<joshhavepigdog> Just to be sure, where else is Monero’s codebase stored aside from GitHub? Does anyone know some places where or have a comprehensive list?

<joshhavepigdog> Upon further digging I see (1) Rewind (2) Monero pulse domains (3) personal devices (4) Gitlab (maybe, not clear from the post I read)

a lot of devs have a local copy

<joshhavepigdog> So we are sweet

<joshhavepigdog> It seems the risk is very well mitigated. The difficulty is amending the codebase if it gets the boot from GitHub. Perhaps this is also something you guys have figured out already?

<joshhavepigdog> I see people talking about IPFS quite a bit, but am unfamiliar with it.

<joshhavepigdog> Let’s say there was a bad totalitarian crackdown. GitHub repo is gone and getmonero.org is gone.... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…06054210580656baff98d419ac03c2efaf2)

<joshhavepigdog> Basically, would the new download link still be verifiable secure / not malicious via a process similar to how things currently are?

download link for binaries?

Presumably the binaries would still be signed by binaryfate or some other well-known community member.

<joshhavepigdog> ^ So a person downloading could still verify their software is coming from a legitimate source right? This would only be false if someone was able to duplicate binaryfate’s signature.

Yep

You could grab it from dread or the pirate bay or anywhere, and verify the signature the same way regardless of where you download the software from.

<joshhavepigdog> Alrighty

<joshhavepigdog> Thanks that is very helpful to me if things get ugly soon

<joshhavepigdog> Busy, what is the strongest attack you think the gov could do on Monero? How would they go about it?

They'd sow distrust in the community. Look at how bitcoin has been neutered, they can't even make common-sense updates anymore without everyone screaming bloody murder.

Oh. Can't help thinking that that also applies to offline society (nost prominently in the US and in the west) in general. In bitcoin that's easier to see because the timescale is only about a decade compared to about 5-7 offline.

Hi, loading blocks stopped at 5012 mark and no further goes.Tell me that's okay?

For minutes 30 on this mark

Reboot the pridevity,now synchronization is complete but shows that I have 0 on account.How could it be?

Pdsazhat please burn.I worry about coins

Подскажите пожалуйста что делать .переживаю за монеты

Please tell me what to do.I worry about my coins

Please if anyone knows what the matter help to return money to balance

Please call someone.I'm very worried about my funds

Appears internet nit working

Internet normal working

Does the wallet show your transaction history at the same time it shows 0 balance?

Yes

Transactions are not seen either

To be clear... no transaction history is shown? And this happened after you rebooted and reopened the software?

Yes

On time loading blocks all over the rabble,then I tried to send part of the funds,the app depended,I closed it ,opened and nothing was already

s/over the rabble/appeared/, s/the//

Clearly the result is incorrect if there is a known transaction history and no transactions are shown, so first thought would be try to relax a bit. There is no proof that anything is missing for now.

The transaction history disappearing is not something I've seen, but typically it is because the restore height is set too recently. You can check the value under Settings, Info.

Height different in left corner and in settings

That's correct. Left corner should show the current height of the network when sync'd, in settings that is the oldest height you are checking for transactions. Assuming all your activity is in the past two months or so, that is the correct setting.

I would try to rescan the wallet. Do this by changing the height in settings to a slightly lower number (you can change 2634238 to 2634200, for example).

If your earlier transactions are older than 2-3 months, than you need to change the restore height to a significantly lower number to get the correct history.

Should he fully download what would be visible balance?

Because until it is visible

I'm sorry, I do not understand your question.

Right now the wallet is scanning for your transaction history. In that image it is looking around 72 days ago.

How long ago in days did you transact xmr?

Yeeeeeees,fuh,thank you so much bro.

> <@spackle_xmr:matrix.org> I'm sorry, I do not understand your question.

> Right now the wallet is scanning for your transaction history. In that image it is looking around 72 days ago.

You the best))

You are very welcome. I assume everything is showing correctly and you are able to transact as expected?

Oh mo,1 sec,new problem)

Has the wallet fully completed the scan?

Yes

Hmmm... well I can't say I'm sure of how to respond to that. If you are using remote nodes I would try connecting to a different.

I'm trying to follow what you are doing. You attempted to create a transaction and it failed with the above error, and then did you set it to scan again?

I should be more clear... did you just try to send that transaction, get the above error, and now the wallet looks like your latest image without you doing anything else?

I think it stopped syncing at certain block height and they rebooted and now its zero

I accidentally went into an old version of my wallet,now I removed it.Once again put the wallet into a new version.Now let's see what happens)

> <@123bob123:matrix.org>

> I think it stopped syncing at certain block height and they rebooted and now its zero

>

Is that bad?

>I think it stopped syncing at certain block height and they rebooted and now its zero

What do I need to do to fix it?

All the same

Around what date did you make your FIRST tx

Restore height has to be before your first tx

The easiest fix is to restore your wallet from the seed words ad to use restore date before first transaction

*and to use

Can somone tell me how i can cancel a transaction using the gui which has not been transmited to the network yet?

>Around what date did you make your FIRST tx

30 june

<joshhavepigdog> Is v0.18.0 compatible with v0.18.1 ? Are point releases compatible? Or does one need to upgrade to the newest point release to be able to send a tx?

as far as i know v0.18.0 is the first version which currently can sent tx.

they are compatible, the 0.18.1 is a good upgrade for the GUI

.1 for ledger/trezor

> <@shima1944:matrix.org>... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…67faa55b50681beacf975f75137546ca198)

<joshhavepigdog> Thanks for the info guys

<joshhavepigdog> Appreciate it

<joshhavepigdog> I saw a comment that a great upgrade for Cake and the GUI would be something that indicates the Monero version of the remote node one is connected too. I haven’t personally run into problems with this, but I can imagine that it would trip some people up if they update their software and connect to v17 nodes.

> the 0.18.1 is a good upgrade for the GUI

is it possible there to cancel a transaction?

<joshhavepigdog> I don’t know

<joshhavepigdog> I’ve never tried to cancel a tx

No

@josh

GUI maybe, but cake wallet doesnt add random nodes

Either its their node, which is up to date, or one that you added manually.

If youre picking up nodes in dark alleyways, you dont deserve to know whether its updated 😂.

You should _only_ use nodes you _trust_

"No" referring to cancel transactions

But really

Xyproblem.info please and thxx

Were at bullet 4 of the xyproblem

xyproblem, nice solution. Real helpful

Id say restore from seed and dont open that wallet again, assuming it has a 'pending' / failed transaction

I know the cli will auto resubmit the transaction after x hours, i assume the GUI does the same or something similar selsta?

They left the roomn🫣

All I wanted to know was "what is the real issue"

Revoking a transaction is the supposed solution to a problem

Its not possible

So what id the problem

Oh well.

Id have to make assumptions about what the issue is, in order to figure out how to solve it.

Assuming the issue is a tx was sent on v17 and is stuck in pending state

for CLI you can there is a command to flush the tx pool

usually gets rid of a tx gets stuck for some reason

stuck as in not relayed

Because of the times (hard fork) id be more inclined to think the user is either using an out of date wallet or node vs a tx not being relayed

They mentioned 0.18.0.0, never mentioned if they were running it

yeah

I have zero experience with the GUI :D

plowsof: quite sure both CLI and GUI don't resubmit the transaction

the daemon resubmits it, but if you connect to an outdated one they can resubmit it as often as they want

sech1: is it possible to make p2pool mandatory?

No. At least I don't know how to disable pools without disabling p2pool too.

the most promising approach is monero-project/research-lab #98 but it doesn't guarantee that pools will be impossible

<sech1> "the most promising approach is..." <- so the idea is to make it more expensive to run a mining pool and incentivize to mine on p2pool instead

would this kill botnets?

not entirely

Getting the pool operator in increase there fill could help.

Or have them have fee based on the % of the pie they have

And use who don't want fee at all could just use p2pool

s/use/user/

s/fill/fees/

<r4v3r23[m]> "would this kill botnets?" <- Botnet operator can just have a p2pool server and have all bot mining in there

<RavFX[m]> "Botnet operator can just have..." <- great

RavFX: I think the idea behind MRL #98 is that -- for efficient mining -- xmrig and a Monero node would have to be run on the same machine, which would reduce the profitability of botnets greatly unless the bots could somehow download and store over 100GB of data of the infected machine

Rucknium[m]: Indeed, that's is enough for me to put some of my miner offline

I think if there is a way to make p2pool the only viable way to mine, then it will have a high likelihood of being included in the next hard fork upgrade. We continue to have centralized pools with too much hash power.

I don't know if centralized pools can be tamed. I don't think there is any game theoretic argument for why they would be self-limiting.

And there is some game theoretic reason why they would not be self-limiting: the growth of pools is basically an externality that individual miners create. Each miner does not bear the full costs of the "pollution", so the pollution continues

Just include that change wow that made local node required in next fork... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…d0300d6326db35df9d2d9b2a0db2eeb459b)

* Just include that change wow that made local node required in next fork... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…75b36c745a33f0446a0170d61169188fa62)

WOW's change is incompatible with p2pool. WOW basically enforced solo-mining only.

And solo only doesnt stop someone from running a "pool"

Meaning, its a trivial matter to use xmrig proxy and connect 100 miners to it

even pools are possible on Wownero

<Rucknium[m]> "RavFX: I think the idea behind..." <- I dont like this

if each miner makes a deposit (1 Wownero block worth)

Makes my android miners useless

in Wownero, when you mine a block, you always can spend it, so 1 block worth deposit is enough to compensate for possible cheating

RavFX[m]> And use who don't want fee at all could just use p2pool <<>> there are fees, when you combine your outputs you pay tx fees as well as bloat the chain

this effects small miners more

if you are always getting paid for only 1 share and then combine those tiny payouts it costs between 3% and 4% of your payout in tx fees

no one is always paid for 1 share

sometimes even the smallest miners find 2 shares in the same window

sometimes

I mostly got 1 share, sometimes 2 or 3

but yes, small miners pay between 3 and 4% when combining outputs

3.07% for my miner wallet right now

and I combined everything right before the fork, so these are post-fork payouts (32 outputs right now)

so tell the big miners to switch to p2pool :D

I dont know if sech agrees, buy my hypothesis is for the lowest fee you should choose the p2pool with the lowest # of miners

Yeah, just calculated it, about 2.5% here

* Yeah, just calculated it, about 2.5% here

personally I just mine to mine so I don't really care

same, I'm on a pool with 200 KH

I solo or main

main?

P2pool main*

it is fun to get constant p2pool payouts

nioc: Yeah it is, partly why I use it, I prefer than than waiting for pool to send me payout

supportxmr is currently 32.5% of network

Suppertime+nano >60%

Supportxmr....*

*lunchtime

when using p2pool even small miners get immediate payouts while they have to wait to get payouts on most pools and are therefore committed to mining on them till payout

+dust

yes they leave dust behind

Centralized pools.. i always seem to leave some dust

sech1:... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…7fe32ad8be131391b3fdab82c87d07e9d66)

yes

<joshhavepigdog> I don’t use simple mode on the GUI. It’s a bad idea given how remote nodes can tinker with fees or at least they have in the past.

<joshhavepigdog> I still think for someone manually connecting to a node it would be nice to know the version or at least a green light if it’s compatible with the version of software they have running (which should be the up to date version)

<joshhavepigdog> Pretty minor all things considered though

the idea behind simple mode is quite neat, it finds nodes in a decentralized way and everyone can add their own public node to the network

but unfortunately people abuse it

Are any of the i2p nodes alive at the bottom of github.com/i2p-zero/i2p-zero/blob/master/mipseed.md?

I'm getting `Unable to send transaction(s) to i2p - no suitable outbound connections at height 2693976`.

and I do have all of those nodes listed as `--add-peer`.

--add-peer is not necessary, we have seed nodes

what does print_cn show?

Filtering IPv4:... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…8035ea88c42eb9760673b4e7abe50e370ca)

So some connections but with no traffic?

do you allow incoming i2p?

I don't think that is correctly configured at this point, since I'm getting no incoming connections.

I have these i2p-related in my config:

```

tx-proxy=i2p,127.0.0.1:4447

anonymous-inbound=iwliolsvujhespetsl3h3vv5uw4dfwqlce2irv3gqs7knclmhd7q.b32.i2p,127.0.0.1:8061

what do you use for i2p?

I'm running i2pd and I use port 4447 as socks proxy.

That part works I think.

Also have this server tunnel configured:... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…5f3832dbe57a92d2e1ef4d59d6627d0548d)

I have not been able to find a working i2pd monero config on the web.

I also don't know how to set it up with i2pd :/ otherwise I would use it over i2p-zero

less RAM usage

monero-project/monero #7885 is kinda close but has the same problem.

Can you share the relevant i2p-zero config, e.g., the server tunnel?

inport = 18080 seems wrobng

Or that's the same as on getmonero....

i2p-zero only reequires router/bin/tunnel-control.sh server.create 127.0.0.1 8061 i think

I took that out and restarted i2pd, which did not complain and on its dashboard now the port is 8061. But now I see no i2p rows on print_cn.

Nvm, slowly showing up... on print_cn...

so it works now?

or only out?

I'd let it run for a bit

I still get: Height: 2693984/2693984 (100.0%) on mainnet, not mining, net hash 2.35 GH/s, v16, 63(out)+0(in) connections, uptime 0d 0h 5m 28s

But also... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…36b424ad2fb11bdea85ff18afec9bc35c32)

How do I interpret the Recv/sent (inactive,sec)?

Does that mean there is traffic for those?

Also, there is no host.

and per id.

no host?

and no peer id is intentional to avoid tracking

Ah, ok. Yeah, the host column is empty.

Is that normal?

For IPv4 there are the IPs and ports listed there.

yes it is normal, no host and no peer id

ok.

The last columns show no traffic at all.

it is normal

So do you think after some time there should be some incoming connections if it is configured properly?

not sure, since you don't seem to have clearnet in peers too as far as I can see

Oh you mean IPv4? I filtered those out.

ok

let it run for a bit and then check again

ok

thansk

Numbers arent exact, but im calculating the cost of monerod global hash to be signicsntly more then bitcoin

Like 5x

Anyone can point out any errors in the maths?

This is using used prices:

the epyc 7763 at $3000

The s19pro at $7000

epyc cpus arent the best value for the hash power

Ryzen 3950 produces 20kh but uses at least 100w

You need 5 to match an epyc

What is the most efficient ?

im not talking about power efficiency here

3900x is a fourth of the hashrate but for more than 10x less

How much is a 3950 right now? I can check 1 sec

your time to ROI is much lower with a few 3900xes

not worth getting a 3950x over a 3900x either

Around $500 on the low end

A 3900 does half the hr

Ok, so 3900 then

Around 300$

3950x and 3900x have the same amount of l3 cache so they have similar hashrates

Not according to xmrigbenchmarks

The 3900x is a good deal 300$ for 17kh

142-168w for just the cpu