01:57:11 well minexmr is still online and its HR has increased the last several hrs from 250 to 280MH 03:03:33 They on APAC time or something maybe? 06:23:15 is there a difference between scanning blocks vs syncing them (data-wise)? 06:24:25 want to figure out how much data a mobile wallet would use to scan a wallet each month 08:13:04 "well minexmr is still online and..." <- maybe as soon as HF does activates, then that hashrate might go down to 0, like, if they didnt do the extra necessary step to get the pool working with the upgrade since apparently just upgrading the daemon wasnt enough for some pools to keep working 08:14:27 "is there a difference between..." <- i think so, was wondering about the same thing few months ago, like if an rpc client using silent.link 2gb data could have been enough but unfortunately, it still use a fuck ton a data to scan those wallets.... 08:14:43 s/client/server/ 08:15:17 to which was pointed torward the monero-lws thingy 08:15:33 which unfortunately works only with iirc something like monerujo and calls home and all that shit 08:18:49 but dont take my word for it if they're using the same amount of data, i just know that it does use a fuck ton but idk if its actually the same amount 08:23:26 "is there a difference between..." <- Afaik no there is not 08:23:38 You need to scan every tx in every block 08:23:42 So.... 08:23:46 * i dont think so, was wondering about the same thing few months ago, like if an rpc server using silent.link 2gb data could have been enough but unfortunately, it still use a fuck ton a data to scan those wallets.... 08:24:36 jwinterm[m]: ~2GB/month then 08:25:29 Unless blocks grow significantly I suppose 08:25:29 a bit more than that and keeps growing 08:25:29 if average block is ~0.1MB 08:29:30 so pissed off that starlink couple weeks ago showed its true color by paving the ways for data caps and gon start throttling at 250GB monthly.... with extra 10 bucks for each extra 100 gb... 08:30:08 for full nodes could have been really nice 08:30:34 well, guessing at least they halved the price so, could get a 2nd and 3rd terminal for redundancy, still, pissed off 09:14:01 "Dutch police have arrested the developer of Tornado Cash, a privacy mixer" 09:14:01 " It is suspected that persons behind this organisation have made large-scale profits from these transactions." 09:14:12 Another reason why it's good to not have dev-tax on a cryptocurrency 09:14:23 on a protocol level 09:15:13 they call it "decentralized organizations" lol 09:15:34 so how about haveno with that "engine" thingy that would be getting fees from transactions on the platform? o.o 09:16:01 very bad idea looking at what's happening 09:17:23 or devs just gotta be anon instead of being greedy wanting to brag for their linkedin 😹 09:19:01 it's risky for sure to use free speech in this f-up world 09:19:53 Monero is the best anti-tyranny weapon we've got right now 09:21:28 the "regular FIAT money is used also for crime" argument for Monero will soon be gone when they replace it with digital version 09:22:00 Monero got the best chance of surviving due to it's true privacy and decentralization 09:23:01 ypavtv97lx[m]: if shady politicians pushing for cbdc then how will they keep hiding trillions in offshore accounts? there will always be something for those criminal elites imo 09:23:37 and monero definitely isnt that with that low 5 billion market cap 09:23:47 well at least for now 09:25:09 it's all corrupted, they did not have problem hiding their shady wealth using regular banks 09:26:30 right but that's where there is a difference between regular banks and transparent ledger, for example with bitcoin it's all public but with banks only the ones in power have access to the view keys for everyone else 09:27:11 will the cbdc be transparent ? for sure only for the banksters 09:27:17 so ofc they could hide it in those banks as regular people can see what's up in the bank acc of those in powers 09:27:36 ypavtv97lx[m]: idk but would have thought so 09:28:24 s/can/cant/ 09:29:03 transparency is bad for them, they rather be semi-private and inflate the price whenever they want without public knowing 09:30:51 so i guess even the source code for those cbdb might not even become publicly available either uh? would just be so weird that people would just adopt something that shady in mass 09:31:01 s/cbdb/cbdc/ 09:32:20 even if source code was available, how would we know if their compiled version is not modified ? it's centralized, we would need to trust that they are not cheating 09:32:35 yeah... 09:35:33 the problem is that most people trust government issued money more than anything else, anything with a government approval is saint. 09:36:19 and government shouldn't have nothing to do with money 09:36:43 it's not their business how people trade their time 09:37:44 oh and they prob wont actually even need people to "adopt" the new system, they could just make it seamlessly, like mastercard bought ciphertrace or somethin like that... so they might also just make those mastercard seamlessly working with cbdc, ATMs would just get a software update and grandma would just be able to use her current debit card without any extra step nor consent on her end.... that would be fucked up 09:38:52 yep for those who already use digital cash (master/visa/wire) it would be seamless 09:40:20 with the push for "cashless" cause paper cash can give you the 2020 herpes or somethin, everything is already set up going that way LOL 09:42:44 with cbdc and lack of true privacy, people will very quickly realize that digital does not guarantee clean, herpes-less money. 09:42:44 it could accelerate adoption to Monero.... at least some percentage of those people will think about alternatives 09:47:25 hopefully... am still skeptical since the whole narrative is being controlled, whatever it might be, majority will just keep going with what's being pushed by whatever gov/media but as long as there's at least a small enough adoption on those alternative then whatever if the whole world gon insane if could still live and survive without joining the borg then we good :3 09:49:25 i agree, I'm already free with my wealth secured with Monero and couldn't care less what government will do. 09:50:53 they can take my house, they can take my land, car, even my freedom and put me in jail BUT they won't ever take MY Monero. I have encrypted seed words in many places with password that's easy to remember but practically impossible to brute-force. I feel safe. 09:54:04 haha i hear ya, i dont even have any backup anywhere, no data and could just recover the seeds straight up from the blockchain's data itself without even needing to remember or write down the seed or anything (next level opsec o.o) 09:54:04 and even if price goes to like 10 bucks due to being legal only in a single country on the whole planet then it would still work the way it's currently working 09:55:31 you got me thinking, how about putting encrypted seed words on the blockchain itself ? :D 09:57:44 Idk if Monero tx_extra is still around, could also post on Bitcoin chain 09:58:08 doesnt even have to be an existing encryption algorithm, only the first 3 letters of each words of the seed are necessary (them being full words is just so could avoid typos but first 3 letters works as well) so from that could figure, idk, like in movies they being like hiding messages in books for example but could just be block numbers then when checking on that specific block from the blockchain, could be a certain 09:58:08 transaction hash and reconstructing the seed from your own made logic ;) 09:59:57 nice, in this way the message wouldn't be on constant attack 10:00:44 the funniest thing, I'm more concerned about government than regular thief's 10:01:01 haha i hear ya on that :P 10:02:28 oh right and there's also the seed offset that could be used so like, reconstructing the seed and adding a seed offset which could be any string of character so that way even if someone figures your logic to create and recover seeds that way, yours would be with the offset that only you know in your own mind 10:02:28 police constantly seizing money, some legit and some not - why they all don't switch to Monero ? i guess lack of knowledge. 10:03:23 currently not using offset due to the way i encrypt and store my seeds, it's pretty pointless. but on the public blockchain it would make more sense. 10:03:35 :3 10:04:30 the worst part for me was coming with a password that i wouldn't forget but would be hard enough so i wouldn't have to worry about brute-force 10:04:36 not easy 10:05:51 the nightmare of forgetting your password... 10:06:03 haha yeah 😹 10:06:20 and if you have to store it due to complication, it's pointless 10:07:25 i remember in my past forgetting password to some of my stuff, it sucks! but forgetting it to all your money ? oh man 10:09:37 right, when started out that journey, registering on many exchanges and whatnot using different passwords for each... errr what a pain, so started writing them down but then hdd fuck up and lost that so now just being like, well, fuck storing anything, just gotta figure a logic to important passwords but also nowadays aint even using that many different websites i actually need to register into anyways 10:11:17 there's always e-mail password restore for sites 10:11:52 yeah for few years every single time i had to connect anywhere i literally had to do the pass recovery, such a pain 😹 10:12:03 i do it all the time lol 10:12:16 and also... multiple mail, single use mails and whatnot, which mail for which website, errrr... XD 10:12:27 ahh yeah 10:12:55 a little bit of paranoia is good for your health. 10:13:48 yeah, and overall its good practice for proper opsec 10:14:39 everywhere they try to collect your data to sell it, when i buy something from e-shops i use fake name for each store and when they sell my data i know exactly who sold it "hello, is this duke nukem ? i would like to offer you...." 10:14:44 so when its something actually important then figured what not to do, what didnt work out in the past and what still works now 10:15:27 that too yea :P 10:15:42 gotta go, nice talking with you. see ya later! 10:15:54 likewise, cheers 😽 12:48:51 Morpheus[m]: exactly which data did you want? was it number of miners and hashrate across time? 12:49:18 if so can make a quick-ish one that gathers this data per "main block found" as that data is pre-calculated and cached 12:49:47 akin to https://p2pool.observer/api/found_blocks?limit=100&coinbase 12:50:09 otherwise you can do towards any N height number via https://p2pool.observer/api/block_by_height/1234567?coinbase for example 12:50:46 each one has difficulty / and "outputs" that would have existed related to actual miners on the window 12:51:05 I can provide the first one in bulk, with just numbers 12:51:54 second one can only provide a dump of the blocks on-disk readily without processing everything again, but you can probably extract a sample every "hour" worth or so 12:55:02 alternatively for some non-documented statistics https://p2pool.observer/api/stats/difficulty 12:55:03 https://p2pool.observer/api/stats/miner_seen 12:55:12 https://p2pool.observer/api/stats/miner_seen_window 12:57:56 these provide a whole dump of information, do not request them more than once per day I'd say (you can backfill some of the data via https://p2pool.observer/api/pool_info which returns current miners known, difficulty, etc) 13:02:18 these undocumented statistics have an hour granularity for the first one, a day for the second, third 6 hours (the window length) 13:02:25 these endpoints match mini as well 13:05:51 "if so can make a quick-ish one..." <- Hi fren, I wanted the historical data for the variables provided on this API https://p2pool.io/api/pool/stats 13:06:36 https://p2pool.observer/api/stats/difficulty more or less applies to hashrate 13:06:44 So I could plot. It's the number of miners, hashrate, totalhashes, and totalblocksfound. The others there's no need. 13:06:47 for miners, either miner_seen or miner_seen_window 13:07:18 for blocks found, I don't think I have a readily available bulk one but should be fairly easy 13:09:05 for totalhashes I think this is derived off the block afaik, no ready ones for that and it'd require a bit more expensive bulk calculation (as it's designed atm) 13:10:48 Yes, that's how I've been calculating too 13:11:14 If I have number of miners and hashrate (historical) I can faily derive the others 13:11:23 fairly* 13:36:36 yep, then use https://p2pool.observer/api/stats/difficulty for hashrate 13:37:11 https://p2pool.observer/api/stats/miner_seen for just total "miners" seen, and the other one for miners seen per "window" (6h) 13:38:20 H/s is calculated via difficulty / block_time (10s) 13:39:02 on that endpoint it's pre-converted from hex, in other places it's shown in hexadecimal 13:39:34 see if you can do it via those, poke if you need any other endpoint 14:50:27 What do you guys think about David Chaum? He seems pretty intelligent. 15:30:06 https://xx.network 15:30:25 I think there is a Treasury / dev fund though 15:30:55 Also doesn’t look like they have Confidential Transactions. Looks like the network is still very new too. 15:35:49 Stop shilling 💩 in community please and thanks 15:36:54 Has a dev tax and isnt private? Thanks for wasting 8 seconds of my time LOL 15:40:29 Well some of the tech / ideas are interesting 15:40:35 It does look a bit scuffed though 15:40:44 I’m not a shill 15:50:33 Chaum is legit, but like so many cypherpunks their historical work is incredible, but they haven't really done anything of note lately - they're running on the steam of their past victories, which simply isn't enough 15:51:19 Thanks fluffy🙂 16:03:44 xx.network as featured in the wall st journal 16:04:00 I always look to conservative finance guys for my shitcoin guidance lol 16:18:19 08:23 is there a difference between scanning blocks vs syncing them (data-wise)? <-- I measured yesterday about 15MB per day of blocks 16:19:11 noice 16:28:03 The current block height is 2,688,805. Fork height is 2,688,888. 83 blocks to go, happening in approximately 2.77 hours 16:30:13 and minexmr pushed their closure to one more week so it should keep mining after that HF, curious if nanopool took the necessary steps, would be fun if they actually didnt :3 16:33:21 so they are now prepared to mine after the fork yet will still be shutting down on the 19th 16:33:26 hmmm 16:41:58 i mean tbh, i kinda believe the narrative that it's for ideological reasons or whatever, well, there wasnt any actual statements on the matter but, taking in consideration that they got a really nice stream of revenue for that long and were the reason for so much fud about mining centralization, i definitely get why they would take a step back, take those gains and trying to push for a p2pool adoption on their way out 16:41:58 that's the best thing they could do to hopefully get their own stack to gain in value 16:41:58 there was some market, WHM or somethin and few others that literally planned their retirement and did just that, taking their gains and closing gracefully 16:44:22 and by pushing by 1 week, they still being on those top pools on miningpoolstats and the first thing being seen is that they're closing and trying to direct miners to p2pool so 1 week delay definitely does make some sense 16:46:13 Im telling yall, they fucking around LOL 16:46:19 Either they updated their nodes, or are keeping them on v17 and forking the chain 16:46:35 If they updated, why wait til 2hrs before fork to come out with your news lmao 16:46:40 lol no way 16:47:17 Shitheads should shut down right now while hash rate is low 16:48:24 We'll see 16:48:24 If hash rate returns to minexmr over the next 24 hrs, those.guys are for sure dicking around 16:48:57 as talked over the monero space channel earlier, there is literally no reason at all for anyone to try a chainsplit, there is literally no controversy whatsoever about that upgrade 😹 16:50:30 Yeah, so why plan to shut down (not upgrade) then change your mind and upgrade 10s of nodes hours before the fork? 16:51:56 i thought they would have to upgrade anyways to keep doing the payouts, maybe they did the 18.0.0 upgrade days or weeks ago already 16:52:15 Whether they updated or not, the only difference is the objective. Neither is in good nature. Updated and plan to push hashrate around during the hard fork 16:52:15 Or didnt update and are tricking miners into lowing v18 global hashrrate during the fork 16:52:54 I set up an email for xmr.beauty 16:53:08 Contact me at ahmed⊙xb 16:53:10 that's about 2000 miners that moved to different pools tho, there is just no way imo 16:53:14 If they updated, they could have kept quiet and just not disappeared, then announed on the 15th that they would remain open 16:53:46 We'll see what happens over the next 24-48hrs 16:54:56 like, in what world the 2000 individual miners that moved to other pools would just go back to minexmr in 2 days? doesnt make sense 16:55:19 6200 miners on minexmr 16:55:36 so more like 3000 then? 16:55:39 i mean, compared to last week 16:55:46 they were around 9000 16:55:53 to about 3000 that left already 16:56:00 s/to/so/ 16:56:18 must be relatively small miners still there 16:56:32 yeah 16:56:44 160 Mh/s from 950 Mh/s 16:57:06 so the big ones already left 16:58:21 You couldnt see on minexmr 16:58:35 But you can on nanopool. The hashrates of those "3000" miners 16:59:09 nanopool gained only about a couple hundreds new miners top in a whole week and hashrate didnt move much 16:59:14 It onto takes a maybe 100 miners to return to quadruple the hashrate on minexmr 16:59:37 Nanopool went from 100mh-700mh 16:59:37 .... 17:00:38 you can mouse hover the "7 days history" on that first row of miningpoolstats and slide so see the evolution of that hashrate on each pools 17:01:34 Ive been watching since announcement 17:01:35 it went from 350 to 700 Mh/s in a single day last week without a miners increase while minexmr stayed unchanged at 950 Mh/s 17:01:42 Not since minexmr has been flat for 4 days 17:01:54 and stayed around that 700 Mh/s for the past week 17:01:56 And supposedly something will change if they keep running for another week LOL 17:02:01 Exactlt 17:02:20 So how does staying open another week help offload miners if the number is stagnant 17:02:36 These bots gonna bot 17:03:07 supportxmr got a nice increase, smol pools went from being at like 50 to 200 and p2pool from like 80 to 170 17:03:58 https://xmr.nanopool.org/account/8A399eWG8bW5M6ZGzEdcb9g1XA7cXRJaWR9QVDbEMdGU5pcw9D2eMpHX1x7pwFtUpLekNTzxjYCQmYiKkAkiJFGxPqFdY94 17:03:58 50mh 17:04:10 https://xmr.nanopool.org/account/896oXPhfyt7QXpLbaeYiWU3WedUmFsj94UdwGmDhv1wWKh6CEHgRcSq8faSeD8rtdEaJ7XnkYeAGfKWyQSjuFRevGWQrDeD 17:04:10 35 mh 17:04:23 well idk, it's still 160 Mh/s on minexmr that could still be going elsewhere and they keep promoting p2pool... 17:04:36 https://xmr.nanopool.org/account/858XxH6panXMcfLT2bP6Ay1BXQkA5gtJMJ7KRpWWJCHe81gFBEcC3ELCvUaZgpPTQ16vGCi95m2VqjSHUjCEuUkARxaWhhF 17:04:36 33mh 17:04:46 There's all of nanopools previous hashrate from 2 weeks ago. 17:05:31 august 6th: nanopool 720 Mh/s, minexmr 963 Mh/s 17:05:51 https://xmr.nanopool.org/account/84juBZzAd1S5WMxFjpivxCCv4Q1BH56yDeEQ9w9EjpSrWCyuRQFn2n9P6UVyRMeqnjTptKN9o6Dca47XGQh8PVgGP23Ea4Q 17:05:51 22mh 17:06:22 which sure, 1 week ago is after the announcement but still, what am saying is that that past week minexmr kept decreasing while nanopool didnt increase that much more 17:08:56 like, your theory is basically that minexmr planed to do some fuckery by moving hashrate around 17:08:57 while at the same time saying to individual miners to move their hashrate 17:08:57 there is no point at all going through all that trouble in your scenario cause in that case, they could just do the fuckery with their own hardware by solo-mining 17:10:08 Yeah, my dates are off 17:10:08 But 170mh is nothing to lose and an opportunity for the hashrate to increase. 17:10:08 Miners that get cut off, would notice and switch. 17:11:02 And leaving the pool open is an opportunity* 17:12:28 fair yeah, having experienced that as well with was wownero when they went solo-mining, i had some rigs that kept having that red error mining message in loop for 2 days cause i thought that was just a temporary issue with the pool itself rather than a whole upgrade type of situation so definitely agreeing on that, if they closed, miners would notice and switch :P 17:13:07 Definitely. 17:13:07 If the idea is to move hashrate around, the method wouldnt be to pull the plug without notice. It would be some bait and switch tactics like what this looks like 17:13:08 http://ldixfddteyyartheg6t2cxjou5fe5ntmxqgrla6xtpqxwn2srw22noqd.onion/ 17:13:56 Am I saying im correct? Nahuhh... but smells like bs to me. 17:14:00 not everything is an attack lol 17:14:05 And has since the day they said "August 12" 17:14:15 I would be surprised if they do anything shady 17:14:46 their announcement just seemed genuine to me but i guess we never know in this space 17:14:50 the tor site is running 17:18:22 Everything sounded good to me, but the date was a "blocker". 17:18:22 It only makes sense ~1 week prior or post hard fork. Not the day of. 17:18:22 Now, getting the the finish line and moving to 1 week post.. sounds good.. if it was announced 2 weeks ago. 17:19:22 that was close to a 2 weeks notice tho if am not mistaken 17:19:52 11 days ago 17:20:19 The August 19 was 2 hrs notice 17:21:28 right but imo that 2nd notice doesnt mean much, just that things will just keep going how they went for the past days 17:21:48 like, it doesnt really have as much of an impact as the 1st notice 17:23:45 It does 17:23:47 and either way, that still makes interesting data, there was a bunch of speculations about botnets, hashrate that couldnt be moved anymore and whatnot but it still keeps decreasing even as of today so.... 17:23:57 We were expecting a 170mh drop in 2hrs 17:24:43 Now, we have no idea whats going to happen. Whether miners will return or what. 17:24:43 They used minexmr partially because minexmr doesnt say who mined what blocks 17:24:57 A more simple alternative explanation is that miners were/are simply not aware MineXMR is shutting down 17:26:59 right, i meant the speculations am referring to was from those past years 17:27:59 which was also the speculations around minexmr closure, the reason of their close i mean 17:28:19 Yeah, like not updating nodes 17:28:23 s/close/closure/ 17:28:27 But thats out. Obviously they did 17:29:30 and would have had to anyways to finish paying out the dust left from miners 17:29:50 No 17:30:04 If they close on the 12 they have 24 hours where old tx are accepted 17:30:16 Extending it forces them to update 17:30:31 after v16 they would have had yea 17:31:07 Which is 26 hours from now 17:31:40 it did have some big impact on that mempool tho so i mean... it just makes sense to take a few days range for that... 17:33:56 Hey. Im 100% against closing on the 12 17:34:03 And had always said 1 week prior or post 17:34:32 unexpected shits do happen all the time, no reason to set a specific deadline that everything would be done at that precise time rather than just chill, upgrade to v0.18.1 and take all the time they need to do their thing u know 17:34:49 Uh. You're making my point 17:35:07 :derp: x) 17:35:19 I said day 1, why would they choose to close the largest pool on 2 weeks notice, hope to notify 10k miners and then pull the plug at the hard fork 17:35:35 Made no sense (because of the date) 17:36:13 Makes a shit ton more sense to do it after the fork settles, or well in advance if saving on fees and want a clean exit. 17:37:38 i guess will see but yeah, i just dont see how they would try to pull something malicious now which could have been done differently if they really wanted to do some fuckery 17:39:46 so they have a huge amount of hashrate for years, wait until almost all miners switched to a different pool before doing something malicious? 17:39:48 makes 0 sense 17:41:06 extended the deadline is not an attack, they probably saw that not all users switched yet and gave them more time 17:41:48 or at least wait for them to do something malicious first before accusing them of doing something malicious lol 17:42:16 😆😆 selsta, im anxious 17:42:53 I hard fork in 2 hrs. I'm bored. Gotta stir up something 😁 17:43:11 xnbya is a long time community member who also reported vulnerabilities in the past to the project, i have no worries 17:43:24 i would have trusted minexmr more than nanopool 17:43:42 But I was saying, my initial issue was the August 12 date. 17:43:42 The new date is the one u suggested 17:43:55 It's been like 2hrs since drama. We ARE DYING HERE 17:44:15 The one I* suggested 17:44:30 So im really not mad, just saying "see. This Aug 12 thing wasnt gonna work" 17:44:35 ah, funny u saying trusting more minexmr than nanopool cause was exactly my thoughts as well when a week ago nanopool got that jump in nethash while minexmr didnt decrease at all, like, been really thinking nanopool being shady there :3 17:45:05 Luigi1111, where is Luigi1111w? Crazy guy 17:47:26 @selsta good to know 17:47:39 1hr 9mins til I can make view tag tx? 17:47:50 And use 16 rings? 17:48:06 imma waiting for 16 rings 17:48:19 I think Nanopool is not involved at all with the community, so them becoming the biggest pool is bad for the project. 17:48:45 ^ 100% agree on that 17:50:58 The current block height is 2,688,854. Fork height is 2,688,888. 34 blocks to go, happening in approximately 1.13 hours 17:51:48 you know what happens when we hard fork? 17:51:53 nothing 17:52:06 everything still happens 17:52:13 smooooothly 17:52:32 I wasnt aware minexmr was involved. 17:52:32 I presume moneroocean is good 17:52:32 Liberty pool is active here (moneroocean clone) 17:52:32 C3pool is another clone. Any insight on them? 17:56:21 tbf, any pool just being a pool are greedy mofos that just want to get those fees o.o 17:56:26 solo-mining ftw 17:56:40 I don't know about Liberty and C3pool 17:57:34 p2pool is like solo mining :D 17:57:34 That's why I mine with that one 17:58:02 at the exception that your receiving address becomes known with p2pool 17:58:44 solo-mining is the purest form of money laundering o.o 17:58:52 spacekitty420[m4: That's why I have a mining wallet 17:58:56 :3 17:59:28 al800[m]1: right, definitely good practice 17:59:58 is there a link with a pretty countdown? 18:00:01 Liberty is 0% for xmr iirc @spacekitty 18:00:15 https://xmr.noctism.com 18:03:49 that is a block behind 18:05:32 caught up 18:05:58 https://localmonero.co/blocks seems on time right now but couple hours ago while refreshing it had a 5mins delay 18:06:16 * al800[m]1 uploaded an image: (15KiB) < https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/0wnz.at/saPhyugLEobIfhScFvQXZhvG/image.png > 18:06:48 dang aight, nvm then, localmonero still late 18:07:15 it is not late 18:07:42 I thought blockchain explorers always show 1 block behind? 18:07:58 oh, maybe 18:08:11 being on 2688866 means that the last mined block was 2688865 18:08:28 not sure tbh :D 18:08:43 nah i think you're right 18:09:26 block explorers = last block already mined, daemon = block currently being mined 18:10:46 lubs our coin 18:11:03 :) 18:12:50 20 blocks to go 18:16:55 btc has used a node binary flag as consensus before, no? like if x % of the network runs with the flag it will be considered consensus and the network will upgrade to that? 18:17:53 * ofrnxmr[m] uploaded an image: (35KiB) < https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/monero.social/HWzrXhRKyhXakwqNFYNouCNc/Imagepipe_360.jpg > 18:18:04 or enlighten me if im wrong but you know what im talking about. 18:18:09 Thats only a small sample, but 👀 18:20:45 kinghat[m]: for segwit and things like that, they used the flag before i think yeah 18:20:48 ofrnxmr[m] these numbers are not important, what matters are pool nodes 18:22:09 i dont recall monero doing consensus like that, but i could be wrong. 18:22:56 havent came across something like that on monero either 18:23:47 i guess one of the excuse so far was that, all the hard fork didnt have any controversy within the community, would love to hear some more thoughts on the flag thingy tho 18:24:24 though i feel like that could be gamed fairly easily 🤔 18:26:14 was on the previous to last aantonop youtube vid regarding bip119 that he mentioning the pros and cons of the flag, that there is some upgrades that miners have a financial incentive to vote for while majority of devs would be voting against and things like that, interesting perspective on the matter 18:26:18 "08:23 is there a..." <- yeah, those were the numbers i was guesstimating. so scanning a block uses less data than syncing same block on a node 18:27:26 * a block in a wallet uses less 18:29:07 10 blocks remaining! 18:29:07 If you want to make a symbolic last TX on v14, do it now! 18:29:36 a txn for the homies? 18:29:46 "symbolic last TX" that might be retroactively de-anon'ed by ciphertrace while the ones on the fork wont o.o 18:30:08 v14 txs will be valid for another 24 hours I believe. 18:31:06 right, until v16 hit 18:31:08 yes but they will only be constructed for the next 20 min (if youve updated) right? 18:31:09 This is the so-called "double fork" that minimizes user-level disruptions 18:33:10 r4v3r23[m]: i would think so, next 24h would be v15 tx then after 2nd part of that "double-fork" happens, would be v16 tx 18:34:21 and if not updated then v14 for next 24 and then would be refused by the network 18:34:32 (or on a chain split) 18:35:26 I wonder which pools, if any, didnt update 18:36:05 been crossing fingers for a week that nanopool didnt or if they didnt that they didnt do the extra step thingy 18:36:15 s/didnt/did/ 18:37:02 Haha 18:37:16 someone posted a screenshot of nicehash being like, they still thinking HF was back in july 18:46:17 Whisa 18:46:18 3 more blocks o.o 18:46:28 A whole flood of tx jsut came on txstreet lmao 18:47:11 1 18:47:14 Not a flood to worry about, but txstreet is cool to watch Lol 18:47:25 https://txstreet.com/v/xmr 18:47:48 ya im watching txstreet too 18:47:52 Current Block Height: 2688888 18:47:59 🎉 18:48:00 \o/ 18:48:03 \o/ 18:48:17 * monerobull[m] sendet Konfetti 🎉 18:48:26 .barolo 18:48:52 lol went from 32(out)+73(in) to 17(out)+40(in) 18:49:45 are we there yet 18:49:48 * monerobull[m] uploaded an image: (69KiB) < https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/RkoSWmlBVeoPOpmXhVrGlCOX/grafik.png > 18:50:27 selsta: 18+81 -> 12+61 18:50:44 validating txpool for v15 18:51:19 WHERES OUR BUS?!? 18:51:31 new info in daemon vs other forks 18:51:39 or I could be senile 18:52:19 I lost about half my connections too 18:55:38 got my first blocked node 18:56:13 can glean anything from the pool situation? 18:58:12 wen 128 rings 18:59:23 soon_tm 18:59:35 r4v3r23[m]: In the past actually 18:59:52 I think the record was about ~1000 19:00:17 its still planned with the upcoming seraphis, might still take a long while tho 19:00:43 * past actually (it used to be possible to choose ring size when sending TX) 19:04:05 https://xmrchain.net/tx/7aecf9f6f3e6fffbd8425c2b6b9396525f3e5b9f3963b52ca46197d303dba838 19:04:45 Wonder why this fee was so high. Custom wallet perhaps? 19:06:05 The fee/kb, not necesarily the total 19:06:48 Donate to miners? 19:06:49 I don't see why people increase fee with XMR, I mean, just leave it to the default so you're TX don't stand out 19:08:21 Fastest = 6$/tx 19:08:41 so not custom client? 19:09:57 Yeah, not custom. Looks like they have their wallet set to fastest 19:10:05 * ofrnxmr[m] uploaded an image: (27KiB) < https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/monero.social/hYMqTLNuPPYVJLrzAgayZKnl/Imagepipe_363.jpg > 19:11:29 Fast ^ 0.03064 xmr 19:11:34 Slow 0.00003 19:12:22 Tx still have ringsize 11? 19:12:35 should be 16 19:13:00 p2pool found a block 19:13:08 nioc: Did one using cake after fork, it did with ringsize 11 19:13:14 11 still allowed for next 24 hours 19:13:27 gud job cake 19:13:46 inge: Wallets are programmed to do it with 11? For 24hrs? 19:13:59 don't know if you have to update the wallet 19:14:16 so what was the outcome of the pool talk from earlier? 19:14:16 Wallet is updated 🤔 19:14:23 I would hope any updated wallet would use 16 from the fork block 19:15:18 But un-updated wallets will probably work till the next fork tomorrow 19:15:32 ok, monero gui does it correctly 19:15:55 if they updated wallet2 to v0.18 internally it should work 19:16:34