<g​ingeropolous:monero.social> ofrnxmr: comment made sense, just made the ccs for monerosim. plowsof , i made the edits to the ccs. Thanks all!

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> x.com/ddadybayo/status/1949510233686003787

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> is this true

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> QUBIC POST N°60592060962324

<3​21bob321:monero.social> Drinking game soon

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> yes or no is easier

<3​21bob321:monero.social> Someone sent that twatter post to me now too

<3​21bob321:monero.social> xcancel.com/kayabaNerve/status/1949227029494403135

<3​21bob321:monero.social> I sent that

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> yeah its obviously marketing ploy but is it also a threat

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> yes CfB is trying to harm monero. no the attack is not viable, this is mainly a marketing operation for his scamcoin

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> its not

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> see gist.github.com/Rucknium/0873b10b6d36ff6c9d6f8f54107d16f7

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> they barely have 51%

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> they barely have 15

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> they barely have 15%

<r​ucknium:monero.social> m-reIay: Freudian slip? lol

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> lmao yeah

<r​ucknium:monero.social> Maybe change your username from m-relay now so Matrix-side people aren't confused.

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> alright

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> but is this post correct in how incentives etc work ?

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> like could it happen in the way he describes

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> lemme read

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> also

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/…ero.social/XeSyIdOTgrSEkOBVQgHkURpE

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> ..but that's the intention

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> if rucknium tell me to jump of a bridge or make a massacre i'll do it without questioning

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> a lot of the post is filled with inaccuracies.. like, qubic is not the largest pool and they are not convincing real miners to switch

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> but are those incentives actually there for miners to switch?

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> This one in particular have on bullshit point and i'm just wondering at this point if CfB hasn't paid him x.com/ddadybayo/status/1949510252212203581

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> no

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> no want to use qubic, no one can use qubic. and if they did i'm sure they wouldn't receive it

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> "✅ 13 confirmations now standard"

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> "✅ Safety mode activated"

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> some one who wanted to harm monero would use qubic (if this post is true)

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> yeah its alarmist and sensationalist

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Raver, read this

<r​ucknium:monero.social> AFAIK, a lot of Qubic claims have not been verified. I have not seen anyone who is trustworthy try to mine of Qubic's pool. You could get info about how much you are actually paid, that way.

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> "someone" cant just mine qubic

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> i did. this assues miners only want profit

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Moneroocean looked into it. 2tb ram needed on bare metal

<r​ucknium:monero.social> But my Gist has verified info on number of blocks found by Qubic, since they have provided the mining pool's wallet view key

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> ofrnAI: skill issue on your part for not giving out an epyc/threadipper and 2TB of ram to a scamcoin owner for free

<r​ucknium:monero.social> You need 2TB RAM for one of their 600+ "computors", but I assume that they would allow less RAM to actually just mine

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> easy for state actor to access

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> i think you can yes for free

<r​ucknium:monero.social> But you you can't do it that way, then the economic incentives story, to encourage miners to switch pools, cannot be true

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> Ruckniumis there any valid threat here that monero needs to make changes for?

<3​21bob321:monero.social> Running costs would be high

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Not beyond any threat seen from supportxmr recently having 45%

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> CIAs budget is a blackhole

running costs high -> well, stop running then, just walk

wen #monero-qubic

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> If NSA wanted to 51% us, they could do it overnight

<r​ucknium:monero.social> Whether there could be athreat depends on what hashpower they could get in the future. Currently, not a threat. Here are the latest numbers: gist.github.com/Rucknium/0873b10b6d36ff6c9d6f8f54107d16f7

<3​21bob321:monero.social> I'll do moonwalk

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Right, nioc

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> x.com/ddadybayo/status/1949510247934034104

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> these points specifically

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> yep

Miners are highly mobile is an exaggeration

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> The threat of a 51% is always real. From qubic? Sensational marketing at best

Some of them are, yes. Other miners can go on for years without updating anything

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> right but relatively low usage + low fees/rewards

<r​ucknium:monero.social> r4v3r23: No mining pool can "force" protocol changes, alone.

There are still people mining using P2Pool 1.x (2+ years old version, 2 hard forks behind)

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Low price is more important than usage and fees

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> its not the 51% im on about, its the ability to "buy" the network as he claims

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> which goes back to monero oceans post

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> the security budget is enough to pay for the power used to generate the hashrate - 140k/day

<r​ucknium:monero.social> I think it's generative AI claiming that, AFAIK

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> no normal miner is going to do that

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> If you want higher security, you need higher rewards. Usage and txfees dont cover the higher rewards, only value if xmr has that much "pull"

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> so this is some totally hypothetical nerd-trolling

Someone can always pump Tari 10x and give higher rewards to Monero miners (who also merge mine Tari) :trollface:

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> I still think we should treat threats more actively than passively

<r​ucknium:monero.social> If you have more than 50% of total network hashpower, you can decide to exclude any (up to all) txs in future blocks and prevent other miners from getting any coinbase rewards.

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> right, which is why im wondering if there is anything monero needs to actually do in light of this

Pump Tari?

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> besides wait for 13-confs, of course 🙃

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Hyc had proposed a "hash of hashes" as a rolling checkpoint, shared amongst nodes. yesterday I questioned why we dont use a max 10 block reorg on nodes

Pay extra to miners directly? Like a "negative" pool fee?

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Qubic mined tari too :D

<3​21bob321:monero.social> Proactive,not reactive ?

Then just pay extra to miners, the list is available at p2pool.observer/miners?weekly :D

<r​ucknium:monero.social> The Core General Fund can rent hashpower in an emergency. I don't know if Core would do that. But there is about 1 GH/sec on miningpoolrentals.com

<r​4v3r23:monero.social> more like a top than a bottom

MRR is very expensive

you 2x of what you get back from mining

*you pay 2x

NiceHash is more reasonable, but they have less than 200 MH/s there

<3​21bob321:monero.social> Tbh its more of sky is falling

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> i'm pretty sure before Core spend money, one or two charitable souls will pull up a 2GH/s out of the void to save us

<r​ucknium:monero.social> The 13-confs claim is strange, IMHO. If Qubic tries to re-org 13 blocks deep with minority hashpower, they would usually fail and forfeit all the block rewards they try to mine during the attack.

I think they just don't understand how reorgs work

They can reorg 3 blocks with 33%, yes

But they don't add up to the 10-block lock time

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Cfb posted a warning to tell people not to accept monero tx between august 2 and some other date w/o waiting 12 confs or smthn

<r​ucknium:monero.social> If you want to know how likely such an attack would succeed with minority hashpower, you can read my rigorous research note: "Success probability of a double-spend attack with minority hashpower share" monero-project/research-lab #102#issuecomment-2402750881

<r​ucknium:monero.social> which I wrote under my previous CCS proposal. You can support my future CCS proposal by adding a 👍️ here: repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/599

<r​ucknium:monero.social> :D

<l​oco09:matrix.org> hey best place to buy bitcoin advice please

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> using xmr?

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> A reorg depth causes a bootstrapping problem.

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> That's why my proposal avoids one, though it has other topology issues.

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> (My proposal was for nodes to only follow chains which they can publish any transaction to, without arbitrary censorship, as attested by TEEs)

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Dont we have this problem already?

<m​onerobull:matrix.org> I can give you some for free, Bitcoin ain't it

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> We currently risk eclipse attacks, but if you aren't eclipsed, you'll sync the best chain.

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> With a reorg depth, even if not eclipsed, you may get relegated to a lesser PoW chain you synced earlier on.

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> My proposal was such that you'll sync the best chain you have a tunnel to the miner of, and an attestation the miner isn't censoring. That means the best chain will be synced if/when a miner you have a tunnel to produces a block upon it.

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> You could be relegated to a minority chain with less frequently potentially censors though, and still have large re-orgs as you suddenly switch back to the chain with the most PoW.

<j​effro256:monero.social> It's extremely overrated IMO. Qubic is the #2 pool right now, underneath supportxmr.com, a bigger centralization threat sitting there for over a year. The way that Qubic is "offering a 10% bonus" to miners is basically by burning previous investors funds to go to the reward. It's a ponzi scheme. They don't actually have any usable AGI product, but they promise that to investors th<clipped message>

<j​effro256:monero.social> at they will and that the coin will continue to gain value. In the short term, as long as more AGI-friendly investors buy Qubic's story, they have more funds to play with, can mine XMR, sell it, and buy/burn Qubic to raise the price of each unit of Qubic. In other words, it's not stable. I wouldn't be surprised if the Qubic hype fizzled out before September, but people really like<clipped message>

<j​effro256:monero.social> AI businesses for some reason

<j​effro256:monero.social> And the more people get fear-mongered about Qubic buying up all the hashrate, the more exposure Qubic gets, which probably means more Qubic investors, which means more short-term funds to buy compute resources

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> jeffro256: review my idea :C

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> There's a RL issue for it.

<j​effro256:monero.social> Which idea ?

<j​effro256:monero.social> Oh... the PoS layer?

<j​effro256:monero.social> Or #134

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> 134

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> I didn't make an issue for a PoS layer

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> I once drafted one but the design was so poor, I scrapped it

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> No offense, but that makes laughing at the fact no one is responding to 134 because you don't want to have a "TEE-kneejerk reaction", but almost everyone want to have one. Because it's 134 is fighting one of Monero premises.

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> No offense, but i'm laughing at the fact no one is responding to 134 because you don't want to have a "TEE-kneejerk reaction", but almost everyone want to have one. Because 134 is fighting one of Monero premises.

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> Is it???

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> Is it that that it's fighting one of monero premises? or is it that everyone want to have kneejerk reaction?

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> 134 shrinks the set of potential block builders from block builders with a CPU we compile to to block builders with a CPU we compile to

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> But now the CPU is a TEE

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> Sorry, I don't make the rules :C

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> It also redefines the best chain rule premised on local view of lack of censorship

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> It also doesn't cause the system to fail if a TEE is compromised, and doesn't have any vendor lock-in.

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> We just gain resistance against censorship, including selfish mining.

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> Which of Monero's premises is this fighting?

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> It's a trade-off on decentralization of hardware vs security of consensus

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> It's also likely a bad idea due to the topology issues

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> Go discuss it on the issue instead of having your own knee-jerk reaction that no one is discussing it because they'd only have knee-jerk reactions :C

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> :p

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> Yeah i was gonna say i'm gonna head up on github instead. This is #monero-community

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> Yeah, MRLounge would be decent...

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/…ero.social/vFiWzDwrJdJWGpkoXfUPOfQg

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> Ran out of money

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> k brb

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Going to go buy 10000 epycs and break monero

<c​t:xmr.mx> lmao what a clown

<1​7lifers:matrix.org> leave sum for me >.<

<p​reland:monero.social> If they “go dark” and the amount of unaccounted for hashrate continues growing….well that’ll be something

<3​21bob321:monero.social> Use a torch

<3​21bob321:monero.social> 9999 to go

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> I mean, we should take advantage of the hysteria to get more people mining?

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> Weaponize the wilderbeast stampede to something good for Monero?

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> Yes I think all this is silly, but that doesn't mean it can't be used to guide the stampede

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> Well, unless they change the wallet and don't publicize the view key we're still able to calculate their hashrate

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> I don't think the trade off is worth it. We're more likely to cause a panic and strengthen CfB than actually renforcing monero consensus

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> there should be a panic

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> The top 2 pools have 50% of the hashrate, and the top 1 had 45% on a good day

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Thr majority of hashrate comes from botnets and industrial-type miners

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Just like how majority of donations come from whales

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> As a community, the real attack is allowing ourselves to become complacent. To sit back and assume everything is OK without actually doing anything ourselves

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> The largest miners in monero should be _us_

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> We arent protecting monero. We are a bunch of people watching from the stands, riding the coattails of entities that we have no idea of their true intentions.

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Monero didnt go from 2.5gh to 6gh because we as a community decided to increase our hashrates. None of us did anything. And when oush comes to shove, none of us _do_ anything

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> agree

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> even if cfb isn't a threat, things aren't very decentralized from a hashrate perspective right now

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> I agree with diego that cfb drama could be pivoted into a campaign for us to try to decentralized the hashrate.

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> its crazy to think that if every active user here had 250kh, it would still be just a drop in the bucket, but at least p2pool hashrate would be higher