also with CXL and NVRAM the memory is even getting faster currently

... and cheaper with no moving parts. Also 3d chips are the norm for storage.

ArticMine: couldn't these be removed in the future though?

I don't see BTC changing it's cap anytime soon

They will run into trouble with big blocks and no tail emission. Bitcoin like coins are not immune to spam

The reason scaling works in Monero is because of the tail emission. With falling block rewards Monero would be spammed to death

The real reason Bitcoin does not increase the blocksize is in my vein a very well founded concern over security and spam.

ArticMine: It's the combination of tail emission and block penalty that prevents the spam right

The trouble is that even the draconian approach in Bitcoin is not enough.

ArticMine: How so?

<fr33_yourself[m]> ArticMine: It's the combination of tail emission and block penalty that prevents the spam right <---- Yes this is correct. There is a big but. One can add a block increase penalty an not break the social covenant. Once cannot add a tail emission to Bitcoin an not break its most sacred social covenant the 21 million limit

ArticMine: I agree that the chances of tail emission happening in bitcoin are very very slim if not non-existent

<fr33_yourself[m]> ArticMine: How so? bitinfocharts.com/comparison/fee_to_reward-btc-bch.html#log&alltime The evidence is that transaction fees will not replace block rewards.

but small blocks do lead to a larger fee in reward.

and Articmine how would you compare gold and silver coins to Monero? The largest advantages of Monero in my opinion are (1) trustless internet money that enable people to transact across space (2) more divisible (3) lower year over year supply inflation (4) can travel with large amounts internationally with crypto-currency, but not with gold or silver

My point of view is that Satoshi was wrong on the idea that fee would replace block rewards. An incorrect and unjustified statement embedded in what is otherwise a work of genius does not make the statement correct

The one advantage of gold and silver is that they do not depend on the Internet to function as money

There is also the very small risk of a fatal bug in the code

So gold an silver do provide a hedge to the above risks

They are complementary in my view

Artic você é tão lindo e inteligente

<ArticMine> "They are complementary in my..." <- I agree

<ArticMine> "There is also the very small..." <- Yes, crypto-currency is more useful especially if one travel's and likes to keep their wealth on them, but also has more risk factors

<ArticMine> "Any node operator that has a..." <- Relying solely on technology growth by assuming storage will always get cheaper for future scalability seems like a bad future management in my opinion

:3?

1 grain of rice seems to equal 0.0010 XMR :3

so nice ^^

^w^

Greco said that “there is potential in the next few years” for a digital dollar in the U.S., but that the Federal Reserve is waiting for Congress to enact legislation before it can move forward. He doesn't expect Congress to pass such a law next year but said he expects the "the conversation to advance on Capitol Hill, especially in regards to privacy" in 2023.

O_o?

wait!; how much for a grain of rice???

that means 1KG of rice is 142 USD???? ,whaaaat? owO?

ah.... there the real price ¬w¬

no wait... i'm lost.... ahhhhhh D:::

s/(both are Tesonet companies)//

does anybody know this?

Context

ofrnxmr[m]: Monero AML checker.

o_O?

Ah. Well, monero isnt perfect privacy

"We apply a rather complicated series of techniques to correlate inputs and outputs. The score is the probability of an entity identifying a true output from decoys. Other than algorithmic approaches, we have obtained a database dump built by a governmenent entity for the exact purpose of deducting more decoys from the equation. The current probability is for reference only, and should become more and more accurate as we are

still training our model."

Oh my, that will get the rumors flying.

Time based attacks, tx weight, and on/off ramps all lead to traceability

And more

I can tell you right now that "Simply multiplying the risk score will do, since it's probability" is very incorrect. I would not put confidence in this analysis if they get something so wrong that is so basic.

Expect an average of 1.5 Reddit posts per day "Is Monero really cracked?"

They cant give it a high risk score because, ultimately, they still dont know what went on under the covers

They literally say churning will fix the problem lolol

`The reason we currently don't do breakdowns or provide more information on the interface is to prevent the authorities to abuse this service. We're working on a way to show it without compromising any of our methods or techniques, which could be disastrous if it is in the hands of the wrong people.`

I think they can contact with core team or whatever.

If anybody wants I can give a score for your tx :D

if they really have some special methods...

If churning fixes the issue = they are looking at exchange > exchange transfers

even btc scores are not based on actually tracking the tx but by other metrics

exchange thinks my btc txs are quite clean

Or exchange > wallet > exchange with 'limited time in between and equal amounts and matching ring member

hardenedsteel[m]: Special methods = stuff from breaking monero. Old news

If they have some interesting research they can contact through the Vulnerability Response Process or someone in Monero Research Lab.

<hardenedsteel[m]> ""We apply a rather complicated..." <- With the recent increase to 16 ring members, this is futile guesswork, it already was for 11 ring members

even if they have "data" I suspect what they do with it is basically making up a score

Tested a few of mine

Look like mining TX so far are the one with highest "risk"

With is kind of what I was expecting (beside EAE). transaction issued sent from mining wallet make it loud and clear that it's mined funds. (at least when p2pool is involved)

s/issued//

Very old tx, with amounts still visible, also seem to be high risk

Which isn't a really spectacular result, but at least consistent

> <@gfdshygti53:monero.social> Tested a few of mine... (full message at <libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/v3/do…af57fef720d010dd9d39bc87c4e2b04e1e6>)

When all ring have at lease one decoy with 0 ring size and you have like hundreds of these in one TX. Garantee that it's mined funds

why would a mining tx be high risk?

I guess if every TX where made to contain at lease one decoy with 0 ring size could fix that right, that way no way to detect if the transaction involve virgin coin

nioc: We know that's it's virgin coin TX

the fact that we know make it higher risk

yes but that means that it wasn't used for anything bad lol

nioc: Because we know it's mined coins...

We should not be able to make a difference

More 0 decoy ring members = less of a pool to look through

Increases chances of figuring out the true spend

but ring size has also increased

11>16

and maybe 2 of those are from mining

good luck figuring true spend

Pre hardfork ive seen rings with 3 obvious coinbase tx ring members, lowering the ring members by almost 30%

I think this is what ravx means RavFX: ?

ofrnxmr[m]: At least one TX with one of these.

should not be that bad, like next time we bump up the amount of ring, could do "+1" extra to accomodate that (at least one 0 ring decoy in the lot)

my... my.... sometimes i even wonder if i should've started Monero before after 5 years of freaking low level programming work... >w<

Reference for my previous statement: If two events are not independent, then you cannot just multiply probabilities. Transaction B that references Transaction A in its ring does not represent an independent event: math.stackexchange.com/questions/43…probability-of-two-dependent-events

nioc: Problem is that miners spend usually involve ton of ring on where each true spend is from a 0 ring TX.

When that append, two thing :

1 - you know it's virgin coins that has been moved

2 - in all ring in that transaction, these that have only one 0 ring decoy well, you get the actually amount and you know that this person doing the TX is responsable for some work in x block mining

So the risk is simply feeding metadata

Ideally you want all monero transaction to "look the same"

hardenedsteel: You're on the thanked list: antinalysis.org/credits

yes I get that part

I no longer have my p2pool mined coins, wonder what they would look like after what I did to them

After you churn all that at least one time it kind of get rid of the "virgin coin / what block you are involved" track.

It's why you want to move you're mined coin before spending them for real, especially when sending to CEXs

yep

IMHO, within a year it's likely that coinbase outputs will be excluded from the standard decoy selection algorithm for most transactions. There are so many p2pool outputs now.

Could the best, be that each ring contain exactly one recent but different 0 ring decoy?. That way all TX look the same, you can't make up if it's a virgin coin move or no. And you won't endup with ring that contain more than one 0 ring decoy (right now, if I look I can easily find TX with like 3 x 0 ring decoy in a single ring...)

* each ring inside one TX contain exactly

Maybe. It requires more research.

And ideally you would want all these 0 ring decoy to be similar (all 0/x, or all 0/xx, or all 0/xxx...). Else it will still be possible in guess that it's mined, example:

if normal TX rings contain 1 x 0 ring with variation of 0/x, 0/xx and 0/xxx...

Then a TX issued from a p2pool miner will contain all ring with 1 x 0/xxx

* And ideally you would want all these 0 ring decoy to be similar (all 0/x, or all 0/xx, or all 0/xxx...). Else it will still be possible in guess that it's mined, example:

if normal TX rings contain 1 x 0 ring with variation of 0/x, 0/xx and 0/xxx...

Then a TX issued from a p2pool miner will contain all ring with 1 x 0/xxx.

Maybe allowing a little variation

In general the p2pool side chain makes it pretty easy to see what the real spend is. The payout addresses are on the p2pool chain. There is recent discussion on this in #monero-research-lab:monero.social

<CidadodoMonerist> ... Relying solely on technology growth by assuming storage will always get cheaper for future scalability seems like a bad future management in my opinion <--- The operative word here is solely. In Monero if blockchain growth allowed by consensus exceeds technology growth creating stress on the network. One always has the option of using node relay to increase fees in order to slow down or stop growth. Node relay is

persuasive as opposed to consensus which is prescriptive. This works in Monero or Dogecoin but not in Bitcoin [Cash] [SV] because of the tail emission.

seems that a block mined by a pool has maximum risk :D

A transaction containing only output from p2pool

I too can create a web page that shows risk = random(0,1)

So unlike Bitcoin like coins where the risk adverse approach in consensus is to keep blocks small in Monero the risk adverse approach in consensus is to allow scaling since one can use node relay to slow down or stop growth but not the other way around

I did not look in the deep but I think I can infer the wallet address AND the true spend

both p2pool and centralized pool are max "risk"

sech1: It's not random, so far I got a donzen with the risk bar all the way to max, in a row.... Because it's accurate and right about TX containing only p2pool output

how is it "high risk"?

well, it's a bit more sophisticated than random(0, 1)

but I guess their code just breaks for coinbase transactions with no inputs

1 - You know it's virgin coins spent

2 - you can infer the wallet address

3 - you can infer the true spend +/- one output worth of XMR

2,3 - no for centralized pools, they don't show their wallet address

still "high risk"

Yeah, it's specific for p2pool

still "high risk" for centralized pools

I checked centralized pool, also 100% risk

they don't say anything about how they calculate the risk, so it can be as stupid as some hash of inputs/outputs normalized to (0,1)

for all we know

I did not test with normal pool, I use p2pool

I would have to look at a TX with output from a normal pool, containing a few ring at least to see what I can get from that

hardenedsteel: 1 of 3 individuals on the thanked list for antinalysis (whichRuckniums comment highlighted earlier) lol

So if all the inputs are coinbase the consensus code allows for only one output?

instead of the minimum two

plowsof: for your monero_wallet uri example you use `address=` but for the current wiki examples that is not used. Do you know if either work?

good question, would have to confirm but it is indeed listed here as a parameter for wallet github.com/monero-project/monero/wiki/URI-Formatting

you can also pass only the seed (without address)

restore_deterministic_wallet only needs a seed without an address sgp

generate_from_keys requires an address

yeah, I'm, adding some notes to account for that also

the uri also says "mnemonic_seed" but the example uses "seed" 🤷

🤮🤮🤮

anybody know about AM's question "So if all the inputs are coinbase the consensus code allows for only one output?, instead of the minimum two"

plowsof11: Confused me, so I just copied plowsof and used "seed"

ArticMine: my understanding is that it allowed for a single output tx, yes

"if seed in parameter" would handle it

plowsof: perhaps interchangeable?

could be yes lets check the docs!

Docs, who needs docs. Lets just both modify our scripts and see who finished first

Then forget to document it

I updated monero-project/meta #729#issue-1360247817

Does spend key also require view key?

the monero gui , has its own javascript to parse a monero wallet uri (outside of monero core)

we're on our own basically for dealing with it

I'm team `mnemonic_seed` -> `seed`

Me too

will add a paragraph about legacy considerations for address and mnemonic_seed

any other inconsistencies to note?

Are we using , or ; for txid separator

Iirc, its , but should be :

s/,/`,`/, s/:/`;`/

I declare ;

:)

no problems with ";"

Same

Perhaps, later, add a "Depends" column or footnote to each description

but the monero gui is parsing wallet uris, need to confirm what it expects

Example

spend_key description

blah blah

Depends: `view_key`, `address`, `height`

Updated again, check if I covered all bases now

its view_key and spend_key

Address isnt needed for spend key restore?

For key* restore

It is needed

says view key is required

plowsof: you confused me, were you replying to me?

yes, generate_from_keys needs it but the gui doesnt specify an "address" param , its just 'the first one'

i don't know anymore 😟

ofrnxmr: do you mean a requires column like this?

Yes sir

ofrnxmr plowsof check now

I believe I've covered all inconsistencies and requirements

Looks good to me 👍

Maybe an example with seed/without address , seems ok on first look , thank you👍️

Revuo Monero. Issue 152: December 22 - 29, 2022. revuo-xmr.com/issue-152.html

uwaaah >w<, can't wait papa to finally make me appear in such a beautiful game and finally compromise himself to celebrate this year's celebrations, he really wants to find a way to encourage Monero for donations so that he can be financed for many future projects he has in mind, such as a Book project, a continuation of my history, a new game project, and many many more innovations. ^w^

The Takeda Clan will soon rise again and bright the Japanese light to the entire world once again :D

What are you on about?

(Not sure if ofrnxmr wants takeda to answer that)

Sounds sooper dooper #monero-offtopic:monero.social

.. is it 🤔

totally offtopic

damn >w<

ever since kitty gate (do not forget) im scared to enforce things but Takeda Teruhime this is monero-community, can you act like it?

"No"

Its ok. Takeda Teruhime: is just confuzzled

sorry... i'm just running out of time, that's why i considered to put that there, specially since i wasn't able to find any off-topic monero channel. >w<

i remember someone invited me here a long time ago btw :P

ofrnxmr has linked #monero-offtopic:monero.social