hmm? 19:04:16 <m-relay> <p​lowsof:matrix.org> perhaps this can spring board DataHoarder into creating his ccs proposal finally

are you going to share bureaucracy interaction energy my way?

<system> file 1b45b261-8a2d-4b98-b427-9acf4d18ce17.png too big to download (1383798 > allowed size: 1000000)

<4​nctqk:matrix.org> 1b45b261-8a2d-4b98-b427-9acf4d18ce17.png

<4​nctqk:matrix.org> hi everyone

<4​rkal:monero.social> Sorry I missed the meeting yesterday. Just wanted to mention that this proposal has become a bit more important now, due to all the QUBIC bs

<4​rkal:monero.social> Sorry I missed the meeting yesterday. Just wanted to mention that this proposal has become a bit more important now due to all the QUBIC bs

<s​upport:matrix.simplifiedprivacy.is> Why is P2Pool not mandated? Sorry if this question has been answered before, and I know the current hash and rewards from it are lower.

how do you mandate something that is permissionless

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> is it really that far fetched for people to imagine that P2Pool's pools will exist if P2Pool is made mandatory?

<s​upport:matrix.simplifiedprivacy.is> I understand it would change how the pool operates. But the same idea, why is it not mandated over the current centralized groups?

<m​onero.arbo:matrix.org> How would it be mandated

<m​onerobull:matrix.org> wownero tried to enforce non-pool mining and it just made it easier for pool admins to scam miners

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> we need an historian workgroup for writting ***The chronicles of Monero***

<m​onero.arbo:matrix.org> are there wownero pools still?

<k​ill-switch:matrix.org> Realistically, mandating or hard coding a p2pool requirement, just moves the attack space, it doesn't prevent such an attack. The attack just happens on a side chain.

no wownero pools that I am aware of

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> we need an historian workgroup for writting ***The chronicles of Monero*** <<>> someone was working on that but seems to have stalled

<s​upport:matrix.simplifiedprivacy.is> What if the protocol itself operated similar to how a mining pool operator works, where instead of just paying the block winner, those who contribute hash get a %. So mining with or without a pool is the same payout, killing the need for pools.

<s​upport:matrix.simplifiedprivacy.is> Attacks like Qubic would be possible on sidechains, but joining pools would not even be a thing.

sounds like p2pool

no idea how else to do it

if possible then yeah

<k​ill-switch:matrix.org> verifying that hash contributed is useful is what difficulty (and adjustment) does, there's no way to do PoW without using difficulty function. You can reduce reward variability by making your block time shorter and segmenting the network into groups (a synonym for pools) but... yeah... Eventually with enough hash/second and more more rapid block times, you start to have scaling issues

<k​ill-switch:matrix.org> verifying that hash contributed is useful is what difficulty (and adjustment) does, there's no way to do PoW without using difficulty function. You can reduce reward variability by making your block time shorter and segmenting the network into groups (a synonym for pools) but... yeah... Eventually with enough hash/second and more and more rapid block times, you start to have scaling issues

<s​upport:matrix.simplifiedprivacy.is> Thanks for your reply. So if I'm understanding you correctly, breaking it up into smaller pools with less difficulty, in order to reduce the variability of low rewards unless joining large pools, ends up not scaling, because all these miners have to get faster and faster blocks of new data?

<k​ill-switch:matrix.org> yeah, we trade network traffic and coinbase block transaction size against variance probability, basically

<r​ucknium:monero.social> I have changed by CCS proposal to say that mining pool concentration research will be prioritized over the other two main tasks: repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/599