16:14:13 <snathan-87[m]> Guys iI dont know if here is the best place to such guestion but I was wondering if there is a way to measure a monero node productivity? What would be the better productivy criteria? Number of connected wallets, RPC requests, network activity?
16:21:32 <hyc> no
16:21:52 <hyc> try #monero
16:22:23 <hyc> Intel is going to release a mining chip. https://twitter.com/CarpeNoctom/status/1483463346103988235
16:24:20 <pauliouk> hmm, will it even be able to compete against a similarly priced ASIC?
16:24:53 <hyc> yeah, I'd expect so. 
16:25:19 <hyc> it is a sha256 ASIC. I would certainly bet on Intel's design experience over any other smaller chip company
16:26:33 <pauliouk> ah misread. chip not CPU.
16:27:46 <pauliouk> hmmm fair enough, smack a few thousand of those onto a board, submerge it in refrigerated oil, and hopefully see a competitive hash rate
16:29:10 <hyc> it's still about hash/watt. they can glue as many together as needed to reach a target aggregate rate
16:29:33 <moneromooo> Or use gold connectors, claim cleaner SHA-256 hashes, sell to audiophiles for 150% markup.
16:30:31 <sech1> "ultra-low-voltage"
16:30:36 <sech1> should be good hash/watt
16:30:51 <sech1> they have the tech for power efficient CPUs already
18:29:44 <gingeropolous[m]> hrm, wonder if they'll plop sha256 asics into the CPU
18:39:31 <xmrpow> hyc: " so security vs market cap has halved." Has there ever been thought about modeling monero s supply curve in percentage terms? So that the coin emission is always let s say 1% of the total coin supply.  Because with the fixed tail emission security vs marketcap is decreasing as well although it s disinflationary. All assumed under a scenario where xmr price keeps at a constant level.  
18:49:46 <merope> xmrpow: what you're describing is exponential inflation of the total supply, which is kinda bad
18:54:52 <xmrpow> xmrpow: Yes, the supply is growing exponantially. But shouldnt that be needed in order to keepp security vs marketcap in the same ratio? Im just guessing around. So sorry for potential logic bullshit :)
18:56:17 <moneromooo> Aeon considered this, not sure they did it in the end though.
18:56:55 <moneromooo> I remember something about 0.8% annual increase.
18:57:05 <xmrpow> merope: I think it s not exponential inflation but rather exponential coin supply growth
18:58:05 <merope> Exponential supply growth is exponential inflation of the coin
18:58:26 <merope> I'm not entirely sure it would keep the ratio constant though
18:59:00 <merope> Especially since exponential inflation disincentivizes people from holding coins for too long, because their value decreases over time
19:00:07 <merope> Or rather: there's active pressure to keep dumping the coins and re-buy them later at a potentially discounted price, if the market cap doesn't grow as fast as the supply
19:01:02 <merope> And the "security budget" is given by (block reward + fees) * coin price / block time
19:03:47 <merope> Hmmm, I wonder if I can rework the block reward and price terms and replace them with market cap and inflation percentage...
19:14:31 <hyc> I think the coin supply should be manually adjusted every year based on preceding year's market performance. :P
19:15:06 <xmrpow> "Especially since exponential inflation disincentivizes people from holding coins for too long, because their value decreases over time" But isnt that just the cost to run the system? If sb would want to achieve a system with 0% inflation, you would have to rely on the fee market. So correct me if im wrong there... But if the security budget is staying constant and not growing at the same rate as the coin supply does... I thin
19:15:06 <xmrpow> atio is getting worse -> PoW security is getting lower. Totally ignoring the fee market. Though I have to admit that supply growth rate is converging to zero... 
19:15:13 <w[m]> I don't like the idea of changing xmr inflation due to cex reported fiat value, at all.
19:15:44 <w[m]> s/I don't like the idea of changing xmr inflation due to cex reported fiat value, at all./I don't like the idea of changing xmr inflation to respect cex reported fiat value, at all./
19:16:57 <w[m]> hyc: Xhv.. Lol
19:20:14 <xmrpow> w[m]: Set aside that the market is heavily manipulated. I think in the end you are able to get x eur for x xmr, whatever the ratio might be. But if the market value would be zero the whole system would fall apart...
19:20:49 <w[m]> @xmrpow "So correct me if im wrong there... But if the security budget is staying constant and not growing at the same rate as the coin supply does..."
19:20:49 <w[m]> I agree.. But I believe the value (market cap, order books) of xmr reported by cex' is 100% fud. 
19:20:49 <w[m]> 1xmr shoukd = > 1btc 
19:21:30 <hyc> xmr is not facing any such problem yet. hashrate continues to grow.
19:22:09 <hyc> this is a major problem for BTC because hashrate needs to grow at 2x BTC price, but miners have no incentive to invest at that level
19:22:30 <xmrpow> hyc: I agree, but shouldn't problems of this nature be dealt with in beforehand?
19:23:01 <hyc> xmr's distribution curve just doesn't have this problem
19:23:28 <hyc> by middle of next year block reward will be on tail emission, no longer decreasing
19:23:44 <xmrpow> hyc: So you wouldnt agree that the ratio marketcap vs security budget is moving to our disadvantage?
19:24:04 <hyc> I definitely doubt it
19:24:13 <w[m]> xmrpow: Onky if you believe and are willing to sell your xmr at a loss
19:24:18 <w[m]> * Onky if you believe binance and are willing to sell your xmr at a loss
19:24:49 <merope> xmr is not 0% inflation though. It's linear inflation. The percentage converges to 0 in the long run, but it's never actually 0
19:25:55 <hyc> tbh, an exponential inflation around 0.6% would probably have been good
19:26:28 <hyc> again, close to the inflation rate of gold
19:26:36 <merope> "Ratio is getting worse -> PoW security is getting lower"
19:26:36 <merope> I disagree. If the security budget stays constant, then pow security is constant. There's *more incentive to attack*, sure, but the amount of resources required to pull off the attack hasn't changed
19:26:55 <hyc> the cost/benefit ratio changes
19:27:37 <hyc> anyway, increasing incentive to attack while defense is constant means you will eventualyl get attacked.
19:27:47 <w[m]> > <@endor00:matrix.org> "Ratio is getting worse -> PoW security is getting lower"... (full message at https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/libera.chat/b055108b789b7109d7afed169fd24cf13e8ee1cb)
19:27:53 <w[m]> s///, s/me/xmr/
19:28:03 <w[m]> s///, s/algo/algos/, s/me/xmr/
19:29:54 <merope> hyc: Not necessarily true. If the resources required for the attack are too big, it still won't happen
19:30:10 <merope> Bigger incentive != guarantee
19:30:25 <xmrpow> hyc:  Could such protocol changes even be done nowadays?
19:31:06 <merope> Cost/benefit is changing only because the benefit is going up, but the cost is still there
19:32:47 <xmrpow> merope: True. But considering that AWS or Azure exist... The ressources are there. 
19:33:46 <hyc> indeed. at the extreme, it will be possible.
19:34:38 <gingeropolous> if u superimpose the 2020 azure hashspike on the current network, it would be noteworthy but not concerning i think 
19:34:39 <merope> Keep in mind that we're talking about 51% attacks here: their only "active" purpose (other than simply disrupting the system) would be to pull off a double spend. If the cost of the attack is greater than the value of the double spend, then it's pointless
19:34:46 <hyc> along those lines - there may eventually be a point where mining on AWS is profitable, if xmr price keeps rising
19:34:57 <xmrpow> Would be intersting to hear about ArticMine's opinion. Kind of his topic...
19:35:51 <merope> Mining on aws used to be profitable 
19:36:03 <hyc> with cryptonight?
19:36:13 <merope> Yup
19:36:24 <hyc> don't think it has been during any of randomx time
19:37:07 <xmrpow> hyc: Yes since randomx profitability is pretty low if you have to pay for electricity and dont use it as a heater...
19:37:36 <merope> Nothing crazy, but back in the 2017-2018 period with the high prices, just before everybody started hoarding those Vegas, it was profitable
19:37:49 <hyc> can only imagine amazon would start raising their prices when they notice
19:37:51 <merope> Still kicking myself for not going all in on it while I could
19:38:27 <xmrpow> hyc: Or just mine by themself :)
19:38:35 <hyc> yeah
19:39:07 <merope> This was with the low-priority spot instances, so the pricing would go up on its own as people started using them more and more
19:39:22 <hyc> "sorry, your kubernetes cluster was shutdown to make room for a higher priority job" ...
19:39:22 <merope> Especially with all the free tier trial accounts
19:39:33 <xmrpow> lol
19:40:29 <merope> That's kinda what happens with spot instances. If someone outbids you and there aren't enough free resources for both of you, you ket kicked out
19:40:57 <merope> *get
19:41:34 <merope> Hence its marketing towards CI pipelines and small batch jobs
19:47:36 <xmrpow> Back to my original question. So you guys don't think that it would be worth to make a change in this direction? For instance with 0.6% inflation instead of 0.6 fixed.
19:48:08 <xmrpow> I kind of like the idea...
19:48:53 <hyc> I think we need to see if humanity survives another 3-4 decades, otherwise it doesn't matter
19:49:43 <w[m]> <xmrpow> "hyc: Yes since randomx profitabi..." <- The way coins are valued.. Is ultimately what price they are sold at.... (full message at https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/libera.chat/23fe7803f3b228fba202fd2126e29cf25e602b67)
19:50:03 <w[m]> * The way coins are valued.. Is ultimately what price they are sold at.... (full message at https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/libera.chat/ca15c90473662fa7f6f1ff28571b79047c7efefb)
19:50:03 <merope> Keep in mind that, due to the way the dynamic blocksize mechanism works, as the block reward gets bigger so does the base tx fee. Which means tx fees get 0.6% exponentially more expensive too
19:52:06 <hyc> eh, good point
19:52:14 <hyc> yeah that would suck
19:53:08 <w[m]> <xmrpow> "Back to my original question. So..." <- 0.6% is actually less (right now) than 0.6/block. So.. Would that, make it worse?... (full message at https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/libera.chat/3e1a2a5cbfc8b1a7235f7d0bf76a2e4370baf5f2)
19:54:06 <w[m]> * 0.6% is actually less (right now) than 0.6/block. So.. Would that, make it worse?... (full message at https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/libera.chat/f13a7a8b41c9c208d70d8a16e83e2fc87a9e8615)
19:55:28 <merope> Nothing stops the people who sell from setting higher prices
19:56:21 <w[m]> merope: Fake order books because "monero people don't use kyc exchsnges" , or so they are told.
19:56:21 <xmrpow> merope: Haven't thought about that. But assuming that miners need to pay for their electricity they would have to dump the price. So it would be a zero sum game.
19:57:03 <gingeropolous> the beauty of a network of hobby miners
19:57:33 <gingeropolous> the assumption that all miners need to pay for the electricity is a stronger assumption in an industrial network like bitcoin
19:57:55 <gingeropolous> i.e., the assumption on a scale from 1-10, bitcoins a 9, monero's a 2
19:58:54 <w[m]> gingeropolous: I don't think you get 3gh without paying for electricity 
19:59:45 <hyc> but majority of hobby miners just eat the cost
19:59:57 <hyc> they're not dumping coins to pay bills
20:08:38 <merope> All miners pay for electricity, one way or another. What changes is the individual tolerance for lower profitability
20:09:14 <merope> The only ones who don't are botnet owners, because they are stealing electricity and cpu time for others
20:09:57 <merope> xmrpow: the incentive for miners would be to set the price as high as possible when selling, to maximise their profits
20:10:58 <merope> But if there are other people selling at lower prices, then they have to lower their ask if they want to sell in time to pay the bills
20:13:47 <xmrpow> w[m]: Im not sure if agrumenting  with "fake prices" is the way to go, because "fake prices" are difficult to define and very vague... Of course there is evidence that exchanges are using their power to fiddle with the price, but they are not abusing it that much that person xyz can pump it that easily... 
20:14:46 <merope> Don't forget that the other half of profitability is electricity price. So if somebody sets up a big farm in a place with very cheap electricity, they will have much bigger profit margins compared to hobby miners who mine at home and pay massively overinflated prices
20:15:32 <merope> Right now you need roughly 73 H/s/W @ 0.10 $/kWh just to break even
20:16:36 <xmrpow> gingeropolous: Imo the goal should be to define the system in a way that even the "hobby" miners are compensated in an appropriate manner. Randomx brought us one step closer.
20:16:36 <merope> If you're paying 0.20 H/s/W, you're basically losing money on any cpu (unless you somehow tune an epyc/ryzen to 146 H/s/W or higher)
20:16:47 <merope> *0.20 $/kWh
20:17:37 <xmrpow> hyc: "but majority of hobby miners just eat the cost" --> because retailers dont care about rationality... I would not want to rely on that.
20:18:00 <w[m]> xmrpow: They are though. 
20:18:00 <w[m]> You can pump xmr to 280$ with 100k or so..
20:19:05 <w[m]> merope: Android can accomplish this 
20:20:22 <merope> Lmao. Yeah, you'll show 'em with your 1 kH/s, earning you a whopping 1$/month
20:20:39 <xmrpow> merope: " Don't forget that the other half of profitability is electricity price. So if somebo" --> True, economies of scale are unbeatable...
20:21:24 <w[m]> merope: 1khs?! You make me look good. Earning about 9c over here 💪
20:21:47 <merope> A good efficient tuning on Ryzen can typically reach 110-120 H/s/W (even more if you really push it)
20:22:32 <xmrpow> w[m]:"You can pump xmr to 280$ with 100k or so.." --> but nobody wants to do it :)
20:23:26 <moneromooo> Dump to $130 with $100k though, some might...
20:23:45 <w[m]> moneromooo: 130-185 repeatedly a few weeks back 
20:23:46 <merope> w[m]: Just for fun: have a look at how much you could get by just selling the phone and buying xmr with that cash. Then divide that by your "monthly profit" and ask yourself if that phone is gonna last that long before the battery catches fire
20:23:52 <w[m]> * 130-185 repeatedly a few weeks back 
20:23:52 <w[m]> Every few seconds 
20:23:57 <moneromooo> Oh really. Whee...
20:29:09 <w[m]> <merope> "Just for fun: have a look at how..." <- Hey, I thought we were promoting hobby miners to mine at a loss. 😏... (full message at https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/libera.chat/05efa3369bd1a6df26c71d3cf242eb8871258e6d)
20:33:09 * w[m] uploaded an image: (72KiB) < https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/monero.social/qSPOhNgTJzLGXDUjNPiCTvCd/Image_35.jpg >
20:33:26 <w[m]> 200-135-209 moneromooo 
20:33:47 <merope> Actually I always encourage people to look at profitability and do a realistic assessment of their potential profits
20:34:30 <merope> Far too many people thinking they're gonna get rich from magic internet money, when in fact they're just gonna burn their laptops down
20:35:42 <w[m]> merope: I'm just pulling your leg.
20:35:42 <w[m]> But as we're taking about, mining monero is not profitable because of the fud.. 
20:35:42 <w[m]> "If you can't get the seed, the wrench attack works"
20:35:42 <w[m]> "If you can't break the protocol, break the miners(people)."
20:36:37 <merope> Profitability is down because of botnets 
20:36:54 <merope> Botnets don't pay for electricity, so their profitability is infinite
20:37:11 <merope> And there are some very big ones
20:37:29 <merope> Thus pushing profitability down for everyone else 
20:37:52 <w[m]> 100% agree
20:40:44 <xmrpow> Are there any estimates what the botnet percentage of xmr hashrate might be?
20:41:43 <w[m]> I haven't watched, but I assume a lot of minexmr and a chunk of the HR that appears and disappear from p2pool 
20:41:54 <w[m]> So.. Roughly 30-40%
20:42:19 <w[m]> s/%/%. IMO. (Straight out of my backside. No facts to back up my claim)/
20:42:44 <merope> There are a lot or botnets on minexmr
20:43:16 <merope> But p2pool is not exactly botnet-friendly: running a p2pool node would leave a trail leading to the botnet owner
20:43:51 <merope> (Specifically, the server running the p2pool node)
20:43:56 <xmrpow> merope: Maybe it is just somebody pushing nicehash to p2pool
20:55:48 <sech1> you can run p2pool node behind xmrig-proxy, and even the cheapest VPS can run xmrig-proxy
20:56:48 <sech1> plus the wallet address is not known on infected PCs when it's mining to p2pool (only p2pool node knows it)
20:58:27 <merope> Yes, but buying/renting a vps leaves a paper trail to the person who bought it
20:59:30 <xmrpow> merope: You can rent a vps without kyc and pay with xmr :)
20:59:41 <sech1> there are no-kyc VPS
20:59:44 <sech1> that accept XMR
20:59:52 <merope> I'm aware :)
21:00:04 <merope> But it's still a cost
21:00:04 <xmrpow> Though prices are not good there...
21:00:19 <merope> For a botnet, pointing directly to a pool is essentially free
21:00:36 <merope> (Cause many a headaches to the pool admins)
21:00:40 <sech1> pool should ban botnets
21:00:49 <sech1> I know supportxmr bans them, minexmr not so much
21:01:09 <sech1> at least it will incentivize them to mine solo or with p2pool
21:01:48 <merope> Besides, setting up a proxy and/or p2pool requires technical skills
21:02:03 <xmrpow> sech1: Do you have insights about how much xmr hashrate is from botnets? Just asking because of how xmrig collects the fee...
21:02:05 <merope> You'd be amazed at how low the bar is for some skiddies
21:02:58 <merope> Supportxmr can't even ban the biggest botnet, because of the risk that they'll move to minexmr and increase hashrate centralization
21:03:30 <merope> *biggest botnets
21:04:57 <merope> Meanwhile, you've got people like the infamous "hanoi boy" who rented botnet hashrate worth ~30% of the network for several days, who didn't even know what a proxy was and barely spoke any english 
21:05:26 <merope> Ended up accidentally ddosing the smaller pools because he was connecting tens of thousands of miners directly to each pool