12:14:32 ofrnxmr: comment made sense, just made the ccs for monerosim. plowsof , i made the edits to the ccs. Thanks all! 12:17:30 https://x.com/ddadybayo/status/1949510233686003787 12:17:34 is this true 12:20:33 QUBIC POST N°60592060962324 12:20:48 <3​21bob321:monero.social> Drinking game soon 12:21:04 yes or no is easier 12:21:10 <3​21bob321:monero.social> Someone sent that twatter post to me now too 12:21:16 <3​21bob321:monero.social> https://xcancel.com/kayabaNerve/status/1949227029494403135 12:21:20 <3​21bob321:monero.social> I sent that 12:23:31 yeah its obviously marketing ploy but is it also a threat 12:23:37 yes CfB is trying to harm monero. no the attack is not viable, this is mainly a marketing operation for his scamcoin 12:23:42 its not 12:23:52 see https://gist.github.com/Rucknium/0873b10b6d36ff6c9d6f8f54107d16f7 12:23:56 they barely have 51% 12:23:58 they barely have 15 12:24:00 they barely have 15% 12:24:42 m-reIay: Freudian slip? lol 12:24:48 lmao yeah 12:25:07 Maybe change your username from m-relay now so Matrix-side people aren't confused. 12:25:22 alright 12:26:06 but is this post correct in how incentives etc work ? 12:26:39 like could it happen in the way he describes 12:26:45 lemme read 12:26:48 also 12:26:55 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/monero.social/XeSyIdOTgrSEkOBVQgHkURpE 12:27:35 ..but that's the intention 12:28:15 if rucknium tell me to jump of a bridge or make a massacre i'll do it without questioning 12:28:38 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 12:29:06 but are those incentives actually there for miners to switch? 12:29:33 This one in particular have on bullshit point and i'm just wondering at this point if CfB hasn't paid him https://x.com/ddadybayo/status/1949510252212203581 12:29:48 no 12:30:04 no want to use qubic, no one can use qubic. and if they did i'm sure they wouldn't receive it 12:30:35 "✅ 13 confirmations now standard" 12:30:37 "✅ Safety mode activated" 12:30:39 some one who wanted to harm monero would use qubic (if this post is true) 12:30:54 yeah its alarmist and sensationalist 12:30:58 Raver, read this 12:31:02 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. 12:31:10 "someone" cant just mine qubic 12:31:26 i did. this assues miners only want profit 12:31:34 Moneroocean looked into it. 2tb ram needed on bare metal 12:31:37 But my Gist has verified info on number of blocks found by Qubic, since they have provided the mining pool's wallet view key 12:31:40 ofrnAI: skill issue on your part for not giving out an epyc/threadipper and 2TB of ram to a scamcoin owner for free 12:32:23 You need 2TB RAM for one of their 600+ "computors", but I assume that they would allow less RAM to actually just mine 12:32:27 easy for state actor to access 12:32:41 i think you can yes for free 12:33:07 But you you can't do it that way, then the economic incentives story, to encourage miners to switch pools, cannot be true 12:33:57 Ruckniumis there any valid threat here that monero needs to make changes for? 12:34:09 <3​21bob321:monero.social> Running costs would be high 12:34:23 Not beyond any threat seen from supportxmr recently having 45% 12:34:29 CIAs budget is a blackhole 12:34:37 running costs high -> well, stop running then, just walk 12:35:12 wen #monero-qubic 12:35:14 If NSA wanted to 51% us, they could do it overnight 12:35:19 Whether there could be athreat depends on what hashpower they could get in the future. Currently, not a threat. Here are the latest numbers: https://gist.github.com/Rucknium/0873b10b6d36ff6c9d6f8f54107d16f7 12:35:21 <3​21bob321:monero.social> I'll do moonwalk 12:35:33 Right, nioc 12:35:37 https://x.com/ddadybayo/status/1949510247934034104 12:35:45 these points specifically 12:35:56 yep 12:36:25 Miners are highly mobile is an exaggeration 12:36:43 The threat of a 51% is always real. From qubic? Sensational marketing at best 12:36:46 Some of them are, yes. Other miners can go on for years without updating anything 12:36:53 right but relatively low usage + low fees/rewards 12:37:11 r4v3r23: No mining pool can "force" protocol changes, alone. 12:37:20 There are still people mining using P2Pool 1.x (2+ years old version, 2 hard forks behind) 12:37:23 Low price is more important than usage and fees 12:38:00 its not the 51% im on about, its the ability to "buy" the network as he claims 12:38:23 which goes back to monero oceans post 12:38:25 the security budget is enough to pay for the power used to generate the hashrate - 140k/day 12:38:29 I think it's generative AI claiming that, AFAIK 12:38:31 no normal miner is going to do that 12:39:14 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" 12:39:15 so this is some totally hypothetical nerd-trolling 12:40:15 Someone can always pump Tari 10x and give higher rewards to Monero miners (who also merge mine Tari) :trollface: 12:40:19 I still think we should treat threats more actively than passively 12:40:21 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. 12:40:52 right, which is why im wondering if there is anything monero needs to actually do in light of this 12:41:01 Pump Tari? 12:41:03 besides wait for 13-confs, of course 🙃 12:41:16 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 12:41:26 Pay extra to miners directly? Like a "negative" pool fee? 12:41:47 Qubic mined tari too :D 12:42:04 <3​21bob321:monero.social> Proactive,not reactive ? 12:42:18 Then just pay extra to miners, the list is available at https://p2pool.observer/miners?weekly :D 12:42:26 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 12:42:33 more like a top than a bottom 12:42:56 MRR is very expensive 12:43:03 you 2x of what you get back from mining 12:43:06 *you pay 2x 12:43:33 NiceHash is more reasonable, but they have less than 200 MH/s there 12:43:41 <3​21bob321:monero.social> Tbh its more of sky is falling 12:43:49 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 12:43:57 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. 12:44:21 I think they just don't understand how reorgs work 12:44:28 They can reorg 3 blocks with 33%, yes 12:44:34 But they don't add up to the 10-block lock time 12:44:54 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 12:45:04 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" https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/102#issuecomment-2402750881 12:47:57 which I wrote under my previous CCS proposal. You can support my future CCS proposal by adding a 👍️ here: https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/599 12:48:00 :D 14:24:16 hey best place to buy bitcoin advice please 14:55:21 using xmr? 15:54:57 A reorg depth causes a bootstrapping problem. 15:55:34 That's why my proposal avoids one, though it has other topology issues. 15:56:55 (My proposal was for nodes to only follow chains which they can publish any transaction to, without arbitrary censorship, as attested by TEEs) 16:00:05 Dont we have this problem already? 16:00:12 I can give you some for free, Bitcoin ain't it 16:03:39 We currently risk eclipse attacks, but if you aren't eclipsed, you'll sync the best chain. 16:03:59 With a reorg depth, even if not eclipsed, you may get relegated to a lesser PoW chain you synced earlier on. 16:05:15 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. 16:06:00 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. 16:33:32 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 16:33:33 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 16:33:35 AI businesses for some reason 16:35:28 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 16:40:33 jeffro256: review my idea :C 16:40:45 There's a RL issue for it. 16:40:55 Which idea ? 16:41:07 Oh... the PoS layer? 16:41:47 Or #134 16:44:08 134 16:44:23 I didn't make an issue for a PoS layer 16:44:28 I once drafted one but the design was so poor, I scrapped it 16:47:02 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. 16:47:35 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. 16:47:44 Is it??? 16:48:10 Is it that that it's fighting one of monero premises? or is it that everyone want to have kneejerk reaction? 16:48:26 134 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 16:48:32 But now the CPU is a TEE 16:48:38 Sorry, I don't make the rules :C 16:49:03 It also redefines the best chain rule premised on local view of lack of censorship 16:49:23 It also doesn't cause the system to fail if a TEE is compromised, and doesn't have any vendor lock-in. 16:49:34 We just gain resistance against censorship, including selfish mining. 16:49:48 Which of Monero's premises is this fighting? 16:50:02 It's a trade-off on decentralization of hardware vs security of consensus 16:50:11 It's also likely a bad idea due to the topology issues 16:50:40 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 16:50:42 :p 16:51:25 Yeah i was gonna say i'm gonna head up on github instead. This is #monero-community 16:51:54 Yeah, MRLounge would be decent... 20:06:27 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/monero.social/vFiWzDwrJdJWGpkoXfUPOfQg 20:06:30 Ran out of money 20:07:27 k brb 20:08:25 Going to go buy 10000 epycs and break monero 20:11:33 lmao what a clown 20:17:52 <1​7lifers:matrix.org> leave sum for me >.< 20:42:58 If they “go dark” and the amount of unaccounted for hashrate continues growing….well that’ll be something 21:17:37 <3​21bob321:monero.social> Use a torch 21:26:52 <3​21bob321:monero.social> 9999 to go 22:31:11 I mean, we should take advantage of the hysteria to get more people mining? 22:31:24 Weaponize the wilderbeast stampede to something good for Monero? 22:31:50 Yes I think all this is silly, but that doesn't mean it can't be used to guide the stampede 22:34:37 Well, unless they change the wallet and don't publicize the view key we're still able to calculate their hashrate 22:36:04 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 23:10:04 there should be a panic 23:10:26 The top 2 pools have 50% of the hashrate, and the top 1 had 45% on a good day 23:10:44 Thr majority of hashrate comes from botnets and industrial-type miners 23:11:00 Just like how majority of donations come from whales 23:11:43 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 23:11:59 The largest miners in monero should be _us_ 23:13:44 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. 23:13:45 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 23:46:35 agree 23:46:40 even if cfb isn't a threat, things aren't very decentralized from a hashrate perspective right now 23:57:14 I agree with diego that cfb drama could be pivoted into a campaign for us to try to decentralized the hashrate. 23:58:15 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