00:00:24 Makes sense tbh, lightning ux is still horrible if you want self custody. 00:01:08 Bitcoin friends aren't interested in self custody 00:04:51 Self custody issue complicated 00:06:09 Considering bitcoin has been flipped, maybe CoinCards should change their slogan to Buy Gift Cards with Monero? 00:06:43 1000% 💯💶 00:06:44 The title on their website is even worse: Buy Gift Cards Using Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dash, Dogecoin 00:07:57 It's like when CoinGecko made that list of "top 10 privacy blockchains" and ignored Monero 00:09:51 dash lololol 00:15:05 <3​21bob321:monero.social> door dash? 00:22:54 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/monero.social/ufLyoNTXOGFMudTpqufkdGlX 00:23:38 Is lightning this hard to use properly? What management time? 00:23:56 <3​21bob321:monero.social> wait till they close the channel 04:40:52 under the latest "money transmission business" law, isn't Lightning now considered a money transmitter? 04:53:42 everything is a money transmission business 04:54:54 lightning nodes are money transmitters, miners are money transmitters, coin join builders are money transmitters 04:55:32 remember your 12 words? your brain is now a money transmitter 05:02:02 0% - dash 08:33:01 custodial lightning wallets would more than likely be MSBs/CASPs. People that run lightning nodes for profit (as opposed to a hobby/home node), would also more than likely be classified as such. Miners that run L1 nodes for profit only could also potentially be considered MSBs as well, unfortunately. 10:10:03 Boog900 full time work on Cuprate (3 months) is now fully funded! https://ccs.getmonero.org/proposals/boog_3_months_cuprate_2.html @luigi1111 11:24:25 <3​21bob321:monero.social> I think a working binary is very soon ™️ ? 11:25:49 No need to rush it, soon tm is good enough 11:33:41 <3​21bob321:monero.social> I saw the words “alpha binary” 15:03:17 We hit 25 members on our signal monero group if anyone wants to join too https://signal.group/#CjQKIMtPr_BcagCe6ARHnHOYXMzS-WMLFVndrjRX-QLye9foEhDjts9QEhsvErDn7i0oiZaV 15:35:34 signal lol 15:58:34 r4v3r lol. 16:01:45 I joined, felt dead 16:05:30 signal lol 16:07:25 ofrn lol. 16:39:35 Actually seems like a nice group 18:27:47 read the news bro 18:56:43 I use signal but it’s associated with my real name, i ise it with fam. Is there a way to make an alias or something when joining a public chat? 19:30:05 Sadly I don't think so, that's benefit of using simplex 19:34:54 <3​21bob321:monero.social> Signal has usernames, but i would get a voip number 20:12:36 Signal blocked me for using tor, so: signal lol 20:13:50 “No signal” 20:18:08 Signal is great for it's purpose, don't hate preland 20:18:52 It’s okay 22:08:18 <1​0tus:monero.social> Hi everyone ! 22:08:18 <1​0tus:monero.social> I thought about something lately, crypto latest advancements and how could it be combined with the monero tech 22:08:20 <1​0tus:monero.social> Some might know now than there is this crypto project named Kaspa which is not at all a privacy coin but they saved the original ethic of bitcoin without the 22:08:22 <1​0tus:monero.social> negatives pretty much 22:08:24 <1​0tus:monero.social> They where able to successfully addressed blockchain trilemma of decentralization, scalability and security with their blockdag technology than allows for multiple blocks simultaneously and style using proof or work 22:08:26 <1​0tus:monero.social> I am.just enthusiast thinking and imagining adapting Monero's privacy tech ( Ring signatures, RingCT, Stealth adresses ) to a BlockDAG structure 22:08:28 <1​0tus:monero.social> I would like to know if someone thought about this as well, and asking you, monero community and skillfully crypto developers , if such project would be feasable or if my fantasy is not feasible 22:08:30 <1​0tus:monero.social> If such a thing where possible, combining Monero's privacy features with blockDAG tech could theoretically provide both high privacy and improved scalability, with faster transaction conformations and higher throughput, this would be such a master piece 22:08:32 <1​0tus:monero.social> Having the benefit of this relative "new tech" created by kaspa but for a privacy coin equivalent to monero 22:08:34 <1​0tus:monero.social> I would like to have some thoughts in this 22:08:36 <1​0tus:monero.social> Big thanks than such community exist 22:11:03 I've thought about the possibility of blockdag in Monero, but does it really solve enough for it to be high priority? 22:13:24 Xelis or dero, no? 22:24:28 <1​0tus:monero.social> I think it would improve user experience and possibly making it more appealing and therefore increasing its acceptance, it should be nice than to don't always trade to much performance when we go to the road of privacy, which is generally a common painful tradeoff 22:24:28 <1​0tus:monero.social> its just about upgrading and improving the tech without compromising the privacy aspect, is like do we want to stay on windows 98 or could it be nice to upgrade to improve performance and have more advantages to propose in this crypto economic competition, if this is feasible of course' I guess there might be some complex challenges on the way 22:24:30 <1​0tus:monero.social> Maybe blockchain will one day be to old and then the crypto tech will improve more and more, maybe one day bitcoin and monero will become obselete in comparison to more advanced tech's 22:24:32 <1​0tus:monero.social> We can bet in 10, 20 years, it could also improve more 22:24:34 <1​0tus:monero.social> I think is nice to make our best to give as many advantages we can without compromising privacy, since it's our higher priority, but if there a possibility of improving the tradeoff we usually make, I think I only see good reason for it 22:24:36 <1​0tus:monero.social> But I wonder what you all may think on this 22:24:38 <1​0tus:monero.social> I think it's worth considering it 22:29:37 All it does from the user experience perspective is reduce the initial confirmation time from (in theory) up to 2 minutes to a second, but this doesn't actually matter much since lowering block times makes the confirmations "worth less" in terms of security 22:30:56 If you currently ask for 2 confs, then Monero adds this and reduces block time to 30 seconds, you'll now want to ask for 8 confs 22:37:47 the trilemma is a myth. We are not hitting any of the limits right now, the only true limit is people willing to transact in monero 22:38:21 I don't see how blockdags solve the trilemma in any case 22:40:17 of course once the limits become more noticeable, improvements will be required, but for now its more important to focus on more pressing issues. haveno, serai, bsx all help with accessibility and liquidity, projects like xmrbazaar allow easier trading for good/services 22:42:00 <1​0tus:monero.social> Oh that's a valid point 22:42:00 <1​0tus:monero.social> But wouldn't blockdag systems will achieve faster confirmations because multiple blocks can be created and validated simultaneously ? Which is reducing the overall confirmation time without necessarily reducing the number of confirmations 22:42:02 <1​0tus:monero.social> Maybe I am.wrong but I thought than block do not reduce security since they rely on a different security model, the consensus mechanism and network conditions must ensure that the parallel blocks are consistently reconciled to avoid conflicts and maintain integrity 22:42:04 <1​0tus:monero.social> Of course, in traditional blochain, more conformation means higher security 22:42:06 <1​0tus:monero.social> But I thought in the case of blockdag faster block generation does not necessarily mean fewer conformation, instead it would means the same number of confirmation could be achieved in a shorter time frame 22:46:43 From what I understand, the only security benefit is that hashrate isn't being wasted on alternative blocks, since those blocks still get included 22:46:47 <1​0tus:monero.social> Oh that's a valid point 22:46:48 <1​0tus:monero.social> But wouldn't blockdag systems will achieve faster confirmations because multiple blocks can be created and validated simultaneously ? Which is reducing the overall confirmation time without necessarily reducing the number of confirmations 22:46:50 <1​0tus:monero.social> Maybe I am wrong but I thought than block do not reduce security since they rely on a different security model, the consensus mechanism and network conditions must ensure that the parallel blocks are consistently reconciled to avoid conflicts and maintain integrity 22:46:52 <1​0tus:monero.social> Of course, in traditional blockchain, more conformation means higher security 22:46:54 <1​0tus:monero.social> But I thought in the case of blockdag faster block generation does not necessarily mean fewer conformation, instead it would means the same number of confirmation could be achieved in a shorter time frame 22:47:10 Don't quote me on this but on Monero that's like a 1% improvement 22:47:56 performance is currently benchmarked and improved on the stressnet, a testnet specifically build for overloading nodes. First results had already valuable results, which improve performance at large mempool sizes. This is important, because it gives robustness to spam attacks, or simply when having more active users. 22:47:56 Confirmation time is "merely" a security feature. For day to day use the zero conf transactions work well enough. 22:47:58 To increase security, the only way is to increase hash rate. Because emission is fixed, only an increase in coin value increases the amount of active miners. And a long term price increase requires active usage of people 22:48:06 correct. stressnet is at 20 TPS 22:48:19 mainnet is at 0.2 22:48:29 that's a 100x 22:48:59 And 3x bitcoin 22:49:29 Stressnet is using ringsize 16? What about testing it for a higher ringsize which is planned 22:49:54 Its not planned 22:50:11 since when was ringsize increase planned? 22:50:27 Seraphis was supposed to bump to 128 22:50:57 ofrn are you for real 22:51:11 FCMPs or bust 22:51:15 It’s being discussed to increase ringsize pre fcmp/seraphis , as during spam attack effective ringsize drops 22:51:25 I've seen talk about raising it so that tx size is equivalent to what it will be under FCMPs 22:51:47 i think that was about fees not ringsize 22:52:28 Just increasing fees isn’t going to do much if number of txs needed to decrease effective ringsize is lower 22:52:38 larger ringsize was discussed to bridge the time till fcmp is live 22:52:46 Ringsize + fee increase 22:52:53 depends on how long it'll take, or if there are any major flaws found 22:53:13 I'm personally a fan of increasing fees for tx with more outputs, so that we have a standard cost for creating 1 output 22:53:27 That way 16 out spam isn't more efficient 22:53:30 thats already how it is? 22:54:07 Outputs are 1 to 16, needs to be 4/8/16 22:54:27 they still pay more fees though? 22:54:45 They pay more fees, but 16 outs is still more efficient at creating outputs than 2 outs 22:55:48 what I'm talking about: https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/119#issuecomment-2128478044 23:18:56 "larger ringsize was discussed to bridge the time till fcmp is live" << this is retarded 23:20:15 was discussed = many months ago 23:20:33 <1​0tus:monero.social> Well if its only one % then... In that case is not worth it considering the amouth of work than this archecture would require 23:20:34 <1​0tus:monero.social> It is possible than the security improvement from including alternative blocks is 1% if the current orphan rate is low and the network is efficiently managed 23:20:36 <1​0tus:monero.social> I am still curious though, because we can't really know exactly the % of improvment without testing and analysing 23:20:38 <1​0tus:monero.social> But I agree than the benefits of adopting blockdag might be modest for monero, or at list not worth the extensive work involved... 23:20:40 <1​0tus:monero.social> That's why I came with this question, thanks for bringing up some nuances to my enthusiasm 23:20:44 https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/109 << do this 23:20:56 https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/108 << and this 23:22:21 If were waiting for fcmp, ^^ 23:23:17 doing arbitrary stuff is senseless. Yoloing more decoys and higher fees doesnt solve anything 23:23:25 More decoys = more bloat 23:23:34 The main benefits imo are increased payout frequency for solo miners, and faster initial confirmation 23:23:45 And wasn’t rejected, everything monero moves slowly; we can’t be sitting duck while fcmp comes 23:24:15 Initial conf might stop an attacker sending conflicting tx to different nodes, though I'm not sure how applicable that sort of attack is to monero 23:29:45 <1​0tus:monero.social> Yeah so receiving more payouts frequently 23:29:46 <1​0tus:monero.social> Which is good impact 23:29:48 <1​0tus:monero.social> This could incentivize more miners to participate in the network, which could increase the overall security through a higher hashrate 23:29:50 <1​0tus:monero.social> Maybe the security improvement is marginal but I was more thinking about the user experience enhancment in the beginning 23:30:46 #1 benefit is that block explorers will look awesome 23:31:41 <1​0tus:monero.social> I agree 😄 23:35:41 It's not that more miners will participate, but it will be practical for more people to solo mine instead of using pools 23:36:09 which arguably does mean they're now participating rather than following orders 23:37:14 "And wasn’t rejected, everything monero moves slowly; we can’t be sitting duck while fcmp comes" << mrl 108 and 109 have been open a long time 23:37:39 109 was mostly completed (and usable if you compiled yourself) 23:40:32 <1​0tus:monero.social> Which would enhance decentralisation right ? This reduce the risk where a few large pools control a significant portion of the mining power 23:40:32 <1​0tus:monero.social> Sounds like an healthier network to me 23:40:47 yes, that's the idea 23:41:26 we already have p2pool for this, but it creates many small outputs, hence: 23:41:40 that being said, decreasing block time does the same thing 23:46:03 and kaspa clearly has a solution for this, but if the same height can have several blocks, how is the block reward divided up? iirc kaspa doesn't have a tail emission or dynamic block sizes, so those might not be compatible 23:46:35 and there are coins which merge mine with monero, so it's unclear how those would work too