That's not how a double spend works

Doublysoending isnt THAT easy

I suppose you could also consider people mining to preserve the value of the XMR they already have, regardless of the block reward. The idea of BTC/XMR eventually having some traits of PoS through this mechanism seems interesting to me.

Would it be worth more than their operating income?

<joshhavepigdog> I don’t follow. I guess they need quite a bit of Hashrate to do it successfully?

spackle_xmr[m]: To defend your xmr against supply inflation, you need to own the same % of the total hashrate as you own % of the total supply

Monero has 100x more nodes per $ than btc.

Reorgs happen and we dont have chain splits due to consensus.

joshhavepigdog: You have to take into account the entire future profits that minexmr would be sacrificing. Also, they have not had reliably enough hashpower to perform a realistic 51% attack.

So if you own 1% of all coins, you need to own 1% of all the hashrate to keep owning 1% of all new mined coins

<joshhavepigdog> Really? I don’t think so. This is all new discussion to me and I’m learning a lot. Is this stuff you guys have already covered extensively in your own head or in conversations here?

Most of this has been discussed many times. Some of it is in the process of being formally written down

merope: I hear you, but I'm imagining people simply defending the network generally as they have a vested interest, unrelated to inflation.

<joshhavepigdog> I see because the presumption is that if they did a double spend a community member would figure out and notify everyone and people would sell and the price would rank?

<joshhavepigdog> Tank

the basics of most of the mining incentives talk (not monero specific) arcs back well over a decade to bitcointalk boards/irc

bridgerton[m]: By the time a double spend has occured, it's already too late

The chain has split and nodes are isolated

<joshhavepigdog> This point here I still don’t understand. If the block reward is fixed at 0.6 XMR that gives miners a floor on profits (assuming price doesn’t drop). So this shouldn’t be an issue.

Its not a floor.

> assuming price doesn't drop

There's your culprit

10xmr in existence.

You get 1

Now there are 11, all worth less then before

Don't confuse revenue with profit.

s/get/create*/

Mining incentive = block reward * coin price / block time

<joshhavepigdog> But wouldn’t a doublespend only affect entities outside of the network? A double spend itself doesn’t compromise the network unless it is performed on an exchange where the doublespend is selling a very large amount of Monero which causes the price to tank.

* Mining incentive [$/s] = block reward [xmr/block] * coin price [$/xmr] / block time [s/block]

<joshhavepigdog> My phone is about to die by the way

<joshhavepigdog> Rip

That is exactly a typical scenario of a doublespend

The immediate problem is the fact that the exchange has bought some coins that don't exist anymore

<joshhavepigdog> But why is this a threat to Monero? People even mined Monero when it was $50? I don’t see a time where people stop mining unless it goes insanely low. Surely there’s only so many XMR holders with paper hands.

The subsequent price tanking is just a market reaction to bad news, but that's irrelevant

And if its Bitcoin..........

When its a settlement layer. Thats a lot of large tx out for sniping

Because there were fewer miners. Small cake, but less people feeding off of it

Every new block reward is a cake, and it has to feed all the hungry miners

<joshhavepigdog> Not necessarily. It depends on the demand for Monero as well. But yeah a miner or pool makes it’s own grave if they just sell Monero as soon as they mine it lol. That’s there problem though not the tail emissions problem.

They do this ^ already

<joshhavepigdog> Yeah but surely Monero’s price isn’t going below $10 USD is it

You dont really think miznexmr hodls? Lol

They sell xmr at a loss all day long (to attack the price of xmr and indirectly disincentivize profit miners)

Miner selling immediately -> their sale price affects the trading prices everywhere -> other miners now have to sell for less, or risk not being able to pay their bills

<joshhavepigdog> Yeah, but it would have to be a huge sell to an exchange that crushed the price. Don’t exchanges have practices outlined to defend against this sort of thing making it unpractical though?

They (binance) even sell fake/paper xmr at s loww

s/s/a/, s/loww/loss/

bridgerton[m]: No

Selling paper xmr is not a loss, since they're not actually selling anything. The loss is incurred by the buyer - at least until they withdraw

No regulations. They pump and dump all they want.

There are liquidity providers that you can OTC without affecting the orice, but its well known that miners mine directly to exchange wallets and auto sell

merope: I only mean at a loss as in under valued / they cant cover their shorts

Combine that with wash trading, and you have a perfect recipe for price manipulation

Moneroocean, for example, dumps everything (except for xmr) on tradeogre

<joshhavepigdog> Ok, but at what point does a big brain like me start a competing mining pool that doesn’t sell a single coin, because he knows USD is slave bucks? It comes down to the attitude of the miner. Short term profit? They sell. Austrian Econ enjoyer who understands fiat will go to zero? Diamond hands mfer

Maybe not everything, buy ykwim

ofrnxmr[m]: They don't "dump", they just handle the conversion process on behalf of the users, to save them the fees

bridgerton[m]: Mining pools get paid..... in fees... a lot

Which actually makes sense

Dump shitcoins for xmr, convert

same thing

:P

bridgerton[m]: Lol. Running a pool has significant costs. You won't be able to sustain any significant number of miners without shelling out for some decent hardware

<joshhavepigdog> I understand the some large pools sell their Monero directly to exchange wallets.

And is good for monero, as it puts buying pressure on monero and selling pressure in evrytjing else

<joshhavepigdog> I thought people just joined their hardware to Saif pool

bridgerton[m]: Im not saying pools sell

Im saying bots on minexmr sell

<joshhavepigdog> It only costs so much for a ryzen

<joshhavepigdog> Ok I get that

Pool has to verify all miner shares, otherwise you risk people submitting fake/invalid shares

<joshhavepigdog> So basically Monero’s security model breaks as the price goes lower and lower

<joshhavepigdog> But can’t it only go so low?

Well, because the community doesnt mine for profit anyway, i dont think so

It doesn't break, it just has a lower threshold

Does seem fair to say it breaks, it just gets weaker

<joshhavepigdog> I get your guys point. My point is that surely there is a floor on XMRs price even with the miners constantly selling

We have more nodes than btc/dollar by 100x and were still here

s/Does/Doesn't/

Everybody with half a brain cares about profits. Hashrate is a resource, and somebody has to pay for it. And your pockets are not bottomless

The only price floor ever is 0

Everything else is just speculation

<joshhavepigdog> I get your guys argument I just think it’s a sad day if price drop is what kills Monero for no reason other than exchange paper XMr and miners slowly bleed the price down

Im not talking about mining at a loss, im saying right now its barely profitable for anyone with modern hardware

<joshhavepigdog> I mean that is a sad death. At least if bulletproofs get exploited it’s an honorable/reasonable death.

When balanced with coin loss, I do not see that people selling block rewards permanently bleeding price down.

But p2pool has 2000 people mining for peanuts and tx volume and adoption at all time highs

<joshhavepigdog> I thought some people already had fiat outside of their rewards to cover expenses namely electricity and hardware

<joshhavepigdog> Speculation and utility.

* When balanced with coin loss, I do not see that people selling block rewards permanently bleeds the price down.

51% attacks are disruptive, but not a death sentence. But breaking something like bulletproofs would most likely be a death sentence

<joshhavepigdog> What’s your point?

Were coming close to dymnamic block block size etc. The direction implies that no, were not headed in thebdirection of absndonment, but in the direction of larger blocks and higher rewards

<joshhavepigdog> You can speculate this, but just ignore lost coins for now

<joshhavepigdog> What’s your point though?

<joshhavepigdog> That’s what I mean. I find it hard to believe XMR price goes down so low that it dies from mining related causes. I hold a decent amount of XMR and I will not sell to go back into slave bucks known as USD

"XMR price is already down so low" is my point

<joshhavepigdog> Yeah because people are sheep

<joshhavepigdog> And scared by exploit of Bulletproofs.

XMR could easily be 2000+ with our current hash rate and block reward and tx count

<joshhavepigdog> Yes but there are reasons why it’s not.

The price is low due to paper selling and reliance on paper selling reported prices

If binance doesnt let you withdraw, why are we respecting their trade volume?

what would it take to get monero delisted of CEXes

<joshhavepigdog> I’ll give you three (1) Shortsightedness (2) Ignorance (3) Fear about BulletProofs because average Joe can’t audit the math and implementation there himself

<joshhavepigdog> Referring to the masses when I say shortsighted and ignorant

<joshhavepigdog> I don’t use binance

If the guy across the St opens a fake McDonalds and sells empty bags for 1$, then real McDonalds starts selling burgers for 1$.. assuming the fake bags have burgers in them and this is the real price of a Burger in a free market.. it isnt

<joshhavepigdog> Look even if the exchanges spoof the price surely they can only do so much?

<joshhavepigdog> Maybe

<joshhavepigdog> There’s not much we can do about this though

bridgerton[m]: They arent the only ones. Pretty sure huobi is closing xmr withdrawals next week, poloniex had them closed for months

bridgerton[m]: Where do you get you xmr price fromn

Where do you think THEY get the price from

<joshhavepigdog> Accept roast the living hell out of idiots who keep their coins on exchanges or trade exclusively on the exchange and never actually touch the coins

<joshhavepigdog> Binance and kraken seem like the most liquid spots?

From arbitrage trading between exchanges or must comoaring prices

You arent going to buy 210$ xmr if you can get it for 205 from somewhere else

<joshhavepigdog> BISQ has decent liquidity

No. Kraken liquidity is pretry bad

Binance is fake

<joshhavepigdog> What is your point though?

That the price is fake

<joshhavepigdog> I still gotta remember that BtC is confirmed dead though lol

<joshhavepigdog> Well what can we do about it?

ofrnxmr[m]: its real, just undervalued

<joshhavepigdog> Ask exchanges to delist Monero lol

r4v3r23[m]: Something like this ^

Wen phone ded

^

<joshhavepigdog> Haha it will die soon

Or simple refusing to sell at the prices set by cex

<joshhavepigdog> Am I bothering you guys hat much though?

<joshhavepigdog> To be fair this conversation probably doesn’t have a end regarding the price.

Also, "omg monero gon get delisted" is a self-fulfilling prophecy imo. You fight it by reminding people that privacy protects honest people first

<joshhavepigdog> The TLDR is that Monero’s risk in terms of security is the price going to low.

Surely you have enough info to think about

<joshhavepigdog> I do that.

And anyone trying to gaslight people saying that privacy is only for criminals is actively trying to harm them

Apple dispelled this in 2013 or so

<joshhavepigdog> I deleted my personal Instagram account and have made a new one with the primary purpose of spreading awareness about Monero for the use Of Counter-Economics.

<joshhavepigdog> This ain’t a dev channel though

bridgerton[m]: its the best currency for that purpose

I got kicked from IG for mentioning xmr during the Canadian trucker rallies

Instagram? What's that?

A monetary unit. One Instagram is a billion USD.

<joshhavepigdog> Probably. The only way this argument breaks down is if BP gets exploited or a quantum computer etc. but yes Monero has the highest potential to achieve what money should be.

<joshhavepigdog> Trying to resch normies

rbrunner: 1 billion grams*

Which DNM can I buy an insta gram of that

Facebook bought Instagram for 1 billion, that's the origin of that joke. It then bought WhatsApp for about 8 Instagrams, if I remember correctly.

instanon.onion

All the things I don't have :(

I don't have any of these since a long time :)

morons. could have just downloaded them for free

Since the beginning of time

Well wutsapp br fb

*b4

The trick with whatsapp is to tell all you contact that you are switching to signal or some other good im and actually deleting whatsapp after a week even if people don't switch. That you see which friend actually matter

s/That/Than/

I dont trust signal either, rofl

:)

ofrnxmr[m]: neither do i

id rather use telegram. better gifs

ofrnxmr[m]: what do you suggest? Most people I know are clueless

Whatsapp is really a plague thru.

Some countries rely so much on it.

Telegram lacks default e2ee, and their custom implementation is very problematic

Even more clueless than I

Plus their e2ee chats only work on mobile, and on individual devices

merope: i know, but not all my pseudonymous comms need to be encrypted. i treat them like public convos

Signal is easy as it also use phone number (it's way more easier to get you're contact to switch from whatsapp to signal than say, Tox)

use the less evil so the normies can still contact you

As if being centralized with light kyc with your phone number and ip, it now included s proof of stake monero ripoff.

There's Molly for that

Ill pass on the honey pot for "WhatsApp users with higher opsec"

i dont trust naive privacy tech

Molly still uses phone numbers and signal servers, for now

its either built adversarially or gtfo

Who care, just don't use that fake monero shit.

Buy random sim card at the convenient store (might not be possible if you are not living in a free country)

ofrnxmr[m]: all it added was a passphrase and logo change yeah?

But you can see what the client app does. And if the client app only shares e2ee data, then there's not much the server can do about it

My choice of instant messangers is actually status IM.. but its barely usable

r4v3r23[m]: Also removes Mobilecoin

r4v3r23[m]: And non-Google notifications

i like xmpp

blabber.im

fuckin no one uses it

xmpp do leak more metadata than signal afaik

I like xmpp too but like, I have like 2 contacts on it lol

al800[m]1: tor + omemo?

r4v3r23[m]: Think that you have to bring you're normies friends and family in too

We should use monero for messaging

Ducks

merope: Signal knows phone number and ip

Thats too much for me to call it better than WhatsApp for regular Joe. Probably running the servers in the same warehouse LoL

al800[m]1: got them on telegram. thats good enough for me

Instagram leak more than signal (got proven with law enforcement use)

s/Instagram/Telegram/

an xmpp client with good UI and mandatory tor + omemo would be cool

"so far", Signal leak only the date your registered to the service, when asked

> <@ofrnxmr:monero.social> Signal knows phone number and ip

> Thats too much for me to call it better than WhatsApp for regular Joe. Probably running the servers in the same warehouse LoL

It's still the least bad option, in terms of usability for non-tech people

Hey, if im leaking im not doing anything dirty on it.

I dont care if its WhatsApp or signal

Tor leaks that you're using tor. Now what?

Yeah, but its harder to use than WhatsApp and otherwise almost the same

Breathing leaks that you exist

So nobody / most people stick with the first mover

What about Session?

merope: It doesnt leak my ip and phone number to "not" facebook

Session or Briar

ofrnxmr[m]: It's the same as using whatsapp really, and when you install it, it fetch your contact the same way so you don't have to get you're normies to re-add everyone.

Best way for a friction-less migration

Session is cucked. Use the f droid version if you must

Wickr ?

Session is the one that runs on top of a blockchain, right? I don't recall the details, but their whole setup was so dumb

Try to get you're friends and family to pay for a service (Briar) so they can talk to you :D

only use the f-droid version of most anything :)

anyone use Wickr

F droid version is unofficial, but official version source code for signal dependencies is MIA

Also, session "disappearing messages" arent deleted

They store them somewhere

Last time I tried they did not offer .deb/tar.gz/rpm, only snap shit that required me to install some service, I abandoned trying that shit.

* I tried Wickr they did

Amazon messenger 😁

ofrnxmr[m]: Seriously? Even signal version of that feature is actually deleted. I tought session was better but it's less easy to convert you're normies friends/fam

Status im uses waku, a fork of whisper

Yes, signal actually deletes the messages. Session does not and they lie in their marketing and to their users in github

Lokinet is supported by oxen node runners or whatever, whichbis POS

Id assume status controls almost all exit nodes

s/status/session*/

good marketing tho

"Get rid of Google"

heres some Google infiltrades session to soothe you

<al800[m]1> "Try to get you're friends and..." <- I had to look this up because I didn't know there was a pay version of briar, but i couldn't find one. thinking of something else? (threema? maybe?)

killswitch[m]: Oups, you right I think, it was Threema I had in mind

Threema is shit, use Tor

Tox

qTox

<nioc> "anyone use Wickr" <- you came after watching mr. robot?

no, don't watch TV

i have met some drug dealers that use wickr :)

didn't realize it was on there

I suggested it to a drug dealer, they didn't change from wutsapp

or just regular text lol

they dealt with all they collage normies

wickr is closed source/proprietary though iirc?

*all the

som1[m]: Should be fun watch you trying to get you're family and normies friends to switch to Tox

killswitch[m]: no idea actually

polyseed discussion going on in research lab

is it a honeypot?

Cat is looking for more catnip lol

<joshhavepigdog> I know I’ll catch flack for going back to prior conversation point, but… BTC could always increase block size and if there were 3,000 tx per block and each tx was $50 that would be $150,000 per block to the miner who mined it.

<joshhavepigdog> So BTC can persist if the maxi’s can pay that price.

<joshhavepigdog> If the store of value holds in their minds maybe they’ll be willing to pay that much for transactions.

BTC could increase blocksize... but then it would just be bch

the more txs in a block the less competition to get a tx in a block = lower fees

<joshhavepigdog> Yeah but BTC will try to use it to justify making l1 cheaper and the maxis will slurp it up

nioc: With btc, the more tx in mempool the more competition and the higher the fees

<joshhavepigdog> This makes some sense

bridgerton[m]: They tried this during the block size wars.. and hence, bch was created BEXAUSE btc chose thhis path of 1MB blocks forever

ofrnxmr[m]: he said increase the block size so more txs

what are bch tx fees?

If they increase the blocksize were just talking about bch now tokenomics, no speculation as to what would happen

<joshhavepigdog> The average tx fee was $20 from Feb to early May 2021 and median fee was $10. If the maxis can cope with those fees and not sell I’m not sure anything can make them sell. Even a future where blockreward is 0 and tx fee is $50.

Bch can do 1350tx/s with 256MB blocks

So btc would be the same.

170 tx/s with 32MB blocks

<joshhavepigdog> If fees on Bitcoin layer 1 are $50, I think that would be enough to keep ASICs on the network.

<joshhavepigdog> Might point is that increasing fees may not cause the BTC maxis to lose faith.

Would YOU spend btc?

<joshhavepigdog> No.

Its a faithless race already. They are NGU and dont ever plan to use layer 1 bitcoin

<joshhavepigdog> But their narrative if store of value chain

but you can't set the fee directly so.........

<joshhavepigdog> I’m trying to put myself in the skin of the btc maxi

If you do that, all you have to do if ignore the fee problem and say "I'll use lightning"

And talk about how its a good thing for the government to regulate layer 1 and secure

It

<joshhavepigdog> And they will use lightening for small txs or no?

<joshhavepigdog> Haha

<joshhavepigdog> I’m just trying to put myself in the BTC maxi’s shoes

<joshhavepigdog> Because BTC can’t disrupt fiat if it can’t be used for transactions meaning they will have swap for another coin to transact with or use lightening.

<joshhavepigdog> As crazy as it sounds I think there may be still be people who will pay big fees to use BTC layer 1. What are the problems associated with using lightening for transactions other than lack of privacy?

<joshhavepigdog> I wonder if your funds can be frozen if they are in a lightening channel?

You're not doing math

Transaction. Fees. Secure. The. Network.

<joshhavepigdog> I also wonder why fees followed Bitcoin’s price so closely in late 2020 and early 2021? But now are so cheap. Why did people want to pay more tx’s then than now?

Lighting channels = 2 transactions

Nothing is forcing you (Amazon) to close the channel.

If there is no block reward and blocks ARENT FULL, each tx is MORE than 50$

<joshhavepigdog> Yes, I’m saying there are crazy people who will pay crazy fees to “enjoy” BTC

If Amazon settles every.... 2 weeks when its time to pay emlloyees, that 1 on chain transaction for million of dollars every 2 weels

<joshhavepigdog> Why wouldn’t blocks be full though?

2** transactions. Opening and closing the channel

If that is what happens, everyone uses lightning to shop on Amazon... layer 1 blocks will be empty

And fee for 1 tx will be 150k

<joshhavepigdog> What is Layer 1 blocks are full though?

Are you understanding how increased lightning adoption attacks fee security on layer 1?

bridgerton[m]: competition to fill the blocks to get mo tx in a block to get more total fee/block, drives fee down when blocks aren't full. Blocks fill when people transact, which seems more frequent in the bull market phases generally

<joshhavepigdog> Is a full block 3,000 transactions?

bridgerton[m]: How?

<joshhavepigdog> Yes, but what if they are still full even after some small fries move to lightening.

Who is transacting? Amazon isnt accepting layer 1 every idustry in btc will use a second or even third layer

then the mempool grows and fees increase until the mempool ain't full no more

7transactions does not scale and has been known since the block wars.

<joshhavepigdog> It’s really exaggerated though during the climb in 2020 and 2021. Now it doesn’t look like the fee is anywhere near that much.

bridgerton[m]: They are artificially full.. they arent full of real transactions right now

Maxis barely make up 200tx/block

Lmao.

Right now 23k transactions in the btc mempool.

^ fake tx

People are are bidding to get into the mempool

And fees are still too low to cover the subsidy

WWITH FULL BLOCKS AND 7 blocks waiting.

<joshhavepigdog> The people who were transacting when fees were $10 and $20 on Layer 1. I don’t know who these people are or what they are thinking lol. I don’t know how people justify that fee level and just shrug it off. I mean yeah it’s Bitcoin and hard money blah blah but I’m trying to see how people justified paying such a thing

<joshhavepigdog> Gotcha. My point is that I’m not sure Layer 1 BTC is doomed now. People paid crazy amounts for Layer 1 transactions in late 2020 and early 2021 I don’t see why they wouldn’t do it again?

when you transact old money or big money the fee is less important since the percentage goes down as the amount goes up. a $1000/kb fee is nothing for a lightning network settling 20 million dollars

6500$ in fees with 7 blocks of bidding. Thats a far cry from 150k or even 75k for the next halving

old coins can usually move feeless as well which is a nice cheat mode

<joshhavepigdog> What are these fake tx’s then?

<joshhavepigdog> This is true. Another reason why there will be at least some people paying these crazy fees on Layer 1

I lied. 19 blocks waiting

<joshhavepigdog> I don’t know what these jpegs mean

Lmao @ these fake tx

RBF everywhere

bitcoin is a scam lmao

<joshhavepigdog> What makes them fake? I’m not a troll I just don’t understand.

<joshhavepigdog> Is the point that blocks further out appear to be full, then when it’s their turn to be mined some of the tx’s disappear?

<bridgerton[m]> "<joshhavepigdog> Gotcha. My..." <- You're really not paying attention

They have NEVER paid 450k into a block

Which is btc ath block reward during the time you reference

<bridgerton[m]> "<joshhavepigdog> What are..." <- They are tx with replace by fee.. they flood the mempool and force everyones tx out of the mempool

All new tx have to have a higher fee

Because of the size of the tx, they get pushed out to make room for the more expensive / economical tx

luckily we don't have to fix bitscorn

we have mooonero

No. Its that you compete to get into a block

If a block has 200 tx in it, you can set the fee to bare minimum and get through

yup, when you mine a block you can pick whatever tx you want from the mempool to put in your winning block, there's no reason other than tx money to include a full block if you don't want to

<joshhavepigdog> I still don’t follow the full fake tx thing

if you want you can put only the coinbase in and tell the whole mempool to suck it :)

If miners want more money, they send tx to them selves with high fees

LARGE tx (size in bytes) so they fill the block

there is an irc bitcoin channel, you can talk directly to the bitscorn people

<joshhavepigdog> So miners purposefully try to leave the mem pool full?

Those tx dont get mined, because for every 5 of those there are 25 real people trying to buy coffee

Fake is the wrong word.

More like

"Bitcoin allows you to revoke transactions"

And those big tx thatvare taking up all the space, are all RBF and will be RBFd until they drop from the mempool or they make enough money to allow the tx to confirm

<joshhavepigdog> So the miners generate txs then revoke them at the last minute to keep blocks and mempool full and drive up fees.

<joshhavepigdog> What does RBF stand for?

replace by fee

<joshhavepigdog> They will taint my mind. I prefer to converse with skeptics.

Correct. I can say 100% it is miners, but they are the only ones to benefit

Id say its more "asic manufacturers" or "nation States"

not must simple miners

it allows idiots who send zero fee tx to big up the tx and get the transaction pushed through that is the actual use case. we used to do it manually back before RBF was a thing in luke dashjr's pool

<joshhavepigdog> Have people documented miners doing this before?

miners can do whatever they want within the given incentive structure, which is why p2pool etc is awesome and collude-a-pools suck balls

Of course not Bitcoiners

but yes, ruck probably has some research on it somewhere

<joshhavepigdog> Oh you used to mine BTC?

where can I find the monero channel?

#monero

lol

not enough shenanigans in the monero space to rag chew about :)

Seriously though. Not sure what YOUR argument is.

<joshhavepigdog> So this is a well known phenomenon and you both agree that it is done in BTC and the majority of the tx’s in the mem pool are these RBF txs that are just used to bid up the fees actual users pay?

As far as im concerned, ive heard nothing but "we hope" in the face of "how is this supposed to work"

Its dont in bch too. And zcash

s/dont/done/

pools still compete with other pools, that is the only incentive structure that puts opposing pressure against screwing with tx fees and mempool stuffing

<joshhavepigdog> My initial argument was that BTC maxis don’t know any better and will pay ridiculous fees to use their store of value chain. I’m not sure if that hypothesis has been debunked, but this whole fake tx thing is pretty fishy

killswitch[m]: + its Sunday

How does paying ridiculous fees = STORING value

Your paying to secure this "storage" by giving away btc that can never be reclaimed

And its not inherit.

Paying for storage means you have to... stop storing it

<joshhavepigdog> That is not my position. I will try to explain the BTC’s thinking. Bitcoin made people rich. BTC is hard money Austrian system. I will hold a large chunk of my savings in BTC. All other coins are shit coins. Some time passes. Bitcoin price has gone up some, maybe it’s 100k USD. Fees are crazy high on Bitcoin Layer 1. Maxi sees high fees as the price to pay for his hard money store of value.

You're confused

You keep confusing money with whatever bitcoin is

To pay fees, you have to use it.

Who is using it? Maxis? Bitcoin is a charity now?

<joshhavepigdog> My point was that people have paid $10 and $20 fees and even more in 2021. Whoever paid these fees must be special (if you know what I mean). What stops these guys from paying high fees again in the future if they think it is worthwhile just like they did in early 2021

No. Bitcoin is a business and controlled by large corporations. Layer 1 cannot be adopted widespread to even get enough maxis to dump 150k every 10 minutes

<joshhavepigdog> It is money to the Bitcoin maxis isn’t it?

You didnt read. .

During those times the block reward was 450k

Have fees ever come close to matching that on btc? 150k? 75k?

<joshhavepigdog> I don’t know who these people are, but whoever was paying those high fees in 2021.

bridgerton[m]: No. Its a store of value

Miners.....

<joshhavepigdog> Ok this is correct. But wouldn’t $150k per block in fees be sufficient to keep ASIC miners on board?

And people that didnt know monero, Litecoin, bch exists

<joshhavepigdog> Let’s assume 3,000 tx per block. How much do they need to pay to keep miners on board?

150k with FULL blocks of REAL tx, sure

But thats never going to hapoen

<joshhavepigdog> Didn’t it happen in early 2021 though

3000tx per block only happens when miners manipulate everybody into having their tX stuck in mempool

bridgerton[m]: No

<joshhavepigdog> I just used 3,000 as it’s a convenient round number that is close to a full block.

<joshhavepigdog> I think it is at least

Bitcoin blockchain has never had real tx to the point of adoption.

You see read adoption / usage on the off days.

Spending patterns dont change from 200tx/ 10 minutes to 3000 for no reason

<joshhavepigdog> Ok well who paid those $10 median fees and $20 average fees?

Everyone who dumped their btc for monero

<joshhavepigdog> Why are you using these numbers of 200 and 3,000?

Your askingbstuoid questions

<joshhavepigdog> See now you are trolling

Did 3000 people pay 20$? No

<joshhavepigdog> Well who did?

200 people did, the rest are fake

In what world to you think the blockchain is 80% lower in tx volume today than 2020, and the chain will somehow regain layer 1 tx and people will pay to use a broken bch

Facepalm brother.

When you see dumb shit like 20 blocks pending today, then the next 3 weeks have 0 blocks pending

Do you really tell yourself that those 20 blocks was some maxis exausing all of their spending power in a day?

<joshhavepigdog> I understand your upset at the madness of paying such high fees. I agree with you. But I’m not sure how you know that 200 people created all those txs and paid all those fees

No.

People dont spend like that. Spending patterns dont just moon one day and crash the next

<joshhavepigdog> Do you have a link where I can see this?

Jeeeeez youre not reading

200 real people paid 20$

The other 2800 tx are bullshit

There are only ~ 300 tx per block on average in 2022 at low fees

But you think in 2020 there were 3000 at 20$? Where did these people disappear to?

<joshhavepigdog> But those 2800 bullshit transactions still did pay the high fee even if it was an entity that created multiple transactions

And why wont they pay 2$ now?

<joshhavepigdog>

bridgerton[m]: Paid to themself................

Just like zcash with a 185k transaction fee.

You think they must donated money?

They paid themself to flood the blockchain

<joshhavepigdog> Could be.

<joshhavepigdog> The paid to self theory is pretty good.

<joshhavepigdog> Not sure if I can swallow it yet.

If China owns 50% of the hashrate, China has a 50% chance of mining any block

<joshhavepigdog>

bridgerton[m]: There are 2 of thrm

<joshhavepigdog> China doesn’t currently own 50% of the hashrate though do they?

.......... yeah, look at that natural ascent

More probably. .. bitmain is Chinese

When they BANNEF mining, the btc hashrate fell by 50%

Thats just the miners that complied right away... at the time

<joshhavepigdog> Ok even if China does and bitmain is Chinese what does that mean with regards to the fake txs and everything

yup it's mining centralization that really makes such things possible. And pools that are run by human admins are not how you can measure the 50%+ hashrate as pools can collude with other pools. You can have 20 pools but if they are human admin'd they could just as easily be one effective operator.

<joshhavepigdog> Ok I’m following so fa

The fact that you can mine your own block

Same with zcssh

<joshhavepigdog> I gotcha. Just trying to see how this plays out.

<joshhavepigdog> So you think institutions and miners filled those blocks and paid high fees to themselves? My next question is why would they do this?

It plays out by miners attacking the network tonforxe fees

And everyone avoiding the attack by using something else

Right now they say lightning, but lightning is held hostage by the security of l1

150k/10m624 =21m / say needs to be paid in fees

<joshhavepigdog> So you’re telling me the miners are filling all of these blocks or the vast majority of blocks with their txs and fees because if they mine the tx the money just goes back to them anyways and they have no downside?

If miners are colluding, absolutely no downside aside from stealing from the public to pay yourself

<joshhavepigdog> Where did you get these numbers you site here: “There are only ~ 300 tx per block on average in 2022 at low fees

But you think in 2020 there were 3000 at 20$? Where did these people disappear to?”

The blockchain lol

<joshhavepigdog> So this is what you think is happening on Bitcoin layer 1?

<joshhavepigdog> How do you distinguish a real tx from a fake tx that the miner is sending to himself?

I sent the pic

You can see the size of the tx onbthe pic.. visually..

16 tx take up the space of hundreds of tx. Filling the mempool.

19 blocks with only 7 blocks worth of transactions

<ofrnxmr[m]> "Imagepipe_238.jpg" <- Real tx = small ones

<ofrnxmr[m]> "Imagepipe_239.jpg" <- Fake tx = 24 tx of identical size right on the edge of the block acting as a gate keeper

<joshhavepigdog> So those big squares (I counted 24) are the miners trolling basically

Miners creating a paywall

<joshhavepigdog> Wow

<joshhavepigdog> That is crazy. What is the name of the website you are using? Is it just some block explorer you found?

Those are "fake" transactions

They are technically real, but they are fake in that these fees are artificially forced up by active manipulation

Mempool.space

<joshhavepigdog> Why is it usually that MemBlock 2 has those larger tx’s but the very next block to be mined doesn’t?

<joshhavepigdog> The next block to be mined does still have a couple big tx in there though, just not the “paywall” that I’m seeing in MemPool block 2

The payout for most blocks is 6.3-6.4 btc

Today has been 6.5-6.8 due to manipulation

bridgerton[m]: People, real people, outbidding the fake tx

(So miners are getting their money back in chunks)

there's no such thing as mempool "blocks" that's just an artificial frame to make visualization easier of the waiting tx's

realistically when you want to ride the float you always ride at/around the block level you want to pricefix

Mempool block 2 = tx that dont fit into the suggested next block

<joshhavepigdog> Yeah it’s crazy you guys were right

Trust me, I wouldnt have sold all of my BTC if I thought it wasnt totally wtf'd

<joshhavepigdog> Those big transactions in mempool block 2 are saying $100 approximately as a fee

<joshhavepigdog> This shit is messed up lol

And all have RBF.

<joshhavepigdog> I still do have a question though

<joshhavepigdog> Why were the fees paid so much higher in early 2021 than they are now?

Nobody knew about monero, everything else what a shitcoin

<joshhavepigdog> And just to reconfirm, the miners tx will only be pushed out of the very next block after actual transactions outbid it?

People that got trapped in BTC, tried to exit at the top and were punished for it

<joshhavepigdog> Really though? I’m not sure if I’m buying that

Correct

<joshhavepigdog> I mean maybe

... did you hodl from 70k to 20k? Or did you sell at 65 on the way down or at 65 on the way up

Look at coin days destroyed. ......

<joshhavepigdog> Will the miners leave their tx in the block if it doesn’t get outbid by smaller transactions, or will they remove their tx at the last second anyways even if it doesn’t get outbid?

A lot of old dusty coins were awaken and moved onto exchange to be sold. People paid the fees because miners made them.. "if you want to cash out..... well.. pay the fee or miss your opportunity"

I dont use BTC..

I use btc fees to time market moves

When mempools are fucks, usually were going to rally or crash and everybody trying to enter or exit btc has to pay extra to join in

* When mempools are fucks, usually were going to rally or crash, everybody trying to enter or exit btc has to pay extra to join in

<joshhavepigdog> So your point is that people wanted to be sure they got out in and out btc trades in time hence why they paid such high fees? Basically these were just speculators who wanted precise timing on entry and exit of trades?

As u can see.. mempool is full and prices are up today after a hard spike last night

Yes ^ and today, nobody is in a rush to get in or out. Those 200 real people dont want to pay over 1$

And miners, if they push fees to 20$, will just be sending tx to themselves all day because eveyone will come to monero, bch, lightning, Litecoin

Where fees are dynamic....

<joshhavepigdog> I feel like you pulled me out of the matrix

And block rewards subsidize fees...

the store of value is passive and only dependent on usage. ..

<joshhavepigdog> I’m still processing the implications of this haha

This is why I say, even with no privacy, monero > bitcoin

<joshhavepigdog> You mean a spike in price? So when price spikes mempool fills up quick?

<joshhavepigdog> Where is this 200 number coming from again?

Spike down last night shook people out. Mempool full = you have to pay to play

<joshhavepigdog> Most blocks do end up getting a couple thousand smaller txs though or at least that how it seems.

200-300 is the number of tx I see on a regular basis

Right now mempool shows all prior blocks full, but usualy theyvare 150-350tx

<joshhavepigdog> Mempool is full when people want to get in or out after large price moves?

<joshhavepigdog> Where do you see the 200-300 number?

Mempool only gets full when miners manipulating.... or for sporstic blocks, like during rush hour

literally the mining decisions, absent the privacy stuff, is what keeps the wolves from the door for any given crypto. The forking policy away from asic-efficient is the saving grace for decentralization. When asics get in, it's pretty much game over. The threat of the hard fork algo change will keep the asic designer up at night before making a fab order :)

The prior blocks all show the number of tx in them.

Usually they are all empty